Housebets | Bridge Technologies B.V. | SCAM over 9.000$ CEO replies

[God Of Thunder]

Well, it was the weekend and I believe everyone enjoyed their weekend. dypper, for now, I would request you to be patient while holydarkness is in contact with them. You should not continue to exchange emails with them and create any pressure while holydarkness is trying to get a resolution. Once holydarkness posts an update about the situation, if you do not accept the resolution, you can continue to do whatever you want. But it does not look good to contact them while a volunteer is working in the middle. Please be patient.

[dypper]

Well, it was the weekend and I believe everyone enjoyed their weekend. dypper, for now, I would request you to be patient while holydarkness is in contact with them. You should not continue to exchange emails with them and create any pressure while holydarkness is trying to get a resolution. Once holydarkness posts an update about the situation, if you do not accept the resolution, you can continue to do whatever you want. But it does not look good to contact them while a volunteer is working in the middle. Please be patient.

Thank you for your message, and I truly appreciate the efforts of everyone involved — especially @God of Thunder and @holydarkness for stepping in and trying to help with the situation.

I apologize if I'm coming across as too pushy here on the forum. The truth is, I’m feeling quite anxious and impatient, and sometimes that gets the best of me.

Just to clarify — regarding HouseBets, I haven’t contacted them again in any way. I'm simply thinking ahead about what I might do if we don’t reach a resolution, because unfortunately, anxiety tends to put those thoughts in my head.
That said, I would also really like to understand why, after blocking me, they completely stopped replying to any of my attempts to contact them. I was banned from two Discord accounts, two Telegram accounts, and in every chat I've tried, as soon as I provide my account number, I'm instantly blocked. That behavior feels anything but legitimate.


Thanks again to everyone for your support and understanding.

[holydarkness]

I don't know which post to quote [and quoting them all will be... a lot]. Anyway, I'll reply in general.

OP, not trying to scrutinize you here. I am just trying to understand the situation better from your perspective and be sure that I have an extensive knowledge of the story from your side before I went in and exhaust all possible attempt to talk with them. They've give their explanation and, reading between lines, so far it matched your narrative.

If you don't mind me asking further about the email on 8th March, you reached them following the email reply you got on 7th from SRIJ [I think that's the name of the governing body that I previously forgot its name], what prompted you to write to SRIJ asking their legality? And do you send the inquiry after you reached housebets asking them about accepting players from Portugal?

For reference, this is a rough translation of the email:



Regarding still accepting players from Portugal, yes, I have to agree that it should not be done and Portugal should be added to their restricted jurisdiction soonest possible, unless they're obtaining the license from SRIJ. I'll be sure to mention it to the contact GoT give me when I reach them again.

[dypper]

Hi @holydarkness, thanks again.

On February 28th, I wanted to place a bet on an esports market (Counter-Strike). As Portuguese betting sites do not offer these markets, I found Housebets through advertising on HLTV.

Before placing the bet, I read the terms and conditions and, to ensure legality, contacted Housebets support. Simultaneously, I contacted the SRIJ for confirmation, due to my concern in acting correctly (unfortunately, the SRIJ only responded a week later).
I relied on the response from Housebets, as they were a party involved, and deposited funds to bet on CS2, believing they were being truthful and because traffic to their site is not restricted.
´
I expected a clear answer from either Housebets or SRIJ, and never anticipated receiving ambiguous responses. Additionally, Housebets' response was not immediate; I initially contacted them via chat, and the reply arrived via email hours later. (28 February)


I am only requesting what is rightfully mine. I believe the casino will not incur any losses by resolving this situation. I also ask that measures be taken to avoid similar cases in the future.

Thank you for your attention, and I await a prompt response.

They've give their explanation and, reading between lines, so far it matched your narrative.

I'd like to address the explanation they provided. You mentioned it aligns with my narrative, but I'm curious:

• What specific explanations did they offer?
  
• What excuse did they give for not taking action on February 28th, when I first contacted them?
  
• How can they claim my account was closed immediately upon discovering my location when I've demonstrated that this is false?
  

I'm not upset with you, but I'm trying to understand the logic behind their decision to withhold my deposited funds, especially given that I contacted them via chat on the early hours of February 28th. I want to know what narrative makes sense to them.


@holydarkness I think it would be helpful and faster if we could connect me and the Housebets representative in a single chat. This would minimize delays. What do you think?

[holydarkness]

Hi @holydarkness, thanks again.

On February 28th, I wanted to place a bet on an esports market (Counter-Strike). As Portuguese betting sites do not offer these markets, I found Housebets through advertising on HLTV.

Before placing the bet, I read the terms and conditions and, to ensure legality, contacted Housebets support. Simultaneously, I contacted the SRIJ for confirmation, due to my concern in acting correctly (unfortunately, the SRIJ only responded a week later).
I relied on the response from Housebets, as they were a party involved, and deposited funds to bet on CS2, believing they were being truthful and because traffic to their site is not restricted.
´
I expected a clear answer from either Housebets or SRIJ, and never anticipated receiving ambiguous responses. Additionally, Housebets' response was not immediate; I initially contacted them via chat, and the reply arrived via email hours later. (28 February)


I am only requesting what is rightfully mine. I believe the casino will not incur any losses by resolving this situation. I also ask that measures be taken to avoid similar cases in the future.

Thank you for your attention, and I await a prompt response.

Thank you for the explanation. Well noted.

They've give their explanation and, reading between lines, so far it matched your narrative.

I'd like to address the explanation they provided. You mentioned it aligns with my narrative, but I'm curious:

• What specific explanations did they offer?
  
• What excuse did they give for not taking action on February 28th, when I first contacted them?
  
• How can they claim my account was closed immediately upon discovering my location when I've demonstrated that this is false?
  

I'm not upset with you, but I'm trying to understand the logic behind their decision to withhold my deposited funds, especially given that I contacted them via chat on the early hours of February 28th. I want to know what narrative makes sense to them.

It's not a specific explanation being offered or an excuse given, rather they tell me what they understood, as they perceived the narrative from their side. And, reading between lines, it actually make a rather complete picture when we mix it with your own narrative; though need to be seen from different glasses.

If I may try to explain wholly, seen from neutral point: they deemed you violated their ToS [2.1.1] by knowingly accessing from a jurisdiction that didn't allow you to play on their platform, you accused them of knowing and allowing a Portuguese to play, that they've know about your residential status from 28th, when you write to live support, but only restrict your access by 8th.

The whole story as I perceive it, most likely this:

You chatted live support [who have basic knowledge of ToS and not specific things like the point you're trying to clarify], they said it's ok as they can't find Portugal in their list of restricted territory. And that's the end of the "ticket" from live support side. They did not forward or make a follow up to legal and compliance team for this matter. So, other than the live support staff who handled your ticket, and you, no one knows that you're a Portuguese accessing from Portugal.

Contrary to what many believes, casino did not scrutinize every single details of every player in every second they have their eyes open [not being sarcastic here, just laying it out plainly]. An account will only fall into their spotlight when the account attract attention like impossible bets, questionable activity, or... emailing them with explanation that according to a governing body of the country the player resides, they are not allowed to provide service.

Simply put, they did not realize your residency status until you made a "follow up" email of which handled by the compliance team, that has a broader knowledge, and subsequently lock your account. My working theory, in their assumption, you know about it, yet you still playing, deliberately violating ToS, and only made a complaint by 8th. In your assumption, they know from 28th, and only lock by 8th, while they actually only learned about your residency status after you made it known by your follow up on 8th.

I hope it made sense and clarify [a lot of] things.

@holydarkness I think it would be helpful and faster if we could connect me and the Housebets representative in a single chat. This would minimize delays. What do you think?

I'll take that offer with a very wide open arm... if that's up to me. I already have a lot of things on my plate. Migraine inducing matter of RL, several cases on this forum, a spineless someone who blurted nonsense about me just because he thought he's entitled to it [well, actually, sadly, he is... and yes, I mean you, Ben], not to mention a stubborn representative that I've been chasing for... a month now, I believe. Wait, make it a month and a half.

So yeah, if they're up to it, you both are more than welcome to communicate with each other on your own.

But sadly, if I may judge from their latest response, to talk with you is currently not in their best interest. Plus, it's actually not within my power to share the contact. What's shared to me, stays with me, unless permission is given.

[dypper]

Hi!

Thanks again @holydarkness.

You chatted live support [who have basic knowledge of ToS and not specific things like the point you're trying to clarify], they said it's ok as they can't find Portugal in their list of restricted territory. And that's the end of the "ticket" from live support side. They did not forward or make a follow up to legal and compliance team for this matter. So, other than the live support staff who handled your ticket, and you, no one knows that you're a Portuguese accessing from Portugal.

I must correct your statement. The response I received regarding the legality of playing from Portugal was delivered via email, not through live chat support. This is a crucial distinction.

Therefore, your assertion that this matter was handled solely by live support staff with limited knowledge is inaccurate. The information came from an official email, which suggests a higher level of authority.


So, have we reached the end of the line? Can I start burning everything I can about Housebets and associates?
Is that their final position and ridiculous response? As far as I know, live chat issues are handled in live chat. If I received that response on February 28th, it certainly wasn't in live chat.

I appreciate your help, and I'm only waiting now for a green light from you to start the war. Cheers

they deemed you violated their ToS [2.1.1]

There is no 2.1.1 in their ToS: https://www.housebets.com/help/TermsOfService
Is that term about being gay? color of the skin? number of cats owned? I can't see sorry

You chatted live support [who have basic knowledge of ToS and not specific things like the point you're trying to clarify], they said it's ok as they can't find Portugal in their list of restricted territory. And that's the end of the "ticket" from live support side. They did not forward or make a follow up to legal and compliance team for this matter. So, other than the live support staff who handled your ticket, and you, no one knows that you're a Portuguese accessing from Portugal.

No, No, No, No. I could potentially accept such an excuse if the entire dialogue had occurred exclusively in 'live chat'. However, that is not the case. They were tasked with investigating and providing me with information, which they did via EMAIL. Consequently, this entire theory is flawed due to the omission of that crucial element. I believe you understand this point and it is simply unacceptable.

Considering your power here in BitcoinTalk, can we mark this casino with bad reputation? Can you add my claim on your list with a red flag?

[holydarkness]

Hi!

Thanks again @holydarkness.

You chatted live support [who have basic knowledge of ToS and not specific things like the point you're trying to clarify], they said it's ok as they can't find Portugal in their list of restricted territory. And that's the end of the "ticket" from live support side. They did not forward or make a follow up to legal and compliance team for this matter. So, other than the live support staff who handled your ticket, and you, no one knows that you're a Portuguese accessing from Portugal.

I must correct your statement. The response I received regarding the legality of playing from Portugal was delivered via email, not through live chat support. This is a crucial distinction.

Therefore, your assertion that this matter was handled solely by live support staff with limited knowledge is inaccurate. The information came from an official email, which suggests a higher level of authority.

Of which, come from the support division. Thus, safe to assume it never arrive to the compliance team or the legal desk. I'll stand partially corrected, email, not chat. But still, the scope of the matter being addressed was from the support team, who most likely have limited and non-specific knowledge.

So, have we reached the end of the line? Can I start burning everything I can about Housebets and associates?
Is that their final position and ridiculous response? As far as I know, live chat issues are handled in live chat. If I received that response on February 28th, it certainly wasn't in live chat.

I appreciate your help, and I'm only waiting now for a green light from you to start the war. Cheers

No, this is the start of the line. I've brushed this in a reply to your PM as I didn't realize that there is a new post made on this thread while I addressed you through my inbox, but this is where I will ask you to be rational and find a common ground with the casino.

As explained above, from their perspective, you're the one who violated the ToS by [un]knowingly playing from a territory that is prohibited by their own law. So I will really appreciate it if you both can be rational and acknowledge each other's mistake, and find a way to the mutual ground.

they deemed you violated their ToS [2.1.1]

There is no 2.1.1 in their ToS: https://www.housebets.com/help/TermsOfService
Is that term about being gay? color of the skin? number of cats owned? I can't see sorry.

Not sure, I didn't check the specific clause on their page and what 2.1.1. said, I just use the image you supplemented us as my reference, as below

Lower-most, you can see the clause they cite to you.

If you want to continue being an ass, though, kindly tell me now, and I'll take my leave. As I said before, I already have too many on my plate. I don't need another headache trying to help someone who stretched my already very thin patience. Other days, maybe. I am fun by nature. But these days... yeah, I have migraine and I don't need another thing that hits my nerve.

You chatted live support [who have basic knowledge of ToS and not specific things like the point you're trying to clarify], they said it's ok as they can't find Portugal in their list of restricted territory. And that's the end of the "ticket" from live support side. They did not forward or make a follow up to legal and compliance team for this matter. So, other than the live support staff who handled your ticket, and you, no one knows that you're a Portuguese accessing from Portugal.

No, No, No, No. I could potentially accept such an excuse if the entire dialogue had occurred exclusively in 'live chat'. However, that is not the case. They were tasked with investigating and providing me with information, which they did via EMAIL. Consequently, this entire theory is flawed due to the omission of that crucial element. I believe you understand this point and it is simply unacceptable.

Explained above

Considering your power here in BitcoinTalk, can we mark this casino with bad reputation? Can you add my claim on your list with a red flag?

I have no power here. I think you're overestimating me. I am a simple no one who happen to like to torture himself and his mind by taxing his brain with others' problems while he can actually just watch netflix or prime after he tackled his IRL matters [fun fact: been a while since I treat myself a Netflix night] like other normal people do.

Other than that, I am no one.

Regarding bad reputation. You're always free to raise a flag. You can ask other DT to support it. Some probably will, some probably won't. They'll decide as they read your case and utilize each of their own judgement. The amount of DT supports needed to activate a flag will depend on the type of the flag you raised.

If you're asking me to leave a negative feedback, I unfortunately can't do that, not without a strong and beyond reasonable doubt basis. Of which, currently nonexistent, especially as I am trying and they are welcoming an attempt of mutual ground.

For list, I will most definitely add your thread to my list as I am obligated to do it, but the status of it will completely dependant on the outcome of the case. I don't have control over what's written there. I am bound by the parameter I set myself when the thread first written. And definitely not a red flag. Simply because I don't have that in "my system".

All said, I'll suggest you to try to find a common ground instead of being aggrevated.


Edit: Now, I just noticed your PM while I addressed you here. I've read your proposal, I'll encourage you to paste it here as a post so we can be transparent and others can chip in. Or... better yet, refine it. The keyword here is common ground.

[dypper]

I apologize if my previous messages came across as a bit... intense. My irony and I don't always get along, especially when English isn't my first language and I need ChatGPT's help to express myself. Blame Housebets and their responses, not you. That email from this Richard Hogg guy and the '2.2.1' term he invented... well, let's just say it left me scratching my head.

For the record, my account was opened before I received that 'enlightening' email stating I could bet from Portugal. During that period, I deposited €1,520.82. After the email, things spiraled out of control: another €7,707.55, totaling €9,228.37.

My proposal? Refund me the €7,707.55. I assume (though I have my doubts) they didn't know I was Portuguese until that magical email on February 28th, at 9 am.

In return, I'll withdraw my complaints from Trustpilot, CGB.CW, Casino-Guru, and mark this case as resolved. In the end, the casino still profits €1,520.82 from a player who, theoretically, shouldn't have deposited a single cent. If they had a proper license, this would be grounds for losing it all... but, as they say, 'if my mother had balls, she'd be my father'.

[joke]Maybe we should team up. You fight the Housebets, I'll fight the 'Recommended For You' section. We'll call ourselves 'The Powerless Avengers'

Account Restriction Based on Jurisdiction
The account was restricted once the user disclosed their location, as per our compliance obligations. However, at that time, their balance was already $0, meaning there were no funds to withdraw or “steal.”

this is the one and only answer from Housebets about why is my account closed. I proved it is wrong with the email received on 28th February. So due to their compliance obligations they failed to comply on 28th February. Ignore for now Richard Hogg email because makes no sense at all..

[holydarkness]

I apologize if my previous messages came across as a bit... intense. My irony and I don't always get along, especially when English isn't my first language and I need ChatGPT's help to express myself. Blame Housebets and their responses, not you. That email from this Richard Hogg guy and the '2.2.1' term he invented... well, let's just say it left me scratching my head.

For the record, my account was opened before I received that 'enlightening' email stating I could bet from Portugal. During that period, I deposited €1,520.82. After the email, things spiraled out of control: another €7,707.55, totaling €9,228.37.

My proposal? Refund me the €7,707.55. I assume (though I have my doubts) they didn't know I was Portuguese until that magical email on February 28th, at 9 am.

In return, I'll withdraw my complaints from Trustpilot, CGB.CW, Casino-Guru, and mark this case as resolved. In the end, the casino still profits €1,520.82 from a player who, theoretically, shouldn't have deposited a single cent. If they had a proper license, this would be grounds for losing it all... but, as they say, 'if my mother had balls, she'd be my father'.

[joke]Maybe we should team up. You fight the Housebets, I'll fight the 'Recommended For You' section. We'll call ourselves 'The Powerless Avengers'

Account Restriction Based on Jurisdiction
The account was restricted once the user disclosed their location, as per our compliance obligations. However, at that time, their balance was already $0, meaning there were no funds to withdraw or “steal.”

this is the one and only answer from Housebets about why is my account closed. I proved it is wrong with the email received on 28th February. So due to their compliance obligations they failed to comply on 28th February. Ignore for now Richard Hogg email because makes no sense at all..

Can you please help me understand another thing? Something has been puzzling me, buzzing and nudging my mind since yesterday, but I couldn't quite grasp it yet, as it's not a question yet, just a formless thought that kept bugging me, so it went to the back-burner as I decide to sleep over it, and I woke up today with it being fully formed.

Might be irrelevant, might be important, or perhaps just an plain useless curiosity, but anyway, can you please satisfy that curiosity of mine by telling me your depositing preference? I mean --and as the post above accidentally fits the discussion-- you spiraled out of control following their email that you can bet from Portugal. Did you deposit, spent the funds in bets until it reaches negligible amount [if not zero] that you can't place another bet, and you top up with another deposits, or were you depositing whenever you feel like you want to?

[dypper]

I've attached a screenshot of my deposit history from February 28th, 2025 at 9:00 AM onwards for your reference.

https://i.ibb.co/GfC86qj8/Screenshot-2025-03-10-134109.png

As you can see from the history, my deposits vary in amount and frequency. This suggests that I tend to deposit funds as needed, rather than following a strict, pre-planned schedule. There are periods where I make multiple deposits in quick succession, which likely corresponds to times when I'm actively engaged in betting and using up my deposited funds.

While I don't have a fixed deposit pattern, I strive to manage my betting activities responsibly. I'm aware that the email about betting in Portugal might have influenced my deposit behavior, and I'm taking steps to ensure I maintain control over my spending.

I hope this information is helpful in understanding my deposit preferences. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Edit: it seems they started to block the traffic today to Portugal https://i.ibb.co/pjypq8sQ/Screenshot-2025-03-26-17-57-50-458-com-android-chrome.jpg

[holydarkness]

I've attached a screenshot of my deposit history from February 28th, 2025 at 9:00 AM onwards for your reference.

https://i.ibb.co/GfC86qj8/Screenshot-2025-03-10-134109.png

As you can see from the history, my deposits vary in amount and frequency. This suggests that I tend to deposit funds as needed, rather than following a strict, pre-planned schedule. There are periods where I make multiple deposits in quick succession, which likely corresponds to times when I'm actively engaged in betting and using up my deposited funds.

While I don't have a fixed deposit pattern, I strive to manage my betting activities responsibly. I'm aware that the email about betting in Portugal might have influenced my deposit behavior, and I'm taking steps to ensure I maintain control over my spending.

I hope this information is helpful in understanding my deposit preferences. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Edit: it seems they started to block the traffic today to Portugal https://i.ibb.co/pjypq8sQ/Screenshot-2025-03-26-17-57-50-458-com-android-chrome.jpg

Thank you for the explanation. And yes, I am aware of the screenshot of your deposit history, I looked at it several times; In fact, last time was last night, to get a better insight when I read what you asked for middle ground. Of which, actually birthed that curiosity.

If you don't mind to help me understand further of the question that actually bugged me, that formless thought that gave itself a voice during my morning coffee: given Housebets rep explained that your balance is basically 0 as you lost your deposits during gameplay, why do you still deposit and play even after you got the email from SRIJ?

I think Portugal is UTC +0? And housebets' system, like many other casinos, uses either UTC +0 too, or if it happen to follow the player's timezone, it'll be... UTC +0 for your case. Thus...



You made four deposits after the email from SRIJ [7th of March, 18:33], timestamped 21:12 and 21:19 on 7th of March, and 00:07 and 00:50 on 8th of March, and only reached housebets with the demand for full refund by 03:50.

[dypper]

To clarify my previous response, I want to emphasize that the primary reason for the continued deposits and gameplay was simply that I did not immediately notice the SRIJ email. After a long day of work, especially late at night, I tend to focus on relaxing and enjoying my time, which often includes playing or placing bets. During these times, I don't always pay close attention to every email I receive.

It was only after some time that I finally read the email from SRIJ. As soon as I did, I stopped playing immediately and contacted Housebets to address the situation.

I realize this doesn't excuse the continued deposits, but I hope it provides a clearer picture of the circumstances. My intention was not to disregard the regulations, but rather a simple oversight due to the timing and my state of mind

Now, if you'll allow me to ask the question again... How can Housebets claim they closed my account as soon as they became aware of my location... If I spoke with them on the 28th via chat... And even received the response to that investigation by email? How can they give that excuse?

Also, if your idea is that I placed bets knowing it was illegal to later use that as leverage to get my money back... Ask them for the betting history, and you'll see that the gameplay doesn't make any sense in that theory. Otherwise, I would have tried to 'go big or go home,' I'd say..

are their compliance obligations, obligations only sometimes? Is that a definition of obligation?




"Housebets: 'We restricted your account due to compliance obligations.'
Also Housebets, one week earlier: 'Location? Never heard of it. Just deposit more.'"


Any new from housebets btw?

[dypper]

Hi @holydarkness,

Regarding my ongoing complaint against Housebets, I'm seeking an update. The last response I received from Housebets was on March 12, 2025, at 07:26:34 PM. Could you please confirm if that represents their final position on the matter?

As you know, they've consistently ignored my email inquiries. Given the lack of communication and the highly problematic nature of their actions – specifically, allowing gameplay from Portugal and then confiscating funds by closing my account 8 days later, citing the same location as the reason – I'm no longer willing to wait for resolution.

I'm prepared to escalate this complaint and will begin actively disseminating information about their unethical practices. I want to be certain that the last message I received is their final word, before I begin this new phase of my complaint.


By the way, I have a question that I'm going to exaggerate to better understand the explanation. Since you've been in contact with Housebets and have represented their opinion in some way, imagine it's possible to bet from Jupiter. If I send an email, similar to the one where I found out it's not legally possible to bet from Jupiter, do you think Housebets would immediately close players accounts that plays from Jupiter just because of my email? Or would they open an 'internal investigation' to analyze other evidence? This is to draw a parallel with what happened to me. I really don't understand why the internal analysis had one conclusion on the 28th february and another on the 8th march... since I contacted Housebets in the same way, and now they even block traffic from Portugal.


Isn't it obvious the bad faith of Housebets who, after their analysis on February 28th, failed to help? Don't you think the excuse that it might have been analyzed and answered by someone from support in the wrong way is too flimsy? Is it so hard for them to apologize and repair the failure they had? All the personal threats I received (and have evidence of), all the communication failures with me, all the wrong information they gave, from the fact that they closed my account the moment they discovered my location, to the wrong account balance(which I already showed was not even 0) all indicate that there is no accuracy in their responses... passing through the fact that Richard Hoggs said that I had multiple accounts (which was not true) and that I violated a rule... which did not even exist in the terms and conditions 2.1.1.


I don't intend to steal any more hours of your life with this matter, nor interrupt your coffee break, and what I wish most is that you can return to Netflix. Therefore, I only ask that you confirm whether they intend to maintain this stance of not negotiating or resolving the issue, or not. Because, like everyone who reads this, I have one less day in my life today than I had yesterday, and I see this recurring delay in resolution as something that only benefits them, and not me.

Thank you for your assistance.

[holydarkness]

To clarify my previous response, I want to emphasize that the primary reason for the continued deposits and gameplay was simply that I did not immediately notice the SRIJ email. After a long day of work, especially late at night, I tend to focus on relaxing and enjoying my time, which often includes playing or placing bets. During these times, I don't always pay close attention to every email I receive.

It was only after some time that I finally read the email from SRIJ. As soon as I did, I stopped playing immediately and contacted Housebets to address the situation.

I realize this doesn't excuse the continued deposits, but I hope it provides a clearer picture of the circumstances. My intention was not to disregard the regulations, but rather a simple oversight due to the timing and my state of mind

Now, if you'll allow me to ask the question again... How can Housebets claim they closed my account as soon as they became aware of my location... If I spoke with them on the 28th via chat... And even received the response to that investigation by email? How can they give that excuse?

Also, if your idea is that I placed bets knowing it was illegal to later use that as leverage to get my money back... Ask them for the betting history, and you'll see that the gameplay doesn't make any sense in that theory. Otherwise, I would have tried to 'go big or go home,' I'd say..

are their compliance obligations, obligations only sometimes? Is that a definition of obligation?

[Image snip]

"Housebets: 'We restricted your account due to compliance obligations.'
Also Housebets, one week earlier: 'Location? Never heard of it. Just deposit more.'"


Any new from housebets btw?

Regarding your question, I don't have the absolute answer in my hand as the staff I contacted didn't give me a precise answer. But inferred, as previously explained, they only became aware of your location when you reached them with the email from SRIJ, on 8th of March.

Again, as explained before, by 28th of February, you're dealing with live support who are very likely have a very limited knowledge, only the general things and not specific as the law in Portugal. You asked if you're good to play from Portugal, they check their ToS and see that Portugal is not under restricted jurisdiction, and they assume it is ok. The communication held in 28th of February were [I strongly believe] only circulated strictly to the support team.

It was not known to the legal or compliance team. Otherwise, the signature [and the sender address] of the email confirming that Portugal is allowed will come from and/or signed by "legal team" or "compliance team" instead of "support".

After you send them the email by 8th, was it is made known that you're accessing from a jurisdiction that have extra regulation. Thus, the knowledge of your residency and the situation regarding Portugal is only made known after you send the email from SRIJ, of which [like they said, and you confirmed] they immediately closed the account.

I've explained this before, at least twice, I believe. One made out of pure speculation and the other made with narrative from both side in my hand. Please don't ask me to repeat it again, as I won't.

Based from my experience attending many cases from many different casinos --again, like I've mentioned before-- that contrary to popular belief, casino does not scrutinize each and every of their player every second the players played or on the every second the casino staff have their eyes open until they close their eyes again.

Details about an account will only be scrutinized following something that attract attention, like suspicious bets, big wins, big withdrawal, or [in your particular case] sending an email from the government of the player's country. I think they probably also did random check to random accounts every now and then, but I am not sure about it.

Analogically, airport staffs does not scrutinize and pat and eyeing each and every people walking in the airport. It's only when an x-ray scan of their hand-carry shows a weapon, or the person triggered metal detector, or the dog sniff something, or they shouted forbidden words, or someone got an SSSS in their ticket that an extra attention begin to be given, body patted down, and strip search being conducted.

Now, you're in an airport. You asked one of the staff that you're from Portugal, will you be allowed to fly to Australia, and they'll say yes, because far as they know, there is no reason you're not allowed to. It's not in their guidebook, they've probably even see your ticket just to be sure and it doesn't have SSSS scribbled into it. So they write in a piece of letter, "yes, you're allowed to fly to Australia".

Dozen of steps later, you triggered a luggage scan as you carried a light-saber, or to be more in-tone with your situation above, you tell the gate staff that "oh, by the way, I don't have visa, but I've asked your colleague if I am allowed to fly to Australia and she said yes. Here, she has it in writing."

Understand the situation better now?

Hi @holydarkness,

Regarding my ongoing complaint against Housebets, I'm seeking an update. The last response I received from Housebets was on March 12, 2025, at 07:26:34 PM. Could you please confirm if that represents their final position on the matter?

As you know, they've consistently ignored my email inquiries. Given the lack of communication and the highly problematic nature of their actions – specifically, allowing gameplay from Portugal and then confiscating funds by closing my account 8 days later, citing the same location as the reason – I'm no longer willing to wait for resolution.

I'm prepared to escalate this complaint and will begin actively disseminating information about their unethical practices. I want to be certain that the last message I received is their final word, before I begin this new phase of my complaint.


By the way, I have a question that I'm going to exaggerate to better understand the explanation. Since you've been in contact with Housebets and have represented their opinion in some way, imagine it's possible to bet from Jupiter. If I send an email, similar to the one where I found out it's not legally possible to bet from Jupiter, do you think Housebets would immediately close players accounts that plays from Jupiter just because of my email? Or would they open an 'internal investigation' to analyze other evidence? This is to draw a parallel with what happened to me. I really don't understand why the internal analysis had one conclusion on the 28th february and another on the 8th march... since I contacted Housebets in the same way, and now they even block traffic from Portugal.


Isn't it obvious the bad faith of Housebets who, after their analysis on February 28th, failed to help? Don't you think the excuse that it might have been analyzed and answered by someone from support in the wrong way is too flimsy? Is it so hard for them to apologize and repair the failure they had? All the personal threats I received (and have evidence of), all the communication failures with me, all the wrong information they gave, from the fact that they closed my account the moment they discovered my location, to the wrong account balance(which I already showed was not even 0) all indicate that there is no accuracy in their responses... passing through the fact that Richard Hoggs said that I had multiple accounts (which was not true) and that I violated a rule... which did not even exist in the terms and conditions 2.1.1.


I don't intend to steal any more hours of your life with this matter, nor interrupt your coffee break, and what I wish most is that you can return to Netflix. Therefore, I only ask that you confirm whether they intend to maintain this stance of not negotiating or resolving the issue, or not. Because, like everyone who reads this, I have one less day in my life today than I had yesterday, and I see this recurring delay in resolution as something that only benefits them, and not me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Nope. That is not their last stance.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that their final "position" was that they have nothing further to say to you and that there is no fund available left in the account as you've spend it on your gambling sessions.

The last "proposal" and explanationthey gave was that the account was indeed at 0 balance. However you're credited with 28 USD [if I remember the number correctly, from the top of my head] as a bonus, of which they're entitled to void them. Their "final position" was to not voiding that fund and let it withdrawable.

In regards to Jupiter analogy, doesn't your question [well, paragraph] answers itself? You said that they blocked traffic from Portugal, so I think you've already got your answer? I still can't see Portugal as part of their restricted jurisdiction, but I'll be sure to ask them to add Portugal into the ToS, so other Portuguese won't trip into the same situation in the future.

Unless they're blocking traffic but didn't add Portugal because they're currently submitting license to SRIJ. Nonetheless I'll see to it that I address the Portugal Jurisdiction to the person I am in contact with.

In regards to you being "prepared to escalate this complaint and will begin actively disseminating information about their unethical practices," it's all your call. The information being disseminated affect literally zero aspect of my life, I literally couldn't care less. I am here only to see the case get to its end. If that is the end of this case, then... *shrug*

I believe I bear a burden of duty, though, as someone who oversee this case to mention that the situation also made possible to happen because you're failed to know your own country's rule and/or failed to mention it to the support team [analogically, not mentioning that you don't have visa to travel to Australia] that you have prior knowledge that Portugal has extra rules for casino. That is the reason you asked support in the first place, if I remember correctly? Because you have mixed information about gambling regulation in Portugal?

Suppose this was being mentioned during the communication session on 28th, perhaps alongside with a request for support to raise it to legal and compliance to double check, this situation might be evitable altogether, OR, if the support wrote [or perhaps the email come from the legal team themselves] that legal team said it's ok, then I'll lean more toward your side and tend to believe that the casino is acting on bad faith.

The current narrative, though, lead me --from neutral position-- to lean on a thought that the casino is acting in accordance to their ToS, that you agreed, and that you simply being a bit uncoordinated. Why uncoordinated? You have two chances to avoid this predicament. One when you reach support with a bit unspecific question, and the second when you also emailed SRIJ as you're not sure. Suppose you waited one more week and read SRIJ's reply before you started playing, this situation can also be avoided.

So, a bit uncoordinated [for the lack of better term]. Not saying you're the wrong one here, nor them. Just a bit uncoordinated.

In regards to Richard Hoggs, yes, I am in agreement with you. I've came to that conclusion when I first read your narrative, and I'll made my opinion known to public now: that reaction is three steps across harsh and inappropriate to come from a casino staff, regardless of his position. But that's me and my very own opinion. It doesn't shape the reality or dictate what the forum perceive.

[dypper]

Hello @holydarkness, thank you once again for your response. However, I must disagree with a few points:

• Regarding the immediate response on February 28th: You mentioned that the initial response was a quick check of the Terms of Service by live support. However, my experience was different. While there was an initial chat response, they indicated they would investigate further and provide a more comprehensive answer, which I received later via email. Therefore, it wasn't a simple, immediate response.
  
• Regarding the email sender: You stated that legal or compliance emails would have a specific sender address. However, the email I received on March 8th, informing me of my account limitations, came from the same address and signature as the previous communication. This contradicts the idea that only general support uses that address.

Understand the situation better now?

Yes, thanks

The last "proposal" and explanationthey gave was that the account was indeed at 0 balance. However you're credited with 28 USD [if I remember the number correctly, from the top of my head] as a bonus, of which they're entitled to void them. Their "final position" was to not voiding that fund and let it withdrawable.

No, the bonuses were about 780€ considering the losses on previous week and their rakeback system and that was never credited. My balance is balance I still had before my account was "restricted".

The information being disseminated affect literally zero aspect of my life, I literally couldn't care less. I am here only to see the case get to its end. If that is the end of this case, then... *shrug*

I didnt intend to "threat" you or wtv, maybe it was bad translation. I know your position here and I can only thanks for your help and step in, so please dont read that as something against you - this is not my intention at all.


While I appreciate your perspective, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of my actions.

• Regarding my knowledge of Portuguese regulations: You suggest I failed to understand my country's rules and/or failed to inform the support team. However, my initial inquiry stemmed precisely from the ambiguity and conflicting information surrounding online gambling regulations in Portugal. It was not a matter of ignorance, but rather a prudent attempt to clarify a complex legal landscape. The analogy of traveling to Australia without a visa is inaccurate; it's more akin to asking if a visa is needed when there are conflicting reports about visa requirements.
  
• Regarding the communication on February 28th: You propose that mentioning the specific Portuguese regulations might have led to a different outcome. However, I did express my uncertainty about the legal situation. The support team's role is to provide accurate information, and their assurance, even if based on a limited understanding of local laws, carries weight. Furthermore, expecting a customer to provide detailed legal expertise in a specific jurisdiction is unreasonable.
  
• Regarding the "uncoordinated" narrative: You label my actions as "uncoordinated" due to my initial inquiry and my email to SRIJ. However, seeking clarification from multiple sources is a responsible approach, not a sign of disorganization. Waiting for SRIJ's response would have been ideal, but the casino's confirmation led me to believe I was acting within their terms of service. Regarding your assessment that I was 'uncoordinated,' I must respectfully disagree. My question to the casino was direct and straightforward. I inquired about the legality of playing from Portugal on Housebets, stating my suspicion that it might not be permissible. I specifically asked if I was mistaken, and if so, requested immediate closure of my account. As you can see from their email response on February 28th, they even acknowledged this, stating, 'however, if you wish, we can close your account.' This indicates a clear and specific inquiry on my part.
• Regarding the ToS: You say that the casino acted in accordance to their ToS, but if that was true, why did they limit my account after i played? The information that they gave me, was that i could play.
  

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the complexity of the situation, I believe the primary responsibility for providing accurate and legally sound information lies with the casino. Their initial confirmation, regardless of its origin, led me to believe I was operating within permissible boundaries. Therefore, I maintain that I acted reasonably and diligently in seeking clarification.

Additionally, if it's not too much to ask, I would greatly appreciate one final clarification from Housebets. Could you please inquire as to why I received conflicting information via email (from the same sender address and signature) on February 28th and March 8th? Specifically, I'd like to understand why the February 28th email incorrectly stated I could play, while the March 8th email correctly stated my account was limited, given that both emails originated from the same source.

I kindly request that, in your capacity as an intermediary, you urge Housebets to reconsider their error of February 28th. Please emphasize to them the need to acknowledge responsibility for the incorrect information provided and to reverse the subsequent activities on my account.

You are correct that waiting for the SRIJ's response would have prevented this situation. However, that is precisely the 'restore point' I am requesting. I understand I cannot rewind time, but the casino has the capability to reverse these actions. That is my sole request: a reversal of the transactions that occurred after they provided me with incorrect information.

As previously mentioned, this is not merely about the $28, but rather the $7,707.55 I deposited in error, and the fines I will face from the Portuguese authorities. It is crucial that Housebets addresses the inconsistency of blocking deposits from a source one day and accepting them the next.

I appreciate your assistance in relaying this message and advocating for a fair resolution.

[holydarkness]

Hello @holydarkness, thank you once again for your response. However, I must disagree with a few points:

• Regarding the immediate response on February 28th: You mentioned that the initial response was a quick check of the Terms of Service by live support. However, my experience was different. While there was an initial chat response, they indicated they would investigate further and provide a more comprehensive answer, which I received later via email. Therefore, it wasn't a simple, immediate response.
  
• Regarding the email sender: You stated that legal or compliance emails would have a specific sender address. However, the email I received on March 8th, informing me of my account limitations, came from the same address and signature as the previous communication. This contradicts the idea that only general support uses that address.

Understand the situation better now?

Yes, thanks

The last "proposal" and explanationthey gave was that the account was indeed at 0 balance. However you're credited with 28 USD [if I remember the number correctly, from the top of my head] as a bonus, of which they're entitled to void them. Their "final position" was to not voiding that fund and let it withdrawable.

No, the bonuses were about 780€ considering the losses on previous week and their rakeback system and that was never credited. My balance is balance I still had before my account was "restricted".

The information being disseminated affect literally zero aspect of my life, I literally couldn't care less. I am here only to see the case get to its end. If that is the end of this case, then... *shrug*

I didnt intend to "threat" you or wtv, maybe it was bad translation. I know your position here and I can only thanks for your help and step in, so please dont read that as something against you - this is not my intention at all.


While I appreciate your perspective, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of my actions.

• Regarding my knowledge of Portuguese regulations: You suggest I failed to understand my country's rules and/or failed to inform the support team. However, my initial inquiry stemmed precisely from the ambiguity and conflicting information surrounding online gambling regulations in Portugal. It was not a matter of ignorance, but rather a prudent attempt to clarify a complex legal landscape. The analogy of traveling to Australia without a visa is inaccurate; it's more akin to asking if a visa is needed when there are conflicting reports about visa requirements.
  
• Regarding the communication on February 28th: You propose that mentioning the specific Portuguese regulations might have led to a different outcome. However, I did express my uncertainty about the legal situation. The support team's role is to provide accurate information, and their assurance, even if based on a limited understanding of local laws, carries weight. Furthermore, expecting a customer to provide detailed legal expertise in a specific jurisdiction is unreasonable.
  
• Regarding the "uncoordinated" narrative: You label my actions as "uncoordinated" due to my initial inquiry and my email to SRIJ. However, seeking clarification from multiple sources is a responsible approach, not a sign of disorganization. Waiting for SRIJ's response would have been ideal, but the casino's confirmation led me to believe I was acting within their terms of service. Regarding your assessment that I was 'uncoordinated,' I must respectfully disagree. My question to the casino was direct and straightforward. I inquired about the legality of playing from Portugal on Housebets, stating my suspicion that it might not be permissible. I specifically asked if I was mistaken, and if so, requested immediate closure of my account. As you can see from their email response on February 28th, they even acknowledged this, stating, 'however, if you wish, we can close your account.' This indicates a clear and specific inquiry on my part.
• Regarding the ToS: You say that the casino acted in accordance to their ToS, but if that was true, why did they limit my account after i played? The information that they gave me, was that i could play.
  

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the complexity of the situation, I believe the primary responsibility for providing accurate and legally sound information lies with the casino. Their initial confirmation, regardless of its origin, led me to believe I was operating within permissible boundaries. Therefore, I maintain that I acted reasonably and diligently in seeking clarification.

Additionally, if it's not too much to ask, I would greatly appreciate one final clarification from Housebets. Could you please inquire as to why I received conflicting information via email (from the same sender address and signature) on February 28th and March 8th? Specifically, I'd like to understand why the February 28th email incorrectly stated I could play, while the March 8th email correctly stated my account was limited, given that both emails originated from the same source.

I kindly request that, in your capacity as an intermediary, you urge Housebets to reconsider their error of February 28th. Please emphasize to them the need to acknowledge responsibility for the incorrect information provided and to reverse the subsequent activities on my account.

You are correct that waiting for the SRIJ's response would have prevented this situation. However, that is precisely the 'restore point' I am requesting. I understand I cannot rewind time, but the casino has the capability to reverse these actions. That is my sole request: a reversal of the transactions that occurred after they provided me with incorrect information.

As previously mentioned, this is not merely about the $28, but rather the $7,707.55 I deposited in error, and the fines I will face from the Portuguese authorities. It is crucial that Housebets addresses the inconsistency of blocking deposits from a source one day and accepting them the next.

I appreciate your assistance in relaying this message and advocating for a fair resolution.

Regarding email sender and immediate response, I once again apparently have to stand partially corrected. They apparently a casino who use a shared email address. Regardless, one thing that I am very much certain: the scope of your inquiry made in 28th were only circulated to the support team and didn't managed to reach legal department.

Why? Because you ask something that's very general. You're not specifically asking them the why you asked. The delay in their response and why they addressed the inquiry through email, if I may guess, is because they check their ToS, to be sure. And while we're at it, the airport analogy is actually spot on. I'll admit I make it on the second, by the second, but not without a thorough thinking. On the second I typed it, and by the second it goes typed, the analogy came fresh from the oven of the backburner of my mind.

You asked a generic airport staff if you're allowed to fly to Australia from Portugal [whether it is allowed to play on housebets from Portugal] and the staff, who are not possessing specific knowledge of immigration requirement of Australia, checked the basic needs to fly like passport, ticket, etc. and write in a piece of paper that you're allowed to fly to Australia [them needing some time to check their ToS and return with email that it is okay]. Later on, when you on the boarding gate [wait, I'll revise that, it's the check-in counter, so it'll be the check-in staff that you're consulting about your visa situation, not a gate staff] check-in counter, you said that you don't have visa and [I'll add] according to ChatGPT that you asked while you're in check-in line, you need visa [the SRIJ and your email by 8th].

And now here we are, at the check-in counter, you're asking for a refund of your ticket or some sort of compensation because the staff you asked earlier said you're good to fly to Australia from Portugal.

But hey, you're not wrong with the added aspect to the analogy there. "it's more akin to asking if a visa is needed when there are conflicting reports about visa requirements." yes, that's the situation I actually propose. Suppose you asked the airport staff you meet earlier if you need visa to travel to Australia because you read somewhere that you don't need while on other sites said you need visa [mentioning to the live support that you have a conflicting info about Portuguese govt. regulation regarding licensing], that staff will check and communicate with their colleague who knows better about the visa regulation. The question is: did you?

About perceiving as threat, nope. Rest assured that I didn't see it as a threat directed at me at any degree. I am confident I understand your intention correctly. Those comment I made is simply to give you a better picture how big the care I give about your plan and/or the impact it will bring to Housebets, so feel free to do what you deemed needed to be done.

About player's duty to know the applicable law in the jurisdiction where they reside, why is it unreasonable? This case shows otherwise, as I managed to get myself a crash course of Portuguese law for casinos. In fact,  only seconds are needed if you ask ChatGPT [which, IIRC, you do use them to help you compose your post]. Do you need me to show you what ChatGPT said when I typed a simple command of "can I play on online casino as portuguese"?

And further, yet bear a significant weight, regardless your capability to think to ask ChatGPT that while you use GPT to help you with this, you agreed to the clause 2.1.1. of their ToS, that shared by many casinos [though certainly on a different numbering and sequence]: that it is in your duty to know the applicable law.

About your question that is if not too much to ask, sadly it is. I've explained at least three times and I've made it clear on above post that it'll be the last time I'll explain it to you. Your refusal to acknowledge [it has to be a refusal to acknowledge it, because otherwise, I can't fathom how could you keep asking although I've made it abundantly clear] it directly translates to the uselessness of me repeating the explanation about the situation of 28th and 8th, to the infinite amount. Words spoken to deaf ear.

About a reconsidering of an error, will you still ask them to reconsider the error suppose you didn't burn all of your deposits to zero? Will you acknowledge responsibility for the incorrect information given that'll result in the reversal of the activities on your account that lead to the voiding of your winnings?

About restore point and incorrect information, I believe my explanation above, especially about "did you [ask]?" and the use of ChatGPT [other than to help you compose a rebuttal] covers enough that can help you get an answer for this point and that request.

And last, advocating for a fair resolution, I'll ask them again what number they're willing to give to meet you in the middle and kindly ask them to probably raise a tad bit more than what they initially offer: 28 USD. But I can't guarantee a yes. Why? Because broken down to the very root of this case, you put yourself in this situation by knowing [albeit ambiguous and conflicting] that you're not allowed to play, yet you still play, which made you broke the ToS you agreed. And now, you're asking the casino to... what, exactly and all-honestly?

[dypper]

Regarding email sender and immediate response, I once again apparently have to stand partially corrected. They apparently a casino who use a shared email address. Regardless, one thing that I am very much certain: the scope of your inquiry made in 28th were only circulated to the support team and didn't managed to reach legal department.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the chat history, but I can assure you that my inquiry was not "very general". My concern was clearly articulated, and I even mentioned the possibility of closing my account immediately if playing from Portugal was not permitted.
I recall the operator stating that, according to their Terms of Service, Portugal was not on the list of prohibited countries. However, I explicitly requested and, frankly, demanded that they double-check this information. Hours later, I received the email confirming that I was allowed to play.
Therefore, the delay in their response was not due to a simple check of the Terms of Service. It was due to a more thorough investigation that, regrettably, resulted in incorrect information being provided to me. I was very specific and precise in my request, and their answer was wrong.

And further, yet bear a significant weight, regardless your capability to think to ask ChatGPT that while you use GPT to help you with this, you agreed to the clause 2.1.1. of their ToS, that shared by many casinos [though certainly on a different numbering and sequence]: that it is in your duty to know the applicable law.

I understand the ToS clause about knowing applicable laws. However, the casino's direct confirmation that I could play from Portugal superseded that. I asked for clarification precisely because I was unsure. Their incorrect answer led directly to my actions. They are responsible for the information they provide.

About a reconsidering of an error, will you still ask them to reconsider the error suppose you didn't burn all of your deposits to zero? Will you acknowledge responsibility for the incorrect information given that'll result in the reversal of the activities on your account that lead to the voiding of your winnings?

Yes, I would still demand they reconsider. Their error is the core issue, regardless of my losses. And no, I will not acknowledge responsibility for their incorrect information. They caused this situation, and they must rectify it.

After careful deliberation, and considering the complexities of this situation, I believe a fair resolution lies in a compromise. While I maintain that the casino's initial error on February 28th directly contributed to my subsequent financial losses, I am willing to meet them halfway.

Therefore, as a final and earnest request, I propose that the casino reimburse me for 50% of the total amount I deposited after February 28th. This represents a division of the losses, acknowledging both the casino's error and my own participation in the activities that followed. This 50% reimbursement represents my final and most reasonable offer. It's important to reiterate that this is not solely about recovering lost funds. It's about rectifying a situation that arose from the casino's provision of incorrect information. As previously stated, I would have received a significant sum in rakeback/bonuses, and I had open bets at the time of account limitation, further compounding the financial impact.

I understand that the casino might perceive this as a difficult request. However, I believe it is a reasonable and equitable solution. They possess the means to correct their error, and this compromise demonstrates my willingness to reach an amicable agreement. I urge you, Holydarkness, to advocate for this proposal. I am confident that it represents a fair outcome, and I await the casino's response with anticipation. I believe this is a final request, and hope that this will be the end of this situation.

[holydarkness]

Regarding email sender and immediate response, I once again apparently have to stand partially corrected. They apparently a casino who use a shared email address. Regardless, one thing that I am very much certain: the scope of your inquiry made in 28th were only circulated to the support team and didn't managed to reach legal department.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the chat history, but I can assure you that my inquiry was not "very general". My concern was clearly articulated, and I even mentioned the possibility of closing my account immediately if playing from Portugal was not permitted.
I recall the operator stating that, according to their Terms of Service, Portugal was not on the list of prohibited countries. However, I explicitly requested and, frankly, demanded that they double-check this information. Hours later, I received the email confirming that I was allowed to play.
Therefore, the delay in their response was not due to a simple check of the Terms of Service. It was due to a more thorough investigation that, regrettably, resulted in incorrect information being provided to me. I was very specific and precise in my request, and their answer was wrong.

By clearly articulated, were you specifically mentioned that you got a conflicting information of gambling regulation in Portugal, that casinos will need some "extra" license than what they already have? Or were it something else?

I'll appreciate if you can be very specific on this as if you've specifically articulated your inquiry like above proposed, or similarly brushing and mentioning the elements, it'll move the tide of the narrative and I can ask the casino to give more than they're willing to [for the time being] propose as the middle ground.

Perhaps a screenshot of the transcript of the chat [though you've mentioned that it's inaccessible to you] if you can request the copy of it from their team?

And further, yet bear a significant weight, regardless your capability to think to ask ChatGPT that while you use GPT to help you with this, you agreed to the clause 2.1.1. of their ToS, that shared by many casinos [though certainly on a different numbering and sequence]: that it is in your duty to know the applicable law.

I understand the ToS clause about knowing applicable laws. However, the casino's direct confirmation that I could play from Portugal superseded that. I asked for clarification precisely because I was unsure. Their incorrect answer led directly to my actions. They are responsible for the information they provide.

Nope. Far as I know, the ToS that you agreed will supersedes the live chat's confirmation. Because, unless articulated perfectly before, with the knowledge that there is a regulation for a casino in your country, conflicted and ambiguous as it might be at the time, you know that there is a law. And the failure to perfectly articulate the reason of the inquiry, that create a situation where they confirm through support, is "leading" the counterparty.

After careful deliberation, and considering the complexities of this situation, I believe a fair resolution lies in a compromise. While I maintain that the casino's initial error on February 28th directly contributed to my subsequent financial losses, I am willing to meet them halfway.

For the nth time, the error is not on theirs, on February 28th, unless the above requested extra evidence can be provided, that you've inquire about Housebets legality, due to several conflicting information you earned regarding licensing from SRIJ.

Therefore, as a final and earnest request, I propose that the casino reimburse me for 50% of the total amount I deposited after February 28th. This represents a division of the losses, acknowledging both the casino's error and my own participation in the activities that followed. This 50% reimbursement represents my final and most reasonable offer. It's important to reiterate that this is not solely about recovering lost funds. It's about rectifying a situation that arose from the casino's provision of incorrect information. As previously stated, I would have received a significant sum in rakeback/bonuses, and I had open bets at the time of account limitation, further compounding the financial impact.

I understand that the casino might perceive this as a difficult request. However, I believe it is a reasonable and equitable solution. They possess the means to correct their error, and this compromise demonstrates my willingness to reach an amicable agreement. I urge you, Holydarkness, to advocate for this proposal. I am confident that it represents a fair outcome, and I await the casino's response with anticipation. I believe this is a final request, and hope that this will be the end of this situation.

I'll relay to them. But with current narrative, I can understand that they will refuse this, point blank.

[dypper]

holydarkness, while I appreciate your attempt to provide a balanced perspective, I strongly disagree with your assessment of where the fault lies in this situation. You're putting a lot of emphasis on my supposed failure to "perfectly articulate" my inquiry, and I find that to be an unreasonable and frankly, unfair burden to place on me.

Let's be clear: I raised concerns about the legality of the casino's operation in Portugal. The fact that I might not have used the *exact* legal jargon you deem necessary shouldn't absolve the casino of their responsibility to provide accurate and consistent information. It's their business to know and adhere to the regulations, and it's their responsibility to communicate clearly with their customers.

You're suggesting that I was somehow "leading" the counterparty by asking about the legality of their operations. That's a mischaracterization of my inquiries. I was seeking clarification on a crucial issue that directly impacts my ability to use their services. To imply that *I'm* at fault for their conflicting and inadequate responses is simply wrong.

Furthermore, your reliance on the Terms of Service to supersede any information provided by live chat is a convenient excuse. Customers rely on the information provided by support staff, and conflicting information from those sources erodes trust. In fact, I'd like to dispute the claim that the Terms of Service automatically override any confirmations from Housebets' live chat support. While I acknowledge the Terms as a binding agreement, the live chat confirmation should be given appropriate weight, based on the following points within the document:

• Housebets's Authority and Dispute Resolution: Clause 2.3 states that "Housebets retains authority over the issuing, maintaining, and closing the Service." While this clause establishes Housebets's authority, it also implies a responsibility to exercise that authority fairly and reasonably. Denying the validity of a direct confirmation from a support agent, acting on behalf of Housebets, could be interpreted as an unreasonable use of this authority. Furthermore, Clause 2.4 states "The decision of Housebets management concerning any use of this Service and dispute resolution is final and will not be open to review or appeal.” I believe that my dispute should be reviewed, and I urge Housebets to exercise its authority in a just manner.
• Errors and Incompleteness: Clause 4.4 addresses errors related to wagers and payments, stating that Housebets has the right to cancel bets accepted in error. Clause 4.5 further elaborates on errors or malfunctions in the software, requiring the user to report them and stating that Housebets has a right to compensation for costs related to the error or incompleteness and failed notification by the User. By analogy, miscommunication or inaccurate information provided by a Housebets representative can be considered a form of error or incompleteness. I argue that Housebets is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of information provided through its official support channels and should bear the responsibility for any consequences resulting from such errors.
• User Obligations and Information Accuracy: Clause 4.1.4 states that the user is responsible for providing accurate information to Housebets. By extension, it is reasonable to expect Housebets to also provide accurate information through its support channels. I fulfilled my obligation to seek clarification, and the information provided by Housebets's representative should be considered reliable.

To address your specific points:

• It's not my responsibility to have a law degree to ask a simple question about a casino's legality.
• The casino has a responsibility to provide clear and consistent information about their legal standing.
• The inconsistencies and contradictions in their responses are the primary source of this problem, not my phrasing of the questions.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the importance of the Terms of Service, I believe that the live chat confirmation established a specific understanding. Disregarding this confirmation contradicts the principles of fair dispute resolution, responsibility for errors, and the expectation of accurate information from Housebets, all of which are implied within the Terms and Conditions. Instead of defending the casino's position, perhaps a more constructive approach would be to acknowledge their role in this mess and push for a fair resolution based on the information *they* provided, however flawed it may have been.

I suggest, in case they reject the offer, you ask them to supply all the chat history (which I already requested 3 weeks ago by email and nothing was provided). If they do not alter them, yes, you will find extra substance to understand why they sent me an email with the conclusion of being allowed to bet from Portugal, and not just a simple chat answer.

[holydarkness]

holydarkness, while I appreciate your attempt to provide a balanced perspective, I strongly disagree with your assessment of where the fault lies in this situation. You're putting a lot of emphasis on my supposed failure to "perfectly articulate" my inquiry, and I find that to be an unreasonable and frankly, unfair burden to place on me.

Let's be clear: I raised concerns about the legality of the casino's operation in Portugal. The fact that I might not have used the *exact* legal jargon you deem necessary shouldn't absolve the casino of their responsibility to provide accurate and consistent information. It's their business to know and adhere to the regulations, and it's their responsibility to communicate clearly with their customers.

I am asking how exactly you articulate the question, and whether the mention of SRIJ and/or extra licensing is needed ever conveyed, not to perfectly articulate the inquiry. Just whether SRIJ rule and/or you're in an uncertain state due to the ambiguous information you currently possessed, ever mentioned. Why? Because if you did and you can provide me the evidence of it being mentioned, I can use that to ask housebets to reconsider.

To give you a better picture, let's say for a second that I am "on your side" [with half leg still in neutral ground, of course] and seeking the best I can get to your compensation. You handling me a butter knife right now, made out of plastic. A thin and cheap one that you got for free from buying bread in a bakery. The screenshot though, transfigure that butter knife into piertotum locomotor. Understand?

You're suggesting that I was somehow "leading" the counterparty by asking about the legality of their operations. That's a mischaracterization of my inquiries. I was seeking clarification on a crucial issue that directly impacts my ability to use their services. To imply that *I'm* at fault for their conflicting and inadequate responses is simply wrong.

Is it not? At fault? It's a retort. The full explanation and more proper address to the matter is below.

Furthermore, your reliance on the Terms of Service to supersede any information provided by live chat is a convenient excuse. Customers rely on the information provided by support staff, and conflicting information from those sources erodes trust. In fact, I'd like to dispute the claim that the Terms of Service automatically override any confirmations from Housebets' live chat support. While I acknowledge the Terms as a binding agreement, the live chat confirmation should be given appropriate weight, based on the following points within the document:

• Housebets's Authority and Dispute Resolution: Clause 2.3 states that "Housebets retains authority over the issuing, maintaining, and closing the Service." While this clause establishes Housebets's authority, it also implies a responsibility to exercise that authority fairly and reasonably. Denying the validity of a direct confirmation from a support agent, acting on behalf of Housebets, could be interpreted as an unreasonable use of this authority. Furthermore, Clause 2.4 states "The decision of Housebets management concerning any use of this Service and dispute resolution is final and will not be open to review or appeal.” I believe that my dispute should be reviewed, and I urge Housebets to exercise its authority in a just manner.
• Errors and Incompleteness: Clause 4.4 addresses errors related to wagers and payments, stating that Housebets has the right to cancel bets accepted in error. Clause 4.5 further elaborates on errors or malfunctions in the software, requiring the user to report them and stating that Housebets has a right to compensation for costs related to the error or incompleteness and failed notification by the User. By analogy, miscommunication or inaccurate information provided by a Housebets representative can be considered a form of error or incompleteness. I argue that Housebets is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of information provided through its official support channels and should bear the responsibility for any consequences resulting from such errors.
• User Obligations and Information Accuracy: Clause 4.1.4 states that the user is responsible for providing accurate information to Housebets. By extension, it is reasonable to expect Housebets to also provide accurate information through its support channels. I fulfilled my obligation to seek clarification, and the information provided by Housebets's representative should be considered reliable.

First, kindly revisit the airport analogy, it'll cover a greater part of the section quoted above.

Second, breaking down the clauses you propose, and taking your words at face value by perceiving you as an honest individual that does not snip the clauses in parts that only works in your favor and significantly change the meaning conveyed [this is me saying I am not looking at the page and believing you]:

2.3. does the confirmation given by the live support were coming from a full narrative without any retention of information that birthed the question? [Basically: airport analogy]
2.4. not sure why you cite this. You just make your situation here worse by bringing that authoritarian clause [that you acknowledge and agreed] into light.
4.4. almost like 2.4., not sure why you bring it into light. Also, irrelevant. It specifies that they have the full right to cancel bets due to an error [witout looking at the page to see the section it covered, I believe the error being talked here is technicalities like wrong odds, bugs, and the likes] not to refund bets due to an "error" in licensing.
4.5. exactly like 2.4., if not worse. You highlighting that they have a clause [again, that you acknowledge and agreed] that allows them to be compensated due to player's negligence to notify errors to housebets. Translated, 2.4, 4.4., and 4.5., specifically protected the casino and says that they can not held liable, their call is final, and they're entitled to ask for refund due to the error from player's side. Tell your chatGPT to formulate a better rebuttal and cite clauss that work in your favor. You almost closed the case by yourself, in favor to the casino, by bringing these clauses.

To address your specific points:

• It's not my responsibility to have a law degree to ask a simple question about a casino's legality.
• The casino has a responsibility to provide clear and consistent information about their legal standing.
• The inconsistencies and contradictions in their responses are the primary source of this problem, not my phrasing of the questions.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the importance of the Terms of Service, I believe that the live chat confirmation established a specific understanding. Disregarding this confirmation contradicts the principles of fair dispute resolution, responsibility for errors, and the expectation of accurate information from Housebets, all of which are implied within the Terms and Conditions. Instead of defending the casino's position, perhaps a more constructive approach would be to acknowledge their role in this mess and push for a fair resolution based on the information *they* provided, however flawed it may have been.

It is your responsibility to know the specific law in your country, according to 2.1.1., and you don't need a law degree for it, as I've demonstrated from spending less than five seconds with ChatGPT, the same AI you use.
And yes, they do have responsibility to provide clear and consistent information. Sans the complete information from the asker's side, though, they can't formulate a clear and consistent info. Refer to 2.1.1. and the visa analogy
No, the source of the problem is the wording used in the question. It's obvious, I've explained about it in abundance, throughout the entire thread.

I suggest, in case they reject the offer, you ask them to supply all the chat history (which I already requested 3 weeks ago by email and nothing was provided). If they do not alter them, yes, you will find extra substance to understand why they sent me an email with the conclusion of being allowed to bet from Portugal, and not just a simple chat answer.

Can't. It has to be you who ask for it. Data protection and all.