BC.Game: The Most Dishonest Business Ever - $1500 Scam & Cover Up!

[ptaylor78]

On June 19, 2025, I set a $60 daily loss limit at BC.Game with a balance of $1,560. The site indicated the limit would take effect immediately, yet the tool failed and I lost more than $1,500. After being misled by support on June 19 and 20, I filed a complaint with Casino Guru that contains extensive evidence, including chat records and screenshots from that day, proving the limit was activated on June 19.

BC.Game has since engaged in dishonesty unlike anything I have seen in business, falsely claiming the limit was only set on June 26 and ignoring the evidence. For two months they have refused to cooperate in good faith with the Casino Guru complaint.  Here is the link to the complaint: https://casino.guru/bc-game-casino-player-s-funds-are-lost-due-to-failed.

Additionally, here is the link to a player from Brazil who suffered the same issue and is being ignored as well: https://casino.guru/bc-game-casino-player-s-loss-due-to-system-failure.

On August 15, support agent Turus admitted the loss limit tool is defective and that developers had already received an optimization request. Even with this admission, BC.Game continues to deny responsibility and spread false narratives.

This is consistent with BC.Game’s history, including being declared bankrupt in Curaçao in 2024 after failing to pay out millions in winnings and losing its UK gambling license. Their tactics are clear: ignoring complaints for months, flagging truthful reviews as defamatory, and closing tickets unilaterally while withholding evidence.  On August 18, BC.Game’s representative replied to 10 of 15 open complaints on Casino Guru, while continuing to ignore the mediator’s request for a response to my case for three weeks.

At this point I am preparing to issue a press release to major industry outlets including iGB, Gambling Insider, Casino.org, EGR Global, Gambling News, and iGaming Expert. I will also notify BC.Game’s sponsorship partners and brand ambassadors (O’Higgins FC, Jason Derulo, Colby Covington, and Miami Pickleball Club) of their irresponsible and dishonest conduct.

[holydarkness]

Writing to acknowledge that this case has been written into my notebook and thus under my radar and in my plate, as well as to inform you that --like a broken record you might feel-- you'll probably need to repeat and provide information you gave to CG as some of what you sent to them are set to private and inaccessible to public. Just in case more context is needed.

For the time being, I've nudged a contact and provide them with your UID.

Oh, and since you've have your own thread, please refrain from engaging in any discussion in their ANN thread. Redirect anyone asking details to this thread instead, if you have to respond to them. It's not to limit your "visibility", rather because it'll be harder for the overseers of your case to simultaneously follow two threads that very much likely will have different speed of development and split information.

[ptaylor78]

Writing to acknowledge that this case has been written into my notebook and thus under my radar and in my plate, as well as to inform you that --like a broken record you might feel-- you'll probably need to repeat and provide information you gave to CG as some of what you sent to them are set to private and inaccessible to public. Just in case more context is needed.

For the time being, I've nudged a contact and provide them with your UID.

Oh, and since you've have your own thread, please refrain from engaging in any discussion in their ANN thread. Redirect anyone asking details to this thread instead, if you have to respond to them. It's not to limit your "visibility", rather because it'll be harder for the overseers of your case to simultaneously follow two threads that very much likely will have different speed of development and split information.

Ok thank you. For now, I'm holding off on purchasing a cooper membership that would allow me to message more and post images, but if that becomes necessary to progress this effort, I will.

I hear you about repeating myself, but as you can see from the CG complaint (even though some evidence is hidden), we've reached the point where the CG mediator indicated that BC.Game's defense basically doesn't make sense and is implausible and asked them to reply with evidence explaining their position.  Since that request from CG, we are now on day 21 of BC.Game's silence, while they continue to respond to other open complaints that they apparently deem easier to deal with. 

[ptaylor78]

Writing to acknowledge that this case has been written into my notebook and thus under my radar and in my plate, as well as to inform you that --like a broken record you might feel-- you'll probably need to repeat and provide information you gave to CG as some of what you sent to them are set to private and inaccessible to public. Just in case more context is needed.

For the time being, I've nudged a contact and provide them with your UID.

Oh, and since you've have your own thread, please refrain from engaging in any discussion in their ANN thread. Redirect anyone asking details to this thread instead, if you have to respond to them. It's not to limit your "visibility", rather because it'll be harder for the overseers of your case to simultaneously follow two threads that very much likely will have different speed of development and split information.

My CG Complaint reply from 4 days ago is fully public and has screenshots that easily debunk BC.Game's June 26 claim, contains an admission from BC.Game support that their loss limit tool has issues that the development team has been asked to work on, and also shows shows blatant dishonesty that occurred on August 15, specifically with regards to support agent Steven.  All the text and the screenshots are public.

[holydarkness]

Writing to acknowledge that this case has been written into my notebook and thus under my radar and in my plate, as well as to inform you that --like a broken record you might feel-- you'll probably need to repeat and provide information you gave to CG as some of what you sent to them are set to private and inaccessible to public. Just in case more context is needed.

For the time being, I've nudged a contact and provide them with your UID.

Oh, and since you've have your own thread, please refrain from engaging in any discussion in their ANN thread. Redirect anyone asking details to this thread instead, if you have to respond to them. It's not to limit your "visibility", rather because it'll be harder for the overseers of your case to simultaneously follow two threads that very much likely will have different speed of development and split information.

My CG Complaint reply from 4 days ago is fully public and has screenshots that easily debunk BC.Game's June 26 claim, contains an admission from BC.Game support that their loss limit tool has issues that the development team has been asked to work on, and also shows shows blatant dishonesty that occurred on August 15, specifically with regards to support agent Steven.  All the text and the screenshots are public.

I've reached my contact [I believe it's past their bedtime now due to timezone difference, though] with your UID, let's give them some time to look into it and perhaps they can give us clarity of what transpired and happened, better than the explanation given on CG, shall we?

[ptaylor78]

Writing to acknowledge that this case has been written into my notebook and thus under my radar and in my plate, as well as to inform you that --like a broken record you might feel-- you'll probably need to repeat and provide information you gave to CG as some of what you sent to them are set to private and inaccessible to public. Just in case more context is needed.

For the time being, I've nudged a contact and provide them with your UID.

Oh, and since you've have your own thread, please refrain from engaging in any discussion in their ANN thread. Redirect anyone asking details to this thread instead, if you have to respond to them. It's not to limit your "visibility", rather because it'll be harder for the overseers of your case to simultaneously follow two threads that very much likely will have different speed of development and split information.

My CG Complaint reply from 4 days ago is fully public and has screenshots that easily debunk BC.Game's June 26 claim, contains an admission from BC.Game support that their loss limit tool has issues that the development team has been asked to work on, and also shows shows blatant dishonesty that occurred on August 15, specifically with regards to support agent Steven.  All the text and the screenshots are public.

I've reached my contact [I believe it's past their bedtime now due to timezone difference, though] with your UID, let's give them some time to look into it and perhaps they can give us clarity of what transpired and happened, better than the explanation given on CG, shall we?

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by “better than the explanation given on CG”? The explanation posted there was not just poor, it was a blatant lie designed to dismiss my complaint and avoid accountability. If BC.Game had any legitimate basis to reject my claim that their loss limits failed and I was owed $1500, they would not need to rely on an explanation that is provably false.

So when you say your contact might provide an explanation “better than” what BC.Game has already stated on CG, Trust Pilot, in support chat, and in email for the past two months, are you suggesting they intend to change their story yet again?

Regardless of how this matter turns out, should we not be concerned from a business and customer service perspective that BC.Game’s initial response to a players complaint about $1500 is to be shamelessly dishonest about what happened? We are talking a modest $1500 amount. If BC.Game owed me $10,000 or $1.5 mil as I’ve seen in another complaint I’d be even more dejected about the prospects of getting my money back…

[ptaylor78]

Below is the most recent update to my Casino Guru complaint provided on August 22, 2025 by CG analyst and complaint specialist Kubo. Who here dares to venture an explanation for how the evidence I submitted on June 19, the day of the incident, could possibly contradict the system records evidence BC.Game has only now produced 63 days later?

Dear ptaylor78,

Please accept my sincere apologies for the recent lack of response on my end. I would like to provide you with an update regarding your case.

I have received additional evidence from the casino, specifically system records indicating that your limits were not set correctly on the date you mentioned. However, this conflicts with the fact that you submitted your complaint on the same or the following day (depending on the timezone) when the issue occurred. It also contradicts the evidence you provided, including screenshots and your correspondence with the casino’s customer support.

Because of these contradictions, the matter is more complex than it initially appeared and requires further assessment. I have already raised these discrepancies with the casino representative and asked for clarification, particularly regarding how a customer support agent could confirm that your loss limit was set when it was not recorded in the system.

Unfortunately, the casino’s response pace remains slow, and while I am actively pressing for answers, I cannot directly influence their speed. Please rest assured that I will continue to pursue this until we receive a clear and satisfactory explanation.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.


Dear BC.Game Casino,

We kindly ask that you rejoin this discussion and provide an update. I have already responded to your most recent message and am still awaiting your reply.

Your timely cooperation will be greatly appreciated in order to move this matter forward.

[holydarkness]

I've reached my contact [I believe it's past their bedtime now due to timezone difference, though] with your UID, let's give them some time to look into it and perhaps they can give us clarity of what transpired and happened, better than the explanation given on CG, shall we?

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by “better than the explanation given on CG”? The explanation posted there was not just poor, it was a blatant lie designed to dismiss my complaint and avoid accountability. If BC.Game had any legitimate basis to reject my claim that their loss limits failed and I was owed $1500, they would not need to rely on an explanation that is provably false.

So when you say your contact might provide an explanation “better than” what BC.Game has already stated on CG, Trust Pilot, in support chat, and in email for the past two months, are you suggesting they intend to change their story yet again?

Regardless of how this matter turns out, should we not be concerned from a business and customer service perspective that BC.Game’s initial response to a players complaint about $1500 is to be shamelessly dishonest about what happened? We are talking a modest $1500 amount. If BC.Game owed me $10,000 or $1.5 mil as I’ve seen in another complaint I’d be even more dejected about the prospects of getting my money back…

What I mean by better explanation though, was a more comprehensive insight from their side. There might be tendency where the support agents that answered you, as well as whoever replied your CG thread got a message from other department and relayed that info to you. On this case, it means reaching someone on whatever department handling limitation and self-exclusion, and that someone perhaps take a glance at the matter. Hence, the possibility of that tangled narrative of staff A said this and staff B said that, and each contradict another.

My contact, though, hopefully will seek deeper information from many departments and compile a more comprehensive illustration about why what happened and when.

[ptaylor78]

I've reached my contact [I believe it's past their bedtime now due to timezone difference, though] with your UID, let's give them some time to look into it and perhaps they can give us clarity of what transpired and happened, better than the explanation given on CG, shall we?

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by “better than the explanation given on CG”? The explanation posted there was not just poor, it was a blatant lie designed to dismiss my complaint and avoid accountability. If BC.Game had any legitimate basis to reject my claim that their loss limits failed and I was owed $1500, they would not need to rely on an explanation that is provably false.

So when you say your contact might provide an explanation “better than” what BC.Game has already stated on CG, Trust Pilot, in support chat, and in email for the past two months, are you suggesting they intend to change their story yet again?

Regardless of how this matter turns out, should we not be concerned from a business and customer service perspective that BC.Game’s initial response to a players complaint about $1500 is to be shamelessly dishonest about what happened? We are talking a modest $1500 amount. If BC.Game owed me $10,000 or $1.5 mil as I’ve seen in another complaint I’d be even more dejected about the prospects of getting my money back…

What I mean by better explanation though, was a more comprehensive insight from their side. There might be tendency where the support agents that answered you, as well as whoever replied your CG thread got a message from other department and relayed that info to you. On this case, it means reaching someone on whatever department handling limitation and self-exclusion, and that someone perhaps take a glance at the matter. Hence, the possibility of that tangled narrative of staff A said this and staff B said that, and each contradict another.

My contact, though, hopefully will seek deeper information from many departments and compile a more comprehensive illustration about why what happened and when.

Ok thanks, I will standby for your update from your contact.

[ptaylor78]

I've reached my contact [I believe it's past their bedtime now due to timezone difference, though] with your UID, let's give them some time to look into it and perhaps they can give us clarity of what transpired and happened, better than the explanation given on CG, shall we?

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by “better than the explanation given on CG”? The explanation posted there was not just poor, it was a blatant lie designed to dismiss my complaint and avoid accountability. If BC.Game had any legitimate basis to reject my claim that their loss limits failed and I was owed $1500, they would not need to rely on an explanation that is provably false.

So when you say your contact might provide an explanation “better than” what BC.Game has already stated on CG, Trust Pilot, in support chat, and in email for the past two months, are you suggesting they intend to change their story yet again?

Regardless of how this matter turns out, should we not be concerned from a business and customer service perspective that BC.Game’s initial response to a players complaint about $1500 is to be shamelessly dishonest about what happened? We are talking a modest $1500 amount. If BC.Game owed me $10,000 or $1.5 mil as I’ve seen in another complaint I’d be even more dejected about the prospects of getting my money back…

What I mean by better explanation though, was a more comprehensive insight from their side. There might be tendency where the support agents that answered you, as well as whoever replied your CG thread got a message from other department and relayed that info to you. On this case, it means reaching someone on whatever department handling limitation and self-exclusion, and that someone perhaps take a glance at the matter. Hence, the possibility of that tangled narrative of staff A said this and staff B said that, and each contradict another.

My contact, though, hopefully will seek deeper information from many departments and compile a more comprehensive illustration about why what happened and when.

Hi. Any update from your contact?

FYI, the player from Brazil who experienced the same issue with loss limits, BC.Game declined to respond on CG today, making it 14 consecutive days with no response.  It appears BC.Game doesn't want to address any issues regarding their responsible gambling tools being faulty.

Haven’t received a word on this forum in 4 days and wondering if this will be ignored like BC.Game has done for over 2 months on Casino Guru. BC.Game’s responsible gambling tools must be a sensitive issue…

[holydarkness]

Hi OP, yes, I am still in touch with my contact for this matter. If I leave a case and set myself a spectator instead of actively trying to get it resolved, I most likely will make a public announcement about it so someone can take over. To answer your PM.

They should have a verdict delivered to me by yesterday, but it seems they got halted by something else as my nudge was left unread. I'll re-nudge again when morning come.

[ptaylor78]

Hi OP, yes, I am still in touch with my contact for this matter. If I leave a case and set myself a spectator instead of actively trying to get it resolved, I most likely will make a public announcement about it so someone can take over. To answer your PM.

They should have a verdict delivered to me by yesterday, but it seems they got halted by something else as my nudge was left unread. I'll re-nudge again when morning come.

Tomorrow marks 1 week with no reply… I’m assuming for cases they are willing to resolve, they typically respond back to you in less than 1 week after you send a nudge or two. I am not trying to be impatient and I do appreciate your efforts, but I am sure you understand the frustration of dealing with this for 70 days and getting nothing but stalling, bad faith, and outright false statements from BC.Game.

[holydarkness]

Hi OP, yes, I am still in touch with my contact for this matter. If I leave a case and set myself a spectator instead of actively trying to get it resolved, I most likely will make a public announcement about it so someone can take over. To answer your PM.

They should have a verdict delivered to me by yesterday, but it seems they got halted by something else as my nudge was left unread. I'll re-nudge again when morning come.

Tomorrow marks 1 week with no reply… I’m assuming for cases they are willing to resolve, they typically respond back to you in less than 1 week after you send a nudge or two. I am not trying to be impatient and I do appreciate your efforts, but I am sure you understand the frustration of dealing with this for 70 days and getting nothing but stalling, bad faith, and outright false statements from BC.Game.

Oh, sorry if I made a wrong impression that they didn't respond to me up to this second. As per my previous post, I am already in touch with them and we're alredy talking about your case. I should've got a verdict for yours by two days ago, by Monday, however, as per my last nudge yesterday, they asked me more time for second reconsideration.

[ptaylor78]

Hi OP, yes, I am still in touch with my contact for this matter. If I leave a case and set myself a spectator instead of actively trying to get it resolved, I most likely will make a public announcement about it so someone can take over. To answer your PM.

They should have a verdict delivered to me by yesterday, but it seems they got halted by something else as my nudge was left unread. I'll re-nudge again when morning come.

Tomorrow marks 1 week with no reply… I’m assuming for cases they are willing to resolve, they typically respond back to you in less than 1 week after you send a nudge or two. I am not trying to be impatient and I do appreciate your efforts, but I am sure you understand the frustration of dealing with this for 70 days and getting nothing but stalling, bad faith, and outright false statements from BC.Game.

Oh, sorry if I made a wrong impression that they didn't respond to me up to this second. As per my previous post, I am already in touch with them and we're alredy talking about your case. I should've got a verdict for yours by two days ago, by Monday, however, as per my last nudge yesterday, they asked me more time for second reconsideration.

I don’t wish to micromanage how you handle the process, but from my side this has already been 70 days of stalling and contradictory statements from BC.Game, so transparency is key. If they’ve now asked you for additional time on a “second reconsideration,” I would love to understand what exactly they are reconsidering and why.

[holydarkness]

Oh, sorry if I made a wrong impression that they didn't respond to me up to this second. As per my previous post, I am already in touch with them and we're alredy talking about your case. I should've got a verdict for yours by two days ago, by Monday, however, as per my last nudge yesterday, they asked me more time for second reconsideration.

I don’t wish to micromanage how you handle the process, but from my side this has already been 70 days of stalling and contradictory statements from BC.Game, so transparency is key. If they’ve now asked you for additional time on a “second reconsideration,” I would love to understand what exactly they are reconsidering and why.

Well, I don't want to sell myself high, but the second reconsideration might an attempt from my contact to overrule a decision made by risk division, or perhaps to simply ask the case to retried and re-discussed after the team handling your matter gave their verdict and ready with their explanation.

Or perhaps simply they mean they need to double check all the facts.

[ptaylor78]

Oh, sorry if I made a wrong impression that they didn't respond to me up to this second. As per my previous post, I am already in touch with them and we're alredy talking about your case. I should've got a verdict for yours by two days ago, by Monday, however, as per my last nudge yesterday, they asked me more time for second reconsideration.

I don’t wish to micromanage how you handle the process, but from my side this has already been 70 days of stalling and contradictory statements from BC.Game, so transparency is key. If they’ve now asked you for additional time on a “second reconsideration,” I would love to understand what exactly they are reconsidering and why.

Well, I don't want to sell myself high, but the second reconsideration might an attempt from my contact to overrule a decision made by risk division, or perhaps to simply ask the case to retried and re-discussed after the team handling your matter gave their verdict and ready with their explanation.

Or perhaps simply they mean they need to double check all the facts.

I trust you have reviewed what I have posted here and the evidence already on CG. My account is not just a version of events, it is indisputable and supported by contemporaneous evidence submitted the day of the incident. BC.Game, in contrast, has produced “system records” that appeared only two months after my complaint was filed. Their own chat transcripts from June 19 directly contradict those records, yet they continue to put forward narratives that are provably false.

This is not a close call or a matter of interpretation. BC.Game promised players loss limit tools that take effect immediately. On June 19, those tools failed. I have used the identical interface on Shuffle Casino where the limits work in real time as advertised. BC.Game’s did not. After weeks of silence, they shifted their story to claim no limits were set until June 26, a position neither I nor Casino Guru accepted given the obvious evidence to the contrary

That is why I am concerned. A transparent, honest casino would not need repeated reconsiderations of a straightforward refund request. Yet 70 days later, BC.Game continues to stall while ignoring this complaint and freely responding to others on CG. This is not how a trustworthy casino conducts itself.

I understand you have helped many players with BC.Game issues, but so far I have only heard theories about what might be happening on their side rather than what they have actually said, what evidence they have to support their position, and their explanation for why their position is contradicted by a large amount of evidence.

[holydarkness]

Well, I don't want to sell myself high, but the second reconsideration might an attempt from my contact to overrule a decision made by risk division, or perhaps to simply ask the case to retried and re-discussed after the team handling your matter gave their verdict and ready with their explanation.

Or perhaps simply they mean they need to double check all the facts.

I trust you have reviewed what I have posted here and the evidence already on CG. My account is not just a version of events, it is indisputable and supported by contemporaneous evidence submitted the day of the incident. BC.Game, in contrast, has produced “system records” that appeared only two months after my complaint was filed. Their own chat transcripts from June 19 directly contradict those records, yet they continue to put forward narratives that are provably false.

This is not a close call or a matter of interpretation. BC.Game promised players loss limit tools that take effect immediately. On June 19, those tools failed. I have used the identical interface on Shuffle Casino where the limits work in real time as advertised. BC.Game’s did not. After weeks of silence, they shifted their story to claim no limits were set until June 26, a position neither I nor Casino Guru accepted given the obvious evidence to the contrary

That is why I am concerned. A transparent, honest casino would not need repeated reconsiderations of a straightforward refund request. Yet 70 days later, BC.Game continues to stall while ignoring this complaint and freely responding to others on CG. This is not how a trustworthy casino conducts itself.

I understand you have helped many players with BC.Game issues, but so far I have only heard theories about what might be happening on their side rather than what they have actually said, what evidence they have to support their position, and their explanation for why their position is contradicted by a large amount of evidence.

Yes, I have reviewed your case on CG and understand the narrative told from your side. But the puzzle will still be incomplete without narrative from BC's, of which become more crucial as we need the truest version that my contact can hopefully dig by inquiring inter-department and crosschecking everything, something that perhaps BC's live support can't provide, and thus give a wrong sets of puzzle that made us unable to get a complete picture.

Though I can understand your frustration from being hung with uncertainty, I hope you can have a bit more patience while my contact tried to get us the story from their side, this time with the correct side of puzzle from their side, so we can combine that with yours and we can see the real picture.

[ptaylor78]

Well, I don't want to sell myself high, but the second reconsideration might an attempt from my contact to overrule a decision made by risk division, or perhaps to simply ask the case to retried and re-discussed after the team handling your matter gave their verdict and ready with their explanation.

Or perhaps simply they mean they need to double check all the facts.

I trust you have reviewed what I have posted here and the evidence already on CG. My account is not just a version of events, it is indisputable and supported by contemporaneous evidence submitted the day of the incident. BC.Game, in contrast, has produced “system records” that appeared only two months after my complaint was filed. Their own chat transcripts from June 19 directly contradict those records, yet they continue to put forward narratives that are provably false.

This is not a close call or a matter of interpretation. BC.Game promised players loss limit tools that take effect immediately. On June 19, those tools failed. I have used the identical interface on Shuffle Casino where the limits work in real time as advertised. BC.Game’s did not. After weeks of silence, they shifted their story to claim no limits were set until June 26, a position neither I nor Casino Guru accepted given the obvious evidence to the contrary

That is why I am concerned. A transparent, honest casino would not need repeated reconsiderations of a straightforward refund request. Yet 70 days later, BC.Game continues to stall while ignoring this complaint and freely responding to others on CG. This is not how a trustworthy casino conducts itself.

I understand you have helped many players with BC.Game issues, but so far I have only heard theories about what might be happening on their side rather than what they have actually said, what evidence they have to support their position, and their explanation for why their position is contradicted by a large amount of evidence.

Yes, I have reviewed your case on CG and understand the narrative told from your side. But the puzzle will still be incomplete without narrative from BC's, of which become more crucial as we need the truest version that my contact can hopefully dig by inquiring inter-department and crosschecking everything, something that perhaps BC's live support can't provide, and thus give a wrong sets of puzzle that made us unable to get a complete picture.

Though I can understand your frustration from being hung with uncertainty, I hope you can have a bit more patience while my contact tried to get us the story from their side, this time with the correct side of puzzle from their side, so we can combine that with yours and we can see the real picture.

This situation underscores the importance of choosing online casinos with care. You have reviewed and acknowledged my narrative, which is supported by extensive evidence. You are right that we also need BC.Game’s version to complete the puzzle. They have already given theirs: a claim that I did not set loss limits on June 19, only on June 26.

I sense even you doubt that claim. Your reference to your contact seeking the “truest version” of events and the need for second reconsiderations suggests as much. Is it not concerning that BC.Game’s position is widely seen as untrue or, at best, a misunderstanding not supported by their own records?

Is it unreasonable to expect that when issues arise, casinos provide the honest and accurate version of events from all levels of the company rather than forcing players through disputes lasting more than two months? I will be patient, as you have asked, but this ordeal highlights why honesty and good faith should be non-negotiable when selecting an online casino. Or should some level of dishonesty and “shadiness” be expected from all online casinos, with the only real difference being that some are much less so than others?

[yahoo62278]

 Is it not concerning

What I find concerning is the amount if time it takes to get replies. You posted this accusation August 21st and holydarkness starting getting in contact on the same day. We are now a week into this accusation and really not much further than we were a week ago. Someone asks a question, then we gotta wait for someone to get online and answer, and then again another question comes, and more wait time. It's comical honestly in this day and age. Almost like messenger services and telephones and faster communication of any sort never got invented. This case will be solved by December 2027 at this rate.

Obviously I know we will have answers faster possibly, but it does irritate me the amount of time it takes. @holydarkness no offense to you as you're doing a service to the community by using your time free of charge to help out, BC doesn't ever seem to be in a rush. I also realize that if you push too hard for answers, they may cease contact at all.

Need to find a faster way to communicate. Get the 2 parties online in the same message service and get to the bottom of things in a day vs 2 weeks.

[holydarkness]

This situation underscores the importance of choosing online casinos with care. You have reviewed and acknowledged my narrative, which is supported by extensive evidence. You are right that we also need BC.Game’s version to complete the puzzle. They have already given theirs: a claim that I did not set loss limits on June 19, only on June 26.

I sense even you doubt that claim. Your reference to your contact seeking the “truest version” of events and the need for second reconsiderations suggests as much. Is it not concerning that BC.Game’s position is widely seen as untrue or, at best, a misunderstanding not supported by their own records?

Is it unreasonable to expect that when issues arise, casinos provide the honest and accurate version of events from all levels of the company rather than forcing players through disputes lasting more than two months? I will be patient, as you have asked, but this ordeal highlights why honesty and good faith should be non-negotiable when selecting an online casino. Or should some level of dishonesty and “shadiness” be expected from all online casinos, with the only real difference being that some are much less so than others?

I am chasing what actually happened on that situation, so does my contact. Hence their need to ask several departments at once, so they can get a better understanding why one said what and the other said another. This is what we seek and what I refer as "truest version", a complete story of what transpired from their side, merged with yours. And the point where the narrative met is safe to assume as the truest version.

What I find concerning is the amount if time it takes to get replies. You posted this accusation August 21st and holydarkness starting getting in contact on the same day. We are now a week into this accusation and really not much further than we were a week ago. Someone asks a question, then we gotta wait for someone to get online and answer, and then again another question comes, and more wait time. It's comical honestly in this day and age. Almost like messenger services and telephones and faster communication of any sort never got invented. This case will be solved by December 2027 at this rate.

Obviously I know we will have answers faster possibly, but it does irritate me the amount of time it takes. @holydarkness no offense to you as you're doing a service to the community by using your time free of charge to help out, BC doesn't ever seem to be in a rush. I also realize that if you push too hard for answers, they may cease contact at all.

Need to find a faster way to communicate. Get the 2 parties online in the same message service and get to the bottom of things in a day vs 2 weeks.

Not trying to defend them, but... as always, cases here treated as case-by-case basis. Each case is unique and has their own details and complexion. BC swiftly handle other case with a complex nature due to sensitive info being involved and the player refused to resolve it through their suggested media and prefer to use me as their proxy, and it's done in... days, that can be minutes, if the player didn't got restricted by newbie's daily PM limitation [case resolved in minutes after the player submit all the required documents].

This one might take longer because it involves so many departments [risk, compliance, and support are the three from the top of my head].

Nonetheless, I'll nudge them again in hope I can expedite their internal investigation.