Tema general sobre 1xBet Casino (página 9)

Radka

Luckylarry61

Social Media & Community Specialist

Luckylarry61

hace 5 meses

Original

Traducción

Well, I believe the whole conversation can now be reduced to a very simple sentence:

We have not dismissed you; instead, we offer the option to report this situation to the regulator if you find our position unacceptable. There is no way we can intervene, and this situation demonstrates the importance of previously checking the casino you aim to deposit in.

Weak or missing licenses mean you have no one to turn to officially or a complete lack of interest from the authority.

You can't change the past, but you can and I hope you will consider stopping playing in casinos completely, or at least play in casinos holding your national license.

Use this situation to learn how things actually work in the world of online casinos, please.

Luckylarry61

Oro

Canadá

hace 5 meses

Original

Traducción

I understand that Casino.Guru cannot intervene beyond a certain point, but I think it’s important to clarify that this situation is not simply a matter of me failing to check a license or misunderstanding how the online gambling industry works.

I repeatedly requested self-exclusion from 1xBet due to a gambling problem, and those requests were ignored. The operator continued to accept tens of thousands of dollars in deposits after being notified, and at no point did they act on those requests — which is a fundamental breach of their obligations and of basic responsible gambling standards.

This is not about a single poor choice or a lack of awareness on my part. It’s about an operator knowingly disregarding exclusion requests, profiting from that inaction, and a licensing system that has failed to enforce its own standards.

What I do not understand is why Casino.Guru appears more willing to remind players of their mistakes than to hold operators accountable for theirs. When a company openly ignores responsible gambling protocols and keeps deposits it should never have accepted, why is the emphasis placed on what the player should have done differently instead of questioning the operator’s conduct? At times, it feels as though these companies are being protected rather than challenged.

I appreciate that your platform has limitations, but I think cases like this highlight a deeper problem: the current regulatory framework allows operators to ignore consumer protections without meaningful consequence. That is what needs to change.

Editado

Radka

Luckylarry61

Social Media & Community Specialist

Luckylarry61

hace 5 meses

Original

Traducción

Buen día para ti.

Todo en su caso se basa en lo que se pueda probar. Las declaraciones escritas se pueden verificar. Las llamadas telefónicas no, a menos que haya un registro disponible. Así que, aunque lo que describe podría ser cierto, y creo que lo es, simplemente no hay forma de confirmarlo externamente. Por eso no podría considerarse una prueba contundente si lo analizamos desde la perspectiva de la denuncia.

No se trata de negar tu experiencia, ni mucho menos de defender al casino. Es simplemente cómo funcionan las cosas en la práctica. Los casinos en línea reciben miles de mensajes a diario, y no toda mención de "daño" equivale automáticamente a una adicción al juego confirmada o a una exclusión válida. La responsabilidad reside en que el mensaje sea tan inequívoco que no deje lugar a interpretaciones.

Por eso también seguimos haciendo hincapié en la prevención y la comunicación directa y explícita. Porque, al final, si algo no se puede probar, no se puede hacer cumplir, y esa es la dura realidad de lidiar con estos casos.

Llegados a este punto, creo que ya puedes ver por ti mismo cómo funciona la teoría en la práctica. Porque si las cosas realmente funcionaran como supones, no estaríamos teniendo esta conversación.

Y ese es precisamente el punto clave de todo esto. Si hay algo positivo que sacar, es saber cómo abordar una solicitud de autoexclusión de la forma más segura y clara posible para que la misma situación no se repita.

Como puedes ver, cuando las cosas no se dicen con suficiente claridad, no sólo es difícil para un casino actuar, sino que también es imposible para cualquier otra persona convencerlos después de que deberían haber hecho las cosas de otra manera.

Confiar en la lógica y las buenas intenciones suena genial en teoría, pero como demuestra tu caso, también podrías reaccionar de forma diferente en la práctica. Creo que hacer suposiciones es el mayor malentendido en cuanto a la ludopatía o el juego problemático.

Good day to you.

Everything in your case stands on what can be proven. Written statements can be verified. Phone calls can’t, unless there’s a record available. So while what you describe might be true, and I believe it is, there’s simply no way to confirm it from the outside. That’s why it couldn’t be treated as clear evidence if we are about to take it from the complaint's perspective.

It’s not about denying your experience, and it’s definitely not about defending the casino. It’s just how things work in practice. Online casinos handle thousands of messages every day, and not every mention of "harm" automatically equals a confirmed gambling addiction or a valid exclusion. The responsibility lies in making the message so unambiguous that it leaves no room for interpretation.

That’s also why we keep emphasizing prevention and direct, explicit communication. Because in the end, if something can’t be proven, it can’t be enforced, and that’s the hard reality of dealing with these cases.

At this point, I think you can now see for yourself how the theory works in practice. Because if things really worked the way you assume, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.

And that’s precisely the point worth taking from all this. If there’s anything positive to take away, it’s knowing how to approach a self-exclusion request in the safest and clearest way possible so the same situation doesn’t happen again.

As you can see, once things aren’t said clearly enough, it’s not just hard for a casino to act, but it’s also impossible for anyone else to convince them afterward that they should have done things differently.

Relying on logic and good intentions sounds great in theory, but as your case shows, you may also react differently in practice. I believe that making assumptions is the most significant misunderstanding regarding responsible or problem gambling issues.

Luckylarry61

Radka

Oro

Canadá

Radka

hace 5 meses

Original

Traducción

Thank you for your message. I understand the point you’re making about evidence and verification, but I want to be very clear, there should have been no misunderstanding about my intentions. I was as clear as it comes.

On multiple occasions I explicitly stated in writing that gambling was causing significant financial losses and was negatively impacting my wellbeing. I also followed up by phone and told their team directly that I had a gambling problem and wanted my account closed. Those are not vague statements. They are clear indicators of harm and clear requests for intervention.

The entire purpose of responsible gambling safeguards is to protect people in moments like that. When they are reaching out and asking for help, even if they are not using legal terminology or clinical phrasing. Suggesting that what I said left "room for interpretation" is, frankly, a failure to acknowledge how clear those statements were.

If operators require players in distress to self-diagnose with specific words before they act, then those safeguards lose their meaning. There was no ambiguity here. My words, my actions, and my repeated attempts to stop were more than enough to warrant immediate account closure and protection.

Radka

Luckylarry61

Social Media & Community Specialist

Luckylarry61

hace 5 meses

Original

Traducción

Thank you for sharing your thoughts again. I do respect the way you see things, and for that reason, I won’t be responding further. I don’t want your message to get lost among long replies, and I believe it deserves to stand on its own.

Editado

Luckylarry61

Oro

Canadá

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Without prejudice

I wanted to share my experience with 1xBet to help others understand what happens when you try to hold them accountable.

I submitted a responsible gambling complaint after 1xBet accepted deposits following my self-exclusion request on May 23rd. Over the last five months, I have repeatedly asked them to provide the contact details of their appointed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provider, as required under their own Terms and Conditions.

Instead of referring my case to ADR, 1xBet has spent months debating whether they acted responsibly. Their PR team replied several times, saying the matter was "sent to higher authorities," but they have never provided any verifiable ADR contact. Under their own rules, unresolved responsible gambling complaints must be referred to ADR — not handled internally or ignored.

This is a clear failure of process. It should not take half a year of back-and-forth to access the dispute resolution process that players are entitled to. I remain open to resolving this privately if 1xBet returns the deposits accepted after my exclusion, but their continued refusal to provide ADR access is deeply concerning for player safety and accountability.

If anyone has ever successfully received an ADR contact or resolution from 1xBet, I’d be very interested to hear your experience.

Luckylarry61

Oro

Canadá

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Hola equipo de Casino.Guru,

Solicito que se reabra mi queja anterior contra 1xBet con base en nuevas pruebas decisivas que contradicen directamente las afirmaciones anteriores de 1xBet y confirman una clara infracción de las normas de juego responsable.

En TrustPilot, 1xBet me respondió públicamente y admitió el problema principal:

"Perdiste una enorme cantidad de dinero porque no te bloquearon en tu primera solicitud."

Esta frase por sí sola establece tres hechos importantes:

1xBet confirma que solicité el bloqueo.

1xBet reconoce que no me bloquearon después de esa solicitud.

1xBet reconoce que este fallo provocó las pérdidas en disputa.

Esta es la definición exacta de una infracción relacionada con el juego responsable.

En la misma respuesta, también intentaron justificar su error diciendo que yo no envié ciertos documentos. Esto no es correcto por dos razones:

En el momento de mi solicitud, 1xBet no me pidió ningún documento y tramitó mi eventual cierre sin documentos.

La autoexclusión no requiere la presentación de documentos de verificación. Si se necesitaran documentos, el operador tiene la obligación de solicitarlos de inmediato, no meses después de que surja una disputa.

Además, 1xBet lleva cinco meses negándose a darme acceso a su organismo de resolución alternativa de litigios (RAL), a pesar de afirmar en sus términos y condiciones que dicho organismo está disponible. Me han redirigido repetidamente al mismo correo electrónico, que me ignora desde mayo.

Esta nueva respuesta de TrustPilot es crucial porque demuestra:

• Admiten que solicité el bloqueo

• Admiten que no lograron bloquearme.

• Admiten que las pérdidas fueron consecuencia de su fracaso.

• Siguen negando el acceso a la resolución alternativa de disputas (ADR).

• Declararon indebidamente "cerrada" la disputa por su cuenta.

Este es precisamente el tipo de nueva evidencia que justifica la reapertura de la denuncia.

Adjunto su respuesta pública en TrustPilot para su verificación y transparencia.

Ante esta nueva admisión y la denegación del acceso a la resolución alternativa de disputas (ADR), solicito respetuosamente a Casino.Guru que reabra mi queja para que pueda ser reevaluada a la luz de este reconocimiento directo de la irregularidad.

Gracias por su tiempo y ayuda. Agradezco cualquier colaboración que pueda ofrecerme para resolver este asunto de manera justa.

file

Hello Casino.Guru Team,

I am requesting that my previous complaint against 1xBet be reopened based on new, decisive evidence that directly contradicts 1xBet’s earlier claims and confirms a clear responsible gambling breach.

On TrustPilot, 1xBet publicly responded to me and admitted the core issue:

"You lost a huge amount of money because you weren’t blocked at your first request."

This sentence alone establishes three important facts:

1xBet acknowledges I requested blocking.

1xBet acknowledges they did not block me after that request.

1xBet acknowledges this failure resulted in the losses under dispute.

This is the exact definition of a responsible gambling violation.

In the same reply, they also attempted to justify their failure by saying I did not send certain documents. This is not correct for two reasons:

At the time of my request, 1xBet did not ask for any documents and processed my eventual closure without documents.

Self-exclusion does not require verification documents to be submitted. If documents were needed, the operator has a duty to request them immediately, not months later after a dispute is raised.

Additionally, 1xBet has spent five months refusing to provide access to their appointed ADR body, despite claiming in their terms that ADR is available. They have repeatedly redirected me to the same inbox that has ignored me since May.

This new TrustPilot response is crucial because it shows:

• They admit I requested blocking

• They admit they failed to block me

• They admit the losses resulted from their failure

• They still deny ADR access

• They improperly declared the dispute "closed" on their own

This is exactly the kind of new evidence that warrants reopening the complaint.

I am attaching their public TrustPilot response for verification and transparency.

Given this new admission and the denial of ADR access, I respectfully request that Casino.Guru reopen my complaint so it can be reassessed in light of this direct acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I appreciate any help you can offer in resolving this matter fairly

file

Radka

Luckylarry61

Social Media & Community Specialist

Luckylarry61

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Hello Harry,

your complaint can't be reopened on the forum. Please visit your complaint, and if you have a "reopen" button available, feel free to proceed further.

Hope it works.

Luckylarry61

Oro

Canadá

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

I don’t have that option right now. Who can I contact for this?

I would like to request reopening my complaint. 1xBet has now posted a public Trustpilot response admitting that I "lost a huge amount of money because you weren’t blocked at your first request." This is a direct admission that they received my self-exclusion request and failed to act on it. They continued to allow deposits for over a month afterward.

They also stated that I needed to submit documents to be blocked. This is not supported by any responsible gambling framework. Document verification is not required for self-exclusion or immediate account blocking when a player declares harm. Their response confirms a failure to protect a player who specifically requested exclusion due to gambling problems.

They further refused ADR access again, telling me "no other contact information will be provided" and then stated that my request "will no longer be reviewed," despite the dispute remaining unresolved. Operators are required to provide ADR details when a complaint reaches deadlock.

Their public statements now show clear and documented breaches of responsible gambling obligations and the dispute procedure. I am asking that the complaint be reopened based on this new evidence.

Thank you.

Radka

Luckylarry61

Social Media & Community Specialist

Luckylarry61

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Hello.

If that option is no longer available to you, it means the complaint has already been reopened in the past and therefore cannot be reopened again.

Your complaint also includes the name and very likely the email address of your former mediator, so if you feel like contacting someone, please check the complaint details.

It is normal that a player needs to be fully verified to proceed with a self-exclusion due to gambling addiction. Such verification helps casinos identify any newly created accounts more effectively, which is why I and my colleagues see this as a standard and logical measure.

As I mentioned before, we prefer a fair and logical approach rather than relying purely on regulations, and casinos are not required to have ADR.

I understand your frustration and that the Trustpilot response may have given you some hope, but the matter has already been fully addressed. I don’t expect my colleagues to reopen the case again just because someone replied to your review.

I can’t promise you any response; please keep that in mind.

Luckylarry61

Oro

Canadá

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Hello,

Thank you for your response. I want to clarify one point immediately. I did have the option to report the issue again, and I trust that the complaint system will reflect that accurately. If the option appears on my end, I believe it is because the platform recognizes that new material evidence exists.

I also want to reiterate that I was fully verified long before I requested self-exclusion. My account had no pending KYC requirements and verification had already been completed. The suggestion that additional verification was required in order to block my account does not reflect the actual status of the account at that time.

Self-exclusion is not dependent on verification. The account must be restricted immediately when a player declares gambling harm, whether they are verified or not. In my case, the account was fully verified and unrestricted, so the explanation given does not apply.

Regarding ADR, the operator publicly represented ADR as part of their dispute process, and then refused to provide their ADR contact details. This is why I asked for a review. The public Trustpilot statement is also not a minor detail. The operator acknowledged that I "lost a huge amount of money because you weren’t blocked at your first request," which is a clear admission that the exclusion was not applied properly.

I understand you cannot guarantee a reopening, but new evidence should be evaluated on its substance. I am simply asking for the facts to be reviewed accurately.

Thank you for your time.

classicben1

Bronce

Nigeria

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Issue with 1xbet Security department:

My 1xbet account ID: 290563303

I was using my account normally until I requested withdrawal then I was requested to submit documents for verification ( standard procedure by them) which I gave them everything, at the end of the day my account got blocked with a balance of $3848

After submitting so many documents,calls and post letters my account was reopened with a remaining balance of $1499 stating they have cancelled all winnings to refund the remaining balance.

file

When I tried to withdraw the remaining money $1499 since the verification was completed, I was logged out of the account.

Till today I don't have access to withdraw my money.

They are not replying me either.

Attached are my account balance before verification and after verification

And their last email correspondence.

file

Please I need your help

Romi

classicben1

Community & Complaints Administrator

classicben1

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Unfortunately, I can see from your complaint that we are unable to help anyone in such a situation, and we always aim for fair play, so if a player is not doing so, we aren't even willing to help, you know.

Radka

Social Media & Community Specialist

Luckylarry61

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Hello,

Thank you for your response. I want to clarify one point immediately. I did have the option to report the issue again, and I trust that the complaint system will reflect that accurately. If the option appears on my end, I believe it is because the platform recognizes that new material evidence exists.

I also want to reiterate that I was fully verified long before I requested self-exclusion. My account had no pending KYC requirements and verification had already been completed. The suggestion that additional verification was required in order to block my account does not reflect the actual status of the account at that time.

Self-exclusion is not dependent on verification. The account must be restricted immediately when a player declares gambling harm, whether they are verified or not. In my case, the account was fully verified and unrestricted, so the explanation given does not apply.

Regarding ADR, the operator publicly represented ADR as part of their dispute process, and then refused to provide their ADR contact details. This is why I asked for a review. The public Trustpilot statement is also not a minor detail. The operator acknowledged that I "lost a huge amount of money because you weren’t blocked at your first request," which is a clear admission that the exclusion was not applied properly.

I understand you cannot guarantee a reopening, but new evidence should be evaluated on its substance. I am simply asking for the facts to be reviewed accurately.

Thank you for your time.

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Hello,

In this case, I again fear that it has little to do with us. Well, If the casino is not willing to share ADR details, it is their decision. It has been a very long talk about the situation with the casino, and if I am to be honest with you, and please do not take this personally, if you have kept sending them similar topics or concerns, I understand that they stop responding, because for them the matter is closed. Well, for us, it's closed too unless your formal complaint handler says otherwise.

I literally have nothing else to add here. Thank you.

Luckylarry61

Oro

Canadá

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Hola,

Gracias por su respuesta. Necesito aclarar varios puntos, ya que su mensaje contiene suposiciones que no se ajustan a la realidad de lo sucedido.

Sugeriste que el casino podría haber dejado de responder porque seguí enviando quejas similares. Esto no es correcto. La razón principal por la que 1xBet no ha respondido es simple: dejaron de contestar todos los correos de soporte en julio. Envié mensajes claros y concisos sobre cada problema, pero fueron ignorados. Cuando un jugador denuncia un daño, solicita la exclusión y luego es ignorado durante cuatro meses, eso no es resolver el problema. Eso es el operador eludiendo su responsabilidad.

También escribiste que si el casino no quiere compartir los detalles del ADR, es su decisión. Esto es incorrecto. 1xBet afirma públicamente que el ADR forma parte de su proceso de resolución de disputas. Lo reiteran en sus respuestas en Trustpilot. Si un casino declara públicamente que existe el ADR, pero se niega a proporcionar detalles de forma privada, eso no es una decisión, sino una contradicción con su propia política.

Usted indicó que este asunto está cerrado a menos que el responsable de la gestión formal de reclamaciones decida lo contrario. Aún espero esa aclaración. Este caso involucra una solicitud de cierre por juego responsable, depósitos aceptados después de dicha solicitud, meses de silencio por parte del operador, negativa a proporcionar un mecanismo alternativo de resolución de disputas (ADR) y contradicciones documentadas. Una disputa no se cierra simplemente porque el operador deje de responder.

Su mensaje sugiere que mis seguimientos son repetitivos, pero cada uno de ellos fue consecuencia directa de la continua falta de respuesta de 1xBet. El silencio de un operador no puede considerarse una solución.

Solicito una respuesta clara. Si el responsable de reclamaciones formales de Casino Guru considera este caso oficialmente cerrado, por favor, confírmelo de forma directa e inequívoca. Necesito una declaración clara, no una insinuación.

Hello,

Thank you for your response. I need to address several points because your message contains assumptions that do not match the reality of what has happened.

You suggested that the casino may have stopped responding because I kept sending similar concerns. This is not correct. The core reason 1xBet has not replied is simple. They stopped answering all support emails in July. I sent clear, single issue messages that were ignored. When a player discloses harm, requests exclusion, and is then ignored for four months, that is not closure. That is the operator avoiding responsibility.

You also wrote that if the casino does not want to share ADR details, it is their decision. This is inaccurate. 1xBet publicly claims that ADR is part of their dispute process. They repeat it in their Trustpilot responses. If a casino publicly states that ADR exists but refuses to provide details privately, that is not a decision. That is a contradiction of their own policy.

You stated this matter is closed unless the formal complaint handler decides otherwise. I am still waiting for that clarity. This case involves a responsible gambling closure request, deposits accepted after that request, months of operator silence, refusal to provide ADR, and documented contradictions. A dispute does not become closed simply because the operator stops answering.

Your message suggests my follow ups are repetitive, but every follow up was a direct result of ongoing non engagement from 1xBet. Silence from an operator cannot be treated as resolution.

I am asking for a clear answer. If the formal complaint handler at Casino Guru considers this case officially closed, please confirm that directly and unambiguously. I need a clear statement, not implication.

Radka

Luckylarry61

Social Media & Community Specialist

Luckylarry61

hace 4 meses

Original

Traducción

Hello, I've repeatedly said I won't provide statements. I explained the options regarding the complaint, and now there is nothing else I can do aside from chat with you here on the forum.

I respect your opinion, but I won't respond further. I truly and honestly explained everything to you, and I understand that since I'm the only one replying, it may feel like I can provide you with whatever you want. I can't.

frank030395

Bronce

Filipinas

hace 3 meses

Original

Traducción

Hello Casino Guru, could you please check on my complaint regarding this casino, as it is still awaiting review? Thank you.

Jaro

frank030395

Forum and Reviews Administrator

frank030395

hace 3 meses

Original

Traducción

Hey, don't worry, sometimes it can take a little longer on weekends, but your complaint will always be answered if it is rejected or accepted.

There is no reason to fear. 🙂

fbautech

Plata

Argentina

hace 3 meses

Original

Traducción

file Como están? Que les parece esto en 1xbet, hace un mes desaparecieron mi deposito, mi banco confirmo la transferencia y este casino no me da una respuesta todos los días les escribo y es en vano, solo recibo respuestas automaticas pre grabadas, una burla y robo total, a alguien mas le paso con este casino? recibieron solucion?

Jaro

Forum and Reviews Administrator

fbautech

hace 3 meses

Original

Traducción

file Como están? Que les parece esto en 1xbet, hace un mes desaparecieron mi deposito, mi banco confirmo la transferencia y este casino no me da una respuesta todos los días les escribo y es en vano, solo recibo respuestas automaticas pre grabadas, una burla y robo total, a alguien mas le paso con este casino? recibieron solucion?

hace 3 meses

Original

Traducción

Hey, a month has passed and you still haven't received any of the money you deposited there, right? When you wrote to the casino, what did they say? I think that's a long time to take to resolve such a problem.

Tema general sobre 1xBet Casino (página 9)

Añadir mensaje