Consider: if Stake does return any amount, you have just carved out a new niche for people to exploit. What a lovely precedent!
Is that a problem? If they make permanent bans/self-exclusions actually permanent, then there's nothing to exploit.
While it sounds like stake probably never should've unbanned the account -- if we're being realistic had stake not unbanned the account -- I am pretty the OP would've found a way to gamble either at stake on a new account, or at another casino.
Gambling addictions are no joke, I really hope the OP takes it seriously and gets the help he needs.
Agree, Stake controls whether they leave themselves open to exploitation or not.
While your 2nd point is reasonable i dont think it relieves Stake of their responsibility. Maybe they didnt want me gambling somewhere else ?
But ill use an analogy here...
Say you own a bar... and theres a drunk customer, and you keep serving him and serving him, he goes and has an accident of some kind... do you think the defense of "well if i didnt serve him, someone else would have" would hold up?