Quote from: AHOYBRAUSE on Today at 08:31:51 AM

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 08:25:38 AM

my point is not even the fact that the casino did not allow the OP to withdraw the money, Rollbit.com is a good casino and it seems to me honest and that they are here to do business for the long term and also the accuser's attitude is without a doubt that it is a suspicious attitude, because one of the most obvious things in this matter of money laundering is when a person takes 10,000$ for example and deposits 10,000$ on a site, but only plays with 1000$ and wins 800$ and then withdraws 10,800$ from any site will suspect that this person is doing money laundering, which is why I think Rollbit.com is right to ask for KYC. that's not why I was shocked

what scares me is asking for a video call when there are so many quick, reliable and less evasive methods of doing KYC, the casino can use the KYC method that skrill used, which consisted of the person handing in an ID and then the person had to scan it of face and the application compared the face of the ID that the person provided with the face of the scan, it was something that didn't even take 10 minutes for the KYC to be complete, finally I apologize immensely for addressing this in this thread, I just think the video call is exaggerated and also somewhat time consuming, if they have 100 people to do KYC at the casino and they have to video call, then it will take months for each customer to complete KYC and make withdrawals

He only tried to withdraw because they hit him with ridiculous betting limits after just one bet. In that case it's a little bit strange to still ask for a full rollover. Casinos that limit so fast are clearly in the false business in my eyes.
I mean limit somebody when he is on a heater ok, it makes sense business wise. But after 1 bet, thats crazy.

The video call thing is also quite a strange thing. I am sure even after the call, which they delay for whatever reason, he won't get his money so easy. Hopefully I am wrong.

I agree with you on this. It does seem like an overreaction to impose betting limits on him after a single bet, but it's important to keep in mind that we haven't heard the other side of the story. At the moment, we've only been presented with the player's perspective, which could potentially be biased or incomplete. It's possible that the decision to impose betting limits on the player wasn't solely Rollbit's, but rather a requirement from their sportsbook provider. Without knowing all the details of the situation, it's difficult to determine who exactly is responsible for restricting the player.

Nonetheless, it's still important to gather all the facts before jumping to conclusions. Let's just wait to see what Rollbit Razer has to say about this case.