Quote from: Kirito89 on September 18, 2023, 06:51:56 PM

Hello,

While I'm in no way associated with Rollbit (I work for a different casino, so basically a competitor), I'd like to give my 2 cents since this case seems very familiar to a lot of ones we're dealing/dealt with aswell.

Casinos nowadays have very strong multi-account detection systems, won't get into what they actually are for obvious reasons, but lets say when a casino is certain that you're using multiple accounts, they're pretty damn accurate

.

While I feel that OP's situation could've brought a satisfying resolution on his end, if he came clean and listed his accounts, it's also probably the case where in general players use multiple accounts to abuse the system, like double-spending, arbitrage betting ( gets limited on one account, jumps on another), bonus abuse, etc etc.

Now onto the Curacao regulator, while the general feedback of players like OP is to say "these Curacao regulators do nothing", the fact is that a case brought upon the license provider always gets dealt with, and a casino is free to offer all evidence against the player, thus why most players don't actually go forward with this.

There aren't too many cases in Curacao that had to be handled/solved in favour of the player by the licensor for the simple fact that 99% of the times when an user is not engaging in any dubious activities, casinos solve these situations with favorable outcomes for the players themselves and there's no need to push things further.

There's not much in this that isn't a lie. Arbitrage betting is betting both sides of the same event to make a risk free profit, not opening another account because of limiting. That's called gnoming. And this isn't the first time I've seen that same mistake here. If the sites don't even know the correct terminology, it's no wonder they're run like shit shows.

As for those 'facts' about the licensor, you have to show unbiased proof for it to be a fact, ie. an article from a neutral party. Otherwise it's just speculating. Anyone could do that. I could say 99% of all cases are unfavourable. But I'm not an idiot, so I wouldn't do that. I highly doubt your numbers though.