Oh, I believe you understand things wrong, I don't have any issue or have the slightest mind of you agreeing with the casino on jurisdiction or not, that's why I didn't comment on it, I don't see any relevancy of it on our [yet another] out of topic discussion. Wait... that's not entirely correct, I actually initially [internally] applaud you for being able to see [or at least start to see] cases from neutral ground, hoping that you'll finally try to mediate things from neutral perspective by asking OP facts... Then you went back to your default setting.

If it's not clear enough, the problem, as always, arise when you [or someone else, whoever they are, really, so save the "attack the post, not the person" speech] pollute the thread with opinion that rather negative and FUD-inducing. We're, the overseer, here stands on neutral ground, trying to solve cases on facts and all, reviewing evidence with sole aim to get things resolved and find who is guilty and who is the victim, each cases have different angle and should be treated differently, as each cases always has their own characteristics.

When someone out of the blue said they should stay away from a casino [any casino] for something that's out of the casino's control [the provider's request of investigation], how does that help with solving the case? Treat that as a serious question instead of rhetorical, tell me, if your aim is to help solve cases, how does such statement help? If a casino is dirty, their cummulative record will speak for their reputation. But until then, the sole aim should be to get to the bottom of a case.

It brought us to our discussion, first, that's not my screenshot, that's a screenshot of my gallery, showing that I indeed have a screenshot of a conversation with the reps explaining to me what contradict your statement, I'll provide that in full when you can give yours. But... that's your proof? Your 100% certainty? A blog about how to start an online casino? I have a proof of conversation with a staff that's investigating a case, who dive to the bottom of the case and made that statement from the SOP of their platform and what they gathered when investigating the case, who  have enough knowledge and power to maneuver and interact inter-departmentally, literally talking with game providers, and get things done, and your rebuttal, your 100% proof is an article on a blog?

Suppose that paragraph is not clear enough, no, that's not "some CS reps". I believe anyone who knows me [which I actually tend to think you're one of them] and my record on this board understand that the representatives I am in touch with, who are rather "close" that they can share such details of a case with me, are the ones who on the "upper floor", who knows rather lots of how things works on their casino.

Even if they're a "some CS reps" how exactly a blog guide to start an online casino trumped a "low-level" staff who trained to know some protocol? So how about me saying this to you instead of you saying it to me, "please let it go or show your proof"?

In case you wondered, hoping I'm not sounding repetitive but rather trying to be very clear, no, none of my questions above is rhetorical, I hope you answered each and every single one of them, give your proof to back up your statement, alongside with that casino doesn't have financial obligation to providers, and that when a decision to investigate a bet happens, the fund being withheld are on the sole decision and control of the casino instead of being influenced by any degree of the provider, or... drop it, let it go, and start learning to mediate cases on this board without prejudice and/or unnecessary comments that is not constructive.

The other alternative will be to leave this board altogether if you can't ensure yourself that you'll see each cases non-myopically.

---

OP, you missed my question about the capability of accessing your account and retrieving your login log for us, I'll appreciate if you can revisit post number #16 and help us understand better.