The first sentence itself entitles you to lose your benefit of doubts. You lied there, how do we know you didn't lie on other narrative?

Nonetheless, moving on to the next point: self-exclusion and ban. Help me understand this, you have six accounts on two casinos, that we know of, and probably other accounts on other casinos too, you're saying you don't know the proper way to self-exclude in spite of the extensive amount of accounts you have?

Now, moving to a more serious topic, to answer your question, that's also already explained by CG's rep, no, at times, ban request, especially the ones worded like shown in your email, doesn't work like self-exclusion, especially when combined with your lies to their problematic gambling assessment questions.

When the stakes are high and the lost are significant, casinos understand that player can --at times-- enraged by the site and asked to be banned, to be severed from it, or... to make it more dramatic and on-point, "throw my account to the fire and burn it with hellfire! I don't need this cheating robbing leeching casinos bleed me to death! You just lose your most precious gambler because you cheated me and make me lose six times in a row! Bye! You can permanently lock my account, ban them for good! I don't care! Don't cry and beg me to return!"

And later on, after several days, the player calmed down and wanted to play again. He wrote that he needed his account back. And I guess that's when and where the problematic gambler assessment questions kicked in. This is why they need gamblers to go with self-exclusion procedure [as well as placing cool-down period as a buffer] instead of writing "I want to be banned". To know whether that last communication is a cry for help or a simple venting out their anger.

Simplified, at times and depending on the circumstances and the wordings, ban request does not equate to self-exclusion. Yours, unfortunately, did not indicate a request of self-exclusion, nor problematic gambling, that was strengthened with you passing the assessment with flying color. As a result, they did not mark you as a gambling addict, by your own doing. And all of the fund being in this account, logically, are not payable to you.

By your own assessment result, you're a healthy gambler who gamble for fun and had no difficulties. All of the loses are a risk you accepted as part of the fun game.

Their forced exclusion only kicked in on your second account when you send your distress signal and call-for-help. This results in marking you as a problematic gambler and any future account should be prevented from being created. And granted, they slipped on this by allowing you to have your third account. Of which made them decide to refund you with what's on the third account.

Could you help me understand where is the scam?