I would advise you to prepare a nice cup of coffee if you want to read
OP's thread on CG, as it's more... seven-course-meal-of-words-and-sentences. With his consecutive posts [that made the mediator gently informed him that it make things hard to understand], posts being made private, posts with links to screenshots, another consecutive posts, and here come the third meal.
I did my best after your advice and was prepared for the Casino Guru link but still found the episode elongated and tedious. At some point I had to give up in order to scroll towards the bottom of the page. The final few exchanges captured the important parts. The casino was willing to settle for what they thought was reasonable based on the third account but the OP wants the $10,000 to cover losses associated with the second account.
The root of this situation is simple: OP treated his first plea to "ban with no option to unban" as a self exclusion. The casino simply treated it as a request to lock his account. Casino applied self-exclusion from the closure of second account forward, thus, third account will get reimbursed. OP insist self-exclusion should be activated from the point of "ban with no option to unban", thus his second account should not be allowed by Roobet, and is eligible for refund too.
The casino cited human error for overlooking the second account not being excluded but will not make any payments related to it. Even though they should have excluded the second account, to which degree are they liable for losses? That is a very important question.
Hypothetically, if the OP had won $10,000 on the second account but when he tried to withdraw was blocked by the casino citing the error of not excluding the account and instead offered to reimburse the deposit and close the account. Would the OP accept it?
Or another scenario, if the OP got to the point where he was allowed to withdraw but after he withdrew he was retrospectively asked to have the funds returned (because he should never have been allowed to play in the first place), would the OP return the funds?
I could be wrong but it seems to me the OP took advantage of the fact the second account was not excluded and thought he could always (rightly) claim he was a problem gambler and try to get those funds back blaming the casino for not blocking the account.