Us being as transparent as we can up until to the point where it could be detrimental to our services might differ from their definition, but it does not mean we have not been cooperative or transparent.
So, your team expects everyone to praise the rules of your casino, even if they are not friendly or transparent to the gambling community? There is lack of transparency in your marketing policy, the terms aren't really friendly for the users, and now you have failed to provide the evidences to the mediator. I just
noticed it today.
I had considered OP as guilty here by following that he was limited by the same odds provider at another sportsbook. But now I can see that Betpanda services are different than reputable, transparent and trusted betting platform.
This coming from a long-standing and reputable user like you gives me some comfort.
As I’ve repeatedly said in multiple discussions, I
was only limited on BC.Game to a maximum of 200-300 EUR per bet —and I
was never blocked, never accused of fraud, or anything similar. In fact, BC.Game explicitly told me that stake limits are standard practice and not directly decided by them. They even gave me casino bonuses to retain me as a customer—which says a lot about how they viewed me after wagering hundreds of thousands of euros.
If I were a bad customer, would they have done that?
I’ve used many bookmakers and have been betting online for about
10 years. I come from
regulated Italian sites, and I’ve never had a single issue.
Currently, I have
moved to bookmakers that do not use Betby odds, precisely because Betpanda blamed Betby for everything.