To clarify my previous response, I want to emphasize that the primary reason for the continued deposits and gameplay was simply that I did not immediately notice the SRIJ email. After a long day of work, especially late at night, I tend to focus on relaxing and enjoying my time, which often includes playing or placing bets. During these times, I don't always pay close attention to every email I receive.
It was only after some time that I finally read the email from SRIJ. As soon as I did, I stopped playing immediately and contacted Housebets to address the situation.
I realize this doesn't excuse the continued deposits, but I hope it provides a clearer picture of the circumstances. My intention was not to disregard the regulations, but rather a simple oversight due to the timing and my state of mind
Now, if you'll allow me to ask the question again... How can Housebets claim they closed my account as soon as they became aware of my location... If I spoke with them on the 28th via chat... And even received the response to that investigation by email? How can they give that excuse?
Also, if your idea is that I placed bets knowing it was illegal to later use that as leverage to get my money back... Ask them for the betting history, and you'll see that the gameplay doesn't make any sense in that theory. Otherwise, I would have tried to 'go big or go home,' I'd say..
are their compliance obligations, obligations only sometimes? Is that a definition of obligation?
[Image snip]
"Housebets: 'We restricted your account due to compliance obligations.'
Also Housebets, one week earlier: 'Location? Never heard of it. Just deposit more.'"
Any new from housebets btw?
Regarding your question, I don't have the absolute answer in my hand as the staff I contacted didn't give me a precise answer. But inferred, as previously explained, they only became aware of your location when you reached them with the email from SRIJ, on 8th of March.
Again, as explained before, by 28th of February, you're dealing with live support who are very likely have a very limited knowledge, only the general things and not specific as the law in Portugal. You asked if you're good to play from Portugal, they check their ToS and see that Portugal is not under restricted jurisdiction, and they assume it is ok. The communication held in 28th of February were [I strongly believe] only circulated strictly to the support team.
It was not known to the legal or compliance team. Otherwise, the signature [and the sender address] of the email confirming that Portugal is allowed will come from and/or signed by "legal team" or "compliance team" instead of "support".
After you send them the email by 8th, was it is made known that you're accessing from a jurisdiction that have extra regulation. Thus, the knowledge of your residency and the situation regarding Portugal is only made known after you send the email from SRIJ, of which [like they said, and you confirmed] they immediately closed the account.
I've explained this before, at least twice, I believe. One made out of pure speculation and the other made with narrative from both side in my hand. Please don't ask me to repeat it again, as I won't.
Based from my experience attending many cases from many different casinos --again, like I've mentioned before-- that contrary to popular belief, casino does not scrutinize each and every of their player every second the players played or on the every second the casino staff have their eyes open until they close their eyes again.
Details about an account will only be scrutinized following something that attract attention, like suspicious bets, big wins, big withdrawal, or [in your particular case] sending an email from the government of the player's country. I think they probably also did random check to random accounts every now and then, but I am not sure about it.
Analogically, airport staffs does not scrutinize and pat and eyeing each and every people walking in the airport. It's only when an x-ray scan of their hand-carry shows a weapon, or the person triggered metal detector, or the dog sniff something, or they shouted forbidden words, or someone got an SSSS in their ticket that an extra attention begin to be given, body patted down, and strip search being conducted.
Now, you're in an airport. You asked one of the staff that you're from Portugal, will you be allowed to fly to Australia, and they'll say yes, because far as they know, there is no reason you're not allowed to. It's not in their guidebook, they've probably even see your ticket just to be sure and it doesn't have SSSS scribbled into it. So they write in a piece of letter, "yes, you're allowed to fly to Australia".
Dozen of steps later, you triggered a luggage scan as you carried a light-saber, or to be more in-tone with your situation above, you tell the gate staff that "oh, by the way, I don't have visa, but I've asked your colleague if I am allowed to fly to Australia and she said yes. Here, she has it in writing."
Understand the situation better now?
Hi @holydarkness,
Regarding my ongoing complaint against Housebets, I'm seeking an update. The last response I received from Housebets was on March 12, 2025, at 07:26:34 PM. Could you please confirm if that represents their final position on the matter?
As you know, they've consistently ignored my email inquiries. Given the lack of communication and the highly problematic nature of their actions – specifically, allowing gameplay from Portugal and then confiscating funds by closing my account 8 days later, citing the same location as the reason – I'm no longer willing to wait for resolution.
I'm prepared to escalate this complaint and will begin actively disseminating information about their unethical practices. I want to be certain that the last message I received is their final word, before I begin this new phase of my complaint.
By the way, I have a question that I'm going to exaggerate to better understand the explanation. Since you've been in contact with Housebets and have represented their opinion in some way, imagine it's possible to bet from Jupiter. If I send an email, similar to the one where I found out it's not legally possible to bet from Jupiter, do you think Housebets would immediately close players accounts that plays from Jupiter just because of my email? Or would they open an 'internal investigation' to analyze other evidence? This is to draw a parallel with what happened to me. I really don't understand why the internal analysis had one conclusion on the 28th february and another on the 8th march... since I contacted Housebets in the same way, and now they even block traffic from Portugal.
Isn't it obvious the bad faith of Housebets who, after their analysis on February 28th, failed to help? Don't you think the excuse that it might have been analyzed and answered by someone from support in the wrong way is too flimsy? Is it so hard for them to apologize and repair the failure they had? All the personal threats I received (and have evidence of), all the communication failures with me, all the wrong information they gave, from the fact that they closed my account the moment they discovered my location, to the wrong account balance(which I already showed was not even 0) all indicate that there is no accuracy in their responses... passing through the fact that Richard Hoggs said that I had multiple accounts (which was not true) and that I violated a rule... which did not even exist in the terms and conditions 2.1.1.
I don't intend to steal any more hours of your life with this matter, nor interrupt your coffee break, and what I wish most is that you can return to Netflix. Therefore, I only ask that you confirm whether they intend to maintain this stance of not negotiating or resolving the issue, or not. Because, like everyone who reads this, I have one less day in my life today than I had yesterday, and I see this recurring delay in resolution as something that only benefits them, and not me.
Thank you for your assistance.
Nope. That is not their last stance.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that their final "position" was that they have nothing further to say to you and that there is no fund available left in the account as you've spend it on your gambling sessions.
The last "proposal" and explanationthey gave was that the account was indeed at 0 balance. However you're credited with 28 USD [if I remember the number correctly, from the top of my head] as a bonus, of which they're entitled to void them. Their "final position" was to not voiding that fund and let it withdrawable.
In regards to Jupiter analogy, doesn't your question [well, paragraph] answers itself? You said that they blocked traffic from Portugal, so I think you've already got your answer? I still can't see Portugal as part of their restricted jurisdiction, but I'll be sure to ask them to add Portugal into the ToS, so other Portuguese won't trip into the same situation in the future.
Unless they're blocking traffic but didn't add Portugal because they're currently submitting license to SRIJ. Nonetheless I'll see to it that I address the Portugal Jurisdiction to the person I am in contact with.
In regards to you being "
prepared to escalate this complaint and will begin actively disseminating information about their unethical practices," it's all your call. The information being disseminated affect literally zero aspect of my life, I literally couldn't care less. I am here only to see the case get to its end. If
that is the end of this case, then... *shrug*
I believe I bear a burden of duty, though, as someone who oversee this case to mention that the situation also made possible to happen because you're failed to know your own country's rule and/or failed to mention it to the support team [analogically, not mentioning that you don't have visa to travel to Australia] that you have prior knowledge that Portugal has extra rules for casino. That is the reason you asked support in the first place, if I remember correctly? Because you have mixed information about gambling regulation in Portugal?
Suppose this was being mentioned during the communication session on 28th, perhaps alongside with a request for support to raise it to legal and compliance to double check, this situation might be evitable altogether, OR, if the support wrote [or perhaps the email come from the legal team themselves] that legal team said it's ok, then I'll lean more toward your side and tend to believe that the casino is acting on bad faith.
The current narrative, though, lead me --from neutral position-- to lean on a thought that the casino is acting in accordance to their ToS, that you agreed, and that you simply being a bit uncoordinated. Why uncoordinated? You have two chances to avoid this predicament. One when you reach support with a bit unspecific question, and the second when you also emailed SRIJ as you're not sure. Suppose you waited one more week and read SRIJ's reply before you started playing, this situation can also be avoided.
So, a bit uncoordinated [for the lack of better term]. Not saying you're the wrong one here, nor them. Just a bit uncoordinated.
In regards to Richard Hoggs, yes, I am in agreement with you. I've came to that conclusion when I first read your narrative, and I'll made my opinion known to public now: that reaction is three steps across harsh and inappropriate to come from a casino staff, regardless of his position. But that's me and my very own opinion. It doesn't shape the reality or dictate what the forum perceive.