I am really sorry you feel this way and also that you experienced this kind of situation described in your complaint.

We surely do not side with any gambling sites, as you said in your post, if there is no evidence that the casino is right. Only when such cases are proved would we side with the casino, to call it as you wish.

As was stated in this complaint of yours, unfortunately our team couldn't do anything more because you failed to mention your gambling problem to the casino at the right time.

"The complaints team concluded that the casino acted correctly by closing the account promptly after the player clearly stated their gambling addiction on September 17, 2024, and highlighted that the self-exclusion option had been offered earlier. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the player's failure to communicate their addiction before that date."

It is always important to clearly mention the reason for closing the account at any online casino so the support can act accordingly.

Only that way our complaint team can assist you or any player in the similar situation, and I am sorry that we couldn't be of much help this time.

I hope you will avoid such situations in the future, and please know that as part of our Global Self-Exclusion Initiative, we've partnered with BetBlocker, a UK-registered charity providing a free service to support people worldwide. You can find more information about our initiative here (https://casino.guru/global-self-exclusion-initiative) and about BetBlocker here (https://betblocker.org/).

BetBlocker, which supports seven languages, is quick and easy to install on multiple devices, taking just 2 minutes. Once installed, it blocks access to over 84,230 gambling websites and runs quietly in the background. The service can be used anonymously and helps individuals manage their access to gambling safely and appropriately, whether that means complete restriction or limiting access during vulnerable periods. 

Additionally, BetBlocker includes a list of 824 gambling information sites. These sites primarily inform users about and advertise gambling services. You can choose to include these sites in your restriction by ticking a box. However, if you have an ongoing complaint against a gambling operator, do not check this box, as it will prevent you from accessing the Casino.Guru website as well.

Roobet is a dangerous site for the gambling community and should be penalized by licensing authorities.

I just want a direct answer because my complaint exposed the truth: you are a community that sides with the casino, even with proof. When a player goes to a gambling site's support team, asking to be excluded from the casino games section, and they refuse; when I ask them to set low deposit limits, and they say it’s not available; when I request low betting limits, and they decline with "sorry"; and when I request small bets in games, and they refuse again.

I just want a clear answer: does this site protect against addiction? You should directly blame the site because it’s dangerous for players. I asked for responsible gaming support, but the site does not provide protection.

This site does not respect the laws of the licensed authority GCB and has destroyed my life, leaving me homeless. On April 27, 2024, I asked for help from the responsible gaming department, and they told me it was not available. I requested to restrict my account and to implement deposit, betting, and loss limits, as well as exclusion, but they said it was not available. My life is over.

GCB Article 8  Player registration

 1.      A player must register for a player account and must log into the account before playing remote games of chance for money or money’s worth.

2.      In case the licensee uses payment intermediaries for player transactions, the intermediaries must be registered, verified and all transactions must be recorded in an identifiable account. The GCB may ask for full disclosure of  the agreement between the licensee and its intermediaries. 

3.      Players must be given the opportunity for self-exclusion for a minimum of six months and to indicate the limits of their gambling behavior in terms of:

a.      the maximum amount of time per day, week or month a player can be allowed access to the player interface;

b.      the maximum daily, weekly or monthly amounts of money to be deposited into the player account; and

c.      the maximum daily, weekly or monthly amounts of money to spend through the player account.

Licensees must allow players to be able to set gross or net maximum amounts and must indicate how  bonuses and free bets will be treated in calculating that sum.

Hello.

"Roobet is a dangerous site for the gambling community and should be penalized by licensing authorities."

There is not much more to say because we are not an official licensing authority, despite our tremendous efforts to keep the industry safer and more equitable for everyone.

The next point:

"I just want a clear answer: does this site protect against addiction? You should directly blame the site because it’s dangerous for players. I asked for responsible gaming support, but the site does not provide protection."

Permit me to ask a question that directly addresses your point and clarifies why it is unrelated to the nature of the complaint:

When you asked the casino to close your account, did you explicitly state that you were a problem gambler, or did you ask for more bonuses instead?

It is your responsibility to explain exactly why you want your account closed, as many Casino Guru members have already explained to you. If you are unable to do so and instead request bonuses, it is, from my personal perspective, a very dangerous act.

This is the main factor and the reason your complaint was rejected as unjustified. I regret that you have disregarded all of our attempts to educate you about the dangers of adopting this mindset.

Please consider this a closed topic. We will remove any further accusations or misunderstandings of our attempts to help you realize your error.

Take good care of yourself, please.

Madam, you have not provided me with any answer to my question regarding the resolution of my complaint. It is a very simple question.

I just want a clear answer: does this site protect against addiction ? You should directly blame the site because it’s dangerous for players. I asked for responsible gaming support, but the site does not provide protection.

When I mentioned the evidence that on April 27, 2024, I requested responsible gaming support, I asked to be excluded from the casino games section, but they refused. When I requested small deposit limits, they said it wasn’t available. I also asked for small betting limits, and they declined with "sorry." I even requested small bet limits within games, and they refused again.

gcb Article 8    Player registration

 

1.  A player must register for a player account and must log into the account before playing remote games of chance for money or money’s worth.

2.  In case the licensee uses payment intermediaries for player transactions, the intermediaries must be registered, verified and all transactions must be recorded in an identifiable account. The GCB may ask for full disclosure of  the agreement between the licensee and its intermediaries. 

3.  Players must be given the opportunity for self-exclusion for a minimum of six months and to indicate the limits of their gambling behavior in terms of:

a.  the maximum amount of time per day, week or month a player can be allowed access to the player interface;

b.  the maximum daily, weekly or monthly amounts of money to be deposited into the player account; and

c.  the maximum daily, weekly or monthly amounts of money to spend through the player account.

Licensees must allow players to be able to set gross or net maximum amounts and must indicate how  bonuses and free bets will be treated in calculating that sum.

If I request assistance from a gambling site and they do not provide the minimum protection requirements, saying it is "not available," then who bears the responsibility now? In the complaint that you rejected, why did you ignore the regulations of the authority, given that it is the site that violated the laws?

=

Dear user,

I gave you the polite warning because I was anticipating that much. Permit me to reiterate for the final time that your rejected complaint has already been thoroughly explained by me, Romi, and the other members of our Complaint Team.

This forum has already covered everything, so we will not be circling back and forth. Your viewpoint differs from ours. Since we are not attorneys, our response to fairness is not governed by legal considerations. I regret that you are unable to proceed past this point. To be honest, it is the primary reason that any further discussion would be pointless. I regret to inform you that you have demonstrated that.

Please remember my warning and do not expect any other response.