Sports Betting - General Discussions
Discussions about the beautiful world of sports betting especially all issues relating to sportsbook bonuses. Post your opinions and find everything about latest bonuses, promotions, tournaments, freerolls…
Subforums
-
- 177
- posts
-
- 41
- posts
-
- 12
- posts
-
- 2
- posts
-
- 79
- posts
154 topics in this forum
-
- 3 replies
- 3k views
-
- 14 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 38 replies
- 28k views
-
- 2 replies
- 209 views
-
- 3 replies
- 308 views
-
- 1 reply
- 411 views
-
- 1 reply
- 355 views
-
- 7 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 2 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 883 views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 1 reply
- 2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 5 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.3k views
-
- 3 replies
- 4.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 2 replies
- 4.6k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By marius1978 · Posted
December #3 Zeus vs Hades, 2,808x Used in the December Screenshot Contest - Win a share of 500 EUR! - Exclusive Competitions & Contests - AskGamblers -
By Emiliana Rostowicz · Posted
Totally agree! A license from a reputable regulator (Malta, UK) is the key reliability marker. Always verify the license number on the regulator's site. Plus independent RNG audits, fast payouts, and real player feedback. Better spend 10 minutes checking than regret it later. -
Thanks for the concern, mate. The problem is that I have effectively exhausted the ADR route already. I tried CasinoGuru (rejected) and AskGamblers (rejected). Since the official Estonian regulator (EMTA) also closed the case stating it is a "private civil dispute" regarding contractual interpretation, most standard ADR providers will not touch it anymore. Or at least I assume this is the reason 😄 So, unfortunately, the "free" options seem to be gone. A formal legal approach via a law firm is the only path left. I am starting with a formal Demand Letter to keep the initial costs managed before deciding on full litigation. I am open to suggestions if I have missed something / somebody who could help 🙂 -
By sponge2025 · Posted
I’ve now received LottoGo’s final response regarding my complaint about being allowed to register, deposit and gamble while I was on an active GAMSTOP self-exclusion. They claim they cannot refund any further deposits beyond the small “goodwill” refund they previously issued. Their justification is that my registration details didn’t fully match my GAMSTOP record, specifically: Name format (they say I did not enter my full legal name exactly as on ID) Address mismatch An older/inactive phone number And therefore their system “could not” detect the exclusion. They argue that: 1. GAMSTOP matching relies on identical data entry by the customer. 2. It’s my responsibility to keep my GAMSTOP data fully accurate and up-to-date. 3. Because of those mismatches, they believe the failure to block the account is not due to any system or operator error. 4. They also point to their T&Cs requiring customers to enter accurate details when opening an account. 5. They emphasise that the refund they already issued was purely a “gesture of goodwill” and not an admission of wrongdoing. 6. They have now issued their final response and directed me to escalate to IBAS if I wish to pursue the matter further. My view on this: LottoGo allowed registration, deposits and losses without any intervention. Their real-time checks at login/registration should at minimum have raised a partial match requiring manual review (according to the UKGC’s own Compliance Assessments). It’s also worth noting: Once KYC documents are submitted, the operator then has the player’s verified legal identity - at that point the GAMSTOP check must be re-assessed manually (UKGC SR Code 3.5.3 and 3.4.1 guidance). LottoGo did not carry out any enhanced review even at the KYC stage. Their reply heavily leans on “customer error”, which the UKGC has repeatedly said does not relieve operators of their own duties. I’m now escalating the matter to IBAS, since they’ve stated this is their final position *sigh* -
-
.thumb.png.6e3780ccb43381211601a5bed1694ca9.png){kind=avatar}
