Ritzo Casino – generel debat (side 2)

Yes, I don't really understand it either. I assume you haven't looked at the Terms, as they refer to them there. But in my opinion, it's not very fair either.

Let's see what our team thinks about it and if we can help you. I would be happy if we could.

If you have any updates, please let me know.

Det er ufatteligt, hvad der sker, og meget uretfærdigt. Jeg håber, at casinoguru-teamet kan hjælpe. Jeg har aldrig hørt om dette før nogen steder.

I also hope that we will be able to help. Believe me, I feel sad for the players who are having problems. 😕

I hope so too. For now, I'm waiting for a response from Casino Guru, but I'm confident. I hope everything can be resolved for the best. Thank you all for the kind words regarding my case and for the time you are dedicating to it.

You're welcome, we're here to help whenever we can.🙂

Klage mod Ritzo Casino

I flere måneder brugte jeg Ritzo Casino og foretog indbetalinger på i alt mere end €1.000.

I den periode accepterede Ritzo mine indbetalinger og betalingsmetoder normalt. Men da jeg forsøgte at foretage en udbetaling, begyndte der problemer med yderligere krav relateret til min dokumentation, bopæl og verifikation af betalingsmetode.

Jeg har samarbejdet i forbindelse med verifikationsprocessen og har sendt de dokumenter og kvitteringer, som jeg blev bedt om.

Det, jeg finder særligt bekymrende, er, at disse kontroller ikke forhindrede platformen i at acceptere mine indbetalinger i flere måneder, men da jeg forsøgte at hæve penge, begyndte vanskelighederne.

Jeg annullerede efterfølgende udbetalingen og brugte den disponible saldo, så jeg påstår ikke, at der i øjeblikket er en ventende udbetaling. Min klage vedrører den måde, Ritzo håndterede verifikations- og udbetalingsprocessen på, og den manglende gennemsigtighed, jeg oplevede under processen.

Jeg har e-mails, skærmbilleder, indbetalingskvitteringer og kommunikation med Ritzo-support, der kan bevise, hvad der skete.

Efter denne oplevelse har jeg fuldstændig mistet tilliden til Ritzo.

Jeg vil aldrig indbetale en eneste cent på Ritzo igen, og jeg vil heller aldrig bruge denne platform igen.

Jeg anmoder Casino Guru om at gennemgå min oplevelse og vurdere, om den procedure, som Ritzo anvendte, var passende og gennemsigtig.

Jeg er villig til at fremlægge de relevante beviser.

Hello, and thank you for explaining your experience.

I can understand why the situation was frustrating, especially if you were able to deposit and use the casino normally for several months and only encountered additional checks when you wanted to withdraw.

There is one important distinction I'd like to explain, though. The fact that a casino accepts your deposits does not necessarily mean that all requirements for a future withdrawal have already been checked and approved. Depositing is a voluntary transaction initiated by the player, while a withdrawal can trigger additional procedures such as identity verification, residency checks, payment method verification, AML checks, or other requirements imposed by the casino's license and associated regulations. Casinos usually state this in their T&Cs.

This can sometimes feel rather strange from a player's perspective: "If you were happy to take my money, why are you asking me for all these documents now?" I understand that reaction. However, the two processes are not necessarily equivalent, and the fact that a casino accepted previous deposits does not by itself prove that the later verification requirements were inappropriate.

I also noticed that you cancelled the withdrawal and used the remaining balance for further gameplay, so there is currently no unpaid withdrawal for our Complaint Team to investigate or mediate. I think it's fair to mention this to prevent any misunderstandings later. Let's see how the request proceeds, of course.

If you no longer feel comfortable playing there, choosing another operator is of course the safest option. Perhaps you could choose a casino that allows you to complete the KYC process before making your first deposit, although this does not eliminate the possibility of AML procedures or gameplay checks. Both, based on industry standards, happen once the withdrawal request is submitted. You see, casinos do not verify account activities unless there is a need to do so, which is usually only the case when there is something to be withdrawn. I understand this may be new information and I respect your experience.

Kære ven

Det jeg forstår ud fra det jeg læser i din tekst er, at du har et alvorligt problem med ludomani.

Når en spiller mangler tålmodighed og annullerer udbetalingen, har de et afhængighedsproblem.

Jeg vil råde dig til at stoppe et stykke tid eller endda for altid.

Hej Radka,

Tak for dit svar. Jeg vil gerne præcisere et par punkter, da jeg mener, at din forklaring ikke omhandler de specifikke problemer i min sag.

For det første fandt jeg udtrykket "Jeg forstår, at disse oplysninger kan være nye for dig, og jeg respekterer din oplevelse" særligt uheldigt og stødende. Min klage skyldes ikke manglende viden om KYC-processer. Jeg forstår, at en operatør kan verificere identitet, bopæl, betalingsmetoder eller udføre AML-kontroller før en udbetaling.

Det, jeg sætter spørgsmålstegn ved, er, hvordan min konto blev administreret i de foregående måneder, og hvilke grænser og deadlines der var gældende, mens min dokumentverifikation ikke var gennemført.

Ifølge spanske regler er der en specifik bestemmelse for identificerede brugere, hvis dokumentverifikation afventer, med en samlet grænse på €150 for indbetalinger og ingen mulighed for udbetaling, før nævnte verifikation er gennemført.

I flere måneder lod Ritzo mig indbetale og spille normalt, og lavede indbetalinger på langt over €150. Men da jeg anmodede om en udbetaling på €500, skulle jeg gennemføre verifikation via Sumsub.

Udbetalingen blev anmodet om den 6. august og forblev ventende i 7 dage, indtil jeg annullerede den den 13. august. I den periode forsøgte jeg at fuldføre verifikationen og indsendte al den dokumentation, jeg havde til rådighed, for at bevise min identitet, bopæl og betalingsmidler.

Jeg vil gerne være transparent: Jeg annullerede udbetalingen og fortsatte med at spille. Jeg nåede en saldo på cirka 1.200 € og placerede indsatser på op til 10 €, indtil den var opbrugt. Jeg påstår ikke, at der i øjeblikket er en ventende udbetaling på 500 €. Min klage vedrører primært, hvordan min konto blev administreret før annulleringen.

Derfor ville jeg sætte pris på, hvis Casino Guru kunne give et specifikt svar:

• Hvad var bekræftelsesstatussen for min konto i disse måneder?

• Afventede min konto dokumentbekræftelse?

• Hvis ja, hvorfor tillod Ritzo så indbetalinger og spil over €150?

• Hvis denne grænse ikke var gældende, hvilken ordning og grænse var så gældende for min konto?

• Hvor længe kunne Ritzo holde kontoen aktiv uden at fuldføre verifikationen?

• Hvilken specifik regel begrundede den situation?

Og et særligt vigtigt spørgsmål: Hvis Ritzo i sidste ende fastslår, at min konto ikke kan verificeres, og jeg derfor ikke kan hæve penge, hvad sker der så med de indbetalinger, jeg allerede har foretaget, og de midler, der er indsat før denne afgørelse? Er der nogen forpligtelse til at returnere dem helt eller delvist?

Jeg anser det også for vigtigt at skelne mellem "almindelig praksis i branchen" og hvad der var juridisk gældende i min specifikke situation.

Jeg sætter ikke spørgsmålstegn ved Ritzos ret til at bekræfte min identitet. Jeg sætter spørgsmålstegn ved, hvorfor indbetalinger og spil var tilladt i månedsvis uden at bekræftelsen var fuldført, og jeg vil gerne vide, hvad konsekvenserne er, hvis denne bekræftelse i sidste ende ikke kan gennemføres.

Jeg ville sætte pris på et svar baseret på de specifikke regler, der gælder for min konto, ikke blot en generel forklaring af KYC-processerne.

Tak.

Hej thanost89,

Jeg respekterer din mening, men jeg mener ikke, at din konklusion om, at jeg har "et alvorligt problem med ludomani", er berettiget af det, der skete.

For at præcisere konteksten: Jeg annullerede ikke udbetalingen blot af utålmodighed. Efter flere dages forsøg på at hæve €500, sende dokumentation for at fuldføre verifikationen og støde på nye krav, begyndte jeg at tro, at jeg måske var offer for et fupnummer, og at jeg sandsynligvis ikke ville være i stand til at få pengene tilbage.

Jeg blev vred og reagerede på en måde, som jeg indrømmer ikke var den bedste: Jeg annullerede udbetalingen og begyndte at placere højere indsatser, og nåede til sidst en saldo på cirka €1.200 og placerede indsatser på op til €10, indtil jeg endelig tabte saldoen.

Jeg retfærdiggør ikke den beslutning eller siger, at den var rigtig. Jeg forklarer blot, hvorfor det skete. Jeg lægger heller ikke skjul på, at der i øjeblikket ikke er nogen udestående hævning på €500.

Det, jeg finder uretfærdigt, er at bruge den ene specifikke reaktion til at påstå, at jeg har "et alvorligt problem med ludomani." Du kender ikke min personlige situation, min sædvanlige adfærd eller de fulde omstændigheder, der førte til den beslutning, så jeg synes ikke, det er passende at komme med sådan en udtalelse.

Min klage vedrører et andet og helt specifikt problem: hvordan Ritzo kunne tillade mig at indbetale og spille i månedsvis og derefter kræve verifikation for at kunne hæve, hvad grænserne og tidsfristerne var for min konto, og hvad der sker med indbetalinger, hvis kontoen i sidste ende ikke kan verificeres.

Du kan være enig eller uenig i mine beslutninger, men jeg synes, det er vigtigt at skelne mellem en dårlig beslutning truffet i et øjeblik med vrede og at påstå, at en person har en ludomani.

Alt det bedste.

Hi, in my opinion, we have to narrow a few points here. I hope this is not going to offend you by any means: we are not Spanish regulators, and the casino is not licensed in Spain. So, even though I understand there may be some expectation, this area is an entirely different field. Please consider this an honest answer to your questions.

https://casino.guru/guide/how-we-resolve-casino-complaints 👈

The majority of questions you mentioned in your last post should be answered by the casino or its licensor, I'm afraid. Neither I nor my colleagues are in a position to answer those; complaints are not designed to answer hypothetical questions or matters related to deliberately lost money. That's actually why I wanted to help you understand what we can and cannot offer to you. Simply put, once a player loses the money, we cannot get involved. I'm sorry, but this needs to be said.

Our complaint resolution center resolves complaints according to specific terms that your guides clearly describe. Therese explicitly explained what kind of situation we avoid investigating, because we cannot retroactively review all associated casino procedures, unlike the casino regulator, for example. We also have nothing in common with legal bases; instead, we apply a practical approach explained here: https://casino.guru/guide/fair-gambling 👈

Offshore casinos normally allow players to deposit and play without any need for verification, since it is all deliberate action. In contrast, most casinos only verify players when they need to, which happens when a withdrawal request is made. If the casino is preventing you from completing the KYC and withdrawing, we can step in and try to mediate, but not afterwards, when the money is lost.

I understand you may have concerns about what I mentioned, so I will leave the rest to the mediators. My role here, among others, is to help users understand the way our teams work to prevent innacurate expectations.

I am in no way saying that the experience you described was good or backing up the casino; I'm solely focusing on our possible role at this moment.

Ritzo Casino voided over €250 bonus round winnings, won using a €50 insurance bonus that i had been chasing for weeks to get.

I have deposited several thousand euros and had 1 prior withdrawal

i am still waiting on a reason. This is my steps

And if you tell me the winnings were not credited because I didn’t complete the bonus round immediately then I will be very disappointed. 

1. I got the usual interruption asking me to verify. 

2. I remembered I had other bonuses active. There was 1 free spin left on a game. So I went to that game, completed the Free Spins to ensure that any winning play through for those free spins was logged against my account so to ensure I followed your terms and conditions. 

3. I returned to complete the Big Bass Football Bonanza knowing that the outcome of the bonus round was not a factor in any play through calculation whatsoever. It was a fixed play through of 25 x €50

I did everything possible to play fair actually making a decision that was in your favour not mine. 

Hello, and thank you for sharing your situation on the forum. I do not work for the casino so my response is solely based on what you just described.

My best guess is that the casino detected some bonus breach related to perhaps a bonus game feature or maybe something similar to what we call phoned rounds. However, I'm not currently entirely sure about that.

Do I assume correctly that the decision has been made and you're seeking a way to let this issue be investigated by a neutral mediator? Because if so, I can help with that at least.

I’m still waiting on an answer from them. I was just reaching out for what other people thought. I will be closing my account if they are not going to honor the win

Okay, hopefully the situation will work out in your favor; if not, you have another option, but it is entirely up to you.

Hoping for the best! 😉

No surprise. They simply quoted the "delayed bonus" rule without any manual review.

My response to

ritzo.com

ritzo5.com

ritzo17.com

https://t.me/RitzoCasinoOfficial

@ritzo.official

Hello,

Thank you for your response.

I do not agree that the bonus-delay rule fairly applies to my case.

Your terms state that players may have only one active bonus. However, your system allowed two bonuses to be active on my account at the same time. That situation should not have been possible and was created by a platform/control failure, not by any deliberate action intended to exploit the bonus system.

The interruption to play was also not voluntary. The session was interrupted by a verification/login popup during active play. I did not intentionally delay any free spins or bonus feature for later use, nor did I attempt to preserve bonus value until wagering requirements had ended.

Your logs should also be able to confirm that I did not gain any unfair advantage from the interruption. In fact, if the Big Bass Boxing bonus round had completed without interruption, I would have been in a better position than I was after the forced session break.

I also attempted to contact Live Chat at the time but was unable to get assistance. I then acted in good faith to ensure outstanding game activity was completed and properly recorded against the account.

If you maintain that confiscation was justified, please provide:

1. the specific timeline of events you rely on,

2. how you concluded the delay was intentional rather than caused by forced verification,

3. how your system allowed two active bonuses simultaneously despite your terms stating only one can be active, and

4. how you determined that I obtained an unfair benefit.

Given the facts, this appears to be a system-generated issue combined with an involuntary interruption, not intentional bonus abuse. I therefore ask that this decision be reviewed manually and that the confiscated funds be reinstated.

Kind regards, 

I understand your perspective; it indeed looks like a combination of several factors with probably automated system actions involved. Though I cannot say how the casino has viewed the matter, still, your response makes sense to me.

I won't bother you further, but perhaps the complaint would be worth it. Such an occasion may eventually help the mediator see a systematic problem in a specific user case and I cannot imagine a better opportunity to demonstrate that to the casino. I'm just trying to say that I cannot promise the outcome but if there is a reasonable chance to give it a deeper look, the mediators will do that.