Kære Casino Guru-team,
Tak for din vurdering og for at du gav mig muligheden for at præcisere min holdning.
1. Beskeden af 18. maj 2025 bør ses i sin fulde kontekst
Jeg forstår, at min besked "Jeg har mistet alle mine penge, giv mig pengene tilbage" ikke indeholder de præcise ord "spilafhængighed". Jeg beder dig dog respektfuldt om ikke at betragte denne sætning isoleret.
Når en spiller fortæller en udbyder, at de har mistet alle deres penge på grund af spil og beder om refusion, demonstrerer dette tydeligt alvorlig økonomisk uro. Som minimum burde dette have givet anledning til bekymring om potentielt problematisk spil og fået udbyderen til at gennemgå min kontoaktivitet og overveje passende foranstaltninger til ansvarligt spil.
2. Fraværet af ældre skærmbilleder er ikke min skyld
Beskeden den 18. maj var ikke blot én kommunikation fra den periode. Det bør ikke antages, at dette var det eneste, jeg kommunikerede til Batery i maj 2025.
På det tidspunkt vidste jeg ikke, at Batery kun stiller kontodata fra de seneste cirka 90 dage til rådighed for spillere via applikationen. Hvis jeg havde vidst dette, ville jeg have gemt yderligere skærmbilleder og kommunikation fra maj/juni 2025.
De historiske optegnelser var under Baterys kontrol, ikke min. Derfor beder jeg respektfuldt om, at fraværet af ældre optegnelser fra min side ikke skal behandles som bevis for, at disse meddelelser ikke eksisterede.
3. Baterys egen anerkendelse bør tillægges passende vægt
Det vigtigste bevis er, at Batery selv anerkendte, at jeg havde informeret dem om min ludomani i maj 2025.
Jeg har allerede givet dig denne bekræftelse. Batery udtalte senere, at denne bekræftelse blev givet "under pres" og uden at verificere tidligere kommunikation.
Jeg finder dog denne forklaring vanskelig at acceptere. Hvad var præcis det "pres", de var under? Hvorfor skulle en operatør anerkende en så vigtig kendsgerning, hvis den aldrig var blevet meddelt dem?
4. "Under pres" bør ikke blive en begrundelse for operatøren
Hvis en operatør blot kan sige, at en bekræftelse blev givet "under pres", kan den samme forklaring så i morgen bruges til at sige, at de undlod at handle, fordi de også var "under pres"?
Ville den samme forklaring blive accepteret, hvis den kom fra en spiller?
Jeg mener ikke, at en operatørs egen anerkendelse bør ignoreres, blot fordi de senere afgiver en uforklarlig erklæring om, at de var under pres.
Først anerkendte Batery, at jeg havde informeret dem om min ludomani, og nu hævder de, at denne anerkendelse skete under pres. Dette rejser et alvorligt spørgsmål om Baterys troværdighed og pålideligheden af deres udtalelser.
Dette er en betydelig uoverensstemmelse fra operatørens side. Batery er en professionel operatør og kan ikke med rimelighed behandles som en umoden part, der ville komme med en så vigtig anerkendelse blot på grund af "pres". Hvis deres repræsentant anerkendte, at jeg havde afsløret min ludomani, bør der være en klar og troværdig forklaring, før denne anerkendelse ignoreres.
5. Operatøren bør også afhøres
Jeg spørger respektfuldt, hvorfor fokus primært er på, om jeg brugte de præcise ord "spilleafhængighed", mens Baterys egen erkendelse og dens efterfølgende undladelse af at træffe passende foranstaltninger ikke bliver sat spørgsmålstegn ved med samme grad af granskning.
Batery havde adgang til min kontohistorik og interne optegnelser. Jeg havde ikke adgang til alle historiske data.
Jeg har fremlagt den dokumentation, der er tilgængelig for mig, og operatøren har selv anerkendt, at jeg informerede dem i maj 2025. Jeg spørger respektfuldt: Hvis operatøren selv har anerkendt videregivelsen, hvilket stærkere bevis kan man så med rimelighed forvente fra en spiller, når de resterende historiske optegnelser kontrolleres af operatøren?
Jeg påstår ikke, at beskeden fra 18. maj alene endegyldigt beviser ludomani. Jeg anmoder om, at hele situationen vurderes samlet – min økonomiske nød, min spilleaktivitet, min kommunikation, begrænsningerne i adgangen til historiske optegnelser og Baterys egen bekræftelse.
Jeg anmoder derfor venligst om, at begge siders beviser tages ligeligt i betragtning, og at Baterys forklaring vedrørende sin egen anerkendelse sættes på et ordentligt grundlag, inden den endelige afgørelse træffes.


Tak for din tid og omtanke.
Med venlig hilsen,
Afkøle
Dear Casino Guru Team,
Thank you for your assessment and for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position.
1. The 18 May 2025 message should be considered in its full context
I understand that my message, "I lost all my money, give me a refund," does not contain the exact words "gambling addiction." However, I respectfully ask you not to consider this sentence in isolation.
When a player tells an operator that they have lost all their money due to gambling and is asking for a refund, this clearly demonstrates serious financial distress. At the very least, this should have raised concerns about potentially problematic gambling and prompted the operator to review my account activity and consider appropriate responsible-gambling measures.
2. The absence of older screenshots is not my fault
The 18 May message was not only one communication from that period. It should not be assumed that this was the only thing I communicated to Batery during May 2025.
At that time, I did not know that Batery only makes approximately the latest 90 days of account data available to players through the application. If I had known this, I would have preserved additional screenshots and communications from May/June 2025.
The historical records were under Batery’s control, not mine. Therefore, I respectfully ask that the absence of older records from my side should not be treated as evidence that those communications did not exist.
3. Batery’s own acknowledgement should be given proper weight
The most important evidence is that Batery themselves acknowledged that I had informed them about my gambling addiction in May 2025.
I have already provided this acknowledgement to you. Batery later stated that this acknowledgement was made "under pressure" and without verifying previous communication.
However, I find this explanation difficult to accept. What exactly was the "pressure" they were under? Why would an operator acknowledge such an important fact if it had never been communicated to them?
4. "Under pressure" should not become a justification for the operator
If an operator can simply say that an acknowledgement was made "under pressure," then tomorrow could the same explanation be used to say that they failed to take action because they were also "under pressure"?
Would the same explanation be accepted if it came from a player?
I do not believe that an operator’s own acknowledgement should be disregarded simply because they later provide an unexplained statement that they were under pressure.
First, Batery acknowledged that I had informed them about my gambling addiction, and now they are claiming that this acknowledgement was made under pressure. This raises a serious question about Batery’s credibility and the reliability of their statements.
This is a significant inconsistency on the operator’s part. Batery is a professional operator and cannot reasonably be treated as an immature party that would make such an important acknowledgement simply because of "pressure." If their representative acknowledged that I had disclosed my gambling addiction, there should be a clear and credible explanation before that acknowledgement is disregarded.
5. The operator should also be questioned
I respectfully ask why the focus is primarily on whether I used the exact words "gambling addiction," while Batery’s own acknowledgement and its subsequent failure to take appropriate action are not being questioned with the same level of scrutiny.
Batery had access to my account history and internal records. I did not have access to the complete historical data.
I have provided the evidence available to me, and the operator itself has acknowledged that I informed them in May 2025. I respectfully ask: if the operator itself has acknowledged the disclosure, what stronger evidence can reasonably be expected from a player when the remaining historical records are controlled by the operator?
I am not claiming that the 18 May message alone conclusively proves gambling addiction. I am asking that the entire situation be assessed together — my financial distress, my gambling activity, my communications, the limitations on accessing historical records, and Batery’s own acknowledgement.
I therefore kindly request that both sides’ evidence be considered equally and that Batery’s explanation regarding its own acknowledgement be properly questioned before reaching the final decision.


Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
Cool
Redigeret
Automatisk oversættelse: