Venting BC.GAME: $1,500 Lost, Possibly Due To Delayed Loss-Limits

[ptaylor78]

On June 19, 2025, I deposited 1,000 USDC at BC.Game and grew it to 1,560 USDC. Wanting to protect my balance—especially with a 24-hour withdrawal lock triggered by a 2FA reset—I proactively set a $60 daily loss limit around 9:30–10:00 AM and informed Live Support at 10:08 AM.

Despite the limit being active and acknowledged, the platform allowed me to lose $1,661 through 12 consecutive bets placed between 11:36–11:44 AM. The system only notified me I’d hit my limit after my balance dropped to $2.60—far too late.

Afterward, BC.Game support gave contradictory and misleading explanations, including:

• “You should wait a few minutes between bets” for the limit to work properly.
• “There may be a slight delay—only for the first 2 minutes.”
• “The tool does work,” despite overwhelming evidence that it did not.

They also pointed to a fine print disclaimer saying “there may be a certain delay in betting settlement.” While this language technically exists, it is not immediately visible—you have to click on a tiny “i” icon on the gambling limits screen to even see it.

Why would any player assume it’s necessary to investigate that deeply—especially when real-time enforcement of loss limits is standard across the industry? The on-page message explicitly states the limit will take effect immediately, giving players every reason to believe they’re protected once the setting is applied.

A loss limit that doesn’t function in real time is not a real safeguard. It creates a false sense of protection, and in this case, directly contributed to the complete loss of funds I had taken active steps to secure.

I’ve used similar tools on Razed, Shuffle, and Stake, where loss limits are enforced in real time. I’ve never experienced this kind of failure—or the shifting, vague justifications that followed.

BC.Game has refused to refund the $1,500 lost beyond the active limit, despite screenshots, chat logs, and a detailed timeline. Their system is unreliable, their communication evasive, and their responsible gambling tools deceptively marketed.

I should never have played at BC.Game, and I strongly urge players to avoid this casino—especially anyone relying on responsible gambling protections. This platform is not safe for players who take RG seriously.

 

[dunover]

On June 19, 2025, I deposited 1,000 USDC at BC.Game and grew it to 1,560 USDC. Wanting to protect my balance—especially with a 24-hour withdrawal lock triggered by a 2FA reset—I proactively set a $60 daily loss limit around 9:30–10:00 AM and informed Live Support at 10:08 AM.

Despite the limit being active and acknowledged, the platform allowed me to lose $1,661 through 12 consecutive bets placed between 11:36–11:44 AM. The system only notified me I’d hit my limit after my balance dropped to $2.60—far too late.

Afterward, BC.Game support gave contradictory and misleading explanations, including:

• “You should wait a few minutes between bets” for the limit to work properly.
• “There may be a slight delay—only for the first 2 minutes.”
• “The tool does work,” despite overwhelming evidence that it did not.

They also pointed to a fine print disclaimer saying “there may be a certain delay in betting settlement.” While this language technically exists, it is not immediately visible—you have to click on a tiny “i” icon on the gambling limits screen to even see it.

Why would any player assume it’s necessary to investigate that deeply—especially when real-time enforcement of loss limits is standard across the industry? The on-page message explicitly states the limit will take effect immediately, giving players every reason to believe they’re protected once the setting is applied.

A loss limit that doesn’t function in real time is not a real safeguard. It creates a false sense of protection, and in this case, directly contributed to the complete loss of funds I had taken active steps to secure.

I’ve used similar tools on Razed, Shuffle, and Stake, where loss limits are enforced in real time. I’ve never experienced this kind of failure—or the shifting, vague justifications that followed.

BC.Game has refused to refund the $1,500 lost beyond the active limit, despite screenshots, chat logs, and a detailed timeline. Their system is unreliable, their communication evasive, and their responsible gambling tools deceptively marketed.

I should never have played at BC.Game, and I strongly urge players to avoid this casino—especially anyone relying on responsible gambling protections. This platform is not safe for players who take RG seriously.

Hi, edited your thread to be a little more compact and less accusatory.

That said, I think I can see immediately what's happened here - it's the age old (yes, I think it's slightly scammy but we'll call it a mechanic) whereby your deposit limit is actually a loss limit, something completely different.

Forget the tosh they told you about it taking time to work, betting too fast etc. because that is bull. DLs work in real time against your live account balance. No delays.

A DL is exactly that - if it's $60 and set at that, you cannot deposit more than $60 whether you win, lose or draw even, for the prescribed period.

Alas, to stop players winning then not being able to lose it back very quickly because they cannot deposit again for a while, many sites (dishonestly in my view) operate them as LLs (loss limits) which means after a win you can lose and deposit until the point you are minus the DL overall.

So for example deposit $100, turn it into $1100 then set a $100 DL, you will then be able to deposit and lose $1100, at which point you will be blocked as now you are net -$100.

Judging by your figures above, this seems to be what BC Game are doing. Wrong IMO but sadly they aren't the only ones who use this trick, misdescribing loss limits as deposit limits.

 

[ptaylor78]

Hi, edited your thread to be a little more compact and less accusatory.

That said, I think I can see immediately what's happened here - it's the age old (yes, I think it's slightly scammy but we'll call it a mechanic) whereby your deposit limit is actually a loss limit, something completely different.

Forget the tosh they told you about it taking time to work, betting too fast etc. because that is bull. DLs work in real time against your live account balance. No delays.

A DL is exactly that - if it's $60 and set at that, you cannot deposit more than $60 whether you win, lose or draw even, for the prescribed period.

Alas, to stop players winning then not being able to lose it back very quickly because they cannot deposit again for a while, many sites (dishonestly in my view) operate them as LLs (loss limits) which means after a win you can lose and deposit until the point you are minus the DL overall.

So for example deposit $100, turn it into $1100 then set a $100 DL, you will then be able to deposit and lose $1100, at which point you will be blocked as now you are net -$100.

Judging by your figures above, this seems to be what BC Game are doing. Wrong IMO but sadly they aren't the only ones who use this trick, misdescribing loss limits as deposit limits.

I think there may be a misunderstanding of my post. This situation has nothing to do with deposit limits. Shuffle Casino uses the exact same loss limit interface as BC.Game (minus the fine print disclaimer about potential delays in bet settlement), so I’m familiar with how this tool is supposed to function.

To clarify what happened: I deposited $1,000 at BC.Game and increased my balance to $1,560. At that point, no loss limits were active. Once I realized I wouldn’t be able to withdraw for 24 hours due to a 2FA reset, I enabled a $60 loss limit. On every other platform I’ve played on—Shuffle, Razed, Stake—activating a $60 loss limit at a $1,560 balance would ensure that my balance couldn’t fall below $1,500. That is how this tool is designed to work in any properly functioning responsible gambling system.

Now, I do agree with you if you’re suggesting the following scenario: say I start with a $1,000 balance and set a $500 loss limit. If I then earn $1,000 in profit and my balance reaches $2,000, it’s completely reasonable for the casino to allow my balance to drop from $2,000 to $500 before halting play—because the loss limit applies only to losses from my initial balance or deposits, not from profits earned. I’ve seen this consistently across platforms. In fact, most loss limit tools reflect this behavior by showing your profits as a negative value against the limit progression.

But that’s not what happened here. At the time I set the $60 loss limit, my balance was already at $1,560. That means the system should have immediately prevented me from losing more than $60 going forward—yet it allowed 12 consecutive losing bets totaling over $1,600. BC.Game is not denying that I had the loss limit set; instead, they’re claiming that “delays in bet settlement” prevented the tool from working in time.

This is the issue. If a loss limit can be bypassed by placing a series of quick bets, then it’s not a real-time safeguard. It’s a fake responsible gambling feature. Pragmatic Games settled each of those bets immediately—the balance updated in real time in-game—so clearly the delay isn’t on the provider’s end.

BC.Game’s position, essentially, is that loss limits usually work instantly—but if you happen to lose your entire balance too fast, you’re out of luck. That’s not a responsible gambling measure; it’s a cover-your-bases disclaimer designed to deflect accountability. At any reputable casino, the same tool works instantly and prevents further betting once the loss threshold is reached.

 

[dunover]

I think there may be a misunderstanding of my post. This situation has nothing to do with deposit limits. Shuffle Casino uses the exact same loss limit interface as BC.Game (minus the fine print disclaimer about potential delays in bet settlement), so I’m familiar with how this tool is supposed to function.

To clarify what happened: I deposited $1,000 at BC.Game and increased my balance to $1,560. At that point, no loss limits were active. Once I realized I wouldn’t be able to withdraw for 24 hours due to a 2FA reset, I enabled a $60 loss limit. On every other platform I’ve played on—Shuffle, Razed, Stake—activating a $60 loss limit at a $1,560 balance would ensure that my balance couldn’t fall below $1,500. That is how this tool is designed to work in any properly functioning responsible gambling system.

Now, I do agree with you if you’re suggesting the following scenario: say I start with a $1,000 balance and set a $500 loss limit. If I then earn $1,000 in profit and my balance reaches $2,000, it’s completely reasonable for the casino to allow my balance to drop from $2,000 to $500 before halting play—because the loss limit applies only to losses from my initial balance or deposits, not from profits earned. I’ve seen this consistently across platforms. In fact, most loss limit tools reflect this behavior by showing your profits as a negative value against the limit progression.

But that’s not what happened here. At the time I set the $60 loss limit, my balance was already at $1,560. That means the system should have immediately prevented me from losing more than $60 going forward—yet it allowed 12 consecutive losing bets totaling over $1,600. BC.Game is not denying that I had the loss limit set; instead, they’re claiming that “delays in bet settlement” prevented the tool from working in time.

This is the issue. If a loss limit can be bypassed by placing a series of quick bets, then it’s not a real-time safeguard. It’s a fake responsible gambling feature. Pragmatic Games settled each of those bets immediately—the balance updated in real time in-game—so clearly the delay isn’t on the provider’s end.

BC.Game’s position, essentially, is that loss limits usually work instantly—but if you happen to lose your entire balance too fast, you’re out of luck. That’s not a responsible gambling measure; it’s a cover-your-bases disclaimer designed to deflect accountability. At any reputable casino, the same tool works instantly and prevents further betting once the loss threshold is reached.

Yes, that explains it a bit better and makes the matter clearer although I am not sure why a bet settled after a loss-limit is set would affect anything as it should work in real time.

The limits should also work on a rolling basis, i.e. 1 month from the exact time you set them, or a week say.

So it seems they've credited winning bets after the limit was set, so they counted in the total loss figure?

The fact is alas, whatever BC did their end, you are going to have people reply to this saying that it's down to you for making multiple $60 bets consciously after setting your $60 limit. It's also possible when they look into your complaint they may lock or block your account on the grounds of compulsive behaviour when not restricted automatically.

 

[ptaylor78]

The fact is alas, whatever BC did their end, you are going to have people reply to this saying that it's down to you for making multiple $60 bets consciously after setting your $60 limit. It's also possible when they look into your complaint they may lock or block your account on the grounds of compulsive behaviour when not restricted automatically.

If it were solely the player’s responsibility to avoid placing multiple bets exceeding a self-imposed $60 limit, then Responsible Gambling tools would be entirely unnecessary. But the reality is quite the opposite. These tools exist precisely because regulators and casino operators recognize that individuals need help moderating their gambling behavior. That’s why features like loss limits, wagering limits, time-outs, and self-exclusion are not only offered, but often mandated by licensing authorities.

To suggest that it’s simply down to the player is akin to arguing there’s no need for self-exclusion programs because a person negatively impacted by gambling should just choose not to enter the casino or play online. It ignores both the purpose of these tools and the vulnerability of the people they’re designed to protect.

As for the idea that my account could be locked or blocked due to “compulsive behavior” if I raise a concern, I’ll assume that wasn’t meant as a serious comment. If anything, recognizing patterns of harmful behavior should trigger the activation of safeguards, not be used as a reason to penalize the individual raising the issue.

 

[dunover]

If it were solely the player’s responsibility to avoid placing multiple bets exceeding a self-imposed $60 limit, then Responsible Gambling tools would be entirely unnecessary. But the reality is quite the opposite. These tools exist precisely because regulators and casino operators recognize that individuals need help moderating their gambling behavior. That’s why features like loss limits, wagering limits, time-outs, and self-exclusion are not only offered, but often mandated by licensing authorities.

To suggest that it’s simply down to the player is akin to arguing there’s no need for self-exclusion programs because a person negatively impacted by gambling should just choose not to enter the casino or play online. It ignores both the purpose of these tools and the vulnerability of the people they’re designed to protect.

As for the idea that my account could be locked or blocked due to “compulsive behavior” if I raise a concern, I’ll assume that wasn’t meant as a serious comment. If anything, recognizing patterns of harmful behavior should trigger the activation of safeguards, not be used as a reason to penalize the individual raising the issue.

I think you need to understand the underlying ethos that prevails in properly-licensed jurisdictions. The idea is to head off indicators of compulsive behaviour, not react to them ex post facto.

Think about it from the casino's PoV - yes, their systems may be fallible as you saw, but reporting to them is like admitting that without these systems you were unable to control your behaviour. Therefore it would not be surprising if they locked you out altogether. Better that for them than to face regulatory sanction further down the line.

There is a big difference between using safely measures to moderate your gambling activity as opposed to preventing it altogether. Which in your case was clearly the objective.

Put it this way, a UKGC casino would probably classify you as a risk and act accordingly.

 

[ptaylor78]

I think you need to understand the underlying ethos that prevails in properly-licensed jurisdictions. The idea is to head off indicators of compulsive behaviour, not react to them ex post facto.

Think about it from the casino's PoV - yes, their systems may be fallible as you saw, but reporting to them is like admitting that without these systems you were unable to control your behaviour. Therefore it would not be surprising if they locked you out altogether. Better that for them than to face regulatory sanction further down the line.

There is a big difference between using safely measures to moderate your gambling activity as opposed to preventing it altogether. Which in your case was clearly the objective.

Put it this way, a UKGC casino would probably classify you as a risk and act accordingly.

I understand your point about the ethos in properly-regulated jurisdictions, and I agree that the purpose of Responsible Gambling frameworks is to proactively identify and mitigate signs of harmful behavior. However, that only strengthens my concern. When a player sets a limit and the platform still allows bets beyond that limit, the system has already failed in its preventative function.

Suggesting that reporting this issue is the same as admitting a lack of control misses the purpose of these tools. Responsible Gambling protections exist precisely because gambling can impair self-regulation. Using that impairment against a player undermines the entire rationale behind requiring these tools. If personal restraint were enough, there would be no need for limitations via RG tools in the first place.

It may be true that a UKGC-regulated casino would flag someone as a risk, but it would also be obligated to assess whether its own actions or technical failings contributed to that risk. Blocking an account might be one result, but so would reviewing whether the safeguards in place operated as required.

In this situation, if the limit-setting tool did not function as intended, then the responsibility does not lie solely with the player. Reporting such an issue is not about seeking leniency, it is about holding the operator to the standards that regulators and players expect. That is the very purpose of having these protections in the first place.

 

[ptaylor78]

The language below is taken directly from Alex Smith’s review of BC.Game on Casinomeister. In that review, he praised the RG tools available at the casino, which contributed to the positive rating at the time. Of course, we now know that Casinomeister has issued a warning about BC.Game.

Responsible gaming​

Thankfully, the casino takes responsible gaming seriously. Their responsible gambling page outlines their commitment to protecting players – and preventing underage gambling – and they also explain how players can put safeguards in place to protect themselves from getting carried away.

Players can set a game session timer, which will notify them once they’ve been playing for X amount of time. While this doesn’t prevent you from playing, it’s a good way to avoid losing time while gambling. The second responsible gambling option available is deposit limits. A deposit limit lets you set a cap on the amount of money you can deposit daily, weekly, or monthly. If you wish to increase your limit, you must wait 24 hours; a decrease will occur immediately.

In addition to the above-mentioned tools, the site also has a self-exclusion function. This allows you to “ban” yourself from the site for a minimum of six months – and, if you want, you can make this self-exclusion permanent. However, due to the lack of a KYC check, there’s nothing to stop excluded players from setting up a new account, and this shows you why it’s important for casinos to verify their players.

My point is this: it is contradictory to commend operators for implementing effective RG tools, implying they have a duty to support player well-being, only to later argue that the real responsibility lies entirely with players to self-regulate and moderate their own behavior.

 

[Reelsoffun]

So after you set it to a 60 limit and you bet the 60 and then placed further bets that exceeded that limit you informed chat straight away that it was letting you breach the limit? Or you just carried on?

 

[ptaylor78]

So after you set it to a 60 limit and you bet the 60 and then placed further bets that exceeded that limit you informed chat straight away that it was letting you breach the limit? Or you just carried on?

It’s unclear whether these questions stem from unfamiliarity with how loss limits work or are simply devil’s advocacy. Loss limits are a standard responsible gambling tool used at many online casinos, including Stake, Shuffle, and Razed. I’ve used them often without issue.

The way they function is simple: once you hit the set loss limit—excluding profit—you are prevented from continuing to bet. I've attached screenshots showing how this works on platforms like BC.Game and Shuffle; the structure is nearly identical.

BC.Game's tool failed to function in real time, which is a basic requirement for it to be a legitimate safeguard. Whether I notified chat or continued placing bets is irrelevant. At any properly functioning platform, the ability to bet would have been blocked as soon as the $60 limit was reached. That did not happen.

 

[Reelsoffun]

Yes I understand how they work and I also know the difference between a loss limit and deposit limit, very different things by the way as dunover already explained, but you didn’t answer my question. Did you contact support to explain or just carry on?

I ask as it wouldn’t be the first time a player has tried to get a free ride, when things go wrong.

Anyway, it’s technically subjective as the part where it says it resets daily could also mean that anytime that the limit it set it could use that as a start point eg the last “reset” point and as your gains would have been after that those gains would not have been part of the newly imposed “loss” limit. This would explain why it didn’t block your bets, until winnings lost.

I see where you coming from but to me it’s a 50/50 at best, both at fault, had you won from that point where you set the new limit you would have gladly forfeited the extra gains to them wouldn’t you? Yeah course you would! No you would be on here with a different complaint how winnings were voided after I was able to play after setting a limit……

Think you should just take this as a harsh lesson and move on, and I have said this more than once if people really can’t resist playing after a win and can’t trust themselves to take a break without having impose tools I’m really not sure they should be gambling in the first place.

 

[ptaylor78]

Yes I understand how they work and I also know the difference between a loss limit and deposit limit, very different things by the way as dunover already explained, but you didn’t answer my question. Did you contact support to explain or just carry on?

I ask as it wouldn’t be the first time a player has tried to get a free ride, when things go wrong.

Anyway, it’s technically subjective as the part where it says it resets daily could also mean that anytime that the limit it set it could use that as a start point eg the last “reset” point and as your gains would have been after that those gains would not have been part of the newly imposed “loss” limit. This would explain why it didn’t block your bets, until winnings lost.

I see where you coming from but to me it’s a 50/50 at best, both at fault, had you won from that point where you set the new limit you would have gladly forfeited the extra gains to them wouldn’t you? Yeah course you would! No you would be on here with a different complaint how winnings were voided after I was able to play after setting a limit……

Think you should just take this as a harsh lesson and move on, and I have said this more than once if people really can’t resist playing after a win and can’t trust themselves to take a break without having impose tools I’m really not sure they should be gambling in the first place.

Based on your response and interpretation of the clear language on the gambling limit screen, it appears you may not fully understand how loss limits are intended to function. My explanation isn’t based on personal opinion—I’ve used this feature extensively across multiple platforms. There’s no need to interpret BC.Game’s wording, as it’s identical to what’s used on Shuffle, a casino I’ve played at for over a year.

First, suggesting that players seek a "free ride" when something goes wrong shifts responsibility back onto the player and undermines the purpose of responsible gambling tools. These safeguards are designed to enforce limits automatically, not rely on the player to self-regulate. In my case, the system allowed my balance to drop 27 times beyond the $60 loss limit. I reported this to support, as shown in the correspondence I posted.

Second, the reference to the tool “resetting daily” is irrelevant. At these casinos, once a loss limit is set—for example, $60—it remains in place until the casino’s next business day. If a player chooses to remove it, there is a mandatory cooling-off period. I deposited $1000, made a $560 profit, and the system still allowed losses far beyond the limit. The daily reset explanation does not account for that failure.

Third, yes, I would have accepted that anything above $1500 be voided if the loss limit had properly triggered. That is the entire point of the tool—to ensure losses are capped and remaining funds are preserved for withdrawal.

Lastly, while you may believe players should not rely on responsible gambling tools (and instead quit gambling altogether), that view is not shared by the gaming industry, regulators, or most players. These safeguards exist precisely because self-regulation is not always effective or fair to expect.

I find it difficult to respect or seriously consider your suggestion to drop this matter, given that you're someone who believes industry-standard responsible gambling tools shouldn’t exist in the first place. By your logic, immediately quitting is the only acceptable option, if players experience issues with self-regulation.

 

[Reelsoffun]

that view is not shared by the gaming industry, regulators, or most players.

You sure about that? I know of at least three casinos that internally are looking at accounts that use tools too often very closely.

I know of a couple of players that have had accounts closed as a direct result of using limits very often.

There has also been players on this site that have also shared stories that they have accounts closed as a result of the negative impact of using RG tools often etc.

Casinos, especially UK ones are having to take all red flags from players seriously or risk big fines so to think that view is not shared by anyone is a bit of a stretch.

However I wish you luck, this my last comment on this as I have said all I wanted to say, and I’m bored now

 

[ptaylor78]

You sure about that? I know of at least three casinos that internally are looking at accounts that use tools too often very closely.

I know of a couple of players that have had accounts closed as a direct result of using limits very often.

There has also been players on this site that have also shared stories that they have accounts closed as a result of the negative impact of using RG tools often etc.

Casinos, especially UK ones are having to take all red flags from players seriously or risk big fines so to think that view is not shared by anyone is a bit of a stretch.

However I wish you luck, this my last comment on this as I have said all I wanted to say, and I’m bored now

Sorry to break it to you, but the gaming industry is exponentially bigger than you, the three casinos you are referring to, a few players on this site, or UK casinos. I’m thrilled you are an advocate for reform and the elimination of RG tools. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the RG tools BC.Game offered that failed…

I’m always amused when people announce that it’s their last comment on an issue. Nearly as funny as when people announce they are leaving a group or forum… Always thought it was an American thing but clearly UK guys like to make such pronouncements as well. Lol!

 

[itsme123]

Serious question:
What did you expect to happen when you without doubt knew that you were exceeding the loss limit yet kept on going? Did you expect it to miraculously expect it to kick in and refund the stakes that had gone over? Or did you keep on going in the expectation that you could go to the chat and ask for your money back?
You really need to take responsibility for this as there is no way that you didnt know you were exceeding the loss limit and you were in effect trying to freeroll the casino as you hoped you would get a refund when you lost the lot.

 

[ptaylor78]

Serious question:
What did you expect to happen when you without doubt knew that you were exceeding the loss limit yet kept on going? Did you expect it to miraculously expect it to kick in and refund the stakes that had gone over? Or did you keep on going in the expectation that you could go to the chat and ask for your money back?
You really need to take responsibility for this as there is no way that you didnt know you were exceeding the loss limit and you were in effect trying to freeroll the casino as you hoped you would get a refund when you lost the lot.

The whole point of a loss limit is to prevent excessive losses, not to just notify the player and then let them continue betting. It is a system-level safeguard, not a suggestion. I set a $60 loss limit. The casino allowed me to continue until I lost $1,500. That is a failure of the tool they offered. Whether or not you agree with responsible gambling features is irrelevant because they were in place and they did not work. These tools exist because gambling can impair judgment. Saying I should have just stopped myself misses the entire purpose of the limit.

Calling it freerolling makes no sense. I was not asking for a refund after winning. I am saying the system should have stopped me when it was supposed to. This is not about blame-shifting. It is about a casino failing to enforce the protections it claims to offer.

Saying I 'should have known better' is the same as blaming someone for driving off a cliff because a guardrail wasn't installed properly. The guardrail (loss limit) is there for a reason. If it breaks or never activates, that's on the party responsible for maintaining it — in this case, the casino.

 

[itsme123]

The whole point of a loss limit is to prevent excessive losses, not to just notify the player and then let them continue betting. It is a system-level safeguard, not a suggestion. I set a $60 loss limit. The casino allowed me to continue until I lost $1,500. That is a failure of the tool they offered. Whether or not you agree with responsible gambling features is irrelevant because they were in place and they did not work. These tools exist because gambling can impair judgment. Saying I should have just stopped myself misses the entire purpose of the limit.

Calling it freerolling makes no sense. I was not asking for a refund after winning. I am saying the system should have stopped me when it was supposed to. This is not about blame-shifting. It is about a casino failing to enforce the protections it claims to offer.

Saying I 'should have known better' is the same as blaming someone for driving off a cliff because a guardrail wasn't installed properly. The guardrail (loss limit) is there for a reason. If it breaks or never activates, that's on the party responsible for maintaining it — in this case, the casino.

Nonsense, you are ignoring completely your responsibility for your own actions. If you had wanted to you could have contacted chat once the first breach of the limit occurred and made them aware rather than play it all away and try to freeroll the casino.
As a previous contributor has stated, if you won big on your first breach would you have handed back the winnings and said you didnt want it?

 

[ptaylor78]

Nonsense, you are ignoring completely your responsibility for your own actions. If you had wanted to you could have contacted chat once the first breach of the limit occurred and made them aware rather than play it all away and try to freeroll the casino.
As a previous contributor has stated, if you won big on your first breach would you have handed back the winnings and said you didnt want it?

Sure, here's the same revision without dashes:

---

There's no need to regurgitate questions that have already been asked and answered. Forums will always have people like you who deflect blame from the casinos, shielding them when they fail to deliver on what they promised or were required to do while turning the focus on the players instead. That’s fine. But at the end of the day, you haven’t put forward a single solid argument showing the casino met its obligations to the player because you are incapable of doing so.

This will be my final response to you unless you present something novel—which, frankly, seems unlikely.

 

[itsme123]

You tried to freeroll, you come here to cry. Man up and be responsible.
You rattle on about casino responsibility, what about your responsibility? Any sensible person would have realised the minute they went over the loss limit that there was a problem and they would then have contacted chat. You chose to ignore it and tried to freeroll the casino, put your big boy pants on and be responsible.

 

[ptaylor78]

You tried to freeroll, you come here to cry. Man up and be responsible.
You rattle on about casino responsibility, what about your responsibility? Any sensible person would have realised the minute they went over the loss limit that there was a problem and they would then have contacted chat. You chose to ignore it and tried to freeroll the casino, put your big boy pants on and be responsible.

Quite the contrary… I’m here to warn players about a scam casino (that is currently red-flagged on Casinomeister) that offers fake RG tools.

I've filed a complaint on another platform and likely have a 50/50 chance of recovering $1,500. Even if I don't, it's a relatively small amount compared to the stakes I usually play. I believe in your part of the world they would call me a barrister or solicitor, and I am quite successful at that. I only gamble what I can afford to lose. But that's beside the point.

Many players take RG tools seriously, and they deserve to know when a site is pretending to offer protection while doing the opposite. This post serves as a heads-up to them.

As for those like yourself who purport to possess an iron will and flawless self-control, despite the irony of engaging in gambling, this warning clearly doesn't apply to you. In fact, perhaps you should consider launching a YouTube channel to teach a masterclass on responsibility, discipline and self-restraint. Who knows, you might even start offering your expertise to other gamblers for a fee, rather than dispensing your self-righteous quips here pro bono.

 

[itsme123]

Quite the contrary… I’m here to warn players about a scam casino (that is currently red-flagged on Casinomeister) that offers fake RG tools.

I've filed a complaint on another platform and likely have a 50/50 chance of recovering $1,500. Even if I don't, it's a relatively small amount compared to the stakes I usually play. I believe in your part of the world they would call me a barrister or solicitor, and I am quite successful at that. I only gamble what I can afford to lose. But that's beside the point.

Many players take RG tools seriously, and they deserve to know when a site is pretending to offer protection while doing the opposite. This post serves as a heads-up to them.

As for those like yourself who purport to possess an iron will and flawless self-control, despite the irony of engaging in gambling, this warning clearly doesn't apply to you. In fact, perhaps you should consider launching a YouTube channel to teach a masterclass on responsibility, discipline and self-restraint. Who knows, you might even start offering your expertise to other gamblers for a fee, rather than dispensing your self-righteous quips here pro bono.

And perhaps you should launch a YouTube channel on freerolling casino's ( well it definitely wouldnt be about taking responsibility for your own actions...).
Enjoy your gambling and hopefully you will be more successful in your next attempt at freerolling.

 

[ptaylor78]

And perhaps you should launch a YouTube channel on freerolling casino's

The plural of "casino" is "casinos," not "casino's." Combined with your incorrect understanding of what "freerolling" means in the context of a casino's responsible gambling tools, it's clear that you're not equipped to offer advice on this situation—or any other. I recommend brushing up on elementary grammar and spelling before considering that YouTube career I mentioned previously.

As I mentioned before, $1,500 is small stakes for me — my main concern was warning other players who genuinely rely on responsible gambling tools. Trust me, I’ll be fine!

 

[mulven]

The plural of "casino" is "casinos," not "casino's." Combined with your incorrect understanding of what "freerolling" means in the context of a casino's responsible gambling tools, it's clear that you're not equipped to offer advice on this situation—or any other. I recommend brushing up on elementary grammar and spelling before considering that YouTube career I mentioned previously.

That's just his phone's keyboard probably...

Bit rich from the person assumably translating and revising their posts using LLMs

 

[ptaylor78]

That's just his phone's keyboard probably...

Bit rich from the person assumably translating and revising their posts using LLMs

I don't mind piling on. I speak and write English, Spanish and Portuguese, very well. I don't know what LLMs are but definitely don't need them to figure out the plural of casino. Hope that helps. Tchau!!!

 

[itsme123]

The plural of "casino" is "casinos," not "casino's." Combined with your incorrect understanding of what "freerolling" means in the context of a casino's responsible gambling tools, it's clear that you're not equipped to offer advice on this situation—or any other. I recommend brushing up on elementary grammar and spelling before considering that YouTube career I mentioned previously.

As I mentioned before, $1,500 is small stakes for me — my main concern was warning other players who genuinely rely on responsible gambling tools. Trust me, I’ll be fine!

Well for someone who doesn't mind losing $1,500 you are certainly doing plenty of whining about it.
I think what you are trying to do is a perfect example of freerolling. You realised the RG tool wasn't working so you continued to punt on roulette and lost, then you go and try to get your money bank.
I hope you serve your clients a lot better than control your gambling.....
Casino, casinos, casino's.... who really gives a fiddlers?