Public complaints: InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Topic created on 20th Jan. 2018 | Page: 1 of 2 | Answers: 11 | Views: 4,446
Anonym
Topic Creator
Former Member
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
20th Jan. 2018, at 02:31 am CET#1
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Hello Community.
I would like to address you with the following request.
I have played at InterCasino.com and after a series of losses decided to lock my account at least temporarily.
So I searched for the self-lock function as available at any other casino.
No sooner said than done and I closed my account.
The next day then the desire but again grabbed me but fortunately with my usual casinos everywhere a timeout inserted by self-lock.
What worked for all only at InterCasino I could immediately reopen my account by clicking on the confirmation link in an email and I could Deposit again and lose.
This happened several times.
After I was now so angry about it I wrote to the support there and told them that I want to have my deposits back after I have performed the first time a self-lock.
They explained to me that this is only a closure and I have to contact the support via chat or mail.
I then replied that I assumed that with the self-lock my account was already locked and I can not simply open in a minute again and I therefore see the blame at Intercasino.
InterCasino justifies it with the fact that this is only a closure of the account, but not a lock.
To make it short why I think the InterCasino here at least negligently if not even in deceptive intent proceeds and the Player protection does not comply.
- A function is offered that gives the impression that you have blocked yourself. Nowhere is it mentioned that you have to contact customer service for an actual block. (at least it is not visible except possibly mentioned in some small print paragraphs in the agbs)
What is the point of a lock function if you can unlock it immediately? Why is there this function at all, if it has no sense at all. It probably only serves to give the player a safe feeling that he has been locked, but since you lose paying customers and as often happens in a moment of defiance, InterCasino speculates that you then just unlocked again the next day or shortly thereafter as soon as you have cooled down and you continue to lose.
The support could not give me a reason what sense this function has and has evaded this question several times. They probably do not know themselves because the function has defacto no sense except just the mentioned that you want to pretend the player what.
Or who can explain to me conclusively which sense that could have otherwise.
In the Q&A it also says that if you want to close your account you can do that, give a reason and then right above this info and below this info you can find a lot of stuff about player protection and how important that is to them and blah blah blah, which just gives the impression even more with a closure you would have successfully excluded yourself from playing.
- The support argues that I could have contacted them directly (which I did not know and I thought a closing function of the account will probably not be offered for nothing on their site). No, even if I had known, I could not have done so easily, because the support is very often unavailable at Intercasino. Even at the times where they state that they are available, they are still very often not.
So much too much effort if a player wants to be blocked, because he wants this mostly immediately, no desire and also often has no stamina 5 times a day in the chat to look whether the now someone is available for it and the Risk is too great, because he is then constantly on the casino page that he pays in this time again what.
- InterCasino uses tactics here which absolutely do not serve a player protection and which are to be called very unserious.
I have already filed a complaint with the MGA, unfortunately my English is so bad that I could not describe the case as you here and therefore do not believe that they have fully understood the facts.
What is your view on this and how do you think the chances are to get right?
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
20th Jan. 2018, at 10:08 am CET#2
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
I really can't tell you in this case if you will be proven right. If you do, you will get your deposits back and the casino will be required by the MGA to improve player protection. An interesting case, please keep us updated. We can learn from such cases and give better advice and help to other players who have the same problems.
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
Topic Creator
Former Member
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
21st Jan. 2018, at 01:20 am CET#3
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Daniel wrote on 20.01.2018 at 10:08: I really can't tell you in this case if you will get right. If you will get right, then you will also get your deposits back and the casino will be ordered by the MGA to improve player protection. An interesting case, please keep us updated. We can learn from such cases and give better advice and help to other players who have the same problems.
I will of course be happy to report how the case turned out.
Today I tried to reach the InterCasino chat, but there is no one available on the week, which just shows again that you can not be blocked at any time, even if you know that you have to contact support.
Intercasino has made it all very clever and makes it as difficult as possible for the user to self-lock and they offer an option on their site that makes zero sense but should suggest that you have already locked yourself.
InterCasino is actually considered a reputable casino, which I must agree insofar as you get your money quickly and above all really gets.
Actually sad that such criteria fall under the predicate serious because this should actually be an absolute matter of course in all Online Casinos, but the industry is just bottomless pit.
In terms of Player protection, however, InterCasino does not proceed correctly in my opinion.
At least in my case it was so that I was subject to misinformation which I must attribute to a closer look at the approach of the casino and can actually evaluate as misleading information.
If you lose then you lose, but in this case I really did not want to play for a few weeks and have therefore used the function of the lock, which InterCasino only interprets as a closure.
To sum it up:
Intercasino distinguishes between two possibilities and here lies the problem.
- You can be blocked - for this you have to write to the support via chat or mail. A support that is hardly available and is not available at all on weekends. On the page where it is about self-exclusion, this is not pointed out, on the contrary, it is pointed out the function of the closure, in connection with player protection and game break, which suggests that this is a lock.
It is therefore very difficult for a player to actually get locked, it is not pointed out what you have to do for this and it is suggested with a function that has no sense to achieve this, which is not the case.
Here InterCasino even speculates with Gambling addiction of customers, because they often only want to be locked in a moment of frustration and then a little later often no longer want to.
- you can close your account - that is, you close it, then try to log back in, you get the notice that you have received a mail on whose link you have to click and you can play again.
Everyone knows that when you have calmed down again and made a lock that you then check whether this was also made.
If you then read that you can unlock again with a few clicks then the whole thing suddenly looks different and you could then decide to still play.
The function has no sense at all. There is then the question why a casino offers an option that has no sense at all?
What do they want to achieve with it except to give the player a false image?
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
21st Jan. 2018, at 10:30 am CET#4
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
That's a good question, which I honestly can't answer either. But there are players who play controlled and still want to close their account temporarily. For example, because they are away for a longer period of time. There are many reasons to get temporarily banned - it doesn't always have to be related to gambling addiction. If you give Gambling addiction as the reason for a block, then the casinos will usually block you for good anyway.
That's what happened to me at Videoslots, for example. The casino is I liked, good game selection, extremely fast payouts, extremely fair Bonuses and more. 10 months ago I got myself banned there for 6 months because of gambling addiction. When I wanted to reopen my account 2 months ago, they asked me a lot of questions and decided not to open my account again, although I affirmed in the chat that I am not addicted to gambling. And I was a good customer during the time I was playing there.
Videoslots is not the only casino that reacted like this. I therefore think that Player protection must be taken seriously by casinos and that casinos face severe penalties for violations. I could well imagine that you will be proven right and that InterCasino will have to improve its player protection in the future. But now you can only wait and see.
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
21st Jan. 2018, at 07:59 pm CET#5
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Random wrote on 01/20/2018 at 02:31: Hello Community.
I would like to contact you with the following request.
I have played at InterCasino.com and after a series of losses decided to block my account at least temporarily.
So I searched for the self-lock function as available at any other casino.
No sooner said than done and I closed my account.
The next day then the desire but again grabbed me but fortunately at my usual casinos everywhere a timeout inserted by self-lock.
What worked for all only at InterCasino I could immediately reopen my account by clicking on the confirmation link in an email and I could Deposit again and lose.
This happened several times.
After I was now so angry about it I wrote to the support there and told them that I want to have my deposits back after I have performed the first time a self-lock.
They explained to me that this is only a closure and I have to contact the support via chat or mail.
I then replied that I assumed that with the self-lock my account is already locked and I can not just open in a minute again and I therefore see the blame at Intercasino.
InterCasino justifies it with the fact that this is only a closure of the account, but not a lock.
To make it short why I think the InterCasino here at least negligently if not even in deceptive intent proceeds and the Player protection does not comply.
- A function is offered that gives the impression that you have blocked yourself. Nowhere is it mentioned that you have to contact customer service for an actual block. (at least it is not visible except possibly mentioned in some small print paragraphs in the agbs)
What is the point of a lock function if you can unlock it immediately? Why is there this function at all, if it has no sense at all. It probably only serves to give the player a secure feeling that he has been locked, but since you lose paying customers and as often happens in a moment of defiance, InterCasino speculates that you then just unlocked again the next day or shortly thereafter as soon as you have cooled down and you continue to lose.
The support could not give me a reason what sense this function has and has evaded this question several times. They probably do not know themselves because the function has defacto no sense except just the mentioned that you want to pretend the player what.
Or who can explain to me conclusively which sense that could have otherwise.
In the Q&A it also says that if you want to close your account you can do that, give a reason and then right above this info and below this info you can find a lot of stuff about player protection and how important that is to them and blah blah blah, which only gives the impression that if you closed your account you would have successfully excluded yourself from playing.
- The support argues that I could have contacted them directly (which I did not know and I thought a closing function of the account will probably not be offered for nothing on their site). No, even if I had known, I could not have done so easily, because the support is very often unavailable at Intercasino. Even at the times where they state that they are available, they are still very often not.
So much too much effort if a player wants to be blocked, because he wants this mostly immediately, no desire and also often has no stamina 5 times a day in the chat to look whether the now someone is available for it and the Risk is too great, because he is then constantly on the casino page that he pays in this time again what.
- InterCasino uses tactics here which absolutely do not serve a player protection and which are to be called very unserious.
I have already filed a complaint with the MGA, unfortunately my English is so bad that I could not describe the case as you here and therefore do not believe that they have fully understood the facts.
What is your view on this and how do you think the chances are to get right?
At Verajohn there is also this kind of "lock"
. I find it also nonsensical.if then you would have to offer both options.this lock and a real lock for a period of time and forever.I also think that all player protection settings should be made in the account, and not extra the support must be written to.
What I do not quite understand is that you seem to have done the whole thing several times, so you lock and unlock again and then also play.da hättest you then better set up a limit.Or did you mean you just tried several times, whether you can really unlock again?
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
Topic Creator
Former Member
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
21st Jan. 2018, at 09:00 pm CET#6
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Stromberg wrote on 01/21/2018 at 19:59
Random wrote on 01/20/2018 at 02:31: Hello Community.
I would like to contact you with the following request.
I have played at InterCasino.com and after a series of losses decided to block my account at least temporarily.
So I searched for the self-lock function as available at any other casino.
No sooner said than done and I closed my account.
The next day then the desire but again grabbed me but fortunately at my usual casinos everywhere a timeout inserted by self-lock.
What worked for all only at InterCasino I could immediately reopen my account by clicking on the confirmation link in an email and I could Deposit again and lose.
This happened several times.
After I was now so angry about it I wrote to the support there and told them that I want to have my deposits back after I have performed the first time a self-lock.
They explained to me that this is only a closure and I have to contact the support via chat or mail.
I then replied that I assumed that with the self-lock my account was already locked and I can not simply open in a minute again and I therefore see the blame at Intercasino.
InterCasino justifies it with the fact that this is only a closure of the account, but not a lock.
To make it short why I think the InterCasino here at least negligently if not even in deceptive intent proceeds and the Player protection does not comply.
- A function is offered that gives the impression that you have blocked yourself. Nowhere is it mentioned that you have to contact customer service for an actual block. (at least it is not visible except possibly mentioned in some small print paragraphs in the agbs)
What is the point of a lock function if you can unlock it immediately? Why is there this function at all, if it has no sense at all. It probably only serves to give the player a secure feeling that he has been locked, but since you lose paying customers and as often happens in a moment of defiance, InterCasino speculates that you then just unlocked again the next day or shortly thereafter as soon as you have cooled down and you continue to lose.
The support could not give me a reason what sense this function has and has evaded this question several times. They probably do not know themselves because the function has defacto no sense except just the mentioned that you want to pretend the player what.
Or who can explain to me conclusively which sense that could have otherwise.
In the Q&A it also says that if you want to close your account you can do that, give a reason and right above this info and below this info you can find a lot about player protection and how important that is to them and blah blah blah, which only gives the impression that with a closure you would have successfully excluded yourself from playing.
- The support argues that I could have contacted them directly (which I did not know and I thought a closing function of the account will probably not be offered for nothing on their site). No, even if I had known, I could not have done so easily, because the support is very often unavailable at Intercasino. Even at the times where they state that they are available, they are still very often not.
So much too much effort if a player wants to be blocked, because he wants this mostly immediately, no desire and also often has no stamina 5 times a day in the chat to look whether the now someone is available for it and the Risk is too great, because he is then constantly on the casino page that he pays in this time again what.
- InterCasino uses tactics here which absolutely do not serve a player protection and which are to be called very unserious.
I have already filed a complaint with the MGA, unfortunately my English is so bad that I could not describe the case as you here and therefore do not believe that they have fully understood the facts.
What is your view on this and how do you think the chances are to get right?
At Verajohn there is also this kind of "lock"
. I find it also nonsensical.if then you would have to offer both options.this lock and a real lock for a period of time and forever.I also think that all player protection settings should be made in the account, and not extra the support must be written to.
What I do not quite understand is that you seem to have done the whole thing several times, so you lock and unlock again and then also play.da hättest you then better set up a limit.Or did you mean you just tried several times, whether you can really unlock again?
Yes, Vera John also belongs to Intercasino.
During that time I have locked myself out of all the casinos I play at.
At InterCasino it happened to me because I assumed that this was also a real lock, but I thought I had just done something wrong.
And of course I had cooled down a bit again.
But I still couldn't play at the other casinos for the period I had selected, which was the whole point of having me blocked, even if I should change my mind in a few days.
Because if you have it so well under control as a player, then a lock would be unnecessary anyway.
It serves exactly that purpose - self-protection.
I think InterCasino knows exactly about the psychology of players and thinks with this alibi closure to circumvent the player protection to be able to be nevertheless with the MGA fine out - which I hope times that also see the same as me.
You can also summarize it this way:
While the other sites where I usually play and have locked me in this period also really take seriously the player protection and I could therefore no longer play for the selected period, I have Intercasino in this time can still leave over 1k, because the just have a misleading player protection to let the player in the belief he would have locked.
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
22nd Jan. 2018, at 12:43 am CET#7
1 Like
Liked this post: Anonym
So under Deposit limits you can set a limit yourself. Would have been in your case probably an alternative, since this can not be changed at least for 7 days. At first glance, I see no differences to other casino sites. Account lock forever goes m. W. on the fewest sites without contacting support.
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
Topic Creator
Former Member
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
23rd Jan. 2018, at 02:55 am CET#8
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
dnight wrote on 22.01.2018 at 00:43: So under Deposit limits you can set a limit yourself. Would have been in your case probably an alternative, since this can not be changed at least for 7 days. At first glance I see no differences to other casino sites. Account lock forever goes m. W. on the fewest sites without contacting support.
I have not paid attention because I thought with the 'blocking' of my account would be settled.
Then look at it more closely then you see the difference very clearly. On all other sites I was able to successfully block myself without needing any special knowledge.
Maybe this is clear for many long-term players, but for the majority and more casual players who are not so familiar with the online casino world, this is not clear.
Take a closer look at the InterCasino page under the point Player protection and what impression is conveyed there.
The all-important question that I now also ask you:
Why do you offer a function that makes absolutely no sense and serves no purpose?
Why do you offer a closure that can be lifted immediately with just a few clicks and which does not offer the option to select a binding time frame?
No, you only have the option to close your account and reopen it with a few clicks.
What is the point of that? I would like to read your answer to this.
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
Topic Creator
Former Member
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
23rd Jan. 2018, at 03:13 am CET#9
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Daniel wrote on 01/21/2018 at 10:30 am: That's a good question that I honestly can't answer either. But there are players who play controlled and still want to have their account temporarily closed. Because they are away for a longer period of time, for example. There are many reasons to get temporarily banned - it doesn't always have to be related to gambling addiction. If you give Gambling addiction as the reason for a block, then the casinos will usually block you forever anyway.
That's what happened to me at Videoslots, for example. The casino is I liked, good game selection, extremely fast payouts, extremely fair Bonuses and more. 10 months ago I got myself banned there for 6 months because of gambling addiction. When I wanted to reopen my account 2 months ago, they asked me a lot of questions and decided not to open my account again, although I affirmed in the chat that I am not addicted to gambling. And I was a good customer during the time I was playing there.
Videoslots is not the only casino that reacted like this. I therefore think that Player protection must be taken seriously by casinos and that casinos face severe penalties for violations. I could well imagine that you will be proven right and that InterCasino will have to improve its player protection in the future. But now you can only wait and see.
Yes, only at InterCasino you just do not close even temporarily. That is the point. It makes no difference at all whether you choose the close function or leave your account open. Except that you give the player the impression he would have excluded himself from playing.
With the closure there is no time frame, nothing binding.
It only says that the account is closed and that you should click on the activation link in your mail to be able to play again.
There is no mention whatsoever about what you have to do to close the account.
But if a player chooses the close option, shouldn't InterCasino assume that the player wants to exclude himself?
In their questions and answers on the subject of player protection, they mention how important this is and that you can also take time off. And exactly there they mention the option with the closure which suggests that you can take a binding timeout.
Also there is nothing mentioned about the fact that you have to contact the (hardly accessible) support for an actual lock.
I call this deliberate misleading.
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
Topic Creator
Former Member
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
8th Feb. 2018, at 03:42 pm CET#10
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
So the Mga, of course, how could it be otherwise, opted for Intercasino.
I have now called in a lawyer for international law and I will also check to what extent one can sue the Mga, which helps here as an extended arm InterCasino to deceive players.
It is finally time to do something against arbitrary procedures. The online casino sector is a gathering place for fraudsters who can do whatever they want. Insufficient Player protection, payouts are withheld, unfair bonus conditions, unfair and hidden bonus conditions that the casinos then interpret as they want, payout delays, etc. And even if the Mga in some clear cases also sometimes decides for the players, so they play nice and well-behaved with the above-mentioned and thus also support that.
You really have to be a professional to know about the above issues .
Which average player knows something about bonus conditions, etc.?
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
I would like to address you with the following request.
I have played at InterCasino.com and after a series of losses decided to lock my account at least temporarily.
So I searched for the self-lock function as available at any other casino.
No sooner said than done and I closed my account.
The next day then the desire but again grabbed me but fortunately with my usual casinos everywhere a timeout inserted by self-lock.
What worked for all only at InterCasino I could immediately reopen my account by clicking on the confirmation link in an email and I could Deposit again and lose.
This happened several times.
After I was now so angry about it I wrote to the support there and told them that I want to have my deposits back after I have performed the first time a self-lock.
They explained to me that this is only a closure and I have to contact the support via chat or mail.
I then replied that I assumed that with the self-lock my account was already locked and I can not simply open in a minute again and I therefore see the blame at Intercasino.
InterCasino justifies it with the fact that this is only a closure of the account, but not a lock.
To make it short why I think the InterCasino here at least negligently if not even in deceptive intent proceeds and the Player protection does not comply.
- A function is offered that gives the impression that you have blocked yourself. Nowhere is it mentioned that you have to contact customer service for an actual block. (at least it is not visible except possibly mentioned in some small print paragraphs in the agbs)
What is the point of a lock function if you can unlock it immediately? Why is there this function at all, if it has no sense at all. It probably only serves to give the player a safe feeling that he has been locked, but since you lose paying customers and as often happens in a moment of defiance, InterCasino speculates that you then just unlocked again the next day or shortly thereafter as soon as you have cooled down and you continue to lose.
The support could not give me a reason what sense this function has and has evaded this question several times. They probably do not know themselves because the function has defacto no sense except just the mentioned that you want to pretend the player what.
Or who can explain to me conclusively which sense that could have otherwise.
In the Q&A it also says that if you want to close your account you can do that, give a reason and then right above this info and below this info you can find a lot of stuff about player protection and how important that is to them and blah blah blah, which just gives the impression even more with a closure you would have successfully excluded yourself from playing.
- The support argues that I could have contacted them directly (which I did not know and I thought a closing function of the account will probably not be offered for nothing on their site). No, even if I had known, I could not have done so easily, because the support is very often unavailable at Intercasino. Even at the times where they state that they are available, they are still very often not.
So much too much effort if a player wants to be blocked, because he wants this mostly immediately, no desire and also often has no stamina 5 times a day in the chat to look whether the now someone is available for it and the Risk is too great, because he is then constantly on the casino page that he pays in this time again what.
- InterCasino uses tactics here which absolutely do not serve a player protection and which are to be called very unserious.
I have already filed a complaint with the MGA, unfortunately my English is so bad that I could not describe the case as you here and therefore do not believe that they have fully understood the facts.
What is your view on this and how do you think the chances are to get right?
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
I will of course be happy to report how the case turned out.
Today I tried to reach the InterCasino chat, but there is no one available on the week, which just shows again that you can not be blocked at any time, even if you know that you have to contact support.
Intercasino has made it all very clever and makes it as difficult as possible for the user to self-lock and they offer an option on their site that makes zero sense but should suggest that you have already locked yourself.
InterCasino is actually considered a reputable casino, which I must agree insofar as you get your money quickly and above all really gets.
Actually sad that such criteria fall under the predicate serious because this should actually be an absolute matter of course in all Online Casinos, but the industry is just bottomless pit.
In terms of Player protection, however, InterCasino does not proceed correctly in my opinion.
At least in my case it was so that I was subject to misinformation which I must attribute to a closer look at the approach of the casino and can actually evaluate as misleading information.
If you lose then you lose, but in this case I really did not want to play for a few weeks and have therefore used the function of the lock, which InterCasino only interprets as a closure.
To sum it up:
Intercasino distinguishes between two possibilities and here lies the problem.
- You can be blocked - for this you have to write to the support via chat or mail. A support that is hardly available and is not available at all on weekends. On the page where it is about self-exclusion, this is not pointed out, on the contrary, it is pointed out the function of the closure, in connection with player protection and game break, which suggests that this is a lock.
It is therefore very difficult for a player to actually get locked, it is not pointed out what you have to do for this and it is suggested with a function that has no sense to achieve this, which is not the case.
Here InterCasino even speculates with Gambling addiction of customers, because they often only want to be locked in a moment of frustration and then a little later often no longer want to.
- you can close your account - that is, you close it, then try to log back in, you get the notice that you have received a mail on whose link you have to click and you can play again.
Everyone knows that when you have calmed down again and made a lock that you then check whether this was also made.
If you then read that you can unlock again with a few clicks then the whole thing suddenly looks different and you could then decide to still play.
The function has no sense at all. There is then the question why a casino offers an option that has no sense at all?
What do they want to achieve with it except to give the player a false image?
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
That's what happened to me at Videoslots, for example. The casino is I liked, good game selection, extremely fast payouts, extremely fair Bonuses and more. 10 months ago I got myself banned there for 6 months because of gambling addiction. When I wanted to reopen my account 2 months ago, they asked me a lot of questions and decided not to open my account again, although I affirmed in the chat that I am not addicted to gambling. And I was a good customer during the time I was playing there.
Videoslots is not the only casino that reacted like this. I therefore think that Player protection must be taken seriously by casinos and that casinos face severe penalties for violations. I could well imagine that you will be proven right and that InterCasino will have to improve its player protection in the future. But now you can only wait and see.
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
At Verajohn there is also this kind of "lock"
. I find it also nonsensical.if then you would have to offer both options.this lock and a real lock for a period of time and forever.I also think that all player protection settings should be made in the account, and not extra the support must be written to.
What I do not quite understand is that you seem to have done the whole thing several times, so you lock and unlock again and then also play.da hättest you then better set up a limit.Or did you mean you just tried several times, whether you can really unlock again?
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
Yes, Vera John also belongs to Intercasino.
During that time I have locked myself out of all the casinos I play at.
At InterCasino it happened to me because I assumed that this was also a real lock, but I thought I had just done something wrong.
And of course I had cooled down a bit again.
But I still couldn't play at the other casinos for the period I had selected, which was the whole point of having me blocked, even if I should change my mind in a few days.
Because if you have it so well under control as a player, then a lock would be unnecessary anyway.
It serves exactly that purpose - self-protection.
I think InterCasino knows exactly about the psychology of players and thinks with this alibi closure to circumvent the player protection to be able to be nevertheless with the MGA fine out - which I hope times that also see the same as me.
You can also summarize it this way:
While the other sites where I usually play and have locked me in this period also really take seriously the player protection and I could therefore no longer play for the selected period, I have Intercasino in this time can still leave over 1k, because the just have a misleading player protection to let the player in the belief he would have locked.
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Liked this post: Anonym
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
I have not paid attention because I thought with the 'blocking' of my account would be settled.
Then look at it more closely then you see the difference very clearly. On all other sites I was able to successfully block myself without needing any special knowledge.
Maybe this is clear for many long-term players, but for the majority and more casual players who are not so familiar with the online casino world, this is not clear.
Take a closer look at the InterCasino page under the point Player protection and what impression is conveyed there.
The all-important question that I now also ask you:
Why do you offer a function that makes absolutely no sense and serves no purpose?
Why do you offer a closure that can be lifted immediately with just a few clicks and which does not offer the option to select a binding time frame?
No, you only have the option to close your account and reopen it with a few clicks.
What is the point of that? I would like to read your answer to this.
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
Yes, only at InterCasino you just do not close even temporarily. That is the point. It makes no difference at all whether you choose the close function or leave your account open. Except that you give the player the impression he would have excluded himself from playing.
With the closure there is no time frame, nothing binding.
It only says that the account is closed and that you should click on the activation link in your mail to be able to play again.
There is no mention whatsoever about what you have to do to close the account.
But if a player chooses the close option, shouldn't InterCasino assume that the player wants to exclude himself?
In their questions and answers on the subject of player protection, they mention how important this is and that you can also take time off. And exactly there they mention the option with the closure which suggests that you can take a binding timeout.
Also there is nothing mentioned about the fact that you have to contact the (hardly accessible) support for an actual lock.
I call this deliberate misleading.
This post has been translated automatically
InterCasino - dubious actions and violation of player protection.
Nobody has liked this post so far
I have now called in a lawyer for international law and I will also check to what extent one can sue the Mga, which helps here as an extended arm InterCasino to deceive players.
It is finally time to do something against arbitrary procedures. The online casino sector is a gathering place for fraudsters who can do whatever they want. Insufficient Player protection, payouts are withheld, unfair bonus conditions, unfair and hidden bonus conditions that the casinos then interpret as they want, payout delays, etc. And even if the Mga in some clear cases also sometimes decides for the players, so they play nice and well-behaved with the above-mentioned and thus also support that.
You really have to be a professional to know about the above issues .
Which average player knows something about bonus conditions, etc.?
This post has been translated automatically