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?

 

[ptaylor78]

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?

Let me know which casino you play on. If I’m able to sign up, I’ll leave you a tip. You strike me as the type who hangs around casino forums all day once the bankroll hits zero, just waiting for the next casino weekly bonus or loss back. Lol. Seems like this board caters mostly to UK players and people who use words like “fiddlers.” I’ll let you have the last word since you seem to be craving it.

 

[dunover]

Let me know which casino you play on. If I’m able to sign up, I’ll leave you a tip. You strike me as the type who hangs around casino forums all day once the bankroll hits zero, just waiting for the next casino weekly bonus or loss back. Lol. Seems like this board caters mostly to UK players and people who use words like “fiddlers.” I’ll let you have the last word since you seem to be craving it.

Try and keep it polite! If you don't like your opinions or assertions being challenged, perhaps debate is not for you.

It would be remiss of me to not ask why, if you have such a large gambling budget, you tried to impose a mere $60 loss limit following a relatively paltry win of $1500 or so?

I appreciate the annoyance of a loss limit tool not having the effect you expected, but to a player of your magnitude surely only a minor inconvenience?

 

[ptaylor78]

Try and keep it polite! If you don't like your opinions or assertions being challenged, perhaps debate is not for you.

It would be remiss of me to not ask why, if you have such a large gambling budget, you tried to impose a mere $60 loss limit following a relatively paltry win of $1500 or so?

I appreciate the annoyance of a loss limit tool not having the effect you expected, but to a player of your magnitude surely only a minor inconvenience?

I debate and argue for a living and have no issue with opposing opinions. But let’s be clear: the casino offered RG tools and they failed to work. That alone makes it a poor casino. Add to that a weak VIP program, clunky interface, and the fact that I couldn’t withdraw my funds due to a 2FA reset, and it’s obvious this was not a good platform.

I set limits low specifically because I had no intention of giving this casino any more money. Later, I discovered this site and found out that BC.Game ignores Casinomeister’s attempts to assist players, which only confirmed my initial impression.

It’s irrelevant whether a majority of UK players or a vocal minority on this forum believe RG tools should be scrapped. The tools were offered and did not function properly. That is the issue. If holding a casino accountable for safeguards they promote is considered “freerolling,” that is news to me.

Other players will fall into the same trap. That is the core issue, and it deserves to be addressed, regardless of whether some Casinomeister "regulars" believe it might result in a windfall for the player. There has been plenty of debate about player accountability and responsibility for wagers placed after a limit is set. But the reality is this: loss limits exist precisely to override player discretion and protect them from losses beyond what they consciously chose to risk. Like it or not, that is their purpose.

My guardrail example is worth repeating. Just because an individual understands the risk of driving off a cliff does not absolve the entity responsible for maintaining the guardrail if it is damaged or missing entirely. Awareness of risk does not eliminate the duty owed by those who put the safety measure in place and claim it will function as intended.

I would have never discovered Casinomeister, been exposed to all these 'pleasant' UK blokes (did I get that slang properly?) and had the need to create this thread, if that loss limit had been activated on Razed, Shuffle, Stake and a host of other casinos. I am here because BC.Game didn't hold up their end of the bargain, and in your words gave BS explanations about limits not working in real time. My continued betting or gambling budget are wholly distinct from BC.Game's unfair, deceptive and improper action.

 

[dunover]

My guardrail example is worth repeating. Just because an individual understands the risk of driving off a cliff does not absolve the entity responsible for maintaining the guardrail if it is damaged or missing entirely. Awareness of risk does not eliminate the duty owed by those who put the safety measure in place and claim it will function as intended.

Sounds like an ad slogan for a US attorney's practice.

In the UK we call it 'idiot proofing' because it's a futile objective. That doesn't refer to your complaint here by the way, more the general principle of expecting others to mitigate our own actions.

I agree with your observation about the level of input from UK residents here, and that's chiefly because we've had a gut full of state nannyism especially where gambling is concerned; the industry here is slowly being diminished by excessive and often irrational regulation.

That said, I for one wholeheartedly agree loss limits are vital and should work, same as genuine DLs (as opposed to misdescribed LLs).

The issue is, at what point does the casino decide that a player is using them as a general inoculation against uncontrolled urges as opposed to occasional ad hoc use? As you may have heard already, in some jurisdictions arbitrary decisions are made when a player uses them too often or in certain situations.

Finally, to address the reason many respondents here seem so cynical, we've never, ever had a thread when a player asks for example "I erroneously opened a second account with the same casino contrary to their rules and they paid me some winnings, how do I send it back to them?" or "I opened an account with a casino whose sister site I was excluded from so shouldn't have been allowed to deposit, how do I refund my profits?" and of course "Somehow I exceeded my DL or LL and won, how can I get the casino to void the win?" (Irrespective of why they were exceeded.)

 

[ptaylor78]

Sounds like an ad slogan for a US attorney's practice.

In the UK we call it 'idiot proofing' because it's a futile objective. That doesn't refer to your complaint here by the way, more the general principle of expecting others to mitigate our own actions.

I agree with your observation about the level of input from UK residents here, and that's chiefly because we've had a gut full of state nannyism especially where gambling is concerned; the industry here is slowly being diminished by excessive and often irrational regulation.

That said, I for one wholeheartedly agree loss limits are vital and should work, same as genuine DLs (as opposed to misdescribed LLs).

The issue is, at what point does the casino decide that a player is using them as a general inoculation against uncontrolled urges as opposed to occasional ad hoc use? As you may have heard already, in some jurisdictions arbitrary decisions are made when a player uses them too often or in certain situations.

Finally, to address the reason many respondents here seem so cynical, we've never, ever had a thread when a player asks for example "I erroneously opened a second account with the same casino contrary to their rules and they paid me some winnings, how do I send it back to them?" or "I opened an account with a casino whose sister site I was excluded from so shouldn't have been allowed to deposit, how do I refund my profits?" and of course "Somehow I exceeded my DL or LL and won, how can I get the casino to void the win?" (Irrespective of why they were exceeded.)

Again, loss limits exist specifically to override player discretion and protect users from excessive loss. What is striking is that the arguments being made here are not even aligned with BC.Game’s own explanations. BC.Game has acknowledged that the loss limits were set and active, yet claim things like I was betting too fast or that there was lag or a delay in bet settlement, which is simply nonsense, as you concur.

If this forum chooses to focus on what the player supposedly did wrong, that is entirely up to the members here. I will be fine taking a $1500 hit, which is actually a $1000 loss since $500 was profit. But for a site that claims to challenge casinos that operate unfairly, it is telling that nearly every response, with the possible exception of yours, shifts attention away from the core issue.

Loss limits are designed to take effect when player judgment does not. That is their purpose. I appreciate that you, at least, have offered a fair and balanced view of the situation.

 

[dunover]

Again, loss limits exist specifically to override player discretion and protect users from excessive loss. What is striking is that the arguments being made here are not even aligned with BC.Game’s own explanations. BC.Game has acknowledged that the loss limits were set and active, yet claim things like I was betting too fast or that there was lag or a delay in bet settlement, which is simply nonsense, as you concur.

If this forum chooses to focus on what the player supposedly did wrong, that is entirely up to the members here. I will be fine taking a $1500 hit, which is actually a $1000 loss since $500 was profit. But for a site that claims to challenge casinos that operate unfairly, it is telling that nearly every response, with the possible exception of yours, shifts attention away from the core issue.

Loss limits are designed to take effect when player judgment does not. That is their purpose. I appreciate that you, at least, have offered a fair and balanced view of the situation.

I am not sure if we have a line of communication with BC Game, in fact I cannot see them on our lists. If so they could have been contacted on your behalf for a more specific explanation. So we are stuck in circles here.

 

[ptaylor78]

I am not sure if we have a line of communication with BC Game, in fact I cannot see them on our lists. If so they could have been contacted on your behalf for a more specific explanation. So we are stuck in circles here.

Yes, I have filed a complaint with another mediation site. From what I can tell, BC.Game has either stopped cooperating with Casinomeister or tells players to contact them directly, then takes no action. I will wait to see how the complaint is handled.

What I have learned is to stick with trusted casinos I have used before, especially when playing the same games. In this case, roulette.

I did the responsible thing by setting a $60 loss limit. Despite how RG tools are intended to work, suggesting that I should have immediately stopped betting or contacted support the moment the limit failed, is reasonable. But continuing to bet beyond a failed limit does not make someone a problem gambler or irresponsible. Most players, in my experience, struggle at times to stop when they know they should. That is exactly why loss limits exist, to enforce boundaries when player discretion fails.

The reason I am raising this issue is because I have used the exact same loss limit interface at Shuffle Casino many times. It works properly. Bets settle instantly, and once you hit your limit, you are blocked from continuing. BC.Game’s version did not work the same way, and I believe it may be intentionally designed to allow betting beyond the limit. Given the house edge and volatility of roulette, every extra round increases the likelihood of player losses.

Responsible gambling tools are there for a reason. If a casino offers them, they must function as promised. Sentiments and trends in the UK regarding RG tools do not diminish a complaint regarding BC.Game's failure.

 

[Mouse75]

.

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.

And this whole, convoluted thread reads exactly like a lawyer trying to prove their point of view irrespective of any valid counter argument. The repetition, and it must be on 8 plus posts ( I CBA counting exactly) of what happened but in slightly different wording is unnecessary and deflecting considerably from any validity your argument might hold.

On face value. yes the casino could have been more pro-active in applying your limit request - I don't think anyone is really arguing that point -

However - you asked for a $60 limit loss ( or whatever) and then immediately broke this.
Did you withdraw the $1500 or at least start the process and then cancel said withdrawal - cos this would point in your favour?
Did you withdraw and then re-deposit which would categorically be in your favour?

I understand from your posts - you didn't and here in lies the crux.... You placed twelve bets so in the region of $125 on average each - on the very first one of these you had the ability to walk away or as previously mentioned challenged the RG then. The fact that you didn't has nothing to do with the RG tools - its on you.

Your dogmatic refusal to accept any ownership very much does read like a have my cake and eat it scenario. TBH, and yeah it is my opinion (often the case for a forum) it stinks.

 

[ptaylor78]

And this whole, convoluted thread reads exactly like a lawyer trying to prove their point of view irrespective of any valid counter argument. The repetition, and it must be on 8 plus posts ( I CBA counting exactly) of what happened but in slightly different wording is unnecessary and deflecting considerably from any validity your argument might hold.

On face value. yes the casino could have been more pro-active in applying your limit request - I don't think anyone is really arguing that point -

However - you asked for a $60 limit loss ( or whatever) and then immediately broke this.
Did you withdraw the $1500 or at least start the process and then cancel said withdrawal - cos this would point in your favour?
Did you withdraw and then re-deposit which would categorically be in your favour?

I understand from your posts - you didn't and here in lies the crux.... You placed twelve bets so in the region of $125 on average each - on the very first one of these you had the ability to walk away or as previously mentioned challenged the RG then. The fact that you didn't has nothing to do with the RG tools - its on you.

Your dogmatic refusal to accept any ownership very much does read like a have my cake and eat it scenario. TBH, and yeah it is my opinion (often the case for a forum) it stinks.

If a casino offers players the option to self-exclude under its mandated responsible gambling policies and a player activates that option, yet the casino fails to block the account, allowing the player to continue gambling and lose money, then under your rationale the responsibility would lie solely with the player. The player should have exercised more accountability and made better choices, regardless of the availability or failure of responsible gambling tools.

However, I have come across numerous complaints in which mediation or regulatory bodies have sided with the player in such cases. Thank you for your unique feedback (presenting novel arguments) nonetheless.

It makes sense that most of my interactions with English folks over the years have been with women. Based on my limited exposure over the past 48 hours, I’ve found that some of the men (perhaps just the degen gambler types) can be quite insufferable. Respectfully. I did come across Sir David Beckham once in Florida following an Inter Miami match. He was quite pleasant...

Alternatively, it could be that this forum is primarily for UK players and some of you all are feeling quite territorial or frustrated with outsiders simply trying to utilize online casino resources. Lol!

 

[mulven]

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!!!

one of you responses had this in it "Sure, here's the same revision without dashes:" whilst multiple posts contain em dashes, a trademark sign of a generated response.

 

[ptaylor78]

one of you responses had this in it "Sure, here's the same revision without dashes:" whilst multiple posts contain em dashes, a trademark sign of a generated response.

Your point being what? If I speak and write Spanish, English and Portuguese (which other language do you know?), I find no problem using anything to help me communicate, spell check, and not write the plural of casino as casino's. Hope that helps.

Before I needed to lodge this complaint I didn't know this fraternity of gamblers existed where you post online every day on these forums for years upon end. Sheesh. Don't fret, soon I will depart from here, leaving the forums exclusively back to you all to post thousands of messages about gambling, year after year. Yet, I'm the one who is labeled a problem gambler. Lmao!!!

 

[mulven]

Your point being what? If I speak and write Spanish, English and Portuguese (which other language do you know?), I find no problem using anything to help me communicate, spell check, and not write the plural of casino as casino's. Hope that helps.

Before I needed to lodge this complaint I didn't know this fraternity of gamblers existed where you post online every day on these forums for years upon end. Sheesh.

I only had a problem with you pretending that you didn't know what an LLM was, using one is fine as long as it's not egregious. There was no need to attack the other guy for messing up his punctuation. Believe it or not we don't care about our posts being perfect, this forum thread isn't exactly a dissertation.

 

[ptaylor78]

I only had a problem with you pretending that you didn't know what an LLM was, using one is fine as long as it's not egregious. There was no need to attack the other guy for messing up his punctuation. Believe it or not we don't care about our posts being perfect, this forum thread isn't exactly a dissertation.

In my world, the only meaning of LLM I was aware of before today, is a masters in law degree. Hope that helps.

 

[mulven]

In my world the only meaning of LLM is a masters in law degree. Hope that helps.

Well at least you don't need AI to be able to do a snarky meme at the end of your posts.

 

[ptaylor78]

Well at least you don't need AI to be able to do a snarky meme at the end of your posts.

Lo siento, no entiendo tu comentario sobre el "meme sarcástico".

 

[TheAddict]

Your point being what? If I speak and write Spanish, English and Portuguese (which other language do you know?), I find no problem using anything to help me communicate, spell check, and not write the plural of casino as casino's. Hope that helps.

Before I needed to lodge this complaint I didn't know this fraternity of gamblers existed where you post online every day on these forums for years upon end. Sheesh. Don't fret, soon I will depart from here, leaving the forums exclusively back to you all to post thousands of messages about gambling, year after year. Yet, I'm the one who is labeled a problem gambler. Lmao!!!

You didn't know a forum might exist where people use it to post on, sometimes even for years on end? Suprising, since up until that comment you came across as someone who believes to know everything.

I'm just another insufferable Brit, bored enough to have read each one of your repetitive and increasingly hostile replies. On the brightside, it seems there was at least one point during David Beckham's life where he didn't feel like the biggest panzy in the room. Good for him.

 

[Mouse75]

@TheAddict Surely you mean pansy


@ptaylor78 I suggest you re-read my post - at no point did I say its solely down to the player, as you have erroneously posted I simply said that your failure to walk at certain points is on you. I also at no point said this detracted from a Casinos RG role.

TBH, I am not a lawyer, or legally trained, and yet I have clearly demonstrated a flaw in your response.
Did you go out for the debate team in school?

You have thrown insult after insult on this thread - all for no reason. Also, who are you to judge IF some one can read or write in multiple languages, and what exactly is the relevance to this thread?

Furthermore, its you who has openly admitted to a gambling problem, and whilst there are definitely some on this forum who might fall into that category, your wide sweeping assessment of this forum is again far from the mark.

To put it in layman's terms- 1) you came to a forum for advice, 2) you didn't like said advice which was provided free of charge and with good intentions, 3) you spat your dummy out, took your ball home and sulked.

Good luck with your mediation, in a perfect world you might get your deposits back, and if you do fair play. However, should this be the case, may I humbly offer some advice? Namely, put your RG tools in place before you make your first gamble at your next choice of online casino that way all of this could be avoided.

 

[ptaylor78]

@ptaylor78
TBH, I am not a lawyer, or legally trained Clearly

and yet I have clearly demonstrated a flaw in your response.
Did you go out for the debate team in school?

However, should this be the case, may I humbly offer some advice? Namely, put your RG tools in place before you make your first gamble at your next choice of online casino that way all of this could be avoided.

Thanks for reinforcing that, despite my repeated and exhaustive explanations, you still manage to both misunderstand and misrepresent key parts of what actually happened. (see the attached)

Secondly, I’m not here seeking advice. When i signed up here on 6/20, my complaint had already been filed with another platform. I read on Casinomeister that you cannot have more than one mediation service working on the same issue, and that Casinomeister does not have much of a relationship with BC.Game.

I also read the rules indicating that once you post publicly about a complaint, you cannot then submit it here for mediation. My intent in posting about BC.Game was not to get guidance. It was to issue a warning. That is why @dunover edited my thread title, which originally contained a stronger warning and was more accusatory. My original post is void of any question marks or inquiries.

At no point was I expecting anyone here to validate or support a complaint that was already being handled elsewhere. When the tone of the conversation or perhaps banter became condescending and accusatory, I simply responded in kind. Simple as that. Happy that I learned another meaning for LLM and also the term "freeroll". All was not lost coming here. You blokes get to sleep, it must be close to midnight for you all.

 

[Mouse75]

Thanks for reinforcing that, despite my repeated and exhaustive explanations, you still manage to both misunderstand and misrepresent key parts of what actually happened. (see the attached)

Secondly, I’m not here seeking advice. When i signed up here on 6/20, my complaint had already been filed with another platform. I read on Casinomeister that you cannot have more than one mediation service working on the same issue, and that Casinomeister does not have much of a relationship with BC.Game.

I also read the rules indicating that once you post publicly about a complaint, you cannot then submit it here for mediation. My intent in posting about BC.Game was not to get guidance. It was to issue a warning. That is why @dunover edited my thread title, which originally contained a stronger warning and was more accusatory. My original post is void of any question marks or inquiries.

At no point was I expecting anyone here to validate or support a complaint that was already being handled elsewhere. When the tone of the conversation or perhaps banter became condescending and accusatory, I simply responded in kind. Simple as that. Happy that I learned another meaning for LLM and also the term "freeroll". All was not lost coming here. You blokes get to sleep, it must be close to midnight for you all.

Don't treat me like a fool - I can read, and read all your representative posts, even with the mind numbing (IMO of course) repetition - and oddly enough I UNDERSTAND what happened - or to be more accurate (as this seems to be part of your wheelhouse) and your screenshots not withstanding, what you claimed happened - cos actually, I have seen no proof of this.

Nor do I need any, I took you at your word, I happen to have some sympathy with your argument, but stand by the comments I made.

At no point have I insulted you, your intelligence or your country anywhere in this thread - I am pretty confident that you cannot make the same statement.

As I said good luck - and even given your poisonous and negative attitude - I still actually mean it.

 

[ptaylor78]

Don't treat me like a fool - I can read, and read all your representative posts, even with the mind numbing (IMO of course) repetition - and oddly enough I UNDERSTAND what happened - or to be more accurate (as this seems to be part of your wheelhouse) and your screenshots not withstanding, what you claimed happened - cos actually, I have seen no proof of this.

Nor do I need any, I took you at your word, I happen to have some sympathy with your argument, but stand by the comments I made.

At no point have I insulted you, your intelligence or your country anywhere in this thread - I am pretty confident that you cannot make the same statement.

As I said good luck - and even given your poisonous and negative attitude - I still actually mean it.

Some of the language on this thread was a bit much and meant more as banter than real hostility. The tone in this exchange has not been ideal, but for the record, any jabs about intelligence or nationality were not made in total seriousness. The David Beckham comment, for example, was meant to underscore the light-hearted nature of the back and forth, at least from my side.

Unlike some opinions on this thread, while i acknowledge the importance of player responsibility, I am a strong advocate for responsible gambling tools because they do an excellent job of moderating behavior and creating friction between a player and making bad or undesired decisions.

I am frustrated and upset with BC.Game and want to put others on alert. Losing $1000 to $1500 is not life changing, but it is not nothing, especially because I believe BC.Game intentionally failed to deliver on what they promised.

For context, on a well known review/complaint site, the five casinos I have mainly used, BetOnline, Stake, Shuffle, Razed and Roobet, have 553 complaints combined. BC.Game has 548 on its own. I hope some players see my posts and think twice about using BC.Game and other casinos with dodgy reputations.

 

[dunover]

I also read the rules indicating that once you post publicly about a complaint, you cannot then submit it here for mediation. My intent in posting about BC.Game was not to get guidance. It was to issue a warning. That is why @dunover edited my thread title, which originally contained a stronger warning and was more accusatory. My original post is void of any question marks or inquiries.

After reading this interminable merry-go-round of a thread I could also justifiably have changed it to

"BC.GAME CASINO: $1,500 Lost Due To Failed Self-Discipline"​

but that would be churlish and not in the spirit of the forum and how we receive new members here. All I did was balance your rather hysterical initial thread title to make it less perjorative when it became clear both parties had played a part in the events.

So here's where we are:

We all clearly know the viewpoint and chronology of the matter from both sides.
We don't have a line of communication to said casino.
All the people who were going to take the time to reply have now done so.
The observations and arguments of all respondents have been expansive and very clear - multiple times!
As a result of the above it is now becoming tedious and repetitious.

Any good reason why this should not now be locked to avoid more tetchiness?

 

[satchnz]

@ptaylor78 - please be aware that we get a number of posts like yours on CM. It’s mostly people who gamble beyond their needs and then try to find ways to get their losses refunded due to perceived negligence by the casino in question.

The common and most appropriate response is to learn from the situation and ensure you have the appropriate support around you. All the best.

 

[ptaylor78]

After reading this interminable merry-go-round of a thread I could also justifiably have changed it to

"BC.GAME CASINO: $1,500 Lost Due To Failed Self-Discipline"​

but that would be churlish and not in the spirit of the forum and how we receive new members here. All I did was balance your rather hysterical initial thread title to make it less perjorative when it became clear both parties had played a part in the events.

So here's where we are:

We all clearly know the viewpoint and chronology of the matter from both sides.
We don't have a line of communication to said casino.
All the people who were going to take the time to reply have now done so.
The observations and arguments of all respondents have been expansive and very clear - multiple times!
As a result of the above it is now becoming tedious and repetitious.

Any good reason why this should not now be locked to avoid more tetchiness?

This is an odd place and I’m surprised that you still find the need to make a quip about self-discipline ignoring the actions of the casino in not having working RG tools. My concerns are being much more fairly received and dealt with elsewhere. For those concerned that it’s about the money, I made the amount back just now in one spin.

Yes feel free to lock the thread now but as a betting man (and given your last post that took the matter backwards and was contrary to your prior posts), I would wager, you will not… Lol! Over it though. I accomplished the goal of posting a warning of BC.Game. I’ll be sure to not update you all on how the mediation goes. Haha! Cheers and good riddance. It was a pleasure dealing with you all this week. Good luck having RG tools scrapped in the UK. Player self-discipline and responsibility are clearly sufficient safeguards in the world of gambling.

Edit: Apologies for missing the note during sign up that Casinomeister was only a place to discusss UKGC casinos… My ChatGPT LLM didn’t alert me.

 

[satchnz]

Good luck having RG tools scrapped in the UK. Player self-discipline and responsibility is clearly sufficient safeguard in the world of gambling.

FYI - BC.Game is not a UKGC registered casino. It’s an offshore casino that accepts players without KYC.

RG tools in the UK will only continue to be “enhanced” until they become too much effort for the average gambler.

 

[dunover]

This is an odd place and I’m surprised that you still find the need to make a quip about self-discipline ignoring the actions of the casino in not having working RG tools. My concerns are being much more fairly received and dealt with elsewhere. For those concerned that it’s about the money, I made the amount back just now in one spin.

Yes feel free to lock the thread now but as a betting man (and given your last post that took the matter backwards and was contrary to your prior posts), I would wager, you will not… Lol! Over it though. I accomplished the goal of posting a warning of BC.Game. I’ll be sure to not update you all on how the mediation goes. Haha! Cheers and good riddance. It was a pleasure dealing with you all this week. Good luck having RG tools scrapped in the UK.

You've not posted a BC Game warning, you've 'vented' your annoyance (see thread prefix) about be able to splurge your winnings without self-control citing the casino as being complicit. Official Warnings on CM are mostly presented after fact-checking by staff or accumulation of authenticated complaints as we have to be fair to both the casino and complainant as opposed to creating a negative vibe on the whim of one individual.

Forget the tautological reverse psychology, the thread is being closed as firstly it's a waste of bandwidth and secondly, I for one am sick to the back teeth of moderating it.

Thanks for the OP, thanks to those who spent their time responding to it too.

If your diatribe is receiving more sympathy elsewhere, well there's your continuing outlet for this self-flagellation because that's exactly what it appears to be underneath.

Adios.