Lemon Casino - opšta diskusija (strana 7)

OK. Let's be more exact considered to casino.guru review to this exact casino.

Everyone can see and read your methodology but how the rating is calculated according to your methodology it's a big big mystery.

Maybe you're right about something. Because I often clearly notice details that 98 out of 100 people don't pay attention to- my statements sometimes may seem unfounded. Maybe that's why it seems to me that your reviews are biased, but this may be due to banal miscalculations by your reviewers. Now more specifics

Let's review some points and some criterias, then me and some imbecile gamblers like me may understand your logic in your review

- Medium-sized casino, based on our research and estimates.

Agree. Even more, according to visitors quantity I checked it is near to be "large". BTW. According to my analysis, visitors quantity (or "casino size") is the basic in criteria in your reviews.

-We consider the casino's T&Cs to be 

fair...

I'm afraid your ideas about what is "fair" don't coincide with mine.

In some OTHER casinos reviews we may see this note: "Unfair terms and conditions

This casino forbids certain betting patterns or strategies when playing with bonus funds, but we have not witnessed this rule being used against players yet."

BTW I played in several casinos with similar warning message in casino.guru review, but Never have problem with that.

Now the facts:

In lemon.casino

"player gameplay will be assessed for any unusual playing patterns", and "If Lemon Casino determines irregular gameplay, the casino reserves the right to retain withdrawals and/or cancel all winnings" (claus 10 in T&Cs).

Even more, there is no clarification what considered as "unusual".

We do have a case. Even your complaint specialist rejected my complaint, but as I see he also was not sure regarding the interpretation of some points of the rules. Moreover, he refused to interpret the rules literally in favor of dubious and speculative and conjectural arguments of the casino. I will not write about the consideration of the case now - this is another topic, but the fact remains. There are articles in the casino rules that are clearly misleading, have a double meaning and give rise to different interpretations. This is unambiguous and categorical and if someone will argue the opposite, I apologize, but I will be sure that he have "special treatment" to casino. Considering that, the double meaning is not just comes from the texts in the T&Cs but also applied by this casino, of course, for its own benefit. This is a big, big issue. I would call one of the compelling reasons to add Many penalty points in the review.

And casino.guru consider it's rules "fair". Does anyone dare to doubt?))

No player complaints or very low value of withheld winnings in complaints in relation to the casino's size.

I see 17 complaints in 2024. You may know better if is this quantity is high or low.

-We also considered other factors, which had a neutral impact on the casino's Safety Index

Ok. I would add the low bet limit of 2EU when wagering the bonus together with absence of any software solution which can easily lead to losses by mistake even a gambler clearly remember the maximum bet rule. This casino with pleasure will confiscate your 10000Eu balance if you even one single time clicked 2.5 EUR by mistake. They do it regularly as I see in some user reviews (not only here). Is there anybody who doesn't think that this is extremely unsafe??

I remember, that in much smaller casinos how much time a big bet was Not allowed to be placed (the game just stopped) when by mistake I exceeded maximum - software didn't allow. I even have serious doubts that lemon.casino intentionally doesn't solve this at software level to have more chances to confiscate winnings. Don't I have any reasons to think so, really?

BTW in your review the maximum bet amount is mentioned 2,5Eu, which also speaks that reviewer didn't pay proper attention to details.

+ in many casino.guru reviews I can see warnings about low withdrawal limits. Pt.9 T&Cs of lemon.casino the maximum cash out limit is mentioned 2500... And there is not clarification is this one time, weekly, monthly or a lifetime limit). At least not clear...

Isn't this enough to doubt the validity of your review?

Oh. About license. I may be wrong, but I remember also in some of your reviews you mentioned "Passive regulator" as a penalty point. However this casino has the worst regulator in the worst field - Curaçao Interactive Licensing N.V. (CIL) 5536/JAZ. The worst even in Curaçao. CIL - even doesn't have any website, and some smart reviewers quite rightly equate presence of CIL license with the absence of a license at all... You don't have a chance for online solution with them because they are not online).. isn't it a reason at least to mention in review?

So some details. This casino has very high Safety Index in casino.guru..

I'm so glad we can focus on something concrete. Thank you for considering my request.

I honestly feared that we would eventually part ways for a brief moment. You see, maybe we have something in common because I also try to notice things that other people tend to ignore.

Well, to your points now. I'll focus only on those where a correctionor explanation should take place:

1) "-We consider the casino's T&Cs to be fair..."

We indeed consider irregular betting patterns used against the player an unfair practice, yet as stated in the Fair Gambling Codex 👈

"In some cases, betting patterns can theoretically be used to identify fraudulent behavior. We have nothing against this if betting patterns are used to uncover what can really be considered fraudulent, and not just used as an excuse not to pay out winnings to players."

"This being said, we still believe that forbidding betting patterns is unacceptable."

Thus, we do not consider this term in its written form to be completely unfair; we inspect how the casino uses the rules. I'd say someone with such a strong appeal for principles understands the difference between written form and everyday practice. Which leads me to:

2) "but the fact remains. There are articles in the casino rules that are clearly misleading, have a double meaning and give rise to different interpretations"

This is precisely why we individually focus on how the casino applies its terms. If the terms are unclear and the casino uses this as an unfair advantage or excuse to void winnings, we also consider all other aspects, like, for example, whether the player asks the support or chat for an explanation and what the response was like. Did the casino act in accordance with what they told the player or not? And so on.

3) "BTW in your review the maximum bet amount is mentioned 2,5Eu, which also speaks that reviewer didn't pay proper attention to details."

Well, it's not a review; it is a bonus detail provided by the casino. Would you be supriced if I told you we relied on casinos willingness to update their own bonus terms with us? We are.

Despite that, some bonuses only look like the standard casino bonuses, but have slightly different conditions.

4) "No player complaints or very low value of withheld winnings in complaints in relation to the casino's size.

I see 17 complaints in 2024. You may know better if is this quantity is high or low."

On the other hand, not a single unresolved complaint so far. You are partially correct; the wording is not precise, but the point is, as far as we know, not a single player was left complaining without resolving the matter.

So, in my opinion, this is not big deal.

5) "Oh. About license. I may be wrong, but I remember I some of your reviews you mentioned "Passive regulator" as a penalty point. However this casino has the worst regulator in the worst field - Curaçao Interactive Licensing N.V. (CIL) 5536/JAZ. The worst even in Curaçao. CIL - even doesn't have any website, and some smart reviewers quite rightly equate presence of CIL license with the absence of a license at all... You don't have a chance for online solution with them because they are not online).. isn't it a reason at least to mention in review?"

Reviews do not mention passive regulator as a penalty point. You are referring to a tab called "Safety Index explained," in which the latest complaints are shown, so the players reviewing the page don't have to leave the tab in order to see the latest complaints submitted against the casino.

As you probably overlooked, though the license icon shown in the review is hypertext-framed, leading you to the whole guide explaining the licensing authority "qualities.". I'd say this is more than just a mention somewhere:

https://casinoguru-en.com/licensing-authorities/curacao-license-2 👈

I would also like to point out there is a "penalization" for weaker licenses, and we also warn palyers about different qualities:

"Every online casino is operated officially from some country (or territory with a special statute - jurisdiction). To make it possible to operate an online casino from a specific country, this country has to have friendly legislation towards online gambling. Licences are issued either by the state that wants to regulate and tax the online gambling of its own citizens (UK, Belgium, Romania, etc.), or by jurisdictions that want to allow casinos to do international business (Malta, Curaçao, Gibraltar, etc.).

If a casino stubbornly refuses to pay you your legitimate winnings, the only possibility that remains is to turn to the regulator who issued the license to the casino. Only then will it show how important it was to choose a casino according to who issued their licence. A good regulator should always stand independently on the side of fair gambling. He should fairly assess and investigate every official complaint. In case of a serious violation of the rules by a casino, it may accede to revoke their licence.

In practice, with some regulators you won´t even be able to access a contact form in order to submit a complaint (Costa Rica, Panama, Anjouan, Seychelles). In this case, against the willfulness of a casino, you don't have any chance.

With some regulators you might have a chance of obtaining justice, however, their approach will generally be lax. Here we can include Curaçao and Gibraltar.

On the other side of the spectrum, stand respected licencing authorities like Malta, Alderney and Isle of Man. In case of a conflict with a casino licensed by some of these authorities, you have a pretty decent chance of obtaining justice." https://casinoguru-en.com/how-to-choose-an-online-casino 👈 point 3 - respected regulator.

If I have an opinion, I would say if you read all the guides and articles in each section - which would be something extra-extraordinary, you may find out the system is not that bad.

(I would appreciate it if you ignored my misspelling; the text is so long🙏)

Looking forward to addressing yet another set of points! In the meantime, have a good one!

Passive regulator- it's not the biggest issue. I didn't mean "penalization" for that. Even more, some casinos operate without any licenses and have great success. However you mention the fact of any casino operating without license. You mentioned CIL as a licensee of lemon.casino- what does it give to a noob in gambling? This exact license is almost similar to it's absence- this is the fact.

"This is precisely why we individually focus on how the casino applies its terms. If the terms are unclear and the casino uses this as an unfair advantage or excuse to void winnings.. "

Ok. I was telling about the same. But seems casino.guru staff have not intentions to see obvious facts just in front of them, but try to act like casino's advocate. What do you think about this yourself? There was a case... sorry there were cases concerning maximum bet. There are clearly written rules in their T&Cs that if bets are exceeded allowed amount they should not be taken into account ("Higher than admissible rates (before full turnover), will not be taken into account." Or "Bets exceeding this limit until the bonus is fully wagered will not be accepted"), but instead they confiscate all the funds. Even if your staff hasn't wishes or abilities to examine the case according literal meaning of T&Cs, add reject it, only the fact that some terms if T&Cs or their different interpretations lead a gambler to open a case, that means that it's no everything so fine with it's T&Cs.

"On the other hand, not a single unresolved complaint so far."

Not funny. I didn't want to return my case but you make me to do.

All I see as an act of called "case reviewing" was another clear manifestation of stereotypical thinking or protectionism, which is what I initially predicted in this thread.

However my recent posts were about something other. You have casino that should be rated maximum 2-3 points out of 10, but it's rated 9,5. That's strange. I take into account as their T&Cs so their behavior and their acts. But your staff is guided by other criterias unknown to me.

Even the fact that overbetting is possible in software level and the fact that they confiscate winnings because of - it is enough to conclude that this casino could not have even near to high Safety Index. And the another fact that they do it ignoring their own T&Cs (Branislav may not totally agree to this but all the same he should agree that it's not everything simple and clear)- that's definitely "trash rating" - no more.