Dana 18. jula 2026. godine, otvorio sam nalog na CasinoExtreme.eu. Pre nego što sam uplatio bilo kakav depozit, nisam bio siguran da li možda već imam nalog u kazinu, pa sam kontaktirao ćaskanje uživo da bih ih zamolio da provere da li postoji drugi nalog pod mojim podacima.
Da bi provera bila što preciznija, agentu za ćaskanje uživo sam dao svoje puno ime, uključujući i srednje ime. Ovo je važno jer sam prilikom registracije novog naloga koristio samo ime i prezime, bez srednjeg imena.
Odgovor agenta za ćaskanje uživo sastojao se iz dva dela. Prvo, agent je izjavio da, na osnovu preliminarne provere, nema naznaka da imam drugi nalog u kazinu. Snimak ekrana ovog razgovora je priložen uz moju žalbu. Agent je zatim dodao izjavu o odricanju odgovornosti u kojoj je objašnjeno da samo Odeljenje za dokumenta/bankovske poslove može da pruži konačnu potvrdu u vezi sa statusom naloga.
Razumeo sam i prihvatio to odricanje odgovornosti. Međutim, takođe sam se razumno oslonio na stvarni preliminarni nalaz agenta da nije identifikovan duplikat naloga. Namerno sam agentu dao svoje puno ime od tri dela upravo kako bi se mogao otkriti svaki prethodni nalog pod mojim identitetom.
Na osnovu ovih informacija, nastavio sam sa uplatom depozita i igrom.
Kasnije se ispostavilo da sam zapravo imao stariji nalog, a CasinoExtreme je odbio da mi isplati dobitke zbog pravila o višestrukim računima.
Kazino je potom objasnio da ćaskanje uživo nema mogućnost da identifikuje svaki duplikat naloga, posebno u komplikovanijim situacijama. Naveli su da je stariji nalog teže identifikovati jer je registrovan bez adrese i pod mojim punim imenom od tri dela.
Međutim, ovo objašnjenje je upravo razlog zašto verujem da moja žalba zaslužuje razmatranje. Posebno sam agentu za ćaskanje uživo dao sva tri svoja imena i datum rođenja pre nego što sam uplatio depozit. Stoga, razlika u načinu na koji se moje ime pojavljivalo na novijem nalogu nije trebalo da spreči agenta da identifikuje stariji nalog kada sam dobrovoljno naveo nedostajuće srednje ime tokom ćaskanja.
U potpunosti razumem da je agent uključio izjavu o odricanju odgovornosti da Odeljenje za dokumentaciju ima konačnu odluku. To ne sporim. Moja zabrinutost je što mi je kazino takođe dao pozitivan preliminarni odgovor u kojem se navodi da nije pronađen višestruki nalog.
Da mi je u ćaskanju uživo jednostavno rečeno: „Ne možemo ovo da proverimo i morate sačekati Odeljenje za dokumentaciju pre nego što uplatite novac", shvatio bih da postupam isključivo na sopstveni rizik. Ali to nije bio odgovor koji sam dobio. Konkretno mi je rečeno da preliminarna provera nije pronašla drugi račun.
Nije bilo namere sa moje strane da zloupotrebim sistem bonusa kazina ili namerno da napravim drugi nalog. U stvari, moja odluka da kontaktiram podršku pre uplate pokazuje suprotno: aktivno sam pokušavao da izbegnem kršenje pravila o višestrukim računima.
Stoga ne verujem da je fer da kazino prebaci 100% odgovornosti na mene, a da pritom ne prihvata nikakvu odgovornost za netačne preliminarne informacije koje je pružio njegov predstavnik za podršku.
Takođe ne zahtevam isplatu punog spornog dobitka. Već sam predložio kompromis i zamolio kazino da razmotri razumnu delimičnu isplatu dobre volje koja odražava zajedničku odgovornost u ovoj situaciji. Kazino je odbio i samo je pristao da mi vrati depozit.
S poštovanjem molim Casino.Guru da razmotri da li je ovo pravedan ishod.
Po mom mišljenju, pravedno rešenje bi bilo da CasinoExtreme isplati razuman deo spornog dobitka kao nagodbu iz dobre volje. Prihvatam da uslovi kazina zabranjuju višestruke naloge, ali takođe verujem da su okolnosti važne: proaktivno sam zamolio kazino da proveri pre uplate, dao sam agentu svoje puno ime, uključujući i srednje ime, dobio preliminarnu potvrdu da nije pronađen nijedan drugi nalog i oslonio se na te informacije kada sam odlučio da uplatim i igram.
Ne tražim od Casino.Guru-a da ignoriše pravilo kazina o višestrukim računima. Jednostavno tražim da se uzme u obzir i doprinos samog kazina onome što se dogodilo i da se razmotri pravedno delimično poravnanje.
On 18 July 2026, I opened an account at CasinoExtreme.eu. Before making any deposit, I was unsure whether I might already have had an account with the casino from the past, so I contacted live chat specifically to ask them to check whether another account existed under my details.
To make the check as accurate as possible, I provided the live chat agent with my full name, including my middle name. This is important because when I registered the new account, I had used only my first and last name, without my middle name.
The live chat agent's response consisted of two parts. First, the agent stated that, based on a preliminary check, there were no indications that I had another account with the casino. The screenshot of this conversation is attached to my complaint. The agent then added a disclaimer explaining that only the Documents/Banking Department could provide the final confirmation regarding account status.
I understood and accepted that disclaimer. However, I also reasonably relied on the agent's actual preliminary finding that no duplicate account had been identified. I had deliberately given the agent my full three-part name precisely so that any previous account under my identity could be detected.
Based on this information, I proceeded to make a deposit and play.
It later turned out that I did in fact have an older account, and CasinoExtreme refused to pay my winnings because of the multiple-account rule.
The casino subsequently explained that live chat does not have the ability to identify every duplicate account, particularly in more complicated situations. They stated that the older account was more difficult to identify because it had been registered without an address and under my full three-part name.
However, this explanation is exactly why I believe my complaint deserves consideration. I specifically provided the live chat agent with all three of my names and my date of birth before depositing. Therefore, the difference in how my name appeared on the newer account should not have prevented the agent from identifying the older account when I had voluntarily supplied the missing middle name during the chat.
I fully understand that the agent included a disclaimer that the Documents Department had the final authority. I am not disputing that. My concern is that the casino also gave me a positive preliminary answer stating that no multiple account had been found.
If the live chat had simply told me, "We cannot check this, and you must wait for the Documents Department before depositing," I would have understood that I was proceeding entirely at my own risk. But that was not the answer I received. I was specifically told that a preliminary check had found no other account.
There was no intention on my part to abuse the casino's bonus system or deliberately create a second account. In fact, my decision to contact support before depositing demonstrates the opposite: I was actively trying to avoid violating the multiple-account rule.
I therefore do not believe it is fair for the casino to place 100% of the responsibility on me while accepting no responsibility for the incorrect preliminary information provided by its own support representative.
I am also not demanding payment of the full disputed winnings. I have already proposed a compromise and asked the casino to consider a reasonable partial goodwill payment that reflects the shared responsibility in this situation. The casino has refused and has only agreed to return my deposit.
I respectfully ask Casino.Guru to consider whether this is a fair outcome.
In my view, a fair resolution would be for CasinoExtreme to pay a reasonable portion of the disputed winnings as a goodwill settlement. I accept that the casino's terms prohibit multiple accounts, but I also believe that the circumstances are important: I proactively asked the casino to check before depositing, gave the agent my full name including my middle name , received a preliminary confirmation that no other account had been found, and relied on that information when deciding to deposit and play.
I am not asking Casino.Guru to ignore the casino's multiple-account rule. I am simply asking that the casino's own contribution to what happened also be taken into account and that a fair partial settlement be considered.
Automatski prevedeno: