AŽURIRANjE – Kazino još uvek nije naveo konkretan razlog za pregled provajdera
Želeo bih da pružim važno pojašnjenje nakon najnovijeg odgovora kazina.
Znam koja je igra uključena u pregled provajdera. Igru je obezbedio 3 Oaks. Međutim, kazino još uvek nije objasnio zašto je baš ova igra/sesija izabrana za pregled ili koja je konkretna aktivnost pokrenula istragu.
Relevantni niz događaja je jednostavan:
Već sam nagomilao dobitke od preko 1.000 evra iz druge igre.
Onda sam odigrao igru sa 3 Ouksa.
U toj igri sam osvojio još otprilike 5.000 evra.
Moj ukupan dobitak od relevantne aktivnosti u igri je stoga bio približno 7.000 evra.
Nijedan bonus nije iskorišćen ni u jednom trenutku.
Kazino nije dao objašnjenje da je moja igra sumnjiva ili da sam prekršio određeno pravilo. Umesto toga, jednostavno su se pozvali na veoma široku odredbu o borbi protiv prevare u Članu 12.1 i naveli da provajder proverava moju sesiju igranja.
Razumem da kazino može sprovesti legitimnu tehničku ili proveru fer-pleja. Međutim, generalno pozivanje na klauzulu o sprečavanju prevare ne objašnjava zašto je moj nalog zapravo stavljen pod proveru.
Stoga molim kazino da pruži konkretno objašnjenje:
1. Šta je tačno pokrenulo reviziju u slučaju 3 Oaks u mom slučaju?
2. Koja se tačno runda igre, transakcija, obrazac klađenja ili druga aktivnost istražuje?
3. Da li postoji stvarna sumnja na kršenje određene odredbe Uslova i odredbi ili je to jednostavno rutinska provera dobavljača?
4. Ako kazino sumnja na određeno kršenje, koje je to kršenje?
5. Kada je tačno zatražen pregled od 3 Oaks?
6. Koji je maksimalni vremenski rok za završetak ovog pregleda?
Kazino navodi da pregled „obično traje do 14 dana, mada povremeno može trajati i duže", ali ne navodi maksimalni vremenski okvir i kaže da ne može dati tačan datum završetka.
Smatram da je ovo nedovoljno jer su moja povlačenja obustavljena na neodređeno vreme na osnovu istrage za koju mi nije dat konkretan razlog niti jasan rok za završetak.
Takođe molim da se razjasni status mojih već podnetih isplata. Kazino je potvrdio da moje isplate na čekanju nisu otkazane i da će, ako se ne utvrdi kršenje propisa, biti obrađene nakon pregleda. Stoga bih želeo da se ova obaveza jasno zabeleži kao deo žalbe.
Sarađujem u potpunosti sa kazinom i već sam uspešno završio KYC verifikaciju. Želeo bih samo transparentno objašnjenje zašto se moji dobici trenutno zadržavaju i jasan, razuman vremenski okvir za pregled.
Takođe bih želeo da razjasnim okolnosti dobitaka iz igre „3 hrasta".
Dobit od približno 5.000 evra iz ove igre nije bio rezultat jedne neuobičajeno velike opklade ili jedne izuzetne runde igre. Dobitci su se akumulirali tokom vremena kroz više okretaja/sesija igre, sa normalnim ulogom od približno 5 evra po okretaju.
Već sam osvojio više od 1.000 evra u drugoj igri pre nego što sam igrao igru „3 hrasta", a zatim sam akumulirao još približno 5.000 evra kroz normalno igranje u igri „3 hrasta". Ukupan dobitak je stoga bio približno 7.000 evra.
Nijedan bonus nije iskorišćen ni u jednom trenutku.
Stoga ne razumem koji je tačno aspekt ove igre pokrenuo pregled provajdera. Ako je kazino ili 3 Oaks identifikovao određenu rundu, obrazac klađenja, tehnički problem ili kršenje Uslova i odredbi, s poštovanjem ih molim da to konkretno identifikuju, umesto da se generalno pozivaju na Odeljak 1. 
2.1.
UPDATE – Casino has still not provided a specific reason for the provider review
I would like to provide an important clarification following the casino's latest response.
I know which game is involved in the provider review. The game was provided by 3 Oaks. However, the casino has still not explained why this particular game/session has been selected for review or what specific activity has triggered the investigation.
The relevant sequence of events is straightforward:
I had already accumulated winnings of more than €1,000 from another game.
I then played a 3 Oaks game.
I won approximately another €5,000 in that game.
My total winnings from the relevant gaming activity were therefore approximately €7,000.
No bonus was used at any point.
There was no explanation from the casino that my gameplay was suspicious or that I had breached a particular rule. Instead, they have simply referred to a very broad anti-fraud provision in Section 12.1 and stated that the provider is checking my gaming session.
I understand that a casino may conduct a legitimate technical or fair-play review. However, referring generally to an anti-fraud clause does not explain why my account has actually been placed under review.
I therefore ask the casino to provide a specific explanation of:
1. What exactly triggered the 3 Oaks review in my case?
2. What particular game round, transaction, betting pattern or other activity is being investigated?
3. Is there an actual suspected violation of a specific Terms and Conditions provision, or is this simply a routine provider verification?
4. If the casino suspects a specific violation, what is that violation?
5. When exactly was the review requested from 3 Oaks?
6. What is the maximum timeframe for completing this review?
The casino states that the review "typically takes up to 14 days, although it may occasionally take longer", but provides no maximum timeframe at all and says that it cannot provide an exact completion date.
I consider this insufficient because my withdrawals are being suspended indefinitely based on an investigation for which I have not been given a specific reason or a clear completion deadline.
I also ask to clarify the status of my already submitted withdrawals. The casino has confirmed that my pending withdrawals have not been cancelled and that, if no violation is identified, they will be processed after the review. Therefore, I would like this commitment to be clearly recorded as part of the complaint.
I am cooperating fully with the casino and have already completed KYC verification successfully. I would simply like a transparent explanation of why my winnings are currently being withheld and a clear, reasonable timeframe for the review.
I would also like to clarify the circumstances of the winnings from the 3 Oaks game.
The approximately €5,000 in winnings from this game was not the result of one unusually large bet or one exceptional game round. The winnings accumulated through multiple spins/game sessions over time, with a normal stake of approximately €5 per spin.
I had already won more than €1,000 in another game before playing the 3 Oaks game, and then accumulated approximately another €5,000 through normal gameplay in the 3 Oaks game. The total winnings were therefore approximately €7,000.
No bonus was used at any point.
I therefore do not understand what specific aspect of this gameplay has triggered the provider review. If the casino or 3 Oaks has identified a particular round, betting pattern, technical issue or Terms and Conditions violation, I respectfully ask them to identify it specifically rather than referring generally to Section 1
2.1.
Izmenjeno
Automatski prevedeno: