Zdravo svima,
Hvala vam obojici na kontinuiranoj saradnji i strpljenju tokom ove istrage.
Dragi Ajubme,
Želeo bih da vam pružim detaljnije informacije u vezi sa mojom trenutnom procenom, jer sam sada dobio i pregledao znatno više informacija od kazina.
Razumem argumente koje ste izneli, posebno vaš stav da je stanje tretirano kao pravi novac, da je podrška kazina ranije nazivala sredstva VIP Live Cashback-om i da je kazino prvobitno dao drugačije objašnjenje u vezi sa izvorom dobitaka.
Uzeo sam u obzir sve ove tačke. Međutim, nakon što sam primio i pregledao dodatnu dokumentaciju kazina, trenutno situaciju vidim drugačije.
Kazino mi je dostavio detaljne zapise iz svojih internih sistema, uključujući evidenciju igranja, istoriju opklada, istoriju bonusa, evidenciju stanja, transakcije vezane za bonuse i istoriju transakcija. Pregledao sam ove zapise zajedno sa objašnjenjima koja je dao kazino i informacijama i snimcima ekrana koje ste podneli u žalbi.
Na osnovu ovih evidencija, vaš poslednji depozit pravog novca bio je 8.000 NOK 16. maja 2026. u 16:07 , i taj depozit je naknadno izgubljen. Nakon što je taj depozit izgubljen, igranje vezano za sporne dobitke je izvršeno bez drugog depozita pravog novca.
Zapisi pokazuju da je tokom ovog perioda bilo uključeno nekoliko promotivnih izvora, uključujući:
- Nagrada za slagalicu 3;
- Nagrada za slagalicu 5;
- Nagrada za slagalicu 1;
- VIP 10% povraćaja novca; i
- Bonus prodavnica: Rezultati besplatnih okretaja.
Stoga, na osnovu evidencije koju sam pregledao, trenutno nemam osnova da zaključim da su sporni dobici generisani isključivo iz neograničenog stanja pravog novca, kao što ste tvrdili.
Takođe bih želeo da se osvrnem na vaš argument u vezi sa velikim opkladama koje ste mogli da postavite.
Činjenica da vam je sistem kazina dozvolio da postavljate opklade velike vrednosti sama po sebi ne utvrđuje da su sredstva koja su ulagana bila neograničena sredstva pravog novca. Prema važećim uslovima kazina, opklade napravljene bonus sredstvima ne podležu određenom maksimalnom ograničenju opklade. Stoga, činjenica da ste mogli da postavljate opklade značajne vrednosti ne znači nužno da su osnovna sredstva tretirana kao neograničeni dobici pravog novca.
Drugim rečima, mogućnost rizikovanja velikog iznosa tokom igre ne znači automatski da je taj iznos bio neograničen novac. Relevantno pitanje je od čega se sastojao osnovni saldo i pod kojim uslovima su ta sredstva dobijena.
Takođe postoji važna stvar u vezi sa načinom na koji se obično obrađuju ograničenja maksimalnog povlačenja vezana za bonus.
U industriji je prilično uobičajeno da se maksimalna ograničenja povlačenja ili smanjenja stanja povezana sa promotivnim sredstvima primenjuju kada igrač zatraži povlačenje, a ne kontinuirano tokom same igre. Razumem da ovo može delovati kontraintuitivno iz perspektive igrača, posebno kada se stanje prikazano na računu kontinuirano povećava tokom igre.
U ovom konkretnom slučaju, kazino mi je objasnio da se sesija igranja smatra završenom kada igrač podnese zahtev za povlačenje, u kom trenutku se primenjuju važeća ograničenja bonusa i određuje se maksimalni iznos koji se može povući.
Međutim, čak i ako bismo ostavili po strani ovaj konkretni tehnički mehanizam, ne verujem da to menja osnovnu poentu slučaja.
Ključno pitanje je odakle su došli sporni dobici .
Na osnovu evidencije o igranju, bonusima i stanju koje sam pregledao, približno 300.000 NOK spornih dobitaka je generisano nakon što je vaš poslednji depozit pravog novca od 8.000 NOK već bio izgubljen i dok ste igrali sa promotivnim sredstvima koje je obezbedio kazino.
Stoga, dokazi koji su mi trenutno dostupni ne ukazuju na to da su ovi dobici generisani iz preostalog neograničenog stanja depozita u pravom novcu. Umesto toga, izgleda da su generisani iz promotivnih sredstava.
Ova razlika je važna jer, tamo gde se dobici generišu iz promotivnih sredstava, važeći uslovi bonusa ostaju relevantni za te dobitke. Činjenica da je sistem možda dozvolio igraču da nastavi da igra sa prikazanim punim stanjem ne pretvara automatski promotivne dobitke u neograničena sredstva pravog novca.
Slično tome, činjenica da su zahtevi za povlačenje možda podneti ili privremeno prihvaćeni od strane sistema sama po sebi ne utvrđuje da rezultujući saldo više nije bio podložan važećim uslovima bonusa. Nisam video dokaze da su vam zahtevi za povlačenje od 25.000 NOK i 15.000 NOK zapravo isplaćeni pre naknadne igre.
Stoga ne smatram da su ti zahtevi za povlačenje dovoljni da se utvrdi da je celokupno stanje postalo neograničena sredstva pravog novca.
Takođe želim da se osvrnem na promenu objašnjenja kazina, jer razumem zašto je ovo jedna od vaših glavnih briga.
Priznajem da početno objašnjenje kazina u vezi sa izvorom dobitaka nije bilo identično njegovom kasnijem objašnjenju. Posebno sam pokrenuo ovo pitanje sa kazinom i zatražio dodatnu dokumentaciju kako bih razjasnio situaciju.
Kazino je potom sproveo dodatni pregled relevantne istorije igranja i bonusa. Nakon ovog pregleda, objasnio je da su dobici poticali iz više promotivnih izvora i da početni obračun maksimalnog iznosa za isplatu nije uključivao sve relevantne doprinose bonusu.
Važno je napomenuti da je kazino priznao ovu grešku u proračunu i potom vam dodelio dodatnih 760 NOK . Prema njihovom trenutnom proračunu, konačni maksimalni iznos za isplatu je 8.293 NOK .
Takođe želim da razjasnim da moja procena nije zasnovana samo na izjavama kazina. Posebno sam zatražio osnovne zapise jer sam želeo da nezavisno proverim redosled događaja i poreklo spornog stanja. Sada sam imao priliku da uporedim ove zapise sa informacijama i snimcima ekrana koje ste dostavili.
Još jedan važan deo moje procene bila je transparentnost primenljivih mehanika bonusa.
To je bio jedan od glavnih razloga zašto nisam odmah prihvatio početno objašnjenje kazina. Zatražio sam kompletnu istoriju transakcija, istoriju bonusa i važeće uslove za bonuse od 5. maja 2026. godine pa nadalje , kako bih mogao nezavisno da procenim da li se pravilo maksimalnog isplate zaista primenjuje i kako su različita promotivna sredstva doprinela konačnom stanju.
Odsustvo upozorenja ili automatskog ograničenja tokom igre ne znači nužno da je pravilo o maksimalnom iznosu isplate prestalo da važi. Slično tome, činjenica da je stanje prikazano ili privremeno obrađeno od strane sistema na određeni način ne poništava automatski osnovne uslove bonusa.
U ovoj fazi, stoga smatram da je važnije pitanje izvor spornih dobitaka i uslovi bonusa vezani za ta sredstva, a ne samo kako je stanje prikazivano tokom igre.
Međutim, i dalje tražim od kazina još jedno pojašnjenje pre nego što formalno zaključim žalbu. Zatražio sam detaljan proračun korak po korak koji tačno pokazuje kako je kazino došao do konačnog maksimalnog iznosa za isplatu od 8.293 NOK , uključujući kako su pojedinačni bonusi i njihova odgovarajuća pravila za maksimalnu isplatu uzeti u obzir i kako su bili u korelaciji sa igrom igrača i istorijom bonusa.
Ovo je važno jer želim da budem siguran da je konačni iznos pravilno izračunat i da odgovara evidenciji koju sam pregledao pre nego što donesem konačnu odluku.
Istovremeno, želim da budem transparentan sa vama da, na osnovu svega što sam do sada pregledao, moja trenutna procena je da je stav kazina u principu opravdan.
Dokazi koji su mi trenutno dostupni ukazuju na to da su sporni dobici generisani iz promotivnih sredstava, a ne iz neograničenog stanja depozita pravog novca. Shodno tome, važeći uslovi bonusa mogu se primeniti na te dobitke.
Preostalo pitanje je prvenstveno da li je konačni obračun kazina od 8.293 norveške krune pravilno izvršen. Kada primim i potvrdim ovaj konačni obračun, očekujem da ću biti u mogućnosti da zaključim žalbu.
Želeo sam unapred da objasnim svoj trenutni stav kako biste razumeli zašto su me raspoloživi dokazi doveli u ovom pravcu i zašto, osim ako konačni proračun ne otkrije nešto neočekivano, trenutno očekujem da će žalba biti zaključena u korist kazina.
Dragi kazino N1 Bet,
Hvala vam što ste nam pružili obimnu dokumentaciju i što ste nastavili da sarađujete u istrazi.
Kao što je posebno pomenuto, zatražio sam još jedno konačno pojašnjenje u vezi sa detaljnim proračunom maksimalnog iznosa za isplatu od 8.293 NOK putem pošte. N1 Bet Casino, ako je moguće, bio bih vam zahvalan ako biste mogli da pružite konačni proračun i objašnjenje direktno u temi žalbi, kako bi igrač mogao transparentno da ga pregleda. Kada se ovo razjasni, trebalo bi da imam sve što je potrebno da završim svoju konačnu procenu.
Hvala vam obojici na kontinuiranoj saradnji.
Hello everyone,
thank you both for your continued cooperation and patience throughout this investigation.
Dear Ayoubm,
I would like to provide you with a more detailed update regarding my current assessment, as I have now received and reviewed substantially more information from the casino.
I understand the arguments you have raised, particularly your position that the balance was treated as real money, that the casino's support previously referred to the funds as VIP Live Cashback, and that the casino initially provided a different explanation regarding the source of the winnings.
I have taken all of these points into consideration. However, after receiving and reviewing the casino's additional documentation, I currently see the situation differently.
The casino has provided me with detailed records from its internal systems, including the gameplay logs, bets history, bonus history, balance records, bonus-related transactions, and transaction history. I have reviewed these records together with the explanations provided by the casino and the information and screenshots you submitted in the complaint.
Based on these records, your last real-money deposit was 8,000 NOK on 16 May 2026 at 16:07, and this deposit was subsequently lost. After that deposit was lost, the gameplay relevant to the disputed winnings was carried out without another real-money deposit.
The records show several promotional sources being involved during this period, including:
- Puzzle Prize 3;
- Puzzle Prize 5;
- Puzzle Prize 1;
- VIP 10% Cashback; and
- Bonus Shop: Free Spins Results.
Therefore, based on the records I have reviewed, I do not currently have grounds to conclude that the disputed winnings were generated solely from an unrestricted real-money balance, as you have argued.
I would also like to address your argument regarding the large bets you were able to place.
The fact that the casino's system allowed you to place high-value bets does not, by itself, establish that the funds being wagered were unrestricted real-money funds. According to the applicable casino terms, bets made with bonus funds are not subject to a specific maximum bet limit. Therefore, the fact that you were able to place bets of significant value does not necessarily mean that the underlying funds were treated as unrestricted real-money winnings.
In other words, being able to risk a large amount during gameplay does not automatically mean that the amount was unrestricted cash. The relevant question is what the underlying balance consisted of and under which conditions those funds were obtained.
There is also an important point regarding the way bonus-related maximum withdrawal restrictions are normally handled.
It is fairly common in the industry for maximum withdrawal restrictions or balance reductions connected to promotional funds to be applied when a player requests a withdrawal, rather than continuously during gameplay itself. I understand that this may seem counterintuitive from a player's perspective, particularly when the balance displayed in the account continues to increase during gameplay.
In this particular case, the casino explained to me that the gaming session is considered to end when the player submits a withdrawal request, at which point the applicable bonus restrictions are applied and the maximum withdrawable amount is determined.
However, even if we were to put this particular technical mechanism aside, I do not believe it changes the fundamental point of the case.
The key question is where the disputed winnings came from.
Based on the gameplay, bonus and balance records I have reviewed, the approximately 300,000 NOK in disputed winnings were generated after your last real-money deposit of 8,000 NOK had already been lost and while you were playing with promotional funds provided by the casino.
Therefore, the evidence currently available to me does not indicate that these winnings were generated from a remaining unrestricted real-money deposit balance. Rather, they appear to have been generated from promotional funds.
This distinction is important because, where winnings are generated from promotional funds, the applicable bonus conditions remain relevant to those winnings. The fact that the system may have allowed the player to continue playing with the full displayed balance does not automatically convert promotional winnings into unrestricted real-money funds.
Similarly, the fact that withdrawal requests may have been submitted or temporarily accepted by the system does not, on its own, establish that the resulting balance was no longer subject to the applicable bonus conditions. I have not seen evidence that the 25,000 NOK and 15,000 NOK withdrawal requests were actually paid out to you before the subsequent gameplay.
Therefore, I do not consider those withdrawal requests sufficient to establish that the entire balance had become unrestricted real-money funds.
I also want to address the casino's changing explanation, as I understand why this is one of your main concerns.
I acknowledge that the casino's initial explanation concerning the source of the winnings was not identical to its later explanation. I specifically raised this issue with the casino and requested additional documentation to clarify the situation.
The casino subsequently conducted an additional review of the relevant gameplay and bonus history. Following this review, it explained that the winnings originated from multiple promotional sources and that the initial maximum withdrawal calculation had not included all relevant bonus contributions.
Importantly, the casino acknowledged this calculation error and subsequently credited you with an additional 760 NOK. According to its current calculation, the final maximum withdrawal amount is 8,293 NOK.
I also want to make clear that my assessment is not based merely on the casino's statements. I specifically requested the underlying records because I wanted to independently verify the sequence of events and the origin of the disputed balance. I have now had the opportunity to compare these records with the information and screenshots you provided.
Another important part of my assessment has been the transparency of the applicable bonus mechanics.
This was one of the main reasons why I did not immediately accept the casino's initial explanation. I requested the complete transaction history, bonus history, and the applicable Bonus Terms for the relevant bonuses from 5 May 2026 onwards, so that I could independently assess whether the maximum withdrawal rule was actually applicable and how the different promotional funds contributed to the final balance.
The absence of a warning or an automatic restriction during gameplay does not necessarily mean that the applicable maximum withdrawal rule ceased to apply. Likewise, the fact that a balance was displayed or temporarily handled by the system in a particular way does not automatically override the underlying bonus conditions.
At this stage, I therefore consider the more important issue to be the source of the disputed winnings and the bonus conditions attached to those funds, rather than simply how the balance was displayed during gameplay.
I am, however, still asking the casino for one final clarification before formally concluding the complaint. I have requested a detailed step-by-step calculation showing exactly how the casino arrived at the final 8,293 NOK maximum withdrawal amount, including how the individual bonuses and their respective maximum withdrawal rules were taken into account and how they were correlated with the player's gameplay and bonus history.
This is important because I want to make sure that the final amount is correctly calculated and corresponds with the records I have reviewed before issuing my final decision.
At the same time, I want to be transparent with you that, based on everything I have reviewed so far, my current assessment is that the casino's position is justified in principle.
The evidence currently available to me indicates that the disputed winnings were generated from promotional funds rather than from an unrestricted real-money deposit balance. Consequently, the applicable bonus conditions can be applied to those winnings.
The remaining question is primarily whether the casino's final calculation of 8,293 NOK has been correctly performed. Once I receive and verify this final calculation, I expect to be in a position to conclude the complaint.
I wanted to explain my current position in advance so that you understand why the available evidence has led me in this direction and why, unless the final calculation reveals something unexpected, I currently expect the complaint to be concluded in the casino's favor.
Dear N1 Bet Casino,
thank you for providing the extensive documentation and for continuing to cooperate with the investigation.
As mentioned separately, I have requested one final clarification regarding the detailed calculation of the 8,293 NOK maximum withdrawal amount by mail. N1 Bet Casino, if possible, I would appreciate it if you could provide the final calculation and explanation directly in the complaint thread, so that the player can also review it transparently. Once this is clarified, I should have everything necessary to complete my final assessment.
Thank you both for your continued cooperation.
Automatski prevedeno: