Kazino je odgovorio i odbio moju žalbu. Situaciju sumiram na sledeći način.
Dana 28. aprila 2026. godine, uplatio sam 800 evra pravog novca i, tokom narednih dana, povećao svoj saldo na 21.000,13 evra. Svi ovi dobici su generisani isključivo iz tog depozita pravog novca.
Kada sam podneo 40 zahteva za isplatu od po 500 evra, kazino me je obavestio da će biti sproveden sveobuhvatan pregled svih aktivnosti u vezi sa igrama pre nego što se bilo kakva isplata može obraditi i da će biti kontaktiran i dobavljač igre. Tri dana kasnije, dobio sam imejl od Stakemania-e u kojem mi čestitaju na dobitku. Stoga zaključujem da je Stakemania proverila da li je 21.000,13 evra generisano od depozita od 800 evra pravog novca, što je očigledno bio slučaj.
U narednim danima, na moj bankovni račun sam primio isplate u ukupnom iznosu od 1.000 evra (2 × 500 evra).
Pretpostavljam da je u tom trenutku kazino odlučio da ne želi da isplati preostalih 21.000,13 evra i počeo da traži opravdanje za zadržavanje sredstava. Na kraju, sav iznos sa mog računa je konfiskovan.
Kazino me je potom obavestio da sam prekršio uslove i odredbe za reйkbek. Kao rezultat toga, svi dobici iz svih perioda, uključujući i dobitke generisane od depozita pravog novca, bili su konfiskovani. Prema kazinu, imao sam pravo samo na 1.060,60 evra od preostalog iznosa od 21.000,13 evra. Ovaj iznos je uključivao originalni depozit od 800 evra koji je generisao dobitak. Poreklo preostalih 260,60 evra nikada nije objašnjeno.
Pre četiri nedelje sam podneo formalnu žalbu u skladu sa Uslovima i odredbama i naveo sledeće:
• Samo dobici direktno povezani sa programom rejkbeka i ostvareni kršenjem njegovih uslova mogu biti konfiskovani.
• Dobitci ostvareni depozitima pravog novca nikada ne bi trebalo da budu pogođeni.
• Uspeo/la sam da dokažem da svi dobici potiču od depozita pravog novca.
• Sistem ne pravi razliku između sredstava za bek rejk i sredstava za pravi novac.
• Uslovi korišćenja nisu jasni.
• Pravila o rekbek-u nisu sadržana u objavljenim Uslovima i odredbama.
Danas je moja žalba odbijena uz obrazloženje da sam prekršio pravila o rejkbeku 27. aprila. Kao posledica toga, kazino je poništio sve dobitke ostvarene tokom narednih deset dana, uključujući i one ostvarene mojim depozitom pravog novca od 28. aprila.
Kazino je izjavio da mi je vratio depozit od 800 evra pravog novca, kojim sam ostvario dobitak, kao i dodatnih 200 evra navodno uplaćenih nakon prekršaja. Koliko je meni poznato, nikada nisam uplatio takav depozit od 200 evra. Preostalih 60,60 evra je navodno dodeljeno kao gest dobre volje.
Ovo postavlja očigledno pitanje zašto je kazino odlučio da dodeli tačno 60,60 evra kao znak dobre volje. Verujem da je, nakon što je moja žalba podneta, kazino morao da pronađe opravdanje da mi dozvoli da zadržim tačno 1.060,60 evra od preostalog iznosa od 21.000,13 evra. Pošto nije postojalo ubedljivo objašnjenje, kazino sada karakteriše 60,60 evra kao gest dobre volje.
Štaviše, 12. maja moj nalog je zatvoren zbog navodnog kršenja pravila o rejkbeku (uplata opklade od 7,50 evra umesto dozvoljenih 5,00 evra). Verujem da je zatvaranje naloga zapravo motivisano mojom izuzetno visokom neto vrednošću u igrama (NGV) i činjenicom da, na osnovu mog iskustva, predstavljam konstantno neprofitabilnog kupca za kazino.
Stav kazina je stoga da su svi dobici ostvareni nakon navodnog kršenja pravila o povraćaju rejka 27. aprila konfiskovani, uključujući i dobitke u potpunosti ostvarene od depozita pravog novca.
Važna stvar je da sam već navodno prekršio pravila o rejkbeku 25. aprila. U vezi sa tim ranijim prekršajem, kazino je zadržao sve depozite za koje nisu generisani dobici i vratio samo depozit koji je doneo dobitke. Kazino se stoga posebno oslanja na navodno kršenje od 27. aprila jer to predstavlja finansijski najpovoljnije tumačenje za kazino.
Da je navodno kršenje od 25. aprila tretirano kao relevantno kršenje, kazino bi takođe bio obavezan da vrati depozite uplaćene nakon toga. Po mom mišljenju, kazino namerno izbegava ovaj ishod iz ekonomskih razloga.
The casino has responded and rejected my complaint. I summarize the situation as follows.
On 28 April 2026, I deposited €800 of real money and, over the following days, increased my balance to €21,000.13. All of these winnings were generated exclusively from that real-money deposit.
When I submitted 40 withdrawal requests of €500 each, the casino informed me that a comprehensive review of all gaming activity would be conducted before any withdrawals could be processed and that the game provider would also be contacted. Three days later, I received an email from Stakemania congratulating me on my winnings. I therefore conclude that Stakemania verified whether the €21,000.13 had been generated from the €800 real-money deposit, which apparently was the case.
In the following days, I received withdrawals totaling €1,000 (2 × €500) to my bank account.
I assume that at this point the casino decided that it did not wish to pay the remaining €21,000.13 and began looking for a justification to withhold the funds. Ultimately, all but €1,060.60 of my balance was confiscated.
The casino subsequently informed me that I had violated the rakeback terms and conditions. As a result, all winnings from all periods, including winnings generated from real-money deposits, were confiscated. According to the casino, I was only entitled to €1,060.60 out of the €21,000.13 balance. This amount included the original €800 deposit that generated the winnings. The source of the remaining €260.60 was never explained.
Four weeks ago, I submitted a formal complaint in accordance with the Terms and Conditions and argued the following:
• Only winnings directly connected to the rakeback program and obtained in breach of its conditions may be confiscated.
• Winnings generated from real-money deposits should never be affected.
• I was able to demonstrate that all winnings originated from real-money deposits.
• The system does not distinguish between rakeback funds and real-money funds.
• The Terms and Conditions are unclear.
• The rakeback rules are not contained within the published Terms and Conditions.
Today, my complaint was rejected on the grounds that I had violated the rakeback rules on 27 April. As a consequence, the casino voided all winnings generated during the following ten days, including those generated from my real-money deposit of 28 April.
The casino stated that it had refunded my €800 real-money deposit, which had generated the winnings, as well as a further €200 deposit allegedly made after the violation. To the best of my knowledge, I never made such a €200 deposit. The remaining €60.60 was allegedly granted as a gesture of goodwill.
This raises the obvious question of why the casino chose to grant exactly €60.60 as a goodwill payment. I believe that, after my complaint was submitted, the casino needed to find a justification for allowing me to retain exactly €1,060.60 of the €21,000.13 balance. As no convincing explanation existed, the casino now characterizes the €60.60 as a goodwill gesture.
Furthermore, on 12 May my account was closed due to an alleged breach of the rakeback rules (placing a €7.50 wager instead of the permitted €5.00). I believe that the account closure was actually motivated by my exceptionally high net gaming value (NGV) and the fact that, based on my experience, I represent a consistently unprofitable customer for the casino.
The casino's position is therefore that all winnings generated after the alleged rakeback violation on 27 April were confiscated, including winnings generated entirely from real-money deposits.
An important point is that I had already allegedly violated the rakeback rules on 25 April. In relation to that earlier violation, the casino retained all deposits for which no winnings were generated and only refunded the deposit that produced winnings. The casino is therefore relying specifically on the alleged violation of 27 April because it represents the most financially advantageous interpretation for the casino.
Had the alleged violation of 25 April been treated as the relevant breach, the casino would also have been required to refund the deposits made thereafter. In my view, the casino deliberately avoids this outcome for economic reasons.
Automatski prevedeno: