Zdravo Tomase,
Hvala vam na vašem vremenu i na vašem detaljnom odgovoru.
Da direktno odgovorim na vaše pitanje: ne, nisam koristio tačne reči „problemi sa kockanjem" ili „zavisnost od kockanja" pre ovih gubitaka.
Međutim, želeo bih da istaknem jasnu kontradikciju u postupcima i politikama samog Thrill.com-a:
Na kraju su mi zatvorili nalog pod uslovom „Odgovornog kockanja". To znači da je sam kazino formalno priznao da je moj slučaj problem odgovornog kockanja. Da nisu videli štetu povezanu sa kockanjem, ne bi bilo razloga da mi zatvore nalog pod tom konkretnom politikom.
Stoga, ključno pitanje nije da li sam koristio „ispravne" reči u ćaskanju. Pravo pitanje je: zašto je Thrill.com čekao da već izgubim 22.662,46 dolara za manje od 24 sata pre nego što je reagovao na zabrinutost u vezi sa odgovornim kockanjem koju su kasnije i sami potvrdili zatvaranjem mog naloga pod RG?
Prema njihovim sopstvenim Uslovima i odredbama, informacijama o borbi protiv prevara i Politici odgovornog kockanja, od njih se zahteva da:
prate ponašanje igrača, identifikuju štetne ili visokorizične obrasce i intervenišu kada otkriju znake gubitka kontrole ili potencijalne štete.
U mom slučaju, bilo je više crvenih zastavica istovremeno:
izuzetno brz niz depozita i gubitaka velike vrednosti u roku od 24 sata, dokumentovana dijagnoza poremećaja kockanja (F63.0) i ADHD-a sa poremećenom kontrolom impulsa, i konačno njihova sopstvena odluka da zatvore moj račun pod nazivom „Odgovorno kockanje".
Činjenica da su odlučili da zatvore moj račun pod RG tek nakon što su sva sredstva izgubljena pokazuje da su prepoznali rizik, ali su reagovali prekasno. Drugim rečima, prvo su iskoristili moje ranjivo stanje, a tek nakon što je šteta već bila učinjena, primenili su svoje RG alate.
Moje pitanje za Kazino Gurua je stoga:
Može li kazino razumno tvrditi „nismo znali da je u pitanju problem sa kockanjem" kada:
Dozvoljavaju igraču da izgubi preko 22.000 dolara za manje od 24 sata bez efikasne intervencije, a kasnije zatvaraju račun istog igrača u skladu sa svojom politikom odgovornog kockanja?
Ljubazno molim Casino Guru da pregleda ovu konkretnu kontradikciju u ponašanju Thrill.com-a i proceni da li je to kompatibilno sa njihovom navedenom dužnošću brige i savremenim standardima zaštite igrača.
Ako ovo i dalje ne ispunjava kriterijume Casino Guru-a za zahtev za barem delimični povraćaj novca u slučaju odgovornog kockanja, molim vas da me obavestite kako bih mogao da predočim stvar, zajedno sa svim prikupljenim dokazima, drugim relevantnim organima i regulatorima.
Srdačan pozdrav,
Ahmet
Hi Tomas,
Thank you for your time and for your detailed response.
To answer your question directly: no, I did not use the exact words "gambling issues" or "gambling addiction" before these losses.
However, I would like to highlight a clear contradiction in Thrill.com's own actions and policies:
They eventually closed my account under "Responsible Gambling". This means that the casino itself formally recognized that my case was a Responsible Gambling issue. If they did not see gambling-related harm, there would be no reason to close my account under that specific policy.
Therefore, the key question is not whether I used the "correct" words in the chat. The real question is: why did Thrill.com wait until I had already lost $22,662.46 in under 24 hours before acting on the Responsible Gambling concern that they themselves later confirmed by closing my account under RG?
According to their own Terms & Conditions, Anti‑Fraud information and Responsible Gambling Policy, they are required to:
monitor player behaviour, identify harmful or high‑risk patterns, and intervene when they detect signs of loss of control or potential harm.
In my case, there were multiple red flags at the same time:
an extremely fast sequence of high‑value deposits and losses within 24 hours, a documented diagnosis of Gambling Disorder (F63.0) and ADHD with impaired impulse control, and, finally their own decision to close my account under "Responsible Gambling".
The fact that they chose to close my account under RG only after all the funds were lost shows that they did recognize the risk, but acted too late. In other words, they benefited from my vulnerable state first and only applied their RG tools after the damage was done.
My question to Casino Guru is therefore:
Can a casino reasonably claim "we didn’t know it was a gambling problem" when:
They allow a player to lose over $22,000 in less than 24 hours without effective intervention, and they later close that same player’s account under their Responsible Gambling policy?
I kindly ask Casino Guru to review this specific contradiction in Thrill.com’s behaviour and assess whether this is compatible with their stated duty of care and modern standards of player protection.
If this still does not meet Casino Guru’s criteria for requesting at least a partial refund in a Responsible Gambling case, please let me know so I can take the matter, together with all collected evidence, to other relevant authorities and regulators.
Kind regards,
Ahmet
Izmenjeno
Automatski prevedeno: