Topic: Casino Guru Exposed - Ties with Cloudbet and Curacao Operators (Read 439 times)

I also add my +1 on CG and their ties with shady offshore crypto sites; I don't believe that CG even cares %1 about complainters, they just care about their referral codes; Fuck Them!

casino.guru are fraudster,


i submitted the claim regarding stake.com manioulating the bets and they stretched the ticket two months and they stated i didn’t proved any proof,


although i provided them all the proof, and x posed casino malpractices and organisation
.

they stated provablyfair.me is a third party verification tools for the stake.com
but they are under the same umbrella company .


they even lied about most the things. they denied about stake.com having a 400 million lawsuit . and are in denial and colluding with the casino.

here is the thread with screenshot and proof , about how casino.guru lied and  covering up for stake.com

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/stakecom-and-casinoguru-coverup-5468477

For cloudbet? I think he's going to slap them with lawsuit. Shortened, got in touch with a lawyer in Curacao who suggested him to file a lawsuit in his own country and if the judge ruled in his favor, that lawyer in Curacao can enforce this ruling to cloudbet. That, in fact, is doable, enforcing a foreign court ruling is a known practice, although different countries has different approach. A quick google check to confirms that Curacao's foreign court ruling often involve re-litigation, though. It basically means that foreign ruling will be reviewed again by the Curacao judicial body.

For CG? I don't think there's any so far.

It is clear you are upset at both Casino Guru and their (as you put it) ties with Cloudbet and Curacao licenced casinos but do ask yourself if you are taking your frustration a little too far. You are heading in to the conspiracy theory bracket as long as you do not provide tangible evidence to provide credibility to your claim.

Going back to your OP, you stated have concerns you did not receive professional customer services support considering you self-excluded, yet you were taken advantage of (because of misleading advertising). Can you tell us what you will (or intend to) do next regarding all the issues you have expressed in this thread?

So, just so we're clear here, you're ok with AG "being on the payroll" [if I may borrow your words] of casinos? What is your stance of an ADR/review site taking referral... oops, I mean being affiliated with casinos, again?


Hmm... nope, my responses has been consistent from the start: referral is the way casinos fund their services and keep it running. I am not swaying left or right from my initial argument. If you feel it detoriating and sounding desperate, it's probably because your strawman house started to crumble so you've begin grasping at the falling straws just to... keep the house intact.

I clearly stated that perhaps Cloudbet is a significant revenue source for CasinoGuru, while not for Askgamblers hence they why can afford to be more honest about the casino.

Your responses seem to be deteriorating in quality as you persist, sounding increasingly desperate for a 'checkmate' response, yet none have materialized thus far.

I wrote that great length to tell you that your proposed collusion between CG and casinos was baseless. Referral link were placed there to serve a purpose that's been repetitively explained to you. ADRs are independent agencies. If that's not enough, here's more,

You propose that CG wouldn't accept your review and taking sides with casinos because they're on the casinos payroll, namely by generating revenue through referral link. Thus, it's not too far fetched to apply the same idea, that other ADR who take referral link to generate revenue are also on casinos payroll, correct? And thus, should be and would be protecting their "employer", much like CG.

I'm glad that AG accepted your review, because... they can't possibly be on casinos payroll if they accepted bad reviews, correct?

Yet...





thought?

It seems like you're going to great lengths to discredit my perspective to the point where your arguments are becoming unclear and I can no longer make sense of what your saying.

Askgamblers and two other platforms accepted my reviews. That tells me there was nothing wrong or “unfair” about what I wrote.  On Askgamblers, Cloudbet has a 1/10 score, and they even recommend other casinos to use instead when you visit Cloudbet's profile. This is in stark contrast to CasinoGuru's remarkable  8/10 rating of Cloudbet and refusal to  publish  reviews.

Perhaps as I’ve stated before,  Cloudbet is a significant revenue source for CasinoGuru, while Askgamblers can afford to be more honest about the casino. Regardless, you seem to be ignoring the facts and becoming increasingly biased. Please step away, because whether it's true or not, you're starting to sound like a CasinoGuru member or affiliate of some kind.

How... exactly earning from referral link [of which it's been repetitively explained to you what this "revenue" most likely are for] made them on casinos' payroll? I am somewhat sure if you're willing to put it in writing that you'll handle all of their expenses, they'll agree to drop the referral link right on that second. The links are there not because they're under the casinos's payroll, they have to use the referral links to make sure they can foot the bill on their "mission" to help customers to be well mediated and get the best available [and tested] knowledge about casinos for free. Again, it doesn't make them affiliated with the casinos as in being their subsidiary, related-to, or being employed. It's simply their way to provide service without asking the users to pay them. Using your same argument, though, can we say wikipedia is affiliated and on several thousands of people's payroll? Because they annually open themselves for "coffee" donation?

But, as you're so hell bent [understandably, because this is the only basis of your accusation] on the payroll idea, let's amuse your idea for a second, let's suppose they are protecting casinos because they got paid [again, this is just to entertain an idea, not the actual situation] don't you agree that, naturally, it would also be on their best interest to not undermining and exposing their entire "shady" ADR operation by dropping cloudbet like a hot potato, to ensure the longevity of these "shady" business?

Especially since they're not that big of a casino. I mean... have you look at casinos that CG facilitates as an ADR and under their review? I won't pretend I have the data, but I'm sure there are plenty of casinos there, and judging from the gambling threads in this forum [or from this board only], there are many bigger "employer" that generates revenue that dwarfed cloudbet's. I honestly don't think cloudbet even on their top 20 referral-revenue.

From business perspective, this is not ideal.

And let's stop beating around the bush, this is not we [or me] being uncertain of what, this is us telling you that you made a strawman argument from the very beginning. You insist on something that's completely wrong just to validate your baseless accusation. We are all open for cases that have substantial proof, we oversee cases on neutral ground and don't take sides as we are not benefited from any side [you certainly won't accuse us of being on CG's payroll... oh wait, you did], but so far, you seemed have a very weak evidences, and the very one you provide [the referral link, or affiliation, if you prefer it that way] is already explained and "debunked".

If you have more to add, please provide them here with the backing evidences, we are more than happy to clear it for you.

We’re kind of going around in circles here.

I understand that there are indeed cases where they side with complainants. If they didn't, their entire Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) concept would be undermined and exposed.

However, my belief, which I've substantiated with what I consider to be compelling arguments and and my own situation as  evidence, is that they selectively decide which complaints and reviews to accept. It's possible that casinos with highly profitable referral links, generating substantial revenue, receive more leniency. Conversely, certain types of complaints and reviews, like mine, might be turned away

This is not as far fetched of an argument as you make it seem.

---

The only distinction in the screenshot you've shared is that they explicitly mention you can't 'buy' the top position among recommended casinos. Naturally, ofcourse that would be the case otherwise it would undermine and expose their entire Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) operation.

While they can't openly 'buy' their position, it doesn't mean that Casino Guru doesn't operate in a manner that indirectly protects high-traffic and revenue-generating referral links. In my view, it involves selectively handling certain complaints and reviews to maintain a balanced casino profile, including those like Cloudbet

You can try to reframe the 'affiliate' arrangement any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they are essentially on casinos' payrolls through referral links. This was a point you seemed uncertain about just a few posts ago, yet I've been highlighting it from the beginning.

The passage indeed piqued my curiosity, and, as we all here simply act as overseer, a neutral ground, we strive to look for more in-depth truth. I'll say it's very convenient that it's snipped right on that part, while the full explanation actually also inform people that they are not taking payment to boost a rating, which hold a major basis of your argument. I'll provide the statement in a screenshot version, just to maintain originality and transparency



Now, addressing the affiliate system you talked about, I am sure we are all here understand that, especially with the complete paragraphs above, the "affiliate" being mentioned here simply refer to "referral earning" [which the purpose of it already nicely explained by FatFork] instead of "affiliate" in the sense of being a subsidiary or having an official attachment to a platform?

---

Regarding the list, I am not joking when I said I am swamped, thank you for that link, I'll glance at it once I've freed some space from my plate. And since that's about Cloudbet [while this thread is for CG] and I see that you have another thread about cloudbet --which I also haven't read-- I'll probably move this discussion there

If you feel Casino Guru have not been useful/fair in your case that should not really negate the fact there are many cases where they have arbitrated without complaint from the accused or accuser. Also, they have concluded in favour of the complainant on many occasions.

In the general sense, I am very much against affiliate or referral links to be used in websites that claim they are 100% impartial when they arbitrate (or when they compare websites). If you feel there is something untoward going you will need to provide tangible evidence if you intend to gather support for your claim otherwise it will be something you will continue to believe but most others will not. I do not think FatFork is passionate in defending them, he is stating what you should accept as the obvious.

You're actually reinforcing my argument here, which is that this information isn't readily available or easily found in their 'about us' section. Instead, they seem to admit it when people specifically ask them.
https://casino.guru/forum/general-discussion-1/how-casino-guru-works
“Regarding the affiliate systems - we have a team that is responsible for registering into different affiliate systems so whenever we see that some casino gets a decent traffic from our website, we register in their affiliate system”

As for your other request, just in this post from 2020 on Bitcointalk, you can uncover 30 scam accusations against Cloudbet on this platform alone along with their respective links.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5279500

I'm a bit swamped right now, so I can't do a thorough search at the moment. Can you please provide the link or other reference that clearly states this open acknowledgement that CG is affiliated with casinos upon being asked? Because... I looked at their "About Us" page and couldn't find such acknowledgement. What I found is the exact opposite,



if you can point us out to this claim, it'll be very much appreciated.


And oh, while you're at it, though this topic is about CG and not cloudbet, can you please also list all of those 70+ scam accusations on this board with their link? I'd be more than happy to visit each of the cases and look around when I have more time in hand

Why haven't you addressed my question? Why there are over 70 scam complaints about Cloudbet on this platform, yet there are only 4 negative reviews on Casino Guru, a site dedicated to reviews and complaints.

If I've been denied the chance to post on Casino Guru, do you honestly think I'm the sole person rejected? Isn't it more likely that there are others, leading to the stark difference in bad reviews between Casino Guru and other platforms? Let's use some common sense here, mate. Im not sure why your so passionate in their defence, Casino Guru are not a horse worth backing

As I've previously explained, all well-established and reputable review platforms use referral links for revenue generation, and this doesn't necessarily compromise their objectivity. And you still haven't addressed my question: What alternative financing method would you suggest for them?


But it doesn't. The fact that they are open about it actually gives them credibility. Think logically. Would you rather trust a platform that lacks transparency about its finances, leaving you in the dark about their funding sources?

First of all, I believe in the importance of expressing personal experiences and sharing thoughts openly, especially within a forum section literally titled 'scam accusations.'
It's crucial that we maintain a respectful environment for discussing such matters, free from any attempts to discredit or invalidate users who have concerns about their experiences like you and your pals are trying to do.

Casino Guru undeniably employs referral links on all  casino profiles on their platform. In the case of Cloudbet, this link leads to a homepage tailored for that referral, with 'best-rated casino' prominently displayed.

Their own admission to receiving referral fees adds to the credibility of these claims. To those who doubt these allegations, I encourage you to seek clarification directly from Casino Guru as to whether or not they get paid.

Casino Guru openly acknowledges its affiliation with the casinos if you ask them. This is not a mere allegation. When you click 'visit casino' on the casino's profile, you're redirected through a referral link.

If I may add to other explanations already given here, as well as been implied on my previous post, they've put a warning banner when someone from restricted jusrisdiction accessed Cloudbet's page. If they're on casinos's payroll or taking casinos's side at any degree, wouldn't they try to get as many revenue as they can and thus, obscuring or probably won't even bother to put these warning?

These are the images you posted in the OP but did not display because of your rank.

----------



----------



----------



----------



----------



I cannot see any reason to suspect collusion between any casino or online gambling website and Casino Guru. FatFork has basically covered the situation with detailed explanations aptly therefore you should not look to link any form of collusion when it does not exist. Also, just because a forum member presents an alternative vision to the one that you hold, it does not mean they are on the payroll of those that you are making allegations against. Please refrain form that form of conduct.