Topic: Casino Guru Exposed - Ties with Cloudbet and Curacao Operators - page 2. (Read 391 times)

Out of the reviews for this casino, there are 9 positive ones and 4 negative ones, creating an even better than 2:1 ratio in the casino's favor. It's worth noting that the negative reviews mainly revolve around customer service and identification issues, with no mentions of license breaches or illegal activities like my review.

The 2:1 positive-to-negative ratio seems suspicious, potentially designed to maintain the appearance of honesty while justifying the casino's 8/10 rating, especially since referrals are involved.

One can only wonder how many reviews similar to mine are missing, which would undoubtedly tip the scales toward the negative side. Just on bitcointalk.org, there are approximately 70 accusations of scams against Cloudbet, yet only 4 negative reviews on Casino Guru. Quite a contrast, isn't it? 😄

Being on the payroll of casinos? You mean those affiliate links on their site, right? This is standard practice on almost all casino review sites. Gambling.com and AskGamblers are probably among the most popular casino review sites, alongside Casino.guru. They all follow a similar financial model, using affiliate links to generate revenue, which allows them to continue offering reviews and maintain their website operations. What alternative funding method would you suggest for such platforms?


Now you're just being ridiculous.


And this is where your argument falls short. Take a look at user reviews for the casino in question: https://casino.guru/Cloudbet-Casino-review#tab=js-tab-reviews
Two of the three most recent reviews are negative. How do you explain that?

The casino specifically targeted me with jurisdiction-specific marketing, even though I was in a prohibited jurisdiction, and I provided the emails to Casino Guru.

On their website, Casino Guru acknowledges the potential breach of the Interactive Gambling Act in my jurisdiction, so they are aware of the legalities.

My review, which was rejected twice during this dispute, aimed to caution players about Cloudbet's practice of targeting individuals in prohibited jurisdictions. It's noteworthy that Cloudbet's terms and conditions allow them to close your account and retain your funds if they find you're playing from a prohibited jurisdiction. This strategy lures players to deposit and then, upon initiating Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures, blocks their accounts, effectively seizing their funds.

This vital information, intended to be a fair warning to all users, should have been accessible in my review, but Casino Guru chose not to make it public.

Why consider it a stretch to suggest that Casino Guru might be colluding with casino operators when they openly acknowledge being on the payroll of casinos? Your in-depth knowledge of my situation and the reasoning behind what Casino Guru does raises questions—are you affiliated with them?

I'm simply a user sharing my experiences, supported by four distinct rejections from Casino Guru, each with inconsistent explanations. While my complaint does stem from their refusal to address my concerns, it primarily centers on their reluctance to allow me to post a customer review, not necessarily the dispute.

Users have a legitimate expectation to access personal experiences of individuals using the casino, and that's precisely the purpose of a review system.

Since I haven't seen the content of your reviews, I can't comment on that. Casino.guru reserves the right to remove user reviews that do not comply with their rules. But again, this does not mean that they are biased or that they favor the casino.


You basically accuse casino.guru of colluding with casino operators against players, which is, to say the least, quite the stretch! Your assumptions seem to be founded on a subjective impression related to your experience with Cloudbet and your personal interpretation of "more serious allegations of misconduct." In my view, cases involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of user funds are what I would consider as more serious allegations of misconduct. But again, as already explained to you, this is not why your complaint was rejected.

I believe this was your complaint to CG, and to summarize the complaint [correct me if I'm wrong], you feel cheated because they're restricted in Australia, yet you feel that CG didn't do good enough effort to protect the users by giving the casino negative rating for providing services outside of their jurisdiction, although CG has put this warning banner?



And your proposed solution/demand is,

While I understand that Casino Guru may choose not to get directly involved in my complaint due to their “policies”, it's puzzling why they've rejected my reviews of this operator on two separate occasions. I didn’t make any allegations without evidence supplied to them.

Regarding your point about Casino Guru helping players in some cases, I never disputed that. However, it appears they tend to prioritize and allow straightforward issues like KYC verification, ID problems, and slow payouts, which make up the majority of complaints on their website. This is as far as their agreement with most of these operators allow them to go. In my experience, more serious allegations of misconduct, like in my case, seem to be ignored and rejected, whether presented as a complaint or a review.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I've been following Casino.Guru and going through their reviews and complaint resolutions for quite a while now. From what I've seen, there are numerous complaints that have taken months to resolve, often involving ongoing discussions between the players, the casino operator, and Casino.Guru. That's simply not the case; they don't favor issues that are easy to resolve or avoid criticizing operators! To illustrate my point, I recommend looking into some of the complaints, such as this example, where Casino.Guru ruled in the player's favor. You cannot form your judgment solely based on your case, especially if it doesn't align with their guidelines for an acceptable complaint. For example, they also don't handle complaints related to sports betting, but that doesn't imply their review process lacks impartiality.


You should always exercise caution when dealing with gambling review sites since many of them lack credibility and may have hidden agendas. However, unless you can provide some hard evidence for your claims, I can't fully accept your accusations. Casino.guru has a track record of providing comprehensive and impartial reviews and assisting players with resolving issues. While they may not be flawless, they have earned their reputation in the gambling community.

For those unfamiliar, Casino Guru is an online casino review platform that also doubles as an alternate dispute resolution service. Their role is to mediate disputes between players and casinos, potentially impacting the casino's rating based on the outcome of these disputes.

This system serves as a regulatory mechanism in an industry where some licensors fail in their responsibilities. Many players rely on Casino Guru to discover reputable online casinos. However, there's more to this story.

Casino Guru includes referral links on casino profiles, even on those with poor ratings. But why? It's so they can earn commissions when users sign up through these links, regardless of the casino's trustworthiness. In essence, they have undisclosed agreements with all the casinos they feature.

Now, let me share my experience. I had a dispute with Cloudbet due to their misleading advertising, where they pretended to be licensed and regulated in my jurisdiction. They took advantage of my problem gambling, despite my self-exclusion.

I turned to Casino Guru for help.
First, I raised a “Complaint” but they rejected my complaint and refused to get involved because they don’t deal with jurisdiction  issues and license breaches.
https://i.ibb.co/1JF43pD/39-F4-B7-EF-87-EC-4852-A0-CE-B7223-E36-E437.jpg

No problem, I thought. I then tried  to leave a review of the casino instead, but again they rejected that too, claiming that because of my serious accusations, I would need to raise a complaint instead with evidence. They also state that the reason for this is because they don’t want to “confuse” players.
https://i.ibb.co/Dpv7ZZ9/6-AE215-EC-EB82-4-EBB-840-D-888-C9-FA98-DF0.png

That’s odd, so they want me to raise a complaint again, ok. So, I raised a complaint, attached all my evidence, and what did they do? Yes, you guessed it. They rejected it again, saying they already told me couldn't assist with my case with the same issue.

https://i.ibb.co/F052c8H/44-F71-D4-F-75-A7-4-DE1-B2-CC-5-B8850605271.png

What did I do? Simply went back and left  a review of the casino once more, and unsurprisingly, it got rejected again because at Casino Guru they “focus on a fair approach”. Whatever the hell that means.
https://i.ibb.co/WDDb1dx/1550-B8-AB-4-C64-40-D9-BEF7-DD7-DCC10-DEBF.jpg

It didn’t take long for me to realise they were taking me for a ride in circles and not a word of my experience would make it published on their website.

Casino Guru seems to cherry-pick which complaints and reviews they allow on their platform. They prefer issues that are easily resolvable or don't severely criticize the operators. This way, casinos keep running, referral links keep getting clicked, and everyone keeps making money.

My advice: Be cautious of this website and think twice before trusting their reviews and dispute resolution services.