It happens that the mobile can't manage to run the system faster for some reason.

-hardware specs
-graphic processing
-not fit for mobile phones

I know many of us encountered the same story, not just in BITZ.io. That is why it is advisable to use higher-spec phones if we want to. Otherwise, use a computer for a better experience and faster game loading. Aside from that, the wider screen helps us avoid wrong bets that usually happen on mobile phones.

Right, so they failed to comply with your request to block your account and prevent new deposits. We all agree on this.

The question is: Now what? What kind of resolution do you want?

Aren't you here because you want your money back? But why should they give it back to you? Just because they failed to comply with your request? If so, it goes back to my post, where I state that nowhere it says they need to refund you.

You’re still focused on an imaginary “refund clause” that no one has claimed exists.

What happens next isn’t decided by forum rhetoric or personal views that refuse to apply the facts to the terms. Formal complaints have been submitted to independent third-party mediators, AskGamblers and Casino Guru, who are reviewing the factual record against Bitz’s own terms and stated responsible gambling obligations.

From the outset, I’ve remained open to resolving this matter privately with Bitz. After offering a partial refund, Bitz chose to go silent regarding any private settlement. That’s their choice.

If you’re unsure how outcomes are evaluated when an operator breaches its own rules, you can simply follow the mediator complaints as they progress. What I can tell you is that they won’t be asking where your fictional refund clause is.

One final question I'll leave you with to consider:

If a bank acknowledges a customer’s fraud report, confirms the account should be frozen, then says the freeze button is broken, “under maintenance,” and that no manual intervention is possible, while allowing transactions to continue (and issuing no refund), has the bank met its obligation. Or has it plainly failed it?

At this point, there’s nothing further to discuss here. The record speaks for itself.

Thank you for your participation. It’s difficult to engage on contractual issues when the basic facts and timeline aren't comprehended.

You’re welcome to follow along as the matter proceeds and see whether your reasoning and personal opinions align with those who are actually evaluating the record under the governing terms.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-has-not-been-self-excluded

I’m still relatively new to Bitcointalk, so I’m genuinely confused and convinced I must be missing something. Is merit awarded when a member posts something considered insightful or valuable? And does a higher merit count generally reflect a history of useful contributions?

Just to help you out, because this seems to be where you’re getting stuck: rights and remedies exist because an obligation was violated. They do not require magic words spelling out every consequence in advance.

The fact that this still needs to be explained after you repeatedly asked where an imaginary “refund clause” appears in the TOS is more than a little concerning. It reflects a basic misunderstanding of how contractual obligations and remedies actually work.

I’m fully aware this is Bitcointalk and not a mediation platform. That is precisely why I’m no longer debating opinions here, especially with someone who has not read the complaint carefully, does not understand the timeline, and lacks experience dealing with agreements and written terms. That limits your feedback to emotional, personal opinion rather than anything grounded in the record.

I have to assume you have little to no exposure to how disputes are actually evaluated under contracts or in legal settings. Your responses consistently ignore facts and written obligations in favor of unsubstantiated belief. That’s your prerogative.

You’re correct that this forum contains gamblers, traders, and people with strong personal views. That does not change the fact that operator conduct is governed by written terms, and disputes about compliance are assessed elsewhere.

This matter is not about whether you or I would personally seek a refund after losing. It is about whether an operator acknowledged a self-exclusion request citing gambling addiction and then refused to act while continuing to accept deposits. That question does not turn on pride, embarrassment, or personal philosophy.

The full record is already public. Independent complaints are under review. That is where factual analysis belongs.

You are entitled to your opinions. They do not resolve this dispute, and they do not alter the terms Bitz chose to publish and enforce.

I’ll leave it there.

I learned early on that when someone starts a rebuttal with “in essence,” what follows is usually fiction. You’ve confirmed that rule nicely.

I won’t bother reposting all the exhibits that corroborate my positions. They are already in the record. Your speculation adds nothing.

Your summary is wrong at every material point. On December 8, before a single penny was deposited or a single bet was placed, I disclosed gambling addiction and requested self-exclusion. Bitz acknowledged the request and then refused to implement it while continuing to accept deposits. Unless you can explain how Bitz's December 8 refusal to self-exclude complies with its own Terms of Service and Self-Exclusion Policy, everything else you’ve written is irrelevant. Speaking of Self-Exclusion Policy, perhaps you can explain why Bitz removed it on December 19...

For completeness, explain why the same Bitz support representative, Jessy, gave materially different answers on self-exclusion on December 15 and again today, January 8. That inconsistency further undercuts your narrative.

If self-exclusion was available via email, as Jessy states on January 8, why was my email request denied on December 8. And why did Jessy state on December 15 that self-exclusion by email was not possible.



Now that the “calculated gamble” theory is dead on the timeline alone, feel free to resume the personal-responsibility rhetoric. It still won’t change the facts or the obligations Bitz chose to publish and ignore.

If we take Jessy’s January 8 claim at face value that self-exclusion was available via email, then the obvious question is this: why did nothing happen on December 8, when I requested self-exclusion by email before any deposits were made? Either email-based exclusion was available and Bitz improperly refused to apply it, or it was not available and Bitz later misrepresented the facts. There is no version of events where Bitz’s conduct on December 8 is compliant.



Just for the record, I don’t expect a substantive response to any of the issues raised. Your pattern is consistent. You post assertions without evidence, disappear once they’re debunked, then reappear days later to repeat a new version of the same unsupported narrative.

At this point, it’s noise, not analysis, because you refuse to acknowledge the one fact that ends this discussion. If Bitz had honored the self-exclusion request on December 8, as required and as virtually all reputable casinos do, none of this would exist. There would be no deposits, no dispute, and no need to entertain your far-fetched theories at all. Instead, Bitz misrepresented the situation and refused to act for 9 days, continued accepting deposits, and created the very harm you are now trying to rationalize away.

I’m not here to solicit or accept life advice from strangers on forum.

Responsible gambling exists precisely because personal responsibility alone is not sufficient. That is why reputable casinos provide tools like limits, timeouts, and self-exclusion, and why they bind themselves to honor those requests once made. Those tools are not charity. They are contractual obligations Bitz chose to publish, advertise, and enforce against players.

Bitz failed on every front. I disclosed addiction. I requested self-exclusion. They acknowledged it and refused to act while continuing to accept deposits. That is operator misconduct under their own terms. Your fixation on “personal responsibility” ignores the equally real concept of operator responsibility and the written obligations Bitz voluntarily assumed.

What’s striking is how some people like you treat responsible gaming provisions as optional or second-class, while insisting every other term. KYC, AML, country restrictions, bonus rules, wagering limits. be enforced to the letter. Contracts do not work that way. Every term carries equal force. Casinos do not get to cherry-pick compliance based on ideology.

It’s difficult not to respond when people continue to spout misinformation, as you have, but at this point it’s no longer productive. The complaint is progressing through the appropriate channels.

Bitz had a duty to provide the responsible gaming safeguards it advertised and incorporated into its terms. That is the issue. I have no duty to convince you of anything, especially when you insist on ignoring the factual record and the governing terms.

You’re entitled to your views on addiction. They are irrelevant to whether Bitz complied with its own TOS and self-exclusion policy. This dispute is about conduct and compliance, not sermons.

By the way, you previously questioned Bitz over a year ago about its licensing when it operated under Curaçao. They never answered you. Now Bitz appears to be operating under an Anjouan license that expired on November 21, 2025, and once again you seem willing to look the other way.  Your inconsistency is telling.  Operator responsibility, accountability and transparency are clearly low on your priority list.

The quality of posts from a select few continues to deteriorate and drift further from the documented record. It is increasingly difficult to tell whether this is intentional misrepresentation or simply uninformed rambling.

Perhaps this is a function of where this discussion is taking place. In the Scam Accusations section, members tend to evaluate evidence, timelines, and written terms. Here in the ANN, some appear comfortable saying anything, no matter how outrageous, even when it is unsupported by the record.

That contrast is becoming hard to ignore.

Nothing in the record supports the suggestion you’re making. Repeating vague anecdotes about “some gamblers” does not address the actual facts, timeline, or terms at issue here.

Since you allegedly have been reading up on my case and others, point me to one piece of evidence that even remotely suggests that Bitz “forgot” to impose the self-exclusion request. Just to help you out with the definition of “forgot,” in case there is confusion. It means to inadvertently neglect to do something.

There is none. The record shows the opposite. Bitz acknowledged the request and then affirmatively refused to act (numerous times), citing a broken system and claiming manual exclusion was impossible. That is not oversight. That is a conscious decision.

Thanks for your "keen" insight on this matter avp2306.

Hi Pmalek:
Thank you for taking the time to go over to Casino Guru and actually read the complaint.  It’s interesting that you are now selectively citing Bitz’s Terms of Service and pointing to provisions you believe have full force and effect in this dispute.

You reference Section 3.3 regarding restricted territories. Yet throughout this entire thread, you have consistently refused to give any weight at all to Section 6.8 of the same TOS and Bitz’s now-deleted Self-Exclusion Policy (https://bitz.io/self-policy). Apparently, in your view, some sections of the TOS matter and others do not.

That inconsistency aside, I anticipated you would raise Section 3.3. After Bitz refused my self-exclusion request and still before any deposits were made, I sought an independent basis to have my account closed. I explicitly informed Bitz that I was a United States resident and quoted the very language from Section 3.3 you now rely on. Under their own terms, my account should have been blocked immediately.

Bitz refused. They stated that the account could not be blocked until the self-exclusion tool “under maintenance” was repaired and a seven-day self-exclusion period had elapsed. In other words, even when presented with a clear territorial prohibition under their own TOS, they still declined to act. Now ask yourself why a casino would claim a self-exclusion tool was required to block an account from a restricted territory. You can decide whether that explanation reflects a legitimate constraint or clear bad faith misrepresentation from a sometimes rogue casino.

It gets worse. On December 15, Bitz support, through the same representative involved elsewhere in this matter, claimed that players could play from any country, with the caveat that there “may be issues loading games or the website.” That position directly contradicts Section 3.3 and further demonstrates how casually Bitz treated its own rules.

So now that you’ve decided to engage with the TOS, perhaps you can explain how refusing to honor a self-exclusion request citing gambling addiction, refusing to close an account for a prohibited-country resident, and continuing to accept deposits complies with Bitz’s published terms.

You won’t be able to. That’s why your arguments keep pivoting to personal responsibility while avoiding operator obligations and misconduct entirely.

You’ve seen only a fraction of the evidence documenting Bitz’s conduct beginning December 7. I have no obligation to convince you of anything. But when you thought you had found a clever angle by raising U.S. residency, it was necessary to correct the record once again.  If this reply after you walked yourself into this trap and were thoroughly debunked is not worthy of what this forum calls “merit,” then I clearly do not understand how that system is supposed to work.

Screenshots attached for clarity.



Since allegations about schemes and exploitation involving Bitz and its Self-Exclusion Policy are coming from a few detractors, it’s worth asking the burning question. Did it ever occur to you that Bitz might be the party running the scheme?

A player disclosed a gambling addiction, requested self-exclusion, and explicitly stated he could not play at a casino without deposit and loss limits. Bitz then blocked account closure through every available channel and continued to allow deposits for 9 days until the very harm the player was trying to avoid occurred. Ask yourself who was exploiting whom, especially since following the harm (and after threats of escalation), manual self-exclusions via email and account blocking magically became available. FYI, the "under maintenance" self-exclusion tool that Bitz claimed was required to self-exclude and to block accounts for territory restrictions remains non-functional even as of today, January 8 (https://bitz.io/responsible-gaming).



Notably, after receiving notice of gambling addiction, Bitz assigned the player a personal manager. That manager offered bonuses, encouraged continued play, and suggested the player’s willpower was stronger than any responsible gaming tool or limit.

That conduct does not mitigate the breach. It aggravates it. Assigning a host, offering incentives, and encouraging play after notice of gambling addiction by a player from a restricted territory is incompatible with any claim that Bitz was acting in good faith, abiding by the terms of their TOS or honoring its responsible gaming obligations.

Pmalek, I respect your right to hold personal responsibility views. I’m not asking you to abandon them. I’m asking that the same standard be applied to the operator. The record establishes Bitz’s culpability for its own conduct, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it.

That culpability explains the $5,000 refund offer they made. It was not holiday season kindness, sympathy or goodwill. It was damage control.

Anyone know if Bitz_Casino is available to chime in or are they still busy celebrating International Technology Day at Bitz, where technology allegedly works.  There are several issues that require explanation. Among them is why blocking an account from a restricted country supposedly required use of an "under maintenance" and unavailable self-exclusion tool and a mandatory seven-day self-exclusion period for an ineligible player.