This week's group is a little small as there are some ongoing 'big picture' projects going on in the back ground.
BetHard license - this operators carry maximum win terms (this should be dealt with by controlling the bets you allow players to place, not via terms), restrict the withdrawal of progressive jackpots and have a dormancy terms that charge a % of the balance, so Not Recommended:https://thepogg.com/casino-review/lets-bet/https://thepogg.com/casino-review/live-lounge/https://thepogg.com/casino-review/sir-jackpot/
Next we have House of Jack. This operator came to our attention during a recent complaint. House of Jack and Casino-Mate are now being operated by the same people. Player self-excluded at Casino-Mate. There's no information on the Casino-Mate site that would lead a player to believe that the SE would be applied anywhere else. House of Jack then used the Casino-Mate SE to justify voiding a $50k win. After a discussion the player and operator reached a settlement agreement which the player was not allowed to disclose. This sort of agreement almost certainly means the player wasn't paid the full balance. Alongside this they fail to display any license information.
It should also be noted that Casino-Mate were previously owned by the Vegas Partners Lounge (Crazy Vegas) group before the restrictions on Australian traffic came into place. https://thepogg.com/casino-review/house-of-jack/
GameBet - non-responsive to player complaints. They also carry a maximum win term similar to the BetHard group though higher. The affiliate program for GameBet lists the same ownership as the affiliate program from Parasino casino - Radon B.V. - another group that are non-responsive to player complaints. This leads us to believe that these operators are likely owned by the same people:https://thepogg.com/casino-review/gamebet/
LVBet - They restrict the withdrawal of progressive jackpots and carry a max win term:https://thepogg.com/casino-review/lvbet/
Bob Casino - where to start? The entire site is very clearly Bob Marley themed from the name, to the use of Rastafarian iconography to the use of the artist's most famous songs as bonus codes. But a disclaimer at the bottom of the site denies that the casino was named with any reference to Bob Marley. The site is littered with drug references, regularly encouraging users to engage with various drug usage. But a disclaimer at the bottom of the site does not encourage drug use. I'm making no judgement on whether or not drug use is acceptable - that's for each individual to decide - but what we have here is an operator that is thinks as long as they put a disclaimer in the small print they can do exactly what they claim not to be doing.
And then there's the terms. They've actually written in a term that limits the amount a player can withdraw in a specific time frame if they engage any form of limitation of self-exclusion. So you try to gambling responsibly Bob Casino will slow pay you. Blacklist.https://thepogg.com/casino-review/bob-casino/
Finally the only one of the group even approaching decent - Bet Bright. Still problems here though as this operator carry a maximum win term and a dormancy term that charges a % of the balance. As long as they carry these terms they'll never make it out of Needs Work:https://thepogg.com/casino-review/betbright/