Lucy's Casino Casino Review

Lucy's Casino are on the same affiliate program - Campeon Partners - as Campeon Bet and Evobet which are Blacklisted here.

Lucy's Casino include the following in their Responsible Gaming section: "Self-exclusion means that you can choose a more extended period that your account will remain closed. Please contact us only via email and inform us about your decision to pause your activities at the Website. Upon receipt of an email request for account closure, the requested account will be placed on our 1st stage, 24-hr cooling off period which will disable your account, allowing no gambling activity. Once the 1st stage 24-hr cooling off period has passed, while your account remained closed, a Customer Support Agent will inform you of the available self-exclusions periods. There can be no variations of the pre-selected time periods. After that and in order to proceed with this process, we will require an email response from you. If we do not receive a response within a further 24-hrs, your account will be reopened and confirmed by email. Once you begin your Self-Exclusion period, your account will be disabled and you will not be able to deposit or withdraw funds for the period the Self-Exclusion is enabled. Upon expiration of the Self-Exclusion, your account will automatically be re-activated." (17/02/2022) This actively encourages players NOT to self-exclude if they are prevented from accessing funds that are legally and rightfully theirs until their self-exclusion ends. This is not stated in the General Terms and Conditions and as such could be missed by a player looking to self-exclude without searching the entire site for the full information. We will not endorse such policies and the licensor is unlikely to either.

Lucy's Casino include the following Terms that players should be aware of as they limit the amount a player can win in one 24 hour period and also over the lifetime of their account. "63.1 The maximum net winnings, based on licensee liability, in any 24-hour period per account are limited to 5000€." (24/02/2022) "63.2 The maximum net winnings, based on licensee liability, per account are limited to 50000€." (24/02/2022) "63.4 A player with 1 deposit only will be eligible to cashout a maximum of 15x the initial deposit amount. All further winnings will be removed from the account upon withdrawal request."

Evobet has actively constructed their registration form to encourage sign-ups from jurisdictions that they prohibit within their terms and conditions. We consider this to be entrapment, with the operator allowing play from restricted jurisdictions, refusing to pay wins but retaining losses. Furthermore, in one complaint case we have seen it came to light that the terms and conditions were not available to mobile users, giving the complainant no possibility of knowing that they were prohibited from signing-up, and yet the operator still refused to pay wins.

Campeon Bet are Not Recommended at ThePOGG as a result of their maximum win cap of €30,000 in 24 hours which is applied across all categories of game on site. 1/6/2018

Campeon Bet are also Not Recommended as a result of their inclusion of progressive jackpots in their maximum withdrawal term - this is considered predatory since it is the softwatre provider and not the casino that funds these wins. 1/6/2018

Term 6.2 - the dormancy/inactivity term states that a charge will be made for inactivity but no details of the amount or frequency of this charge are given - such clauses are considered predatory at ThePOGG and result in Not Recommended status. 1/6/2018

Evobet has been involved in a clear responsible gambling failure/exploitation of a vulnerable player. Their site at the time carried a clear statement stipulating that once a player had put in place a Time Out they would be "unable" to reverse it. The operator then lifted a Time Out based on a player request and have refused to acknowledge the failure to adhere to their own advertised standards.

Svenbet have refused to pay winnings due to accusations of multi-accounting that, when we reviewed the supporting evidence, appeared to be unfounded.