unclaimed offers
Turn geo location off

Choose a country to view the site from

Currently viewing from:

United States

ThePOGG.com – your source for reliable information about online gambling.

  • Over 2k complaints managed and $2 million returned to players.
  • The largest collection of detailed casino reviews available online.
  • Bonus value reports to tell you how bonuses really compare.
  • Detailed game guides to help you learn to play.

I certify that I am over 18 years of age and I have read and agreed to the:

We respect your privacy and won't share your email address.
[X] Close this form and return to site

Castle – Bonus winnings removed


Resolved - After some delays Castle casino acknowledged that the association between this player and an identified syndicate was only partial and there were no breaches in terms in conditions. As such they've paid the player in full and updated their terms and conditions to prevent future occurrences.

Read our Castle Casino Review.

Player's Complaint

On Jan 22nd I deposited £250 and received the welcome bonus of £250. After completing the wagering requirement I finished on £5275. The withdrawal process seemed to be taking a long time and after chasing them up several times the manager [EDIT] emailed me to say I had broken the terms and conditions as follows:

“7.5 - Castle Casino is intended for recreational players only and any players found to be abusing any rule or regulation, professional bettors, syndicates, or any Person having systematic betting strategies will be subject to having their account suspended, their earnings removed and their deposit refunded.

“11.1 - All our promotions are designed for genuine players who may be interested in continuing membership and play at the casino and are happy to wager with and risk their own money. Promotions may be deemed void at any time to individuals or groups who are suspected to abuse or have a record of promotional abuse or fraud (charge backs) at CastleCasino.com or any of our affiliate merchants. Any winnings accrued by such individual or groups will be deemed void and withheld.”

My initial deposit was returned and my winnings removed. The thing is my gameplay was incredibly straight forward. No tricks or changing games and stake sizes. If I share with you what and how I played it is clear that I was behaving within their parameters. I was just lucky to win and I cannot see anything in their terms above that applies to me.

I would hope they would take another look at my gambling style and reconsider because otherwise it seemed like a great place to play.

My username is [EDIT]

Read the casino review

7 Responses

Mar 04, 2015

Hi FAVOX - welcome back!

I'll be happy to contact Castle casino, but frankly this isn't the first time I've seen this behaviour from either Castle or ViG software.

It would be useful to know how you were playing. This can be communicated via email (webmaster@thepogg.com), if you're more comfortable that way.



Mar 16, 2015


I'm afraid I've not received any response to this complaint from Castle casino, though I admit this is unusual in my experience of them and it seems likely that my contact information may be out of date.

I'm trying more generic avenues now.



Mar 25, 2015


I'm still trying to contact Castle casino through more basic channels. I'll let you know if I have any success.



Apr 03, 2015


Just to let you know, I have established communication with someone at Castle casino and am discussing this issue now.



Apr 27, 2015


As explained to you over email Castle casino have become unresponsive to this complaint.

The situation is as follows; Castle casino believe, due to your game selection and bet sizing, that you are associated with a syndicate of accounts. If this were true it would at the very least be a breach of casino terms and conditions and possible represent fraud (if the accounts were being operated by people other than the named account holder).

In these types of cases I would usually consider both game selection and betting pattern as part of the assessment of a casino's case. In this particular scenario I cannot for two reasons;

1) Castle casino has failed to provide any other evidence of a connection between your account and any other accounts. In fact, I haven't even seen the play history to confirm their description of playing patterns.

2) The playing pattern that Castle casino described is common knowledge amongst the modern playing community. Reputable casinos construct their terms and conditions to prohibit these styles of play by restricting certain games and limiting the allowed bet size. As Castle casino - and all casinos using ViG casino software - do not carry any terms to this effect the result is to leave them open to this style of play. That means that knowledgeable players are going choose to play using these types of strategies at this casino. As such simply sharing a playing pattern with other players does not necessarily, or even likely, offer a connection between accounts.

The failings in the Castle casino terms and conditions has been pointed out to a representative of ViG software (our primary contact for this complaint suggesting that the software provider are running this casino) at which point they became non-responsive. This suggests to me that they have no interest in either improving their terms and conditions to prevent future issues or further discussion of this complaint.

As such we consider Castle casinos, and all casinos running on ViG software, to be high risk of seizure of funds without reasonable foundation in clear terms and conditions.

Sorry I couldn't be of further help.


Apr 27, 2015

Ok thanks for trying. I would like to add for anyone else reading this that I do not know a single other person who has an account at Castle Casino and reject entirely any claims they make about syndicates.

May 06, 2015

Castle casino have got back in contact with this player.

The situation is as follows - Castle have acknowledged that FAVOX's accounts, while sharing some play similarities, did not match the activity patterns that the identified syndicate in other respects. They also acknowledged that while they're not entirely happy with the manner with which FAVOX was playing, their terms and conditions did not specifically prohibit the behaviour displayed.

As such they have agreed to return the confiscated funds (this has already been done) and have updated their terms and conditions to offer clearer guidance regarding prohibited betting patterns.

While I do have some concerns about the manner in which this case was handled, overall this is a positive outcome. We can all make mistake, admitting them's the tricky part.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.