Bitz Casino - загальне обговорення

Ніколи не реєструйтеся в цьому казино

якщо ви хочете зробити пару ставок на спорт, і раптом ви виграєте гроші, це казино ніколи не віддасть ваш виграш

Never ever register at this casino

if you want to make a couple of bets on sports, and suddenly you win money, this casino will never give you your winnings

This doesn't sound good for a fresh casino.

May I ask when this happened and what was the explanation for it, if any?

Я зареєструвався лише тому, що казино має високий рейтинг на TrustPilot. Після реєстрації я отримав таке повідомлення: «Привіт, шановний blessed_wolf_15953344!»

Як щодо того, щоб залишити відгук про нас та отримати додатковий бонус у розмірі 30 USDT на свій баланс?

Так, так, для наших постійних гравців є додатковий бонус за чесний відгук на TrustPilot.

Казино отримує фальшиві відгуки за гроші, і це вже погана ознака.

I registered only because the casino has a high rating on TrustPilot. After registration I received this message "Hello Dear blessed_wolf_15953344!

How about leaving a review about us and get an extra 30 USDT bonus on your balance?

Yes, yes, there is an additional bonus for our regular players for an honest review on TrustPilot"

The casino receives fake reviews for money and this is already a bad sign.

Thank you for this information indeed.

We will make a note because we don't accept such behavior, and reviews that are motivated this way are not published on our website, as we believe that it is not fair, of course.

Did you leave the review about this casino?

Feel free to do so here, if you wish, and describe the whole experience, please. You can include the information provided here, for sure.

Per my outreach yesterday (attached), Casino Guru should take action to update Bitz Casino’s safety index and review to better protect players. At present, Bitz offers no functional responsible gaming options. In addition to my pending complaint, I have attached reviews from two other recent players describing similar issues, specifically Bitz’s refusal to honor permanent self-exclusion requests after disclosure of gambling addiction.

I also raised serious concerns regarding Bitz’s licensing status. Bitz displays no license verification seal on its website, and the Anjouan Gaming license register indicates that its license expired as of November 21, 2025. These issues materially affect player protection and regulatory accountability.

Against that backdrop, the current Casino Guru review is not only inaccurate but potentially harmful. Stating that Bitz is licensed, offers responsible gaming options, and assigning it a Safety Index of 8.1 labeled as "High," creates a false sense of security for players. Presenting Bitz as a recommendable casino that prioritizes fairness, while it lacks basic responsible gaming safeguards and has unresolved licensing concerns, risks exposing players to harm rather than protecting them.

Allowing a casino in this condition to retain a high safety rating and positive review undermines the purpose of the Safety Index and does a disservice to players who rely on Casino Guru to make informed decisions.

Hello,

The action is being taken here through the complaint process 👈.

Once it reaches its end, the outcome will be visible too. Feel free to update the progress anytime something occurs. Also, feel free to share your finding regarding the license with the mediator to be revised and reviewed and updated. Thank you in advance.

To clarify potentially misunderstood points for the community:

1) The Safety Index expresses something other than the quality of responsible gambling tools or practices (unless those are applications of payers proven in unresolved complaints) because those are not always available.

2) Presenting this fact alongside the license is confusing because the current licensing situation lacks credibility. For example, AOFA and the Curacao Gaming Control Board currently offer weak licenses and show little interest in resolving players' issues. Therefore, the license does not guarantee safer gambling measures at that casino. To clarify, under these circumstances, AOFA is equivalent to having no license at all.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to mention all of those problematic points and for giving a chance to investigate further through the complaint. Much appreciated. 👍

First, I understand that the Safety Index is not based only on responsible gambling tools. However, when a casino claims to offer self-exclusion and responsible gambling options that do not exist or do not function, and this is shown by evidence in an unresolved complaint, that should directly affect the Safety Index. This is not a question of quality. It is a question of absence.

Second, I agree the AOFA license is effectively equivalent to having no license at all from a player-protection standpoint.

When this lack of a legitimate and accessible licensing framework is combined with the proven absence of functional responsible gaming tools, it becomes difficult to understand the representation by Casino Guru that "Taking into account all factors in our review, Bitz Casino has scored a Safety Index of 8.1, representing a High value" and that it is "a recommendable choice" for players seeking fairness. Those conclusions appear inconsistent with the documented facts currently on record.

This is precisely why the complaint holds such enormous significance. Once the conclusion is clear, the Safety Index may be adjusted based on the outcome. It may not be recognized well, but the whole system is designed to work with concrete player cases. Some casinos lack working responsible gambling tools, but if a site promotes such tools or practices and then fails to provide them, that is a serious matter.

It will all be investigated in the complaint.

What a surprise. Yet another player today reports that Bitz Casino refused to honor a self-exclusion request after being told about a gambling addiction. (https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-closure-request-has-been)

In my years of online gambling, most casinos honor self-exclusion requests. Some might try to suggest a short break instead. Some might offer a bonus to keep the player active. But when a player is clear and firm about wanting to self-exclude, reputable casinos eventually respect the request and close the account.

Then there is Bitz.io.

Bitz is a casino that refuses for days or weeks to allow players to self-exclude or permanently close their accounts. They claim exclusion is impossible without an imaginary "responsible gaming" section. They say manual exclusion is not allowed. They keep accepting deposits while knowing the player has a gambling problem. This pattern keeps repeating with different players.

Despite this, Bitz Casino still carries a Safety Index of 8.1 on Casino Guru and is labeled "High," suggesting it is fair and safe for players. That label does not reflect what is happening in real cases.

I understand Radka's point that unresolved complaints play a role in updating a casino’s Safety Index. But there also needs to be a stronger deterrent. Casinos should not benefit from violating responsible gaming rules and then stonewalling mediators. Ignoring complaints should come with meaningful black points and a real reduction in the Safety Index.

If stonewalling mediators remains a low-cost strategy, casinos like Bitz will keep choosing it over player protection.

In my opinion we are both saying the same things. The only difference is that for understandable reasons, the complaint process is described as stonewalling.

I understand why this situation raises serious concerns, especially when similar experiences start appearing repeatedly. Cases involving self-exclusion and responsible gambling should never be taken lightly, and when a casino fails in this area, it is a significant issue.

At the same time, Casino Guru cannot draw conclusions or apply penalties based solely on the existence or repetition of claims. What ultimately matters is whether those claims can be clearly verified and confirmed through the complaint process.

That is precisely why the ongoing complaints are so important. Each case is being reviewed individually, with all available evidence, so that any conclusions are based on documented facts rather than assumptions or expectations.

I know this can feel slow and frustrating, especially when the pattern seems obvious. However, acting before the investigation is complete would not lead to a fair or defensible outcome, meaning either for players or for the casino, usually in the form of a recommendation on how to do things correctly next time.

Once the complaint process reaches a conclusion, the findings will be applied accordingly. Until then, the situation is being actively reviewed rather than ignored. More complaints, more attention.

Bitz will likely not respond unless the black points assessed are truly significant, which they should be given that this complaint involves nearly $14,000 USD and blatant responsible gaming breaches. When allegations are accurate, well documented, and supported by evidence, there is very little an operator can say. The usual response in that situation is silence and the hope that the issue fades away.

Bitz appears to have decided that violating responsible gaming obligations, ignoring mediators like Casino Guru and AskGamblers, and absorbing whatever Safety Index reduction follows is more profitable than accountability. Any reduction in Safety Index they receive is, in their view, an acceptable cost of doing business.

I am confident in the strength of my complaint. Based on the volume of evidence submitted, Martin has already indicated that it appears a refund is in order. Bitz was given a clear opportunity to respond and rebut those conclusions. Their response was to ignore the process entirely.

What makes this behavior more telling is that Bitz routinely responds within hours to negative reviews on Trustpilot, but only when the reviews are unrelated to responsible gaming or self-exclusion. Reviews raising responsible gaming failures are consistently ignored. That pattern is not accidental. It reflects an area where they know their conduct cannot be defended.

Now that Martin has granted Bitz an additional seven days to respond, we’ll see what they do. They can finally explain their actions, or they can continue down the same path and reinforce the perception that they are operating as a rogue casino with weak licensing, no meaningful oversight, and accountability to no one but themselves.

Point taken 👍; if the operator is not going to address those situations, the consequences will come.

I won't add much more here, because in my opinion your post should have the most attention.

Hi Radka:

Just a quick update on my dispute with Bitz. Attached is the AskGamblers decision. AskGamblers today closed the complaint as unresolved after more than four weeks of review and repeated requests to Bitz for a response.

AskGamblers found that Bitz failed to provide reasonable justification or solid proof for refusing a refund after failing to implement self-exclusion and responsible gaming tools, after reviewing the full evidentiary record I submitted. The case was closed due to Bitz’s non-cooperation, with a confirmed rating decrease as a direct consequence.

I’m attaching here as it directly corroborates the responsible gaming failures and lack of engagement reflected in my complaint. Hopefully Bitz Casino reconsiders its current approach and engages with the Casino Guru complaint process rather than continuing to remain silent.

Hello, that's quite a disappointment, to be honest. Is it truly so easy for the operator to ignore such situations, I wonder? In any case, the second timer is aligned with the casino in the CG complaint, and while I hope for a reasonable response, I now have a few doubts. 🙁

Thank you for providing the AG standpoint here. Will stay in touch.