# Other Casinos #: Is there any chance to get money back from Stake.com? (Page 3)

Falcon wrote on November 07, 2023 at 02:45 am:
You said it. Casinos live from gambling addicts, they know that too and specifically promote gambling addiction. That's why there are no protective mechanisms. Slots are developed with the help of psychologists in order to achieve the most addictive effect possible.


But no, you've got this point wrong. Addicts cannot take every opportunity. It is impossible to block yourself from all online casinos. And as you write yourself, the casinos don't even want that. So it wouldn't make any difference what protection is introduced. There would be such protection if you wanted it, namely that every license would have a block similar to Oasis.

"Gauselmann has a castle and a whole block as its headquarters Novomatic's entrance hall is bigger than some apartments and they build towers and beautiful buildings on Malta until the island eventually sinks because it can no longer bear the weight"

Yes, exactly. Then tell me how you can condemn even a millimeter of a player who gets his money back. Complete victim/perpetrator reversal.

This post has been translated automatically

gamble1 wrote on 07.11.2023 at 03:58:
I have always had the opinion that if someone has really ruined themselves and is willing to see this as a second chance knowing they are fighting the addiction and no longer gambling unless they suffer a relapse then ok they should get the money back with the lawyer


But where I lack any understanding are such planned actions according to the motto "If I win I shut my mouth but if I lose I just get my money back and continue gambling somewhere else"

This is not only morally questionable depths, but strictly speaking it is even the deliberate use of a service with the knowledge of not wanting to pay for it, so quite simply fraud and when I once asked a lawyer about this, he even said that it is completely irrelevant for fraud whether it is a legal or illegal transaction if someone deliberately uses a service and causes financial damage to their counterpart with deliberate actions, this is deliberate fraud

Just to show how different a situation can be Person A can do it without a guilty conscience and person B is theoretically criminal it is essentially the same action but the intention is different

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Donnie wrote on 07.11.2023 at 08:37: Why not sue the coffee manufacturers or the nearest brewery? Oh well the next retailer in the high street needs to be taken to court too. How could he sell me something even though I'm addicted to shopping. Well, tough luck if you lose so much money, next time bet a little less. Everyone is responsible for themselves. Playing a round in a slot is also a bet that you make. The only reason to sue a casino is if you have specifically asked to be banned and they let you play. I have a few alternatives in store that you can do away from gambling so that you don't lose so much money. Do something, start a family, watch series/movies or go feeding pigeons in the park

This post has been translated automatically

Stromberg wrote on 07.11.2023 at 09:11:

Stop with such tips... there are already enough people where I think, do you really have to witness offspring now? 🤔😂

This post has been translated automatically

Falke wrote on 07.11.2023 at 04:40:

That's just not true. In Austria, you can get the money back at any time and it is not officially considered fraud. This is a decision of the Supreme Court, which clearly states that you can also play with the idea that you will get the money back later.


The purpose of this is clear - to push back the black market.

So, not only is it not fraud, it is also clearly permitted and even desired.

Take a look here:
https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20221212_OTS0007/oberster-gerichtshof-ermoeglicht-risikoloses-gluecksspiel-bei-illegalen-onlinecasinos


"Vienna (OTS) - Sensation before the Supreme Court, the OGH pronounces that a player can reclaim his losses from an illegal gambling Provider, even if he had the intention to sue back illegal bets at the time of the game."

"In the OGH decision 6 Ob 200/22p, the Supreme Court states. "whereby it could not harm the plaintiff - because of the purpose of the prohibition already discussed - if he had "concealed" from the defendant any "intention" he may have had at the time of participation in the prohibited game to sue for lost bets at a later date." Knowledge of the recoverability and even the intention to sue for lost stakes at a later date is therefore not detrimental to the player."

This post has been translated automatically