CB has completed full deposit-to-withdrawal cycles on BC.Game, Rainbet, Gamdom, Roobet and Duel.com. All five prevent you withdrawing a deposit you haven't wagered. Zero disclosed this on the deposit screen. The requirement ranges from 1x the deposit (BC.Game, Rainbet) to 100% of the deposit (Gamdom, Roobet, Duel.com). Only Duel.com offers a way out, and it charges 8% for it. When CB asked why, Roobet and Rainbet support both cited AML compliance — Roobet produced a 2026 policy document, Rainbet confirmed it in a screenshotted chat. Gamdom, asked the same question directly, declined to confirm AML — its agent called it "a standard rule that applies to every player." BC.Game and Duel.com were not asked. The pattern is consistent enough to assume it is standard practice; the disclosure is consistently absent.
01What a deposit wagering lock actually is
This is the part most players get wrong, and the industry does little to correct.
A bonus wagering requirement is well understood: take a bonus, play it through a set number of times before the winnings are yours. Most players know to look for it, and most operators disclose it, because they are usually required to.
A deposit wagering requirement is a different thing entirely. It applies to your own money. You deposit £100, claim nothing, take no bonus, and attempt to withdraw the £100 straight back out. You cannot. The platform will not release it until you have staked it — once, or in full, depending on the operator.
Every crypto casino CB has tested with real money applies a deposit wagering lock, and none of them disclosed it on the deposit screen. In every case, CB discovered the lock either by being blocked at withdrawal or by digging through terms after the money was already in.
02Every lock CB has recorded
Five platforms, five locks. Compiled from CB's own real-money tests — every figure traceable to a published Review.
| Platform | Requirement | Bypass? | Disclosed pre-deposit? | Reason given to CB | Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC.Game | 1x deposit | No — hard block | No | None stated | 002 |
| Rainbet | 1x deposit | No — hard block | No | AML — confirmed, screenshotted | 003 |
| Gamdom | 100% of deposit | No — hard block | No | Asked — AML not confirmed | 005 |
| Duel.com | 100% of deposit | Yes — 8% fee | No | None stated | 006 |
| Roobet | 100% of deposit | No — hard block | No | AML — policy doc on file | 007 |
The variation matters. A 1x lock on a £100 deposit means staking £100 once — with a typical house edge, most of it survives. A 100% lock is the same requirement described differently, and both Roobet and Duel.com use that phrasing. Duel.com is the only operator CB has tested that lets you leave early, and it prices that exit at 8%.
03What each operator said when CB asked
This is where the five diverge — and where CB has to be careful about what it can and cannot claim.
Roobet — the only operator that produced a document
CB's first Roobet withdrawal was blocked outright. CB then found a Roobet help-centre article, dated 2025, stating a 20% wagering requirement — which contradicted the block. CB escalated. Support confirmed the 2025 article was outdated, and supplied the current 2026 policy document confirming 100%, citing AML compliance as the basis. The outdated article was still publicly accessible at the time of test.
Roobet is the most transparent operator in this table, and it still took an escalation and a contradiction to get a straight answer. Full Roobet Review →
Rainbet — confirmed on request
Rainbet support confirmed the 1x rule when CB asked, stated the rate as 1:1, and gave AML compliance as the reason. It was not disclosed before deposit. Unlike the three platforms below, Rainbet's answer is on record — CB screenshotted it.
Gamdom — asked directly, and the answer was not "AML"
CB put the question to Gamdom support in plain terms: do you have to wager every deposit, and if so, why? The agent confirmed the lock — "you must wager 100% of the deposit amount, yes, it's a standard rule to all the players" — but when CB asked directly, "Is this due to AML?", the agent did not confirm it. The reply was that this is "a standard rule that applies to every player."
This matters. Gamdom is the one platform where CB asked the AML question outright, and the operator declined to stand behind AML as the reason. CB does not read this as proof the lock isn't AML-related — only that Gamdom would not say so. It is reported here as exactly that: asked, not confirmed.
BC.Game and Duel.com — the lock exists, the reason was not put to support
Both enforce a deposit wagering lock. In CB's test cycles, CB did not ask either operator's support to state the reason for it — so unlike Gamdom, there is no answer to report either way.
It is possible BC.Game and Duel.com apply their locks for the same AML reason Roobet and Rainbet stated — the mechanism is identical across platforms. But CB has not asked them, and they have not told CB. And Gamdom's response is a caution against assuming: the one time CB did ask outside Roobet and Rainbet, AML was not confirmed. This Investigation reports each lock as observed, and each reason only where an operator has actually stated it. This piece will be updated as CB puts the question to more operators.
04The real story is the disclosure gap
Whatever the justification, one fact is uniform across all five platforms and is not in dispute.
Not one of them tells you before they take your money.
Every platform in this table shows you a deposit screen. Every deposit screen shows you an address, a network, a minimum, and — on some — a fee. Not one of them shows you the sentence that actually matters: you will not be able to withdraw this until you have staked it.
If the lock is an AML requirement, it is a legitimate one, and disclosing it costs the operator nothing. A single line on the deposit screen would resolve it. The fact that five separate operators, across five separate deposit flows, have all independently chosen not to include that line is the finding of this Investigation.
Treat every crypto casino deposit as committed capital, not parked capital. Assume you cannot get it back out until you've played it through. Do not deposit funds you intend to withdraw unused — on the evidence CB has, you will be blocked. If you need an exit, Duel.com is the only tested platform that sells you one, at 8%.
05What CB tested, and what it did not
Every figure in this Investigation comes from a CB real-money test cycle with a published Review behind it. The scope limits are as follows, stated plainly:
- Five platforms. This is not a survey of the sector. It is every platform CB has tested to date. The pattern is unanimous across those five; CB does not claim it is universal.
- Small-to-moderate amounts. All cycles were run at modest deposit levels. Behaviour at larger amounts is untested.
- Two operators on record. Only Roobet and Rainbet stated a reason to CB. The other three locks are observed, not explained.
- No legal conclusion. CB is not a regulator or a law firm and takes no view on whether any of this is compliant.
CB publishes what it tested and flags what it didn't. If an operator in this table believes anything here is inaccurate, contact CB and CB will retest and correct it.