BiggerZ Casino Accused of Confiscating Player's 6.75 BTC Winnings

We are flagging serious concerns after a player reported that BiggerZ Casino closed their account while keeping approximately 6.75 BTC that belongs to the player. The explanation offered by the player raises issues that cannot be honestly dismissed by pointing to a vague "internal review."

According to the player, they had already passed KYC verification and were allowed to keep playing and cashing out. After winning a substantial amount, the player began processing withdrawals. At that point, BiggerZ allegedly imposed a $10,000 daily withdrawal limit — roughly 0.15 BTC per transaction at the going Bitcoin exchange rate.

Crucially, the player says BiggerZ did not merely impose the cap — the casino actively instructed the player to submit withdrawals of about 0.15 BTC each. The player followed those instructions exactly.

As a result, numerous withdrawal requests were submitted in line with the very procedure and limits BiggerZ had communicated. Yet once the player had followed the casino's own withdrawal instructions, the payments allegedly stopped. The outstanding balance — roughly 6.75 BTC — was never paid out, and the account was subsequently closed.

THE QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED

This sequence of events raises one central question:

If BiggerZ Casino had a legitimate reason to believe the player's funds could not be withdrawn, why did it direct the player to keep submitting withdrawals under the casino's own withdrawal-limit framework in the first place?

And if an issue with the player's account arose afterward, what had changed since the casino had already cleared KYC and allowed the player to both play and withdraw?

BiggerZ should provide concrete answers to the following:

1. Why were withdrawals discontinued after the player complied with BiggerZ's stated withdrawal procedure?

2. Why was the player instructed to submit individual withdrawals of approximately 0.15 BTC?

3. Were those withdrawals regarded as valid and compliant at the time BiggerZ directed the player to make them?

4. If BiggerZ later decided the player was not entitled to the remaining balance, when was that determination reached and on what specific contractual grounds?

5. What precise rule or term does BiggerZ cite to justify withholding approximately 6.75 BTC?

6. What evidence substantiates that decision?

7. Why was the player's account closed rather than the remaining funds being processed or returned?

8. Why were prior withdrawals permitted before the remaining balance was frozen?

9. Why was the matter not resolved despite the player contacting the casino repeatedly?

10. Why did the Casino Guru complaint remain unresolved without adequate supporting evidence or a satisfactory explanation from BiggerZ?

THIS IS MORE THAN A WITHDRAWAL DELAY

A delayed withdrawal is one matter. A casino closing an account while allegedly holding approximately 6.75 BTC is considerably more serious.

The player maintains they satisfied the casino's KYC requirements, followed the withdrawal instructions provided to them, and submitted withdrawals within the limits BiggerZ itself communicated. If that account holds up, the central issue is no longer merely "Why hasn't the withdrawal arrived?"

The issue becomes:

What specific justification does BiggerZ Casino have for retaining the player's remaining Bitcoin after the player followed the casino's own withdrawal instructions?

A casino ought to be able to answer that question with evidence. An unexplained internal review — lacking a clear reason, supporting documentation, or a defined resolution — does not adequately address a disputed balance of this magnitude.

CASINO GURU CASE

The player escalated the matter to Casino Guru, where the complaint remained unresolved.

Casino Guru complaint:

https://casino.guru/complaints/biggerz-casino-player-s-withdrawal-has-been-delayed-1

Other review sites

BiggerZ casino reviews on Casino Guru:

https://casino.guru/biggerz-casino-review

BiggerZ casino reviews on Trustpilot:

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/biggerz.com

The existence of an unresolved complaint does not by itself establish wrongdoing. However, it does show that the dispute has not been satisfactorily resolved through that channel — which makes transparency all the more important.

BiggerZ now has an opportunity to address the allegations directly and supply the evidence supporting its position.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?

If BiggerZ has a legitimate contractual or regulatory basis for withholding the approximately 6.75 BTC, it should identify that basis clearly.

If there is evidence of a breach of the casino's terms, that evidence should be presented through the appropriate dispute-resolution process.

If there is no valid basis for withholding the funds, the remaining balance should be released.

What should not happen is for a player to be left without their funds, without a clear explanation, and without meaningful evidence supporting the decision. Approximately 6.75 BTC is not an insignificant disputed amount. This case therefore warrants serious scrutiny from players, dispute-resolution bodies, and any relevant regulatory or licensing authorities.

Until the matter is properly explained, prospective players should exercise caution when considering whether to maintain substantial balances with the operator.

We are calling on BiggerZ Casino to address this case publicly, identify the precise basis for the account closure and withheld balance, and provide evidence supporting its decision.

The player is seeking two basic things: the return of the approximately 6.75 BTC they claim remains owed to them, and a clear, evidence-based explanation for why the funds were withheld and the account closed.

Evidence to claims

https://imgur.com/a/evidence-screenshots-biggerz-casino-scam-vWFhPD0.