How We Check
The withdrawal test, and why every box is empty
The most useful thing anyone could publish about these casinos is what happens when you try to take money out. Not the advertised payout time, the real one, with the documents they ask for first.
We have not run one yet. Every brand page carries an empty box saying so, and it stays empty until a real deposit and a real withdrawal have happened, with screenshots. It is the single easiest thing on this site to fake and the single most damaging thing to fake, so it is left visibly undone rather than quietly filled in.
What runs every morning
A script reads every casino in our catalogue, 5,099 of them, and records what it finds: whether the site answers at all, which payment methods it advertises, which regulator it names, and whether it displays a licence number. Anything that differs from yesterday is written to an append-only log.
That log is the point. Any site can show you today. Nobody else can show you what changed, because that only accrues in real time and cannot be backfilled.
What we tried, and how often it worked
Every source here has a hit rate, and most of them are low. Publishing only the successes would make this site look far more complete than it is, so the misses are on the page too. If a competitor shows you a figure for every casino they list, ask them what they did when the site would not answer.
| What | How | Worked | Why it misses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site reachable | Direct request each morning | 4,632 of 5,046 | 414 imported from a register have not been reached yet |
| Licence in a register | Regulator's own published file | 1,493 captured | Only Anjouan publishes a downloadable register |
| Licence at the regulator | Certificate behind the operator's seal | 15 of 169 tried | We read raw HTML, and most footers are built by JavaScript |
| Wagering multiple | Read from the terms page | 120 of 748 | Most sites do not link their terms in the markup at all |
| Advertised offer | Read from the home page | 168 of 748 | Offers are frequently images or rendered after load |
| Country restrictions | Read from the terms page | 22 of 120 | Same reason as the wagering multiple |
| Brand logo | Manifest, touch icon, schema.org | 1,097 self-hosted | Most publish only a 16px favicon, too small to show |
Measured on 2026-08-21. These are our numbers, not estimates, and they move every morning.
Check us
Nothing here needs to be taken on trust, and none of it requires our cooperation:
- A licence we verified. Open the casino, find the regulator seal in its footer, and follow it. You will land on the same certificate we read, served by the regulator rather than by us.
- A licence we could not verify. Look for that seal and see that there is not one, or that it does not resolve.
- An expiry. The Anjouan register is a public file. Search it for the licence number we print.
- A wagering multiple. We link the terms page we read it from.
- Whether a site is up. Type the domain into your own browser.
If any of that disagrees with what we publish, tell us. A correction costs us nothing and a wrong page costs us everything.
The three kinds of claim on this site
- Measured by us. Site reachability, payment methods advertised, licence numbers displayed, and, once a test is complete, deposit and withdrawal timings. These carry the date we measured them.
- Taken from a public register. Licence numbers, holding companies and expiry dates come from the regulator's own published file. We say which file and when we downloaded it.
- Stated by the operator. Bonus terms and advertised payout times. We label these as claims, because that is what they are.
What we cannot verify
Our checks read what a casino publishes. A site advertising a payment method is not proof it will work for you at the cashier. That requires depositing, which is why we do it, and why we only claim it for brands we have actually tested.
1650 of the sites we track block automated checks. They are online, since a real browser reaches them, but we cannot read their pages. We say so on the page rather than guessing.
Rules we hold ourselves to
- No page without something of our own on it. Enforced by the build: a page missing its own data fails to publish. It is not a policy someone remembers.
- Never a test we did not run. Withdrawal sections stay empty until a real deposit has been made and timed. A number nobody measured is an invented number.
- No score borrowed from anyone else. We do not republish another site's rating as ours.
- Readers cannot influence our ratings. Where we publish reader-submitted outcomes, they appear in their own column, clearly separated, and never feed our own figures.
- Every count shows its denominator and its date. "510 of 1,009, checked 15 August", not "over 500".
How we are paid
Nothing on this site earns money today. The outbound links go to each casino's own homepage with no tracking attached, and we have joined no affiliate programme, so no click here pays us anything. If that changes this paragraph changes with it, because it is generated from what the links actually contain rather than written by hand.
Outbound links are marked sponsored nofollow by the software that
renders them, so it cannot be forgotten, and they route through a path search
engines are told not to crawl. Payment does not change the data. The tables
are generated from the daily check, and no operator can buy a position in them.
Corrections
If a figure here is wrong we want to know, and we will correct it with a dated note rather than a silent edit.
Who is responsible for this site
Written and checked under the name Marlow, which is a pen name. There is no person by that name.
Every large site in this market publishes a face, a name and a sentence like "fourteen years in the industry". Some of those people exist. Many do not, and the ones that do not are impossible to tell apart from the ones that do, which is the point of publishing them. We are not going to add another.
So the credential here is the method, and the method is designed to be checked by you rather than believed. Every licence we confirm links to the regulator's own certificate, so you can open it yourself. Every figure on the site is generated from the data and fails the build if it drifts from it. Where we could not verify something we say which part we could not verify, and there are more of those sentences here than of the other kind.
That is a weaker claim than a named expert with a photograph, and we would rather make the weaker claim honestly. If you need to know who is behind a site before you weigh what it says, this is a fair reason to weigh it lower.