Our method in plain terms, what we test ourselves, and what we assess from evidence.
A review is worth what its method is worth, and for this reason we prefer to describe ours in detail, including the parts that we test ourselves and those that we assess from external evidence. We would rather tell the reader exactly what we have done than pretend to have done more; in a sector full of "tested" badges and "ratings" borrowed from elsewhere (often without saying so), it seems to us the first form of honesty.
The games are the part that we can test completely, and we do. Every slot reviewed on this site has been played in demo mode by our editorial team, which allows us to describe its rhythm, its "bonus features" and its "volatility" from direct experience (the demo runs the same mathematics as the real game, although the RTP chosen by each casino can differ, and we always say so); for these reviews the score is our own, and it appears as such in the structured data of the page.
The casinos are a different matter, since testing a casino means depositing, playing and withdrawing real money, and we cannot do it for every operator we list. When we have tested a casino directly, the review says when, from which market and how far the test went: Betway, for example, was tested years ago in both its casino and its sportsbook, while at Las Vegas USA the test covered the free chip and the support, but not a withdrawal. The other casinos are assessed on their licence and on their reputation, and their reviews say so plainly.
The licence comes first, because it decides almost everything else: where the players' money is kept, how the games are tested, and whether a complaint has anywhere to go. Then come the reputation gathered from independent sources (Trustpilot, Casino Guru and AskGamblers among them), which we cite as context and never present as a rating of our own, the clarity of the bonus terms, the payment methods and the times declared by the operator, and the quality of the lobby.
From these elements we form a conservative editorial score, and the licence sets its ceiling. A casino licensed in Malta or in the United Kingdom can reach the top of the scale. An "offshore" casino, licensed in Curaçao for example, can be worth trying with a free chip, but our advice for it is always the same: take the free bonus, and do not deposit real money there. The operators without any verifiable licence, or with a history of unpaid winnings (the so-called "rogue" casinos), are simply not listed!
For the bonuses we look at the figures that decide their real value, and we explain them with an example: the size of the bonus, the multiple of the wagering and whether it applies to the bonus alone or to deposit and bonus together, the contribution of the games, the ceiling on winnings and the deadline. When the expected cost of the wagering exceeds the bonus, we say so, and we suggest declining it, and the method is set out in our guide to casino bonuses and wagering requirements.
The site is funded by affiliate commissions, and no commission decides a score, the order of a list or the presence of an operator on our pages, and an operator cannot buy a better rating. The offers change often, so each page shows the date of its last update, and when a casino closes, changes its programme or stops paying, it leaves our lists.
Errors happen, and we prefer to know about them. Anyone who finds a figure out of date, a condition described wrongly or an offer that no longer exists can write to us through the contact page, and we correct what is wrong.