We score seven categories out of ten, weight them, and publish the maths on this page. If a book has a documented history of limiting winners or slow-paying withdrawals, we dock a flat 1.0 across the board. Non-negotiable.
We register the same way any reader would, with no press access and no advance notice to the operator. We record every step of KYC and verification.
We fund the account with our own money, log the exact deposit time, and note how many confirmations it takes to clear.
We place bets across the sports and markets the operator advertises, checking odds against benchmark books to measure juice.
We request a withdrawal and time how long it actually takes to land, across more than one payment method where possible.
We read the full terms on the welcome offer and any ongoing promotions, and flag any clause that makes a bonus practically impossible to clear.
We search forums, complaint boards and regulator notices for documented patterns of limit-hunting or slow-paying. If we find credible evidence, it triggers the penalty described on how we rate.
Every complaint or controversy claim in a review links directly to the public source it came from, whether that's a Reddit thread, an AskGamblers complaint, a Bitcointalk post, or a news article. We don't summarise a vague "some users report" without a link attached. If we can't find a public source for a claim, we don't publish the claim. This is why some reviews read more skeptical of one operator than another. It's not favouritism, it's what the public record actually shows.
We publish the test date and tester name on every review. If terms or behaviour change materially, we retest and update the page, logged on our corrections page.
BADASS