How We Rate: The Six-Criteria Scorecard
Any review site can publish a number. Far fewer publish the formula behind it. Here is ours, in full, including the weights — so you can disagree with our priorities rather than just our conclusions.
AI-assisted content
This methodology page was drafted with AI assistance and approved by Lei Abelai, who owns all scoring decisions. Scores themselves are assigned by a human, never generated automatically. Full AI disclosure.
The weights
Every operator we assess is scored 0–10 on six criteria. Those scores are multiplied by the weights below and summed into a single figure out of 10.
| # | Criterion | Weight | Why it carries that weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Licensing & legal standing | 25% | Everything else is worthless without it. A verifiable licence determines whether you have any recourse at all when something goes wrong. |
| 2 | Payout reliability | 22% | The only test that matters in the end. Approval times, dispute history, fee transparency, and whether terms shift after a win. |
| 3 | Bonus fairness | 18% | Where most consumer harm hides. Wagering multiples, weighting, max-bet clauses, cash-out caps, and how clearly they're disclosed. |
| 4 | Game integrity | 15% | Named studios, published RTP per title, independently tested RNGs, and no unbranded clones. |
| 5 | Responsible-play tools | 12% | Deposit limits, loss limits, session reminders, cool-off and self-exclusion — self-serve in account settings, not by emailing support. |
| 6 | Support quality | 8% | Reachable in PH hours, in English or Filipino, with a written ticket trail you can cite later. |
What earns and loses points
1. Licensing & legal standing — 25%
- Gains: licence number resolvable on the regulator's own registry; corporate entity named; jurisdiction stated plainly on the homepage.
- Loses: logo-only claims; a licence held by a different entity than the one taking your money; jurisdiction buried or omitted.
2. Payout reliability — 22%
- Gains: published approval windows; fee schedule visible before you transact; consistent reports of clean cash-outs; a documented complaints process.
- Loses: withdrawal minimum far above deposit minimum; repeated unexplained cancellations; any advance "verification fee".
3. Bonus fairness — 18%
- Gains: all terms on one page; wagering stated as bonus-only; weighting table published; caps stated in the headline, not the footnote.
- Loses: deposit+bonus wagering above 20×; hidden max cash-out; max-bet clauses positioned to catch autoplay users.
4. Game integrity — 15%
- Gains: recognised studios; RTP visible in every game's info panel; testing lab certificates available.
- Loses: hidden RTP; low-RTP configurations deployed without disclosure; unbranded titles with no verifiable provider.
5. Responsible-play tools — 12%
- Gains: limits settable in-account and effective immediately; cool-off and self-exclusion available without negotiation; reality-check reminders.
- Loses: limits only via support; "are you sure?" friction on limit-setting; promotional emails sent to self-excluded accounts.
6. Support quality — 8%
- Gains: live chat with human escalation during PH hours; email of record; Filipino-language option.
- Loses: bot-only chat; support that exists solely on a messaging app; no written transcript.
Automatic disqualifiers
Some findings override the arithmetic entirely. If any of these are confirmed, the operator is not listed regardless of how it scores elsewhere:
- Operating without any verifiable licence.
- Accepting registrations from users under 21.
- Demanding a payment from the player in order to release a withdrawal.
- Altering published terms retroactively to avoid paying a confirmed win.
- Refusing or obstructing a self-exclusion request.
- Marketing to self-excluded or clearly at-risk players.
A high score is not a recommendation to gamble
Our scores compare operators against each other on consumer-protection grounds. They say nothing about whether gambling is a good idea for you. The house edge applies identically at a 9.2 and a 6.4.
How commission is kept out of scoring
Three structural rules:
- Scores are set before commercial terms are discussed. The scorecard is completed and recorded first.
- Commission rate is never an input. It is not a field on the scorecard and does not appear in the scoring document.
- Criticism is not removable by payment. No operator has editorial approval over anything published here. If an operator withdraws a partnership over a review, the review stays and the partnership goes.
Full detail is in the affiliate disclosure and the editorial policy.
Review cadence and corrections
- Each listed operator is reassessed at least every six months, and immediately if a credible payout complaint surfaces.
- Every page carries a visible last-updated date.
- Material corrections are noted on the page rather than silently edited. See the editorial policy for the corrections process.
- If you believe a score is wrong, tell us — with evidence, we will re-score and say so publicly.
What we can't verify
Honesty about limits is part of the method. We cannot audit an operator's servers, inspect its RNG source, see its internal payout ledger, or verify the ownership behind a corporate shell. Our assessment covers what is publicly verifiable, testable as a customer, and reported credibly by players. That is a real constraint and you should weigh our scores accordingly.