What does our proposed method cover?
This is the proposed rating method for Casino Networks. It isn’t a record of completed testing. No live account, deposit, withdrawal or support tests have been undertaken for this method, and it doesn’t establish a score for any network.
A casino network can mean brands sharing an operator, the company running their gambling service, or a platform, the software behind it. Those arrangements aren’t interchangeable. We’d first establish which relationship we’re assessing, so you can see what a finding actually covers.
Why assess a network as well as each brand?
Network research can explain repeated policies, while brand checks reveal exceptions that affect you. A shared cashier design doesn’t establish identical payment limits. We’d compare the underlying terms before carrying any finding from one casino to another.
Shared software also doesn’t prove shared protections. Self-exclusion means asking a gambling business to prevent you from gambling with it. We’d require evidence of its scope and explain uncertainty without suggesting another brand as a way around it.
How would the seven criteria be weighted?
The proposed weights total 100 per cent, with player protection and payments carrying the largest shares. Each criterion would receive a score out of 10 against a written evidence checklist. You’d see the reasons alongside the number.
| Criterion | Weight | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing and player protection | 20% | Current licence, regulatory record, accessible limits and documented self-exclusion scope. |
| Withdrawals and payment options | 20% | Methods, fees, limits and recorded processing and transfer times, kept separate. |
| Game library | 15% | Verified providers, game types, useful search and differences between brands. |
| Bonus fairness | 15% | Wagering, expiry, restrictions and clarity of the full terms before you deposit. |
| Consistency across brands | 10% | Evidence of which policies and services match, plus clearly recorded exceptions. |
| Customer support | 10% | Documented contact routes, availability, answer accuracy and complaint handling. |
| Mobile experience | 10% | Readable terms, usable account controls and tested tasks on named devices. |
Bonus fairness concerns restrictions, not the size of an advertised amount. Wagering means the required betting before eligible funds can be withdrawn. For illustration, a £10 bonus with 5x wagering on the bonus alone requires £50 in eligible bets. That’s arithmetic, not an offer or a prediction of losses.
What evidence would a published rating need?
A publishable rating would need dated sources, a defined brand sample and an accountable editorial review. We’d use the Gambling Commission public register for licence evidence, then check current brand terms. A licence isn’t an endorsement of our assessment.
- Record the responsible licence holder, the company authorised to offer the gambling service, and resolve conflicting ownership disclosures.
- Save the relevant payment, promotion, support and protection terms with access dates and their exact brand scope.
- Define scoring thresholds before assigning marks. Record what each score means and which evidence supports it.
- Separate advertised claims, observed behaviour and unresolved gaps. Don’t turn a missing fact into a favourable assumption.
If evidence is missing, we’d withhold the overall rating instead of redistributing its weight. A serious unresolved protection concern would also prevent a recommendation. You wouldn’t have to infer that warning from a small deduction in an otherwise high score.
How would practical testing work?
Any future practical testing would use a documented protocol and eligible adult testers. It would record real account tasks, capped deposits, withdrawal requests and support contacts where appropriate. We’d state the dates, devices, payment methods and sample size.
Withdrawal records would separate the operator’s processing time from the payment provider’s transfer time. One completed payment wouldn’t establish a network average. We’d never ask someone who has self-excluded to open an account or gamble for a review.
How would a weighted score be calculated?
A fictional set of criterion scores of 8, 7, 8, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would give 7.50 out of 10. The calculation is 1.60 + 1.40 + 1.20 + 0.90 + 0.70 + 0.80 + 0.90. This isn’t a rating of a real network.
When would scores change, and could payment affect them?
We propose checking published ratings at least every 3 months and whenever material terms, ownership or regulatory findings change. A review date would mean those checks actually happened. Stale evidence would trigger a correction or withdrawal of the score.
Affiliate commission is payment a publisher may receive after a reader follows a commercial link and takes a qualifying action. Our proposed rules exclude payment from scoring. Read about our editorial approach and use our gambling support and protection guide before making any gambling decision.
Frequently asked questions
Does a casino network rating predict winnings?
No. A rating compares evidence about services and protections, not your chance of winning. Gambling can lead to losses at any score. Treat a rating as one source of information, never a reason to increase your spending.
Can every casino in a network have the same score?
Only evidence can establish which findings apply across brands. Shared ownership does not prove identical payment terms, support or account tools. Read the stated sample and brand exceptions before treating a network score as relevant to one casino.
Is a published withdrawal time a tested result?
No. A published time describes what an operator says to expect, while a tested result records a specific transaction. Check which type of evidence supports the claim, the payment method used and when the information was collected.