About Casinovizier

What we are, and what we are not

We write about the rules: the licence, the self-exclusion register, identification when opening an account, tax on winnings, and the rules of the games themselves. That is the full extent of what we do.

We have no games on offer, no reader accounts, no credit balances, and no role whatsoever in opening an account at an operator. One practical consequence follows: we cannot intervene in your relationship with an operator. If something goes wrong there, the operator itself is the first address and the regulator the second. We are not a party to that dispute and cannot present ourselves as one.

How this site is funded

This is the question you should ask of any site about gambling, and the answer here is shorter than usual: at present there are no partner links on this site, no paid placements, and no fee per player who signs up anywhere. There is not even a referral link to an operator anywhere in the text; the links you find go to our own pages or to an official source.

That has one concrete effect: no revenue model attaches to a score in a review. We do not earn from whether you open an account anywhere, and therefore not from the order in which operators appear on this site. We do not state figures or funders here, because there is currently no commercial party paying toward the site. If that changes, it will appear in the editorial formula first and be marked on the pages it affects — not after the fact, and not in small print.

Why unlicensed operators never appear in our lists

Our assessment covers twelve operators. All twelve carry a Kansspelautoriteit licence in our records, and ten of the twelve show the status "actief"; for the remaining two that field is empty in what we hold. That is not a preference for the legal market, it follows from what a licence brings with it: the connection to the exclusion register, a duty of care that can be checked, and a regulator you can turn to in a dispute. Without a licence, none of that can be verified, and so none of it can be assessed.

We also do not name that other offering, even with a warning attached. A name in an article is findable, and findability is exactly what such an operator is after. That we do not mention an operator is therefore not proof it does not exist — it is a choice not to give it an audience.

Why articles carry no byline

Our pages appear under the name of the editorial team. The reason is a practical one: a page gets written, checked and later updated, often not by the same person, and a byline would place responsibility with one name where the team as a whole carries it.

The drawback is real and we are not going to smooth it over: you cannot look up the author or what they wrote before. You have to go on the method instead of the person. That is why the method is written out in full in how we test, including its limits and the fields we could not fill. Every page also carries the date its data was last updated.

What we know about an operator, and what we do not

For each operator we record a fixed set of data: the brand name, the licence holder, the authority that issued the licence, the licence number and status, the date we hold as the start of the licence, payment methods, the game offering, one strong and one weak point, and a final score.

What we do not have matters at least as much. We have no access to an operator's supervisory file, no complaint figures, no payout percentages and no player counts. There are gaps within our own data too. The licence number, the holder and the term are now recorded for all twelve operators, taken from the register. What is missing is measurement of our own: no payout time we clocked ourselves, and for two of the twelve a licence that does not cover online casino games at all — which is a different problem from an empty field, and one we say out loud rather than round off. A review from us describes the visible surface, not the underlying file.

What you will not find here

No advice on where you should play, no recommendation of an offer, no bonus codes, and no tips presented as a strategy. Nothing either on getting around an exclusion, a limit or an age check: that is not a topic, it is a breach, and we do not describe it.

Nor will you find the suggestion that a licence makes the game itself favourable. A licence regulates the environment: the check at the door, the limits, the payout, the oversight. It does not regulate the odds of the game — those sit against the player at every operator, over any long run. What you can set to keep that in check is covered in responsible gambling.

What you can hold us to

Three things: facts, sources and corrections. A report we can act on names the page, the sentence, and the source it conflicts with. That is the difference between a report we can check and an opinion we can do nothing with. Where a report holds up, we correct the text and note what changed.

Our contact details sit at the bottom of every page, and we do not repeat them here, so there is one place that can go out of date instead of two. For readers who prefer Dutch, this site's main edition is considerably larger and lives at casinovizier.com.