🔥 Crypto-Gambling.Net 🔥 Crypto Casino Reviews By A Real Insider ✅

[Haunebu]

Are you trying to say you've "actively worked for" all these casinos in the past year? I find that so hard to believe, that I wouldn't even know what position would allow you to do that? 0.0

I guess what he meant by 'actively worked' here is that he played in those sites with his own money. Could have also meant to say that he worked in several offline casinos.

I also kind of doubt you've worked in the industry at all based on your reviews. Like take the your roobet 4.5/5 rating. It's almost unconscionable to recommend them for any number of reasons. Their house edge is often multiple times greater than their competitors for the same thing, their KYC policies are many times worse, and have a history of highly unethical behavior of giving effectively fake money to streamers to promote their casino.

The KYC part is the main point. That alone deserves a deduction of 1 whole point from the overall rating. Also, Stake deserves a 4-4.5 rating instead of 5 thanks to their laggy interface.

[1714745177]

1714745177

[1714745177]

1714745177

[1714745177]

1714745177

[1714745177]

1714745177

[1714745177]

1714745177

[1714745177]

1714745177

[RHavar]

I don't understand what you mean by the "Are you trying to say you've "actively worked for" all these casinos in the past year?" - Which casinos are you referring to here?

Oh. I apologize. This is my fault. I misread what you wrote, I thought you said you only review casinos you've worked for, but you said the opposite. 100% my fault, I misread your post.

I haven't seen direct examples of their house edges being multiple times greater than competitors(At least not direct competitors), I have never heard about anyone ever having to do a KYC on there

I guess you're not too familiar with them Pretty much everyone is subject to some level of KYC. They also make an effort to hide their house-edge, but it's pretty easy to calculate from their provably fair. But even just hiding the house edge is a terrible practice. Homework question: What is the house edge of their bustabit clone? What is the house edge of bustabit?



I admit their UI is slick, but it's pretty much the least important part of a casino. They might not be an evil company (e.g. bitstarz) but there's literally no reason anyone should use it. Really the whole point of a review site is to let people know where they should and shouldn't be playing. Whether intentional or not, you're doing a terrible job at that and a misservice to anyone who reads your list, and are just a collection of affiliate links  

[efialtis]

My vision with the site is to create a site with as transparent reviews as possible while giving my take on each site from the perspective of a person that knows the ins and outs.

Not to be overly frank, but c'mon. All the links are just undisclosed ref links, and you exclude some of the best and biggest sites (imo bustabit, bustadice) because they don't offer an affiliate program.

One of the core principles of the site is that I will never review a site, that I have actively worked for within the past year. I think that's the only fair thing to do in my position.

Are you trying to say you've "actively worked for" all these casinos in the past year? I find that so hard to believe, that I wouldn't even know what position would allow you to do that? 0.0
I also kind of doubt you've worked in the industry at all based on your reviews. Like take the your roobet 4.5/5 rating. It's almost unconscionable to recommend them for any number of reasons. Their house edge is often multiple times greater than their competitors for the same thing, their KYC policies are many times worse, and have a history of highly unethical behavior of giving effectively fake money to streamers to promote their casino.

I am also considering adding a page with insider information about the industry - If I do that, I would love some ideas on what type of question and information it should contain(besides the stuff I already have in mind myself)

I actually was once thinking of this. If you talk to some of the real insiders (e.g. some big casino owners), they know a lot interesting of stuff that isn't public and they wouldn't want to come back to them.  One idea I had was you could ask each of the main insiders for a public key, and you could create a (1,n)-threshold scheme where any one of the participants can sign a message but it's impossible to tell which. That way you could get candid information from someone who actually knows what they are talking about, while they know it can't be attributed to them.

I usually don`t post in other review sites`(affiliate sites`) threads but I feel like this time, I have to.

1) Providing honest reviews and using affiliate links, what`s the problem actually? I definitely know where you are heading and I have to agree, most affiliate sites would rank according to best deals etc. but, a big but... there are still sites that provide honest reviews (some do a better job than others but that`s not the point). Also, why would he add sites that would not reward him for free exposure on his site? Seriously, affiliates are spending countless hours and a lot of money and cannot be charity - why would such a "big site" not reward for exposure and traffic sent? AFAIK, they are not featuring his website for free either... ^^

2) Roobet... yeah, with Roobet it`s tough... they are doing some things right but at the same time, lack professionalism and much more. The KYC would not be the thing I would blame them for though... It`s about time - even if us crypto guys hate this - for crypto casino regulation, that wild west doesn`t help anyone in the long run.

[RHavar]

1) Providing honest reviews and using affiliate links, what`s the problem actually? I definitely know where you are heading and I have to agree, most affiliate sites would rank according to best deals etc. but, a big but... there are still sites that provide honest reviews (some do a better job than others but that`s not the point). Also, why would he add sites that would not reward him for free exposure on his site? Seriously, affiliates are spending countless hours and a lot of money and cannot be charity - why would such a "big site" not reward for exposure and traffic sent? AFAIK, they are not featuring his website for free either... ^^

Well, the obvious problem is these "review" sites are dishonest. They purport to tell people which are the best places to play, but in reality have intentional omissions and re-sorting based on what makes the "review" site more money. I think it's rather simple, there's nothing inherently wrong with affiliate links, but if you claim "these are the best" any deviation from what you think is actually the best is dishonest.

2) Roobet... yeah, with Roobet it`s tough... they are doing some things right but at the same time, lack professionalism and much more. The KYC would not be the thing I would blame them for though... It`s about time - even if us crypto guys hate this - for crypto casino regulation, that wild west doesn`t help anyone in the long run.

lmao, it's only tough if you have a conflict of interest  For everyone else, it's pretty easy to say "umm don't play there, there are strictly better options"

[AmoreJaz]

Are you trying to say you've "actively worked for" all these casinos in the past year? I find that so hard to believe, that I wouldn't even know what position would allow you to do that? 0.0

I guess what he meant by 'actively worked' here is that he played in those sites with his own money. Could have also meant to say that he worked in several offline casinos.

I also kind of doubt you've worked in the industry at all based on your reviews. Like take the your roobet 4.5/5 rating. It's almost unconscionable to recommend them for any number of reasons. Their house edge is often multiple times greater than their competitors for the same thing, their KYC policies are many times worse, and have a history of highly unethical behavior of giving effectively fake money to streamers to promote their casino.

The KYC part is the main point. That alone deserves a deduction of 1 whole point from the overall rating. Also, Stake deserves a 4-4.5 rating instead of 5 thanks to their laggy interface.

i believe the OP should clarify about this thing -'actively worked'. people might be seeing wrong perspectives here.

anyway, the rating is his personal take on these sites, and maybe, he has his own set of criteria why he is giving those rating. and he is only basing on his experience. so for him, the experience is great but for some players, they encounter some troubles like the laggy interface, which i can agree as i experienced that also from time to time. but let's admit that no casino is perfect, at some point, you will experience some troubles. but it is how the site address such issue. are they fast in resolving issues or just ignoring them?

[lienfaye]

I visit your site and I read the reviews made for different gambling sites, quite interesting. I hope you can give reviews to other popular sites here in the forum like for rollbit, 777coin, bitvest, freebitco.in etc. This site of yours is helpful for gamblers who are looking for casinos to play in especially for the newbies.

All sites that are reviewed on my site, have gone through real deposits and withdrawals manually by me to ensure the process is smooth.

This is how it should be done to provide an accurate reviews because it has basis, and not just an opinion of someone without taking time to deposit and make a withdrawal.

[magneto]

Seems like a great initiative.

However, it's a bit hard to seem unbiased when you have affiliate links scattered across the site.

I understand that the site has to make money, but I think that you should have both affiliate and non-affiliate versions of the link and let the audience choose for themselves. That should inspire a lot more trust in the review process imho.

Also, having actual video reviews where you play would boost the reputation a lot more too - so consider that also.

[DNL]

I don't understand what you mean by the "Are you trying to say you've "actively worked for" all these casinos in the past year?" - Which casinos are you referring to here?

Oh. I apologize. This is my fault. I misread what you wrote, I thought you said you only review casinos you've worked for, but you said the opposite. 100% my fault, I misread your post.

I haven't seen direct examples of their house edges being multiple times greater than competitors(At least not direct competitors), I have never heard about anyone ever having to do a KYC on there

I guess you're not too familiar with them Pretty much everyone is subject to some level of KYC. They also make an effort to hide their house-edge, but it's pretty easy to calculate from their provably fair. But even just hiding the house edge is a terrible practice. Homework question: What is the house edge of their bustabit clone? What is the house edge of bustabit?



I admit their UI is slick, but it's pretty much the least important part of a casino. They might not be an evil company (e.g. bitstarz) but there's literally no reason anyone should use it. Really the whole point of a review site is to let people know where they should and shouldn't be playing. Whether intentional or not, you're doing a terrible job at that and a misservice to anyone who reads your list, and are just a collection of affiliate links  
[/quote
Can you elaborate on the KYC or not? I have never heard about anyone having to do KYC. I just checked my account, and I have done $10k+ in withdrawals from Roobet without doing any KYC at all.

And Bustabit vs Roobet is not really direct competitors. Sites that are specialized in one game usually always have the lowest house edge on those games, while casinos with a larger variety also have higher house edges. That's normal in the market.
The main issue with Roobet is that they have lower RTP on slots.

[DNL]

i believe the OP should clarify about this thing -'actively worked'. people might be seeing wrong perspectives here.

anyway, the rating is his personal take on these sites, and maybe, he has his own set of criteria why he is giving those rating. and he is only basing on his experience. so for him, the experience is great but for some players, they encounter some troubles like the laggy interface, which i can agree as i experienced that also from time to time. but let's admit that no casino is perfect, at some point, you will experience some troubles. but it is how the site address such issue. are they fast in resolving issues or just ignoring them?

If I have done any type of work for any of the casinos within the past year. This may be consultancy work, full-time/part-time positions or volunteer work(Although I don't even do the latter). - That would be how I consider the actively worked.

[DNL]

Seems like a great initiative.

However, it's a bit hard to seem unbiased when you have affiliate links scattered across the site.

I understand that the site has to make money, but I think that you should have both affiliate and non-affiliate versions of the link and let the audience choose for themselves. That should inspire a lot more trust in the review process imho.

Also, having actual video reviews where you play would boost the reputation a lot more too - so consider that also.

The affiliate links hardly matters. If they did, I would just place the casinos paying the highest commissions in top. Stake is actually amongst the lowest paying of the current ones.

As mentioned previously, I do plan on adding casinos like Bustabit to the site in the near future. I will never add the option to have affiliate and non-affiliate versions of the links. That ruins the whole point of it. If you like my review enough to wanna sign up on the casino because of it, then it's only fair that it's done through my affiliate link. Especially when you can easily avoid it by just googling the casino anyways.

And I have considered video reviews, but with my previous experience in running youtube channels etc., I kinda decided not to. The main disadvantage would be whenever casinos do updates, the whole video has to be remade, and the costs of each video review will easily reach $300+.

[RHavar]

Can you elaborate on the KYC or not? I have never heard about anyone having to do KYC. I just checked my account, and I have done $10k+ in withdrawals from Roobet without doing any KYC at all.

You can read about it on their bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5199911.msg56811557#msg56811557 pretty much the last 10 pages are to do with it.

And Bustabit vs Roobet is not really direct competitors. Sites that are specialized in one game usually always have the lowest house edge on those games, while casinos with a larger variety also have higher house edges. That's normal in the market.

Besides that not being the case, you avoided my question: how much higher is their house edge than bustabit's? And how did you figure it out?

I've got zero problems with high house-edges or affiliate links or what ever, as long as sites are upfront about it.


I think a good example of an honest review site might be engadget's: https://www.engadget.com/reviews/ They review a lot of products, they have a lot of affiliate links, but they disclose there are affiliate links and do not use the presence or payout of affiliate earnings to influence their reviews/score.

In the crypto scene, in the gambling scene I think the only good example I've seen is https://GamblingSiteFinder.com and https://dicesites.com . And there also used to be thebitcoinstrip.com which offered unbiased reviews/rankings, until it was sold to a new owner who apparently figured out all the typical corrupt shit pays better. Sad.


Edit: This post has inspired me to put GamblingSiteFinder.com in my signature. I never knew what I could do with my signature, and feel they deserve a bit more credit than they are getting.

[DNL]

Can you elaborate on the KYC or not? I have never heard about anyone having to do KYC. I just checked my account, and I have done $10k+ in withdrawals from Roobet without doing any KYC at all.

You can read about it on their bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5199911.msg56811557#msg56811557 pretty much the last 10 pages are to do with it.

And Bustabit vs Roobet is not really direct competitors. Sites that are specialized in one game usually always have the lowest house edge on those games, while casinos with a larger variety also have higher house edges. That's normal in the market.

Besides that not being the case, you avoided my question: how much higher is their house edge than bustabit's? And how did you figure it out?

I've got zero problems with high house-edges or affiliate links or what ever, as long as sites are upfront about it.


I think a good example of an honest review site might be engadget's: https://www.engadget.com/reviews/ They review a lot of products, they have a lot of affiliate links, but they disclose there are affiliate links and do not use the presence or payout of affiliate earnings to influence their reviews/score.

In the crypto scene, in the gambling scene I think the only good example I've seen is https://GamblingSiteFinder.com and https://dicesites.com . And there also used to be thebitcoinstrip.com which offered unbiased reviews/rankings, until it was sold to a new owner who apparently figured out all the typical corrupt shit pays better. Sad.

If you're referring to the fact that you have to enter your name, address, and those details, then I wouldn't blame that on Roobet. That's literally required by the Curacao license that they have, and due to the corona packages that Curacao has received from The Netherlands, they have also been forced to be way more strict with their gambling license. - If you prefer to gamble on sites with no licenses, then that's a matter of preference rather than really a factor that should matter in terms of reviews. It's a personal preference.

I am not even sure how it ended up with me having to defend Roobet, because I don't even like the casino. You're right that Roobet is not upfront about their house edges. Roobet's audience is way different from Bustabit's audience. Most of them don't even have a clue what RTP even means. I think the issue you're having is Roobet's rating of 4/5 stars. It seems too good, which it is, but I need to review more sites to more accurately rate Roobet as well. The reason for the current rating is due to the placement on the ranking, so when more casinos get added, I highly expect Roobet to slowly drop down to something like 2.5/5 stars.

And I am not sure what you mean by good examples. The GamblingSiteFinder one doesn't even have rankings based on reviews. The rankings on the front page are manually picked and seem to be based on who's paying the most. That doesn't seem very transparent. - Their reviews themselves look good though.
For the dicesites.com one, there is no type of reviews or anything like that. It's just stats from their betting activity, which is great to have offered, but it has nothing to do with what this is.

[RHavar]

Can you elaborate on the KYC or not? I have never heard about anyone having to do KYC. I just checked my account, and I have done $10k+ in withdrawals from Roobet without doing any KYC at all.

If you're referring to the fact that you have to enter your name, address, and those details, then I wouldn't blame that on Roobet.

....

The reason for the current rating is due to the placement on the ranking, so when more casinos get added, I highly expect Roobet to slowly drop down to something like 2.5/5 stars.

...

So let me get this straight, it's really a 2.5/5 in your mind .. . but you're giving it a 4/5 rating right now just to ... make it look like you've reviewed more casinos?

I would strongly suggest you just give every casino an honest review/rating regardless of how much you get paid and regardless of how it'll look on your site. But anyway, it's your site, run it however you like. I'll leave you be, as I don't have anything useful to add  

[DNL]

Can you elaborate on the KYC or not? I have never heard about anyone having to do KYC. I just checked my account, and I have done $10k+ in withdrawals from Roobet without doing any KYC at all.

If you're referring to the fact that you have to enter your name, address, and those details, then I wouldn't blame that on Roobet.

....

The reason for the current rating is due to the placement on the ranking, so when more casinos get added, I highly expect Roobet to slowly drop down to something like 2.5/5 stars.

...

So let me get this straight, it's really a 2.5/5 in your mind .. . but you're giving it a 4/5 rating right now just to ... make it look like you've reviewed more casinos?

I would strongly suggest you just give every casino an honest review/rating regardless of how much you get paid and regardless of how it'll look on your site. But anyway, it's your site, run it however you like. I'll leave you be, as I don't have anything useful to add  

There is no actual check of that information, and even then - It's a legal requirement for when you have a license? - And I would never consider it KYC for providing information. I'm pretty sure the legal definition is identity verification as well, which requires ID + address verification.

No, but when you rank based on the rating unlike the sites you said that you like, it needs a larger amount of sites to more accurately adjust the ratings. It has nothing to do with making it look like more casinos have been reviewed - How would that even make sense?

The exact site you said you like(and you have put in your signature) is doing exactly what you don't like. I am not sure what you think they are doing better? Unlike that site, my reviews and rankings are genuine, transparent and non-biased. Everything takes adjusting, but I would assume that with how old that site is they should be substantially more ahead.

I'm not sure where all your hate comes from, it seems like you have an economical interest in promoting gamblingsitefinder more than anything else (Probably because bustabit and bustadice is actually listed on that site already - That would also explain why the reviews towards bustabit and bustadice is obviously bias towards those two sites compared to alternatives)

[RHavar]

There is no actual check of that information, and even then - It's a legal requirement for when you have a license? - And I would never consider it KYC for providing information. I'm pretty sure the legal definition is identity verification as well, which requires ID + address verification.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me. Go on their site, click "AML policy", type "ctrl+f" and search "KYC". You'll see 29 results talking about the different levels of KYC they can/might/will do ><

I'm not sure where all your hate comes from, it seems like you have an economical interest in promoting gamblingsitefinder more than anything else (Probably because bustabit and bustadice is actually listed on that site already - That would also explain why the reviews towards bustabit and bustadice is obviously bias towards those two sites compared to alternatives)

I will admit I do have some money in their bankroll and some sentimental attachment to bustabit, but really I have no interest in trying to promoting them. If I did, I'd just do it directly. Anyway, just the reason I brought it up is because they're a good site with no affiliate program, so it's a way for me to guess how the review sites operate as I'm no longer actually in the industry (for a couple years now?!) so I no longer get the subtle emails asking me for money to "review" my site or boost the score  etc.

[DNL]

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me. Go on their site, click "AML policy", type "ctrl+f" and search "KYC". You'll see 29 results talking about the different levels of KYC they can/might/will do ><

That's the case of pretty much any gambling site ever though. The one they have is obviously very extensive, but it is in reality not different from most other sites. It is literally a requirement when you have a license. I don't think there is a single license where you can get around it. Some casinos choose to use it more heavily than others(For a large variety of different reasons), but they still have to have it in their policies.

I'm not sure where all your hate comes from, it seems like you have an economical interest in promoting gamblingsitefinder more than anything else (Probably because bustabit and bustadice is actually listed on that site already - That would also explain why the reviews towards bustabit and bustadice is obviously bias towards those two sites compared to alternatives)

I will admit I do have some money in their bankroll and some sentimental attachment to bustabit, but really I have no interest in trying to promoting them. If I did, I'd just do it directly. Anyway, just the reason I brought it up is because they're a good site with no affiliate program, so it's a way for me to guess how the review sites operate as I'm no longer actually in the industry (for a couple years now?!) so I no longer get the subtle emails asking me for money to "review" my site or boost the score  etc.

I don't think it's on purpose that you favor them either.

But they do use affiliate? They even seem to have a 'trusted partners program' which seems to give sites a badge on their site in exchange for what I would assume to be cash.

Even when you were in the industry, it's also important for you to keep in mind that bustabit nor bustadice have ever had an affiliate program, unlike most sites. This has also masked you from that side of things - One thing is what's publicly being shown, while another is the custom deals. People offering money for reviews are generally not uncommon, but for bustabit and bustadice it has been way more obvious since you had no affiliate program as an alternative.
Most of these negotiations are in terms of custom rates on the commission where bigger sites are able to negotiate better deals, and in some cases, these may result in better placements in a more indirect way(Since people have a greater incentive to promote them). And based on the #1 ranking under best online casinos on the gamblingsitefinder, I do kinda suspect that there's also where the incentive for placing that casino #1 comes from.

An idea that I hope will be possible one day, is that the rankings should also be based on the reviews from users rather than based by me. The biggest issue with that is preventing abuse though.

[RHavar]

But they do use affiliate? They even seem to have a 'trusted partners program' which seems to give sites a badge on their site in exchange for what I would assume to be cash.

According to their webpage, it's more or less in exchange for a backlink. But even if it was for cash, I don't really think that's problematic as long as they're not changing the reviews/score based on it. (Of course we don't know that for certain... )

Even when you were in the industry, it's also important for you to keep in mind that bustabit nor bustadice have ever had an affiliate program, unlike most sites. This has also masked you from that side of things - One thing is what's publicly being shown, while another is the custom deals. People offering money for reviews are generally not uncommon, but for bustabit and bustadice it has been way more obvious since you had no affiliate program as an alternative.
Most of these negotiations are in terms of custom rates on the commission where bigger sites are able to negotiate better deals, and in some cases, these may result in better placements in a more indirect way(Since people have a greater incentive to promote them). And based on the #1 ranking under best online casinos on the gamblingsitefinder, I do kinda suspect that there's also where the incentive for placing that casino #1 comes from.

It actually kind  of shocks me that you don't see that is hugely problematic.

[DNL]

According to their webpage, it's more or less in exchange for a backlink. But even if it was for cash, I don't really think that's problematic as long as they're not changing the reviews/score based on it. (Of course we don't know that for certain...

But that's really the thing. If you receive money(Or even just a good backlink for that matter) from a site in exchange for something that may be meaningless in itself, you do also have greater incentive to intentionally or unintentionally for that matter manipulate the scores in their favor. It only really have to be marginals to actually make a difference there.

It actually kind  of shocks me that you don't see that is hugely problematic.

Not sure what you mean? I obviously do, which is why I point it out. It's the exact reason why I wanna do things differently as well - And why I think rankings should ideally be based on user votes.
I have been working on a few different concepts. Mainly user votes, which is quite tricky, and then alternatively a system based on an algorithm that gets calculated based on stuff like average house edge, fees, and such. It is rather hard to nail an algorithm like that when there is so much variety in terms of the style of casinos and what they offer.

[aioc]

I visit your site and I read the reviews made for different gambling sites, quite interesting. I hope you can give reviews to other popular sites here in the forum like for rollbit, 777coin, bitvest, freebitco.in etc. This site of yours is helpful for gamblers who are looking for casinos to play in especially for the newbies.

I agree on that not because I'm wearing the signature of one of them, these are stable and gambling site and they have been online long before some of your lists are launch if I have a review site I'll start with gambling sites that have been online for four years or longer with good marketing, but I respect your opinion it's your review site and it's up to you who should be listed first.

[RHavar]

But that's really the thing. If you receive money(Or even just a good backlink for that matter) from a site for something that may be meaningless in itself, you do also have greater incentive to intentionally or unintentionally for that matter manipulate the scores in their favor. It only really have to be marginals to actually make a difference there.

There's always going to be incentives to do something wrong, I think what matters is if you act upon them or not.

Not sure what you mean? I obviously do, which is why I point it out. It's the exact reason why I wanna do things differently as well - And why I think rankings should ideally be based on user votes.
I have been working on a few different concepts. Mainly user votes, which is quite tricky, and then alternatively a system based on an algorithm that gets calculated based on stuff like average house edge, fees, and such. It is rather hard to nail an algorithm like that when there is so much variety in terms of the style of casinos and what they offer.

I don't think user votes are particularly useful, as most users aren't familiar with the industry to give informed votes. And you'll just get some dodgy casino that incentivizes users to vote on your site, and skew things for ever.  But it could definitely be nice to have as a "editors rating" and "players rating" perhaps.