Your site's testing methodology still doesn't make much sense to me at all. For example, how the heck do BC.Game and Winna still have great ratings like 8.0/10? BC.Game is a confirmed scam site in this forum while Winna bribed a moderator here and got caught.
These are facts which destroyed their reputation and you could have easily learnt about that stuff by combing the forum. Thought y'all would improve the testing methodology a whole lot more since inception, but I guess I was wrong. Smh!
That's fair criticism, and I'll take another look at both BC.Game and Winna.
One thing I deliberately don't do, though, is rate sportsbooks simply by the number of complaints I can find. BC.Game is one of the larger operators in the market with a very large player base, so naturally I would expect to find considerably more complaints about them than about a small sportsbook with a fraction of the users.
That's also why I'm trying to distinguish between allegations, unresolved complaints, resolved cases and cases where there is stronger evidence of wrongdoing. Raw complaint numbers without considering operator size and the outcome of those complaints can be very misleading.
That said, your broader point is valid. Serious documented incidents should carry enough weight that a large operator can't simply absorb them because of its size or otherwise score well in other categories. I'll review the BC.Game and Winna histories again and see whether the current methodology gives enough weight to those kinds of cases.
Regarding the specific claims that BC.Game is a confirmed scam and that Winna bribed a moderator, I'll also go back through the forum history before treating either of those as established facts.
