Many crypto casinos claim they have instant withdrawals, but when you try them out, you see it's not the case. What they consider "instant" takes a while, Even if it's just 10-15 mins but requires a manual approval by one of their staff member, it's not instant. I would be interested in knowing which casinos really are near-instant and process withdrawals in, lets say, 1-2 minutes after you request them?
Similarly, have you found any casino (besides Sportsbet.io) that supports 0-confirmation bitcoin deposits?
Do you have plans for taking a closer look at EarnBet?
That’s exactly the kind of thing we want these tests to show.
We already record the actual time it takes for a withdrawal to reach the wallet rather than relying on the casino calling it “instant”. I agree that if a withdrawal still needs manual approval and takes 10–15 minutes, it makes sense to distinguish that from a genuinely near-instant withdrawal.
We haven’t specifically tracked 0-confirmation Bitcoin deposits as a separate test point yet, but that’s a good one to add to the testing process.
As for EarnBet, we haven’t tested it yet, but we can definitely add it to the shortlist for future real-money tests.
Nice idea for testing casino.
Withdrawal and deposit speed is always my preferred testing especially on new casino that I want to explore. I believe it’s worth mentioning what’s the approximate funds you deposit and total wager in the end so that we can see how casino behaves on accounts depending on bankroll size. Some casino let small bankroll players easily off the hook while medium to high roller tier have difficulty on withdrawal.
I’m looking forward to a multiple withdrawal and deposit test on a casino to check if they will require KYC immediately, delay your withdrawal and other possible scenario which a gambler might encounter when using it.
Good point about bankroll size.
We already show the deposit and withdrawal amounts in the tests, but adding the total amount wagered would give much more context. A casino may behave differently with a small account compared with someone depositing, wagering and withdrawing significantly larger amounts.
Doing several deposit and withdrawal cycles would also be useful, especially for seeing whether KYC appears later, withdrawals start taking longer, or anything else changes after more activity.
We probably won’t be able to do this for every casino straight away, but follow-up tests on selected brands and different bankroll sizes are definitely something we want to explore.
Thing is your team needs to conduct multiple real money tests over a certain period of time with varying amounts ranging from small to moderate to big ones in order to accumulate an optimal sample size which helps differentiate these casinos in a better manner.
Also, in that particular real money test, you still needed to complete KYC at BC.Game just like at Stake which is why the big rating difference was illogical.
I agree that multiple tests over time and with different amounts would give a much stronger picture than a single test.
For now, each test represents one particular player journey, so the sample size is obviously limited. As we build more tests, we also want to revisit some casinos rather than treating one result as final.
On BC.Game vs Stake, KYC was only one of the categories that contributed to the test score, so the difference wasn’t based on KYC alone. But I agree that the current scoring doesn’t make the reasons behind the difference clear enough.
That’s something we need to improve by showing the score for each category more clearly and explaining how the final test score is calculated.
Good that you are taking it in the right spirit.
I have a few questions, since as of now you are basing your rating solely on your real money testers and for the bc.game (which has highest rating of 9.5 on your platform) as for any other casino.
I tried to check how many real money tests you have done and what actually happened as per your records. I have found two tests both done by the same person.
1.) it was for a $5 no deposit bonus test upon full KYC verification and that test never lead to cash out because of 60X wagering requirements and there was no score given.
Here is the link of that test on your platform:
https://coingambling.info/tests/bc-game-5-usdt-no-deposit-bonus-test/2.) Second was a test of $40 deposit and that also not reached cash out stage :
https://coingambling.info/tests/bc-game-casino-test/But here you marked there cashout process as 6/10 with the overall score of 8/10. How can you give a withdrawal score without requesting a withdrawal?
Not only that the over all score based on both reviews can be 9.0 at max (assuming if you gave 10/10 for that no deposit $5 bonus and forgot to mention it Cheesy). But your rating is reflecting as 9.5. How is that possible?
You’re right to question this, and I think there are two different ratings being mixed together here.
The 9.5 shown for BC.Game is the overall casino review rating. It isn’t calculated as an average of the real-money tests. The 8/10 is the score from that particular hands-on test, while the main casino rating is based on the broader review and other criteria.
The $5 no-deposit bonus article was also a different type of test. It wasn’t created for scoring the casino. We wanted to check the full process of actually claiming the bonus and show players the steps involved.
A lot of affiliate/review sites, including us in the past, publish information about no-deposit bonuses based on the casino’s terms without actually checking whether the offer can still be claimed. That can lead to negative feedback from players when the bonus turns out to be unavailable or works differently in practice.
So that article was partly a test for us as well: we wanted to see whether a step-by-step real-money check of a no-deposit bonus would actually be useful for players interested in that offer.
We also plan to run several more BC.Game tests covering different situations and deposit amounts. That should give us more data and allow us to reassess the test score more fairly instead of relying too much on one particular session.
That said, the fact that the 9.5 review rating and the 8/10 test score can be confused so easily shows that we need to separate and label them much more clearly.
And you’re also right about the withdrawal point. If the test didn’t reach a completed withdrawal, it shouldn’t look as if we actually tested and scored the withdrawal experience. That part needs to be reviewed and presented as not tested rather than as a completed withdrawal result.
All what you have said and in the website is good because those are the pressing issues of any casino in the industry. And the above quote is where the problem lies in most cases, therefore I will want you to do in-depth testing on that area. If the casino will verify KYC they should do it at the beginning to avoid drama when withdrawing. I don't like the clause "at any level". And if there is KYC requirement they should not come here and tell us that they are No KYC casino.
Finally, after testing the casino, and when you want to rate the casino, I think it is will be good you ask others about the casino before giving the final output or rating it. So you won't do mistake by rating a scam casino high because your one or twice times testing might not give your the best results.
That’s a good point, especially about how “No KYC” is presented.
We want to look more closely at exactly when verification appears during the player journey. If a casino markets itself as No KYC but can still request full verification later, especially at withdrawal, that should be explained very clearly rather than being hidden somewhere in the terms.
At the same time, some casinos use risk-based verification, so KYC may not happen to every player at the same stage. That’s one of the reasons why we think it’s useful to document exactly what happened during each test rather than simply label a casino as KYC or No KYC.
And I agree with your second point as well. A real-money test should show what happened in that particular case, while the broader casino assessment should also take into account documented player feedback, reputation and unresolved issues from other sources.
This is one of the things we want to improve: keeping the hands-on test score clearly separate from the overall casino rating, so one or two successful tests don’t automatically outweigh the wider picture.
