Editorial Team

Every number on this site comes from one of three sources: the operator's own terms-and-conditions page, the public licence register maintained by the UK Gambling Commission, or a test performed by an editor on an active account. Marketing copy on an operator's landing page is never treated as a source: we open the terms, we check the small print, and we quote the value that actually applies to a player. When two sources disagree, we keep the more restrictive number and note the discrepancy.

Fact-checking is split across two people on purpose. The lead reviewer who played the games and asked support the awkward questions is not the person who signs off the page. A second editor opens the terms afresh, measures the same things against the same wording, and either approves the draft or sends it back with a short list of red lines. This takes longer than a single-author workflow, but it catches the kind of small arithmetic mistake that a tired writer makes at the end of a long review and that no reader should have to encounter in print.

The site is written by a small editorial team. A lead reviewer opens the account, runs the tests and drafts the first version of each page. A fact checker then re-opens the terms page, compares the draft against the small print, and either approves the page or flags corrections. A senior editor signs off before publication. Because the team is small, there is no ghost-writing and no contributions from writers we do not know personally.

Each review cycle follows the same five steps: register a real account, deposit through two different payment methods, play a sample of at least twenty titles from at least five providers, request a withdrawal and record the actual timing, write up the result and send it for fact-checking. The cycle is repeated when the operator changes a bonus, a payment method or a limit — whichever comes first.

A short card at the bottom of each review introduces the lead reviewer: full name, years of experience, LinkedIn profile for verification, and a line on what the reviewer tested for that specific page. The card is not decorative: it is the person you would write to if you believed a fact on that page to be wrong.

We keep the roster small and we keep it public. A visitor should be able to put a name to the review they are reading in one tap, and that name should resolve to a real professional profile outside this site. If a reviewer leaves the team, the card is replaced with the name of the person who picked up the beat, and the original author is thanked in the changelog. We do not publish reviews under house pseudonyms, we do not use rotating junior writers for the heavy lifting, and we do not accept any contribution — paid or unpaid — from a writer whose track record we cannot verify through an independent source.

We are not currently hiring. If you are a UK-based writer with a verifiable record in gambling journalism, feel free to send a short note and two published pieces to the editor address on the contact page. We reply even when we have no vacancy to offer, usually within two weeks.

When we do open a position, the brief is unusually narrow: we hire for fact-checking stamina rather than for a prolific byline. The test piece is always the same — a 700-word review of a licensed UK casino, written from a trial account, with every number sourced to a terms page or to a hands-on check. The person we end up appointing will typically take eight to ten hours to produce that piece and will enjoy the process. If that sounds like torture, this is probably not the right place to apply.

We do not offer internships, paid trials or volunteer positions. We do not accept guest posts, link-insertion offers or sponsored content, regardless of the framing used in the pitch. The door is open for conversation; the business model is deliberately small and we intend to keep it that way.