Where the numbers on this site come from
Two different kinds of numbers show up in our reviews, and we don't treat them the same way.
The first kind is something we measured ourselves: a withdrawal that landed in an account at a recorded time, a landing page we opened on a specific date, a cashier we tested with our own deposit. These numbers carry a date and, where it matters, a sample size. If we've run one withdrawal test on an operator, the review says one, not 'typically' or 'usually around'.
The second kind is what an operator states on its own site or in its terms: a promised processing window, a wagering percentage, a minimum deposit. We use this constantly, because it's the only source for most bonus terms and cashier limits, but we label it as the operator's claim rather than our finding. 'The operator states a same day payout' and 'we measured a same day payout' are different sentences, and we keep them different on purpose.
Where we have neither a test nor a stated figure, we write that we don't know yet. That's a more useful answer than a guess dressed up as a fact.
What we've actually measured so far
As of 3 August 2026, our testing on this market is limited, and we're stating that plainly rather than rounding it up.
Three withdrawal speed tests have been completed across the operators we cover here. That's a small sample, not a claim to have timed every cashier on the list. Where an operator hasn't been through a withdrawal test yet, the withdrawal speed and reliability score leans on the operator's own stated processing time, marked as such in the review, and is capped below the top of the scale until we run our own test.
One landing page availability check has been completed, on 2 August 2026. The page loaded correctly on that visit. We haven't repeated the check across every operator, so a pass on one site tells you about that site on that date, not about the market as a whole.
What you'll find in every review is what we actually checked: cashier behaviour, bonus terms as published on the operator's promotions page, and how a support query got answered.
The seven criteria and their weights
Every operator we review is scored against the same seven criteria, in the same order, with the same weights. The weights don't change between reviews, and they don't shift because a review reads more or less favourably than the last one.
| # | Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Withdrawal speed and reliability | 25% |
| 2 | Bonus terms and wagering fairness | 20% |
| 3 | Account fairness and safer play | 15% |
| 4 | Verification and deposit friction | 12% |
| 5 | Payments and limits | 10% |
| 6 | Game library and provider transparency | 10% |
| 7 | Support quality | 8% |
The seven weights add up to 100%. Each criterion is scored from 0 to 10, multiplied by its weight, and the seven results are added together for a total out of 10. That total is then divided by two to give the star rating out of 5 you see against each operator.
How each criterion earns its points
A score of 10 on any single criterion is rare on purpose. Here's what each number actually measures.
Withdrawal speed and reliability (25%)
Points come from how fast money actually reaches you and how consistently that happens. A top score needs a same day arrival we've verified ourselves, with no unresolved reports of withheld winnings. Where we haven't run our own withdrawal test yet, the score is provisional, built from the operator's stated processing time, and can't reach the top of the scale until we test it.
Bonus terms and wagering fairness (20%)
We score the wagering multiple against its base, bonus only or deposit plus bonus, the maximum bet allowed while clearing it, and whether the expiry window is realistic. A 40x wager counted on the bonus alone scores higher than the same 40x counted on deposit plus bonus, because the second version doubles the turnover for an identical headline number.
Account fairness and safer play (15%)
This covers whether deposit limits, self exclusion requests and account closure work the way the operator describes, and whether the terms contain one sided clauses that let an operator void a win after the fact.
Verification and deposit friction (12%)
How much document checking happens, and when. A verification step that surfaces for the first time at cashout, after you've already deposited and played, scores lower than one disclosed before you sign up.
Payments and limits (10%)
How many methods actually work for deposits, how many of those same methods work for withdrawals rather than only one direction, and the minimum deposit and withdrawal thresholds attached to each.
Game library and provider transparency (10%)
The size and mix of the pokies library, whether studio names are disclosed rather than buried under generic branding, and whether return to player figures are published per title.
Support quality (8%)
Whether a live channel exists, what hours it actually covers, and how a real question gets answered when we send one, measured against what the site's marketing page promises.
A worked example: scoring a fictional pokies site
The maths behind any star rating on this site is meant to be checked, not trusted blindly. Here's the full calculation for a fictional operator we're calling Aurora Reef Pokies, built purely to show the arithmetic.
| Criterion | Score (0–10) | Weight | Weighted points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal speed and reliability | 7 | 25% | 1.75 |
| Bonus terms and wagering fairness | 6 | 20% | 1.20 |
| Account fairness and safer play | 8 | 15% | 1.20 |
| Verification and deposit friction | 5 | 12% | 0.60 |
| Payments and limits | 7 | 10% | 0.70 |
| Game library and provider transparency | 9 | 10% | 0.90 |
| Support quality | 6 | 8% | 0.48 |
| Total | 100% | 6.83 |
Add the weighted points column and you get 6.83 out of 10. Divide by two and Aurora Reef Pokies lands on 3.4 out of 5 stars. Change any single input and the total moves by exactly the amount that criterion's weight allows, which is the point of fixing the weights in the first place: a 25% criterion can swing the total by up to 2.5 points, an 8% criterion by up to 0.8, no matter how the other six numbers land.
Instant disqualifiers
Some findings take an operator off the site regardless of what the seven weighted criteria add up to. A high total doesn't buy back any of these.
- A cashier that doesn't function during our test: no deposit method loads, or a withdrawal request errors out.
- Confirmed reports, from more than one independent source, of winnings that were never paid.
- Bonus terms that contradict themselves between the promotions page and the general terms and conditions.
- No link anywhere on the site to a self exclusion tool or a gambling help resource.
- A landing page that doesn't load at all during our check, and still doesn't on a follow up visit.
Any one of these is enough on its own. They sit outside the scoring table on purpose, because averaging a serious problem against six unrelated numbers would hide it.
How often scores change
Scores aren't reviewed on a fixed monthly or quarterly calendar. Two things trigger a change instead.
The first is new evidence that meets one of the instant disqualifiers above. That takes effect immediately, regardless of when the operator was last reviewed in full.
The second is a repeat of one of our own tests: a withdrawal, a landing page check, a support contact. Operators change cashiers, providers and terms without announcing it, so a score built on a test from months ago can be out of date even if nothing dramatic has happened. We'd rather show you the date a number was last checked than imply it's continuously monitored when it isn't.
What the weights don't do
Two things the scoring table above deliberately leaves out.
Commission has no line in the table. Where we earn a commission from an operator, and how that works, is explained on our page about how this site is funded, rather than folded into any of the seven numbers. A casino that pays nothing and a casino that pays a commission are scored on the same sheet.
We don't audit game fairness ourselves. Return to player percentages and random number generator testing come from the game providers and independent testing labs that certify them, not from our own measurement. Criterion 6 scores whether that information is disclosed and easy to find, not whether we've re-run the maths behind it. If you want the detail on how a specific review was built, our reviews link back to this page, and our editorial policy covers the rest.