1. Test the account journey
I register, use the cashier, deposit crypto, play with real funds, request a withdrawal, and record the outcome. I complete identity checks when the casino asks for them. A successful test describes one account at one point in time. It is not a payout guarantee for another player.
The report identifies the date and scope of the observation. Where the evidence captures them, it also records the asset, network, amount, processing state, and whether support or verification became part of the withdrawal. Private account details are removed from published screenshots.
- European account context
- Real crypto deposit and real-money play
- Withdrawal request and outcome
- KYC only when requested
- Date and limits of the observation
2. Establish the entity and domain
I match the brand to its operator, regulator, licence reference, and official domain. I do not treat a lookalike site or unsupported mirror as the same destination.
A licence record answers a narrow question about the named entity and domain. It does not prove that every country permits access, that all promotions are valid, or that a future withdrawal will succeed. Those claims need their own evidence.
3. Count the product carefully
Lobby totals, category counters, provider assignments, and marketing claims can describe different things. I keep those scopes separate and avoid adding overlapping categories such as live casino and game shows.
Every published count needs a method and an evidence date. If an infinite-scroll lobby cannot be fully loaded or the same game appears in several categories, the report states what was countable instead of converting a partial observation into a platform total.
- Exact interface counter
- Fully loaded route count
- Provider-assignment total
- Rounded operator claim
4. Inspect payments as asset plus network
A ticker alone is incomplete. I record the selected network, minimum, fee, confirmation rule, and any account or location limitation when the evidence captures them.
Deposit and withdrawal routes are checked separately because they can expose different assets, networks, minimums, and verification prompts. A small successful withdrawal confirms that transaction and account state. It does not establish a universal payout time.
- Deposit and withdrawal assets
- Network choices
- Minimums and fees
- Turnover, KYC, and manual-review conditions
5. Separate ordinary rules from promotions
Deposit turnover used for anti-money-laundering controls is not the same as bonus wagering. I record the base used by a multiplier, game contribution, expiry, maximum bet, and withdrawal restrictions when those fields are supported.
The headline percentage and maximum amount are not enough for comparison. A review keeps unsupported offer values out of summary tables and sends readers to the dated terms when eligibility, contribution, or withdrawal treatment depends on the account or location.
6. Grade the evidence by proximity
My authenticated account is the closest evidence for what appeared during a test. I use legal terms and regulator records for operator and licence scope. Operator help copy can explain a process but may be outdated. I use partner or directory material only with a clear label.
Evidence strength also depends on the claim. An account screenshot can show a cashier option, but a regulator record is the relevant source for licence scope. A social post can prove that a statement was published, but it cannot prove an undisclosed contract value or product performance.
- Direct account observation
- Legal or regulator record
- Public operator guidance
- Partner or secondary evidence
- Unknown or not captured
7. Rank for trust before extras
I put trust, cashier clarity, and successful withdrawal experience ahead of bonus size. I then consider bonus policy, game and provider scope, documented RTP for original games, mobile use, support, and VIP terms. A large offer does not cancel a restrictive rule or an unresolved conflict.
8. Preserve conflicts and limits
I keep contradictions visible. If the legal terms and an older help article disagree, the report shows both values and uses the stronger current source until the operator resolves the conflict.
A missing value remains unknown or not captured. I do not fill the gap with an estimate copied from another region, an affiliate landing page, or an older version of the site. Readers should be able to distinguish a measured fact from a marketing statement at a glance.
- No invented user ratings
- No universal payout promise
- No universal availability claim
- No estimated value for a missing field
9. Use AI without outsourcing responsibility
AI tools can help organize source material, compare captured values, translate, and prepare drafts. Personal testing claims come from Dmitry's own accounts. Other facts are checked against official sources, and Dmitry reviews the final English text before publication.
10. Update without erasing the record
Each report shows an evidence date. Current values can change, so readers should verify the live cashier, bonus terms, restricted-country list, and licence status before acting. I keep material conflicts in the report until new evidence resolves them.
11. Label the scope of every refresh
A public-source or read-only account refresh is not a repeat deposit and withdrawal test. Every review explains what the latest update covered and whether it involved a new deposit, wager, withdrawal, KYC request, support contact, or account change. Earlier real-money experience remains part of the record, but it is labelled separately from the latest observation.
12. Correct the page without hiding the change
A material correction updates the affected claim, source note, and evidence date. If newer evidence resolves a conflict, the page explains which value changed and why the newer source controls. Minor spelling or layout edits do not pretend that the underlying casino was retested.
- Correct the specific claim
- Keep the source trail readable
- Update the evidence scope
- Do not relabel an editorial edit as a new account test