Every score on this site starts from the same question: what has the operator committed to in writing, and what has it left out? That is a deliberately narrow test, and this page explains exactly how it is applied, where its limits are, and what a number like 6.9 does and does not mean.
What the research consists of
Casino reviews fall into two families. One is built on a funded account and a stopwatch. The other is built on documents: the live cashier, the published limits, the terms, the provider list, the small print that changes between one language edition and the next.
This site is the second kind, and saying so plainly matters more than a reassuring claim would. A review that invents a timed withdrawal is worse than useless, because the reader cannot tell which parts of the page are real. So the rule here is simple: every figure published on this site can be traced back to something the operator put on its own property, and anything that cannot be traced is labelled unpublished.
The process, step by step
- Open the live site in each language edition we cover, and capture the home page as it appears that day. Headline offers differ by locale more often than readers expect.
- Work through the cashier country by country. Switch the country selector, log the currency it returns, and record every deposit and withdrawal method with its published minimum and maximum.
- Pull the full terms document and read it end to end rather than skimming the bonus section. Lizaro’s runs to about 202,000 characters.
- Search the terms for the structural facts: the operating company, the registration number, the licence, the regulator, the dispute route, the fee clauses, the verification deadlines, the withdrawal ceilings.
- Count the library from the operator’s own provider page, studio by studio, rather than repeating a marketing total.
- Check the responsible-gambling provision: which tools exist, whether they can be set from inside the account, and which help services are named.
- Record the absences. What an operator declines to publish is evidence, and on some sites it is the most important evidence available.
How the score is built
Scores run from 1 to 10 and are composed from six weighted components. The weighting reflects what actually costs players money, which is why accountability outranks library size.
| Component | Weight | What moves it |
|---|---|---|
| Accountability and licensing | 30% | Named operator, licence, regulator, independent dispute route |
| Cashier and withdrawals | 20% | Method range, limits, stated processing times, fees, ceilings |
| Terms fairness | 20% | Wagering, caps, expiry windows, dormancy and threshold clauses |
| Game library | 15% | Studio count, title count, live-dealer depth, demo access |
| Player protection | 10% | Self-service limits, self-exclusion, named help services |
| Support and transparency | 5% | Channels, availability, response commitments, clarity of published rules |
Two of those components deserve a note. Accountability carries nearly a third of the score because it determines what happens on the worst day, not the average one. Player protection is weighted lower than it ideally would be, because good independent services exist regardless of the operator, and a reader can use them anywhere.
What each band means
| Score | Reading |
|---|---|
| 8.5 to 10 | Licensed, supervised and transparent, with terms we would sign ourselves |
| 7.5 to 8.4 | Solid with specific, stated drawbacks a reader can plan around |
| 6.5 to 7.4 | Usable product carrying at least one structural problem; play small and read the terms |
| 5.0 to 6.4 | Serious gaps in accountability or terms; suitable only for readers who accept that |
| Below 5.0 | We would not fund an account here |
The limits of this method
An honest methodology page states its own weaknesses, so here are three.
First, documents describe intentions, not behaviour. A clause promising three business days is a commitment, not a measurement, and an operator can honour its terms perfectly while still being slow in practice, or pay faster than its own terms require. Second, terms change. Lizaro’s are already at version 1.12, and a figure accurate on the day of capture can be revised without notice. Every page on this site carries its capture date for that reason. Third, absence of evidence is read carefully: when something is unpublished, we report that it is unpublished rather than concluding what it would have said.
Corrections and re-checks
Licence status is re-checked quarterly, and so are cashier limits, because those two move most. If an operator publishes a licence, names a company, adds responsible-gambling tools or changes a fee, the affected pages are updated and the score is recalculated rather than quietly left alone.
If you find a figure here that no longer matches the operator’s site, write to us through the contact page with the page and the figure. Corrections are made on the page itself, not buried in a footnote.
Commercial independence
This site earns affiliate commission when a reader opens an account through a tracked link, and that revenue pays for the research. Two rules keep that from steering the content. Scores are fixed from the component table above before any commercial consideration enters, and no page recommends an operator the method does not support. Our full Lizaro review scores 6.9 and spends several sections on what is missing, which is the practical demonstration of that rule.
The educational pages in the guides section carry no affiliate links at all. Material about verification, wagering arithmetic and responsible gambling should not sit next to a sign-up button, and on this site it does not.
Frequently asked questions
Do you deposit real money at the casinos you review?
Not at Lizaro. This review is documentary: the live cashier, the published limits and the full terms. Pages say so explicitly rather than implying a funded test.
Why does licensing carry so much of the score?
Because it decides what happens in a dispute. A licence can be suspended and a regulator can compel action; a complaints inbox cannot.
How often are the figures re-checked?
Quarterly for licence status and cashier limits, and immediately whenever an operator publishes a change we notice.
Who decides the final score?
Marc Delvaux, the site’s lead reviewer, using the weighted component table on this page. The weights are fixed, not adjusted per operator.
Does affiliate revenue affect the rating?
No. Scores are set from the published components before commercial terms are considered, and the guides section carries no affiliate links at all.