How We Review: Criteria, Limits and Disclosure
This page is the method behind every operator description on this site. JILIPH is an independent guide and not a casino: no cashier, no deposits, no games, no balances, no account access. Below are the criteria, the limits of outside verification, and what commercial arrangements exist. Three things you will not find anywhere here: a score, a ranked list, and a named reviewer with a photograph. Each omission is deliberate and explained. 21+.
The standard a criterion has to meet
Every item below passes one test: a reader could go and look at it. That removes most of what fills casino review pages — how generous an operator feels, how trustworthy it seems, how slick the lobby looks — and leaves the things that decide what happens to money.
The second rule is that an admitted gap beats a confident guess. "The operator does not publish this, so ask support and get it in writing" is more useful than a plausible number that was invented to fill a space. Almost all the discipline here comes from applying those two rules without exception.
The seven criteria
| Criterion | What we look for | What a weak result costs you |
|---|---|---|
| Licence disclosure | A named operating company and regulator in the site's own text, not implied by a badge | Nobody has publicly accepted responsibility for your balance |
| Payment rails | Which rails exist, and whether e-wallet, InstaPay, PESONet and over-the-counter routes are described accurately | Surprises about the route your withdrawal takes and why it stalled |
| KYC rules | What is required, when, and whether name-matching is disclosed before you deposit | You meet the rule at withdrawal, which is the worst time to meet it |
| Terms clarity | Findable withdrawal conditions, wagering multiples and maximum-bet rules | The clause that voids your bonus is one you could not have read in advance |
| Complaint route | A documented escalation beyond live chat | Live chat becomes the ceiling of your options in a dispute |
| Responsible-gaming tools | Limits, cooling-off and self-exclusion a player can set alone | A tool you must negotiate for is one you will not use on the night you need it |
| Support and app distribution | Published channels that answer, and honest handling of the app-store situation | Pressure to sideload or disable protections shows how your safety is weighed |
The method in practice
- Read the operator's own pages — terms, cashier, verification, promotions, responsible gaming — and record what they say on the date read
- Take the company name from the terms and look for it in a regulator's own published list, typing the regulator's domain rather than clicking a badge
- Compare each claimed payment rail against how that rail demonstrably works in public
- Follow the promised links; a tool or policy that cannot be reached is a finding in itself
- Read the promotions page against the terms, because the contradictions are where the story sits
- Name silence. An undisclosed name-matching rule or an absent complaints route is reported as absent
What cannot be verified from outside
- Withdrawal speed. This site holds no accounts and has deposited nothing, so any payout time printed here would be fiction. Those are set by the operator — check its cashier page.
- Charges, floors, ceilings, bonus sizes and loyalty thresholds — every one of them the operator's to set and to change.
- Whether a game's actual returns match its stated RTP, which no outside party can establish over any realistic number of rounds.
- What happens inside a support queue, or how an individual dispute was resolved.
- Whether a licence is in good standing today rather than when a list was published.
- What any mobile installer contains. This site does not host, link to or inspect installers.
Where a question sits inside that list, the page names who to ask instead and tells you to get the answer in writing with a ticket number. It is less satisfying than a figure, and it is the accurate option.
Why no score and no league table
A score has to convert unlike findings into one digit using weights the reader never sees. It reads as precision while carrying less information than the list it replaced — nobody can tell whether a four out of five came from thin terms or a missing complaints route. And a ranked table creates positions, which can be sold, and in this industry regularly are.
Reporting criterion by criterion keeps the information and removes the lever. It also respects a real difference between readers: somebody withdrawing to a bank account weighs the rails differently from somebody playing once a month on a bonus, and no single number serves both.
Disclosure, and anonymity
Some outbound links may be partner links, earning a commission if a reader signs up through one. Three fixed rules: no payment changes a page's text, no operator sees or approves a page before publication, and nothing is purchasable — not a mention, not a position, not a softened sentence, not a removed criticism.
There is no byline, portrait or job title here either. The usual alternative in this niche is a fabricated expert with a stock photograph, and anonymity is the more honest of the two. For the same reason this site never claims to have deposited, played, timed a payout or spoken to an agent — because it has not, and because that is a claim you could never verify.
Dates and corrections
Terms change quietly, so every page carries published and modified dates for you to weigh. Where a detail will drift, the page points at the operator's live page rather than freezing a number into our text. If you find an error, the correction is worth more than the sentence it replaces. Standing notice: JILIPH is an independent guide, not an operator. Gambling is for adults 21 and over, and the limit and self-exclusion tools on your operator account exist for the moment play stops being a free choice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why not just give each operator a score?
Because a score hides the weights used to produce it and destroys the only genuinely useful output — which specific check was weak. It also creates a ranked position, and positions are the thing commissions can move. Reported separately, the information survives.
Did you deposit to test anything?
No. This site has no accounts anywhere and has deposited nothing, which is exactly why no payout time, fee or minimum is quoted here. Those belong on the operator's cashier page, where they are current.
Why is nobody named as the author?
Because the standard alternative is an invented reviewer with a stock photo and an unverifiable biography. Anonymity is more honest. Nothing here depends on who wrote it — each claim stands or falls on being checkable.
Do partner links change the writing?
No. Links may be partner links, disclosed here and in the footer. No operator reads a page before publication, nothing is for sale, and with no ranked list there is no position for a commission to affect.
What single finding would you treat as most serious?
No named operating company and no licence disclosure. Everything downstream — terms, KYC, complaints — only means something once you know which company is holding the money and which regulator it answers to.
Can I use your method myself on a site you have not covered?
That is the intention. Read the terms for a named company and a licence, check that name in the regulator's own published list, read the verification policy for the name-matching rule, look for a complaints route, and see whether the responsible-gaming tools are self-service. Those five answers tell you most of what matters.