How this was built · Updated 30 Sep 2026

Research and review methodology

A reproducible process is more useful than a star score.

Bottom lineWe separate operator claims, third-party testing, provider data and regulator guidance, then label every gap instead of filling it with certainty.
01

Source order

Regulators and legislation lead legal questions. Game providers lead published mechanics. Independent hands-on reviews provide operational observations. Search-interest and lobby datasets support trend pages.

No single source is allowed to prove its own marketing claim when an independent or primary check is available.

02

Game selection

The 15 game pages combine Australia-wide interest data, BGaming AU/NZ regional rankings and titles publicly reported in the Anubis lobby. That produces a more useful set than copying a generic worldwide top-ten list.

A trend label never becomes a recommendation. Popularity, visibility and availability are three different measurements.

03

Claim conflicts

When sources conflict, the page states the conflict and avoids the most promotional interpretation. The brief’s high-roller no-wagering claim is one example.

Dates are displayed on core pages, and material changes should trigger a new review rather than silent rewriting.