Methodology version: 1.0 · Published 29 August 2026
40Casinos reviews are structured investigations, not rewrites of an operator’s sales page. The editor records what can be verified, identifies what is specific to one country, and avoids turning a temporary promotion into a permanent recommendation.
The review sequence
- Identity and legal scope. We locate the company named in the terms, the licence displayed to the visitor, restricted countries, age rules and any stated complaint route. A global brand can have several legal entities, so the applicable jurisdiction matters.
- Account and cashier clarity. We inspect registration fields, verification explanations, deposit and withdrawal pages, fees, minimums, pending periods and whether the operator explains source-of-funds checks.
- Games and navigation. We look at search, filters, providers, slots, tables, live games, mobile behaviour and whether the lobby makes important information visible without unnecessary clicks.
- Promotional cost. Where an offer is available, we read wagering, game contribution, maximum stake, expiry, restricted payment methods and withdrawal limits. The review does not assume another country receives the same deal.
- Player protection. Deposit limits, time-outs, self-exclusion, reality checks and access to independent help are assessed as product features, not footer decoration.
- Support and documentation. We note available channels, opening hours and how easy it is to locate a useful answer. We do not invent support conversations or claim real-money tests that did not occur.
How scores are formed
| Area | Weight | What can reduce the score |
|---|---|---|
| Safety, licence and transparency | 30% | Unclear ownership, weak dispute information or inconsistent terms |
| Payments and account rules | 20% | Hidden fees, vague verification or restrictive withdrawal clauses |
| Games and usability | 20% | Poor navigation, broken mobile layouts or weak provider information |
| Responsible-gambling controls | 15% | Limits that are hard to find or inadequate self-exclusion guidance |
| Support and documentation | 10% | Limited channels or unhelpful policy pages |
| Promotional fairness | 5% | Misleading headlines or unusually restrictive bonus rules |
The final number is an editorial score out of five. It is not a customer-review average and is not intended for gambling-related review-star markup. A lower-ranked casino may still suit a reader’s specific payment or product needs, while a top-ranked operator may not be legal in that reader’s country.
Updates, corrections and affiliate relationships
Material facts are dated. When terms, ownership, licensing or access change, the affected review should be rechecked rather than silently carrying an old claim forward. Readers and operators can submit evidence through the contact page. Corrections are assessed on their merits and do not depend on a commercial relationship.
Affiliate managers can provide links or factual documents, but they do not approve copy or scores. If a relationship ends, the editorial assessment does not automatically change. More detail appears in our Editorial Policy and Affiliate Disclosure.