Home · The site · How we verify, and what the four levels mean
The site
How we verify, and what the four levels mean
The method behind the four boxes: what counts as a primary source, what counts as a trade source, and what we write when a lobby refuses to answer.
The four questions, and why every answer carries a level as well as a state
A record of free play is worth something only to a reader who can test it without trusting the people who assembled it, and that single requirement settled the shape of these pages long before we looked at any casino at all.
Every brand here answers four questions and no others: whether a "demo" of a game exists, whether it opens for somebody who has not signed up, whether an offer exists that wants "no deposit" at all, and whether a tournament, a "freeroll" in the trade's own word, can be entered without buying a ticket (104 brands, twelve platforms, four boxes apiece).
Each of those four answers carries a state and a level, which are different things and are meant to be read together. The state says what the answer is; the level says how far our reading got, and on this subject the second half of that pair is the one most sites quietly leave out.
- Yes — read at the source and working as described
- Partly — it exists, with a condition that matters
- No — it does not exist, or the rules forbid it
- Not verified — we could not establish it, and we say so
What counts as a primary source, and what counts only as an indication
Three sorts of document are primary for us: the operator's own site (a help page, a set of terms, a string of text served inside the "lobby"), the text of the rule itself, and the public register of the authority that issued the licence (an account number, a licence number and a pair of dates, in the British case). A fact taken from any of the three can be looked up again by anybody who wants to check it, which is the only property that really matters.
Trade documentation sits one step below, and we label it as such ("trade source", on the row itself) wherever it decides a box. The renaming of Real Time Gaming into "SpinLogic Gaming" is a fair example, because it appears in the industry press (igamingbusiness and the rest of the trade titles) and nowhere in the operators' own pages, where the old three letters are still written into the metadata.
Below that there is nothing. A review published by another affiliate is an indication worth following up and never a proof, and the general searches run for this record returned almost nothing else: pages built for search engines, sitting on institutional domains (an .edu.ar here, an .ac.uk there) that somebody had quietly got into, making confident claims about games that nobody had opened.
A second refusal matters here quite as much as the first one does. Where an operator's promotional copy contradicts its own brand-specific documentation, the documentation wins; one group's editorial page announces a "Free Mode" for which "you don't need an account", while the article written for one of its actual brands says the free versions are "accessible after logging in", and the second of those two statements is the one that describes the software.
The vocabulary has to be policed in the same spirit, because the trade uses one phrase for two unrelated products. On one platform the strings behind the offer read "free play money to use on selected games", which is bonus credit and not a trial at all, and on another the invitation to "try out some of our fantastic online slots for FREE" belongs to the welcome offer rather than to any "practice play" or "demo mode" worth the name.
The check a reader can run without us, which is the point of the method
The strongest line in this record is not an opinion but a count, and a count can be repeated by anyone. One platform publishes a flag ("is_fun_mode", one value for every title) in the feed that builds its game grid, and on a single brand of that platform forty-three titles carried it set to true while sixty-five carried it set to false (43 against 65, on one page, in October 2026), a count that gave the same two numbers when it was run again.
The consequence is immediate, and it is unflattering to the whole category of page this one belongs to. No honest site can promise the free version of a named slot on that platform without reading the flag for that slot first, and several of the most searched titles (one very famous fishing slot among them) turned out to sit on the wrong side of it.
Where the reading stopped, and the figures that say where
Nine lobbies turned us down on every single request. All nine belong to one platform supplier, all nine answered with the same refusal even when the request announced itself as British rather than American (the header was changed, the answer was not), and not a single condition at brand level could be established for any of them.
A tenth site answered differently, and the difference is instructive: it returned a perfectly ordinary page, and the page said "This Website Isn't Available in Your Region" and offered an address to write to (the support mailbox of the platform supplier, not of the brand). That is a geographic block demonstrated by its own content rather than inferred from a status code, and the two belong in different columns of any serious record, the first as a "limit of the reading" and the second as a "block".
One supplier's technical documentation, the document that would have settled the question for all nine of those brands at once, declined to open as well. Several other lobbies are applications rather than pages and cannot be read without being run: one ships under an internal title ("allspark3") that tells a reader nothing, and another serves an empty shell and then forbids robots in its own instructions.
The arithmetic of the gaps is worth stating plainly, because it is the part of the work a reader cannot see from the finished tables, and we would rather print it than bury it. Nine brands out of ten in one group refused the direct request, eleven of eleven in another, and of those eleven, seven could not be reached by any route at all (seven brands, four boxes each, nothing verified). Five further domains in a sixth group did not even complete the connection!
The limit that makes "not verified" the honest answer
Every reading behind these pages left from a network that exits in the United States, and that one fact disqualifies the obvious inference. A refusal is not proof of a geographic block: one lobby that turned down our direct request had its whole game grid read by another route minutes later, with a "Demo" link sitting beside every title on it.
So a refusal is recorded as a limit of our reading, never as the absence of a service, and that is why several rows in the full list say "not verified" where a bolder site would have written no. The fourth state is not a hole in the record but a working part of it. It is the record declining to guess, and a guess on this subject sends a reader off to open an account that he did not need.
What this site does not do, and the date that every line carries
Nothing on these pages was played. We tried no casino in person for this record, we publish no score and no star rating anywhere on the site (no stars, no marks out of ten, no medals), and the order of every list falls out of the four boxes by a rule that weighs an open demo above an offer and counts an unverified entry as worth less than a yes. That weighting is fixed, and it does not move from one page of the site to another.
A brand that lets a visitor try a game therefore sits above a better-run brand that does not, which is an odd result for a league table and the right one here. It also means that the order is not a recommendation; it is a consequence of what could be read, and the "level" tag on each row says how much of it was. Where the rule rather than the lobby settles the matter, the reason sits on the page about the law, market by market.
Every source behind this record was read on 20 October 2026 (the date is printed under every page), and that date belongs to the information as much as the information does. Rules move and lobbies are rebuilt; a brand changes platform without telling anybody at all.
The useful thing you can do with this page is to take the one row that matters to you, open the operator's own help page, and see whether the box still describes what the lobby does. Four questions, four states, three levels, and not a verdict anywhere!
What counts as a primary source on this site?
The operator's own site, the text of the rule, and the public register of the authority that issued the licence. Anything from the trade press is labelled as trade documentation, and a review published by another affiliate counts as an indication and never as proof.
Why not simply write no when a lobby refuses to answer?
Because every reading left from a network that exits in the United States, so a refusal proves nothing about whether a service exists. One lobby that turned down a direct request had its entire game feed read by another route minutes afterwards.
Has anybody here played these games?
Nobody. Nothing was played for this record and no casino was tried in person, so every claim on the site describes a document that was read, with the date of that reading printed beside it.
How often is the record read again?
Each row carries the date of its own last reading, and the sources behind the present record were read on 20 October 2026. A correction that arrives with an address and a date is acted on as it comes in.