Redaktionelle Richtlinien

This page explains how the reviews and guides on this site get made, who is responsible for what, and what happens when we get something wrong. It applies to everything we publish: site reviews, rankings, game guides, bonus pages and blog posts.

Who writes what

We're three people, and each of us owns a part of the site. Daniel Hart, our lead reviewer, writes the site reviews and is responsible for the rankings. Mila Novak, our payments and fairness editor, covers deposits, withdrawals, crypto, provably fair systems and odds. Owen Price, our guides editor, writes about trading, skins, Steam security and safer gambling.

Every article carries its author's name, and that author answers for what's in it. You can read more about the three of us on the about page.

How a site review is researched

We don't review sites from the outside. Before a review goes up, one of us has used the site with a real account: deposited, claimed the welcome offer, played the main modes, contacted support and withdrawn. We read the terms of service and the bonus terms in full, check the restricted countries list, and verify a sample of game results through the site's provably fair tool.

We also read what players are saying in public, on Reddit, review platforms and community forums. That's context, not evidence. We look for patterns and then try to confirm them ourselves before they make it into a review.

Scoring follows the six weighted criteria on our how we rate page. The reviewer proposes the scores. A second team member reads the full review and pushes back on anything that looks too generous or too harsh before it's published.

How guides are researched

Guides start from primary sources wherever they exist. That means Valve's published case odds, Steam's own help pages on trading, trade holds and account security, and each site's documentation for things like provably fair. When a guide makes a claim about odds, fees or expected value, we show the math so you can check it yourself. When something is our opinion, we write it as one.

If we can't confirm a detail, we leave it out or say plainly that it's unconfirmed. We'd rather publish a shorter guide than one carrying a number we can't stand behind.

Fact-checking

Nothing is published until a second editor has checked it. For reviews, the focus is on the facts that go stale fastest: the welcome offer and its terms, minimum deposits, payment methods, restricted countries and game modes. Mila checks the figures in anything about odds, fees or payments. Owen checks anything that touches Steam security, because getting those steps wrong can cost a reader their whole inventory.

Site details are checked against the site itself at the time of writing. Not against another review, and not against an affiliate program's promotional material.

Keeping content up to date

CS2 sites change constantly. Bonuses rotate, game modes come and go, payment options shift, and every so often Valve changes the rules for everyone (the 2025 Trade Protection change is a good example). We re-check every site we list at least once a quarter, and sooner after a major change such as new ownership, new terms or a wave of complaints.

Every review and guide shows the date it was last updated. We only change that date when we've actually gone back through the content, not for a typo fix.

Corrections

We get things wrong sometimes, and when we do, we fix them. If you spot an error, send it through our contact page with whatever evidence you have, such as a screenshot, a link to the site's terms or a support transcript. Every report gets read.

What happens next depends on the error:

• Small errors (a typo, a broken link, an outdated detail that doesn't change the advice) are fixed without a note.
• Factual errors that affect the advice, such as a wrong withdrawal method, a misread bonus term or an incorrect odds figure, are corrected and noted at the end of the article with the date of the correction.
• Errors that affect a score trigger a re-check of the site, and the updated review explains what changed.

Operators can report errors through the same page and get the same treatment. A site disagreeing with our opinion isn't an error, though, and we won't change an assessment because an operator doesn't like it.

Conflicts of interest

We earn affiliate commissions from the gambling sites we review. That's a conflict of interest, plain and simple, and the honest way to handle it is to be open about it and keep it well away from the scoring. Our affiliate disclosure explains the arrangement. In practice:

• Commercial terms never feed into scores or ranking order.
• Operators don't see reviews before they're published and can't buy changes to them.
• We don't publish paid articles. If we ever publish something sponsored, it will be labeled as sponsored at the top.
• Team members don't work for, hold a stake in, or accept gifts from any site we review.
• When we test a welcome offer, it's the same offer any reader gets with our code.

Standards we write to

• No promises of winnings, and no strategies that claim to beat a house edge.
• Every review states which countries a site restricts, and we don't explain how to get around restrictions.
• Our content is for readers aged 18 and over, and we keep the help organizations on our responsible gambling page current.
• We name the sites we think you should skip, and we say why.