By Public-document research has limits
Our guides analyse available terms, official guidance and product information. Reading a withdrawal policy does not demonstrate that a particular customer will be paid within its stated time. Seeing a support channel does not establish the quality of a support conversation.
We do not describe accounts as opened, deposits as made, withdrawals as completed or games as independently tested without evidence of those actions. A clear separation between document research and observed experience is more useful than an unsupported claim that everything has been tested.
First check: identity and legal position
We look for the operating entity, the exact licence claim and the jurisdiction named in the terms. A brand name, company registration and gambling licence answer different questions. A logo alone is insufficient evidence; the relevant official record should match the entity and activity.
New Zealand eligibility is assessed separately from overseas licensing. Our legal guide explains why the current casino transition and sports-betting restrictions must be considered independently. An application is not presented as an issued licence.
Second check: money in, money out
Payment research distinguishes deposit methods from withdrawal methods and follows the route from operator approval to usable funds. Relevant details include currency, minimums, caps, fees, identity requirements and whether a quoted time covers working days or elapsed time.
For a bonus, the key fields are the qualifying deposit, credit amount, wagering base, multiplier, eligible games, contribution rates, maximum stake, expiry and cash-out limit. Worked examples use stated assumptions so readers can reproduce the calculation. A missing term remains a gap rather than being filled with an industry average.
Third check: the exact product
Game claims should refer to the available version and rules. A supplier’s maximum advertised RTP does not automatically establish the configuration at every casino. A maximum prize is different from an expected return, and a game count does not establish quality or suitability.
For sports and racing, comparisons require equivalent markets. Extra time, player participation, abandoned fixtures, place terms and dead heats can change settlement. A higher displayed price may concern a different contract.
How we make editorial judgements
We favour clear evidence, accessible conditions and practical usefulness to an NZ reader. A superlative such as “best” depends on the criteria and cannot guarantee an outcome. We do not infer safety from popularity or use a large bonus as a substitute for examining restrictions.
Commercial arrangements do not make a legal or factual claim true. An affiliate disclosure is not permission to publish prohibited advertising. Legal eligibility, accuracy and the reader’s ability to understand the information remain separate questions.
Dates, corrections and uncertainty
A reviewed date describes a research point, not continuous monitoring. Changing terms should be checked at the original source before money is committed. If sources disagree, the discrepancy should be explained rather than hidden behind a confident number.
Readers can prepare a correction using the contact and corrections page. Include the passage, the source and the date checked. Corrections should address the underlying claim, including any related calculation or conclusion that depends on it.