Topic: 🔥 Crypto-Gambling.Net 🔥 Crypto Casino Reviews By A Real Insider ✅ - page 5. (Read 1602 times)

Gonna be very hard to actually make such deals with websites though.

Or have the already established websites create a feature where these people who gamble hop share their experiences of the different websites that they have played on. Kind of like making a forum in your review site where everyone can share their experiences to other people, this reduces the work of review website by a big percentage.

Nothing wrong with mediocre ratings but as long as it was honest.  not all reviewers are highly intelligent and you can expect all of them that will write a quality review . What is not good is when the review is false and only wants to gain from the visitor but the visitor can came back in the review site after playing and found out that they have been fooled .
 Your right about the updates @robelneo they can't just write a review and leave it but they must update it because casinos are also updating depending on the gamblers taste .

For sure. The goal is to have a site that people can actually fully trust though.

honesty and transparency are needed to build a valuable review site. yes, they can earn potential passive income from their affiliate links, but if found out that they are only after for this commission alone, and just providing mediocre ratings/reviews just to attract the user to play on the site and use his affiliate link, it will show the impact later on.
but of course, everyone can improve their services as well as innovate their platform. if you are a player, you should check it on your own, these review sites are just guide but not ultimate reference of what you may encounter once you play on your own.

Those who are active and playing on many gambling sites are encouraged to set up a site like this so they can share their experience with newbies and for those looking for a good gambling site to play, you can also earn and make it your passive income by inserting your affiliate link, but reviewer should get an update and post it in their site if there are issues on the site that are on their list.

I guess, but doesn't 1xBit have a history of scams? Based on their trust, a lot of users seem to have been scammed.
There would have to be quite a bit of additional research on this review.

Since your site looks good and legit in reviews about gambling sites reputation , Mind giving this a shot?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1xbitcom-7-btc-wb-altcoin-betting-no-kyc-instant-payouts-5267172

They even created their own Honest review here in bitcointalk but i think it is more appropriate if a legit company will do it for the community of bitcointalk?


thank you in advance.

Somewhat true, but I don't think a diverse team would necessarily change that.
I guess in this field the KYC policies(and how they're enforced) would be worth noting. An example here could be Stake where I have heard some of their biggest influencers saying that US users(Restricted territories) can just use a VPN.

Some of them currently don't have any cons - All of them should have in the future when I slowly start to judge on more and more factors.

I believe, if he is doing this alone, it is one way for him to potentially earn commission.
Though would be best if there are other experienced people involved.
But it is up to him how he will be of honest and transparent in these reviews as it his review site.
Anyway, one can always go to other review sites or test the site itself to check the validity of those reviews.
Some of the sites, he can't find cons, which I believe is very subjective.

It's good that you're experienced and want to share it with the community, but it's impossible for one person to be impartial. A diverse team of people with various background could promote diverse criteria and notice more than one person ever could. This way, individual biases would be cancelled out at least to a certain point because people will point out each other's biases.
Moreover, you have to take the overall reputation into account as well. If you've deposited and withdrawn money successfully, it doesn't mean that the experience will be the same for everyone because casinos can practice selective scamming.
I also think that mentioning KYC policies and restricted territories in casino reviews would provide useful information.

I guess that's right.


Having both of them would probably be the best now that you mention it. Didn't even really consider that before.

I agree on that not because I'm wearing the signature of one of them, these are stable and gambling site and they have been online long before some of your lists are launch if I have a review site I'll start with gambling sites that have been online for four years or longer with good marketing, but I respect your opinion it's your review site and it's up to you who should be listed first.

But that's really the thing. If you receive money(Or even just a good backlink for that matter) from a site in exchange for something that may be meaningless in itself, you do also have greater incentive to intentionally or unintentionally for that matter manipulate the scores in their favor. It only really have to be marginals to actually make a difference there.

Not sure what you mean? I obviously do, which is why I point it out. It's the exact reason why I wanna do things differently as well - And why I think rankings should ideally be based on user votes.
I have been working on a few different concepts. Mainly user votes, which is quite tricky, and then alternatively a system based on an algorithm that gets calculated based on stuff like average house edge, fees, and such. It is rather hard to nail an algorithm like that when there is so much variety in terms of the style of casinos and what they offer.

That's the case of pretty much any gambling site ever though. The one they have is obviously very extensive, but it is in reality not different from most other sites. It is literally a requirement when you have a license. I don't think there is a single license where you can get around it. Some casinos choose to use it more heavily than others(For a large variety of different reasons), but they still have to have it in their policies.

I don't think it's on purpose that you favor them either.

But they do use affiliate? They even seem to have a 'trusted partners program' which seems to give sites a badge on their site in exchange for what I would assume to be cash.

Even when you were in the industry, it's also important for you to keep in mind that bustabit nor bustadice have ever had an affiliate program, unlike most sites. This has also masked you from that side of things - One thing is what's publicly being shown, while another is the custom deals. People offering money for reviews are generally not uncommon, but for bustabit and bustadice it has been way more obvious since you had no affiliate program as an alternative.
Most of these negotiations are in terms of custom rates on the commission where bigger sites are able to negotiate better deals, and in some cases, these may result in better placements in a more indirect way(Since people have a greater incentive to promote them). And based on the #1 ranking under best online casinos on the gamblingsitefinder, I do kinda suspect that there's also where the incentive for placing that casino #1 comes from.

An idea that I hope will be possible one day, is that the rankings should also be based on the reviews from users rather than based by me. The biggest issue with that is preventing abuse though.

There is no actual check of that information, and even then - It's a legal requirement for when you have a license? - And I would never consider it KYC for providing information. I'm pretty sure the legal definition is identity verification as well, which requires ID + address verification.

No, but when you rank based on the rating unlike the sites you said that you like, it needs a larger amount of sites to more accurately adjust the ratings. It has nothing to do with making it look like more casinos have been reviewed - How would that even make sense?

The exact site you said you like(and you have put in your signature) is doing exactly what you don't like. I am not sure what you think they are doing better? Unlike that site, my reviews and rankings are genuine, transparent and non-biased. Everything takes adjusting, but I would assume that with how old that site is they should be substantially more ahead.

I'm not sure where all your hate comes from, it seems like you have an economical interest in promoting gamblingsitefinder more than anything else (Probably because bustabit and bustadice is actually listed on that site already - That would also explain why the reviews towards bustabit and bustadice is obviously bias towards those two sites compared to alternatives)

If you're referring to the fact that you have to enter your name, address, and those details, then I wouldn't blame that on Roobet. That's literally required by the Curacao license that they have, and due to the corona packages that Curacao has received from The Netherlands, they have also been forced to be way more strict with their gambling license. - If you prefer to gamble on sites with no licenses, then that's a matter of preference rather than really a factor that should matter in terms of reviews. It's a personal preference.

I am not even sure how it ended up with me having to defend Roobet, because I don't even like the casino. You're right that Roobet is not upfront about their house edges. Roobet's audience is way different from Bustabit's audience. Most of them don't even have a clue what RTP even means. I think the issue you're having is Roobet's rating of 4/5 stars. It seems too good, which it is, but I need to review more sites to more accurately rate Roobet as well. The reason for the current rating is due to the placement on the ranking, so when more casinos get added, I highly expect Roobet to slowly drop down to something like 2.5/5 stars.

And I am not sure what you mean by good examples. The GamblingSiteFinder one doesn't even have rankings based on reviews. The rankings on the front page are manually picked and seem to be based on who's paying the most. That doesn't seem very transparent. - Their reviews themselves look good though.
For the dicesites.com one, there is no type of reviews or anything like that. It's just stats from their betting activity, which is great to have offered, but it has nothing to do with what this is.

The affiliate links hardly matters. If they did, I would just place the casinos paying the highest commissions in top. Stake is actually amongst the lowest paying of the current ones.

As mentioned previously, I do plan on adding casinos like Bustabit to the site in the near future. I will never add the option to have affiliate and non-affiliate versions of the links. That ruins the whole point of it. If you like my review enough to wanna sign up on the casino because of it, then it's only fair that it's done through my affiliate link. Especially when you can easily avoid it by just googling the casino anyways.

And I have considered video reviews, but with my previous experience in running youtube channels etc., I kinda decided not to. The main disadvantage would be whenever casinos do updates, the whole video has to be remade, and the costs of each video review will easily reach $300+.

If I have done any type of work for any of the casinos within the past year. This may be consultancy work, full-time/part-time positions or volunteer work(Although I don't even do the latter). - That would be how I consider the actively worked.