Search results

honestly thats not a bad test and i do it too. it tells you about deposits and the lobby. it tells you nothing about what happens when there's a dispute, which is the only part that matters and the only part you cant test cheaply

footer, usually. the licence line names the company and the jurisdiction and that's the thing to search, not the brand name the other way round is better though. instead of starting with a site and checking its reputation, start with the complaints and work backwards. i spent a while last year...

bit of the spanish thing that interests me is the asymmetry and i don't think its an accident. if you wanted to stop third party money going in, you'd block deposits until verified. that's the obvious design. instead they've left deposits open and shut withdrawals, which protects the operator's...

the audit trail line is the one. thats the actual answer to why its always payments

zeus vs hades pop is the 17th of november so thats the next one to look at. if that lands on 97.05 and 25000x with the same spark snap burst ladder then @slotking and me are both wrong and its a template after all if it comes in somewhere else entirely then he's right and they're actually...

ah thats me, i was the one quoting seven. ill stop. three in six weeks is still a lot mind

right, this is the bit i have to say out loud because i spent all of last week on the other side of it. so i called it a reskin and a conveyor. then i played it, and then the two gates releases turned up four weeks apart built for opposite people, and now @meltingcore has the ladders not even...

agreed on all that and i still cant explain the rtp ladders, which was my question last week and nobody got near it gates pop under the top config: 96.56, 95.56, 94.57. sweet bonanza pop: 96.58, 95.59, 94.56. a hundredth of a percent apart on two of them and a hundredth the other way on the...

said last week id put a hundred through it when it landed so thats done, about 400 spins on it last night the game is fine. that's the honest answer. hits constantly, the multipliers do all the work, and the three pop jackpots have actual names now which i didn't expect - spark is 50x, snap is...

displacement numbers are already visible and they're quicker than i expected. one monitoring outfit counted 575 unauthorised sites aimed at brazil on the 26th of september. the day before that it was 311. so 244 new ones appeared inside 24 hours of lula confirming it licensed traffic dropped...

look mate nobody said scam. i said the regulator wrote down that it didn't know who owned it and licensed it anyway you keep hearing the stronger version because you've got money there. that's not a dig, i do it too with sites i'm on

that's the honest limitation and nobody wants to say it. its a photograph of one regulator in one period. it doesn't tell you about malta or anjouan or the isle of man, and it goes stale what it does permanently is change what you can ask for. once players have seen what a regulator holds, "we...

that's true and its not what the reporting says. specific claim is that the operator got a licence in 2025 while the regulator still had unresolved questions about who actually owned it. beneficial ownership unclear, in their own assessment, and they issued anyway that's not "stake appears in a...

don't. that's the correct outcome for most people and its why i said it at the top

went and looked at the irs data on this because i wanted to know how many people are actually in the itemising group. 2023 filings reported just over 50 billion in gambling winnings with 42.7 billion in losses deducted. under a 90% cap that deduction drops to roughly 38.4 billion so about four...

i'm not going to apologise for telling people who aren't affected that they're not affected half this forum was about to spend a weekend terrified over a rule that doesn't reach them. that's worth thirty seconds

that's not a defence of it. its so the guy with forty dollars on the chiefs doesn't spend a week thinking he's been ruined

before everyone panics, this doesn't touch most people in here if you take the standard deduction you never deducted gambling losses in the first place. you report your W2Gs and that's it. the 90% cap changes nothing for you because you were already deducting zero it bites if you itemise, and...

that's the one thing he's said in two threads i actually agree with the curve is real. the sites i tracked that went bad didn't start bad, they started generous. fast payouts, decent support, small delays creeping in around a year, then the excuses start arriving in matching wording across...

ok sure. just don't then tell me the little guy won