Policy
How we score
The six criteria we rate every operator on, how they are weighted, and what disqualifies a site outright. The method is public so you can check our work.
updated
Every operator on codie.gg is scored on the same six criteria, weighted the same way, so a ranking means the same thing on the UK page as it does on the Thai one. This page is the full method. It is public on purpose: a ranking you cannot check is a ranking you should not trust.
The six criteria and their weights
The overall score out of ten is a weighted average of six numbers. The weights are not equal, because the criteria are not equally important to whether you keep your money.
| Criterion | Weight | What moves it |
|---|---|---|
| Licence and ownership | 25% | Who holds the licence, who owns the company, and whether that is traceable. Malta scores high, Anjouan low. |
| Payout speed | 25% | How long a withdrawal actually took when we tested it, not what the site quotes. |
| Bonus terms | 15% | Wagering multiple, maximum bet, game weighting, and above all the maximum cashout. |
| Game range | 10% | Studio count, live tables, and whether the lobby is real games or padded with clones. |
| Support and verification | 15% | Response time on a real question, and how heavy identity checks get at cashout. |
| Safer-play tools | 10% | Deposit limits, cool-off, self-exclusion, and whether they are easy to find and use. |
Licence and payout speed together carry half the score, because those two decide whether a site can and will pay you. A generous bonus on a site that stalls your withdrawal is worth nothing, and our weighting reflects that.
How we test, not just read
The scores are not desk research. For every operator we open a real account, make a real deposit, play, and withdraw before we publish, timing the payout and noting whether identity verification was demanded at cashout. That test is why the payout-speed number means something: it is measured, not quoted from a help page.
We confirm each licence on the regulator's own register rather than trusting a logo in the site footer, because a footer badge is trivial to fake. And we read the full bonus terms, not the headline, looking specifically for the maximum-cashout clause that quietly caps what a player can win from a bonus.
What disqualifies a site outright
Some findings are not a low score, they are a removal. We will not rank a site that fails to pay a legitimate withdrawal in our testing, that we cannot confirm holds the licence it claims, that displays a fake or expired licence, or that has a documented pattern of voiding balances on invented pretexts. A disqualified site does not appear on our lists at any position.
What the score is not
The score is editorial. It is our judgement, and it is the number that appears in the Review schema on each review page. It is not a user rating, and we do not collect or publish user vote counts, because inventing an aggregate rating is both dishonest and the kind of thing that earns a manual penalty from search engines.
The score is also not a recommendation to gamble. A site can score well and still be the wrong choice for you, because the whole offshore category trades regulatory protection for fewer restrictions. A high score means a site is among the better options if you have already decided to play offshore. It does not mean you should.
When the method changes
If we change a weight, add a criterion, or adjust how we test, we log it on the change log with a date and a reason, and we re-score the affected sites. The method is meant to be stable, but when it moves, it moves in public. The complement to this page is our editorial policy, which covers how the writing and the rankings stay independent of who pays us.