Discussion about article: How we review online casinos (page 3)

Hello, thank you for your patience. I believe I understand the problem, but loyalty bonuses are a bit of an edge case for mediation because they fall between no-deposit and deposit bonuses, each with their own special conditions. You are welcome to lodge a complaint, but I cannot promise the request will be accepted.

Totally agree blanket warnings don’t help much without a name

Good morning, I submitted a review of Papibet Casino and it was rejected by Guru. I made two deposits and noticed that they operate with a low RTP, which means the house always wins. My goal was to warn people not to waste their money, because casinos that operate with low RTP just want to win and don’t operate fairly. Therefore, since my warning was rejected, the responsibility lies with Guru, since this casino is on your list.

Signed: Paulo

Hello, and thanks for reaching out. You know it takes more than a feeling that the RTP is lower for it to be published as a casino review, because, as you said, we are responsible for the content published on our website. Imagine the casino sending an email stating that the RTP is okay and games are licensed. We would retroactively reject the review anyway.

But I feel you, and I appreciate your efforts.

Such text is exactly the material for the forum. "I thought the casino was really bad; it operates with a very low RTP, even though it has plenty of slots. I played a few of them, and they barely loaded. With 10 years of gaming experience, I can tell when a casino has a low RTP." However, I suggest getting in touch with GameCheck; that's our way to get players with such suspicion to the best source, and the reason why we have added this into the casino review: https://casino.guru/papi-games-casino-review 👈