By Every gambling site reviewed on Asia Gaming Brief goes through the same process. A site must first pass our licence gate, then we score it on six weighted tests, and the result is a single score out of 10. This page explains each step, the evidence behind it and how we keep reviews current across the markets we cover: Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia.
Step one: the licence gate
Before we look at games, odds or payments, we check one thing: does the site hold a valid licence that is recognised for the reader’s market? We confirm this on the regulator’s own public register, not on the operator’s footer badge or a third party list. In Australia, for example, that means the register of licensed wagering providers published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Where a market has a single authorised operator or a state run provider, we check that the brand in front of the reader is the one the regulator names.
The rule is simple: no licence, no listing. A site that cannot be matched to a regulator’s register is not reviewed, scored or ranked, regardless of any commercial agreement. We explain how our partnerships work, and why they never change this rule, on our advertiser disclosure page.
Markets where online casinos are not licensed
Online gambling rules differ a great deal across Asia-Pacific. In Australia, online casino games are not offered by licensed operators, while online sports and racing wagering is licensed. In New Zealand, the Department of Internal Affairs is introducing a licensing system for online casinos and expects to begin issuing licences from early 2027; until then, online racing and sports betting is provided by TAB NZ, as set out on the DIA’s guidance for players. In most of the Asian markets we cover, online casinos are not licensed for local players.
Where that is the case, our casino pages are informational. They explain the local rules, what is available legally and what to look for, and our scored reviews cover only the licensed products in that market, such as licensed sportsbooks and lotteries. Our online casinos in Australia page is one example of this approach.
Step two: six weighted tests
Once a site passes the licence gate, we score it on six tests. Each test produces a sub-score from 0 to 10, and each sub-score is multiplied by a fixed weight. The weights add up to 100%, and the total is the site’s score out of 10.
Where our evidence comes from
We base every sub-score on evidence that a reader could check for themselves:
- the regulator’s public register and any published regulator decisions;
- the operator’s own terms and conditions, banking page, promotions terms and help centre;
- public screenshots taken from an IP address in the target market, so we see what a local visitor sees.
We do not open accounts or make deposits to produce a review. Everything we score is based on what the operator publishes and what the regulator records. Our wider standards for sourcing and corrections are set out in our editorial policy.
Test 01: Licensing & safety (25%)
This is the heaviest weight because it underpins everything else. Passing the licence gate gets a site into the review; this test measures how well the operator meets the standards that come with that licence.
What we check: that the licence is current and covers the product being reviewed; that the licence holder named on the register matches the company named in the site’s terms; whether identity verification (KYC) is explained clearly, including when it happens and what documents are needed; and whether the privacy policy explains how personal and payment data is stored and used.
Scores high: a licence that is easy to match on the register, a clearly named licence holder, a plain explanation of verification steps and a privacy policy that is specific about data handling.
Scores low: a mismatch between the brand and the licence holder that the operator does not explain, vague verification rules, or a regulator action on record that has not been resolved.
Test 02: Payouts (20%)
A good payout process is fast, cheap and predictable with the payment methods people actually use in that market.
What we check: the withdrawal methods listed for the reader’s market, the stated processing times, any fees, minimum and maximum withdrawal amounts, and rules such as having to withdraw to the same method used to deposit. Our full approach is explained in how we rate payment methods.
Scores high: local methods available for both deposits and withdrawals, published processing times, no withdrawal fees and clear limits.
Scores low: processing times that are not stated, fees that only appear deep in the terms, or few local options for withdrawals.
Test 03: Games & odds (15%)
This test looks at the product itself, and what we measure depends on what is licensed.
What we check: for sportsbooks, the depth of markets and the betting margin built into the odds, which we calculate from published prices. For licensed casino or lottery products, we look at library size, whether return to player (RTP) figures are disclosed, and whether game rules are easy to find.
Scores high: broad coverage of the sports and events that matter in that market, competitive margins and published RTP or prize structures.
Scores low: thin market coverage, high margins, or game information that is missing or hard to find.
Test 04: Bonus terms (15%)
Bonus rules vary by market. Where offers are allowed, we read the full terms rather than the headline. Where they are restricted, we apply the law of that market. In Australia, for example, the National Consumer Protection Framework prohibits online wagering providers from offering inducements to open an account.
What we check: wagering requirements, maximum win or withdrawal caps, expiry periods, eligible products and how clearly all of this is explained. In markets where sign-up offers are not permitted, we assess the clarity and fairness of the promotions an operator may lawfully run, and a site is never marked down for not offering a sign-up bonus that the law does not allow.
Scores high: low or no wagering requirements, no hidden caps, and terms written in plain language on the same page as the offer.
Scores low: high wagering, short expiry periods, caps that are hard to find, or terms that contradict the promotion page.
Test 05: Support (10%)
When something goes wrong with a withdrawal or a bet, readers need a quick and clear answer in a language they are comfortable with.
What we check: the support channels listed (live chat, email, phone), published opening hours and response times, whether support is offered in the local language of the market, and how complete the help centre is.
Scores high: several channels, long opening hours, local-language support and a help centre that answers common questions about verification, payments and limits.
Scores low: email only, no stated response times, or support that is not available in the market’s main language.
Test 06: Responsible gambling tools (15%)
Good tools let people stay in control of their own play. We look at what an operator provides and how easy it is to use.
What we check: deposit limits, time-outs, reality checks, activity statements and self-exclusion, plus links to local support services and national schemes. In Australia, licensed wagering providers are part of BetStop, the national self-exclusion register, and we check that this is explained. Our responsible gambling page lists support services by market.
Scores high: limits that can be set at sign-up and lowered instantly, clear time-out and self-exclusion options, and visible links to local help.
Scores low: tools that are only available by contacting support, limits that are slow to take effect when lowered, or no mention of local help services.
How the final score is calculated
Each sub-score is multiplied by its weight, and the six results are added together. The worked example below shows the arithmetic.
This is an illustrative example only. It does not describe any real brand.
| Test | Sub-score (0 to 10) | Weight | Weighted result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 Licensing & safety | 9.0 | 25% | 9.0 x 0.25 = 2.25 |
| 02 Payouts | 7.5 | 20% | 7.5 x 0.20 = 1.50 |
| 03 Games & odds | 8.0 | 15% | 8.0 x 0.15 = 1.20 |
| 04 Bonus terms | 6.0 | 15% | 6.0 x 0.15 = 0.90 |
| 05 Support | 7.0 | 10% | 7.0 x 0.10 = 0.70 |
| 06 Responsible gambling tools | 8.5 | 15% | 8.5 x 0.15 = 1.275 |
| Total | 100% | 7.825, shown as 7.8 / 10 |
The example site scores well on licensing and responsible gambling tools, which together carry 40% of the weight, so a weaker bonus score has a limited effect on the total.
We round the final score to one decimal place. Because licensing and safety carries a quarter of the weight, a site with strong bonuses but weak safety standards cannot reach the top of our rankings.
How the review process runs
- Licence check. We match the brand and licence holder on the regulator’s public register for the reader’s market.
- Evidence collection. We save the operator’s current terms, banking page, promotion terms and help pages, and take public screenshots from an IP address in the target market.
- Scoring. We score each of the six tests from 0 to 10 using the criteria on this page.
- Calculation. We apply the weights and round the total to one decimal place.
- Publication. The review goes live with a “Last verified” date showing when the evidence was last checked.
- Re-checks. We re-verify on a rolling schedule and straight away when a trigger event happens.
Keeping reviews current
Every review shows a “Last verified” date. That date tells you when we last confirmed the licence on the regulator’s register and re-read the terms behind the score. We re-check reviews on a rolling schedule, and some events trigger an immediate re-check:
- a change to the operator’s licence, such as a new licence holder, a suspension or a lapse;
- regulator action, such as a published investigation, a fine or a formal warning;
- a change to the operator’s terms, including banking rules, withdrawal limits or promotion terms;
- a change in the law of the market, for example new rules on payment methods or advertising.
If a re-check shows the site no longer holds a valid licence for that market, it is removed from our listings until the licence is restored. If the score changes, we update it and the “Last verified” date together.
A score applies to one market. The same brand can score differently in two countries because licences, payment methods, bonus rules and support languages differ. Always read the review for the market you live in.
Market rules come first
What is licensed, and for whom, depends on where you live. We cover licensed options market by market so readers can see what is available to them and how each option compares. Each market page explains the local framework in plain terms, names the regulator and links to its register where one is published, so readers can make their own informed choice.
Commercial partnerships and our ratings
Asia Gaming Brief is published by AGBrief Ltd and has covered the Asia-Pacific gambling industry for more than a decade. Some of the sites we review are commercial partners, and we may earn a commission when a reader signs up through our links. This never changes the licence gate: a partner without a valid licence for the reader’s market is not listed. Partnerships also do not change the weights, the tests or the evidence we use. Full details are on our advertiser disclosure page.
If you spot something on a review that looks out of date, or you have a question about our method, contact us at [email protected]. We check every report against the regulator’s register and the operator’s current terms, and update the review where needed.
