On this page (7 sections)
RainyBet's scoring method is a weighted average of five criteria — bonus terms transparency, payout & withdrawal behaviour, game fairness & verification, VIP/rakeback value, and support & account handling — applied identically to every crypto casino we review.
This page exists so the scores on this site aren't a black box. Every number in a review, comparison or ranking traces back to one of the five criteria below, weighted exactly as stated here. Nothing else influences where a brand sits — only the five weighted criteria below determine a score.
The five criteria and their weights
| Criterion | Weight | What it actually checks |
|---|---|---|
| Bonus terms transparency | 25% | Whether the wagering multiple, expiry window, max-bet rule, game weighting and cashout cap are published as fixed, quotable figures — not how large the headline bonus number is. A brand that clearly states a modest offer scores higher here than one with a large offer and vague terms. |
| Payout & withdrawal behaviour | 25% | How clearly deposit and withdrawal mechanics are explained: network handling, confirmation requirements, KYC triggers and processing times. We weight clarity and consistency of published process as heavily as any figure we can independently observe. |
| Game fairness & verification | 20% | Whether provably fair verification is published in a form a player can actually check — server seed, client seed, nonce and the hashing method used — rather than asserted as a marketing claim with nothing to verify against. |
| VIP/rakeback value | 15% | How a rakeback or VIP mechanic is structured: whether it pays as withdrawable balance or locked bonus funds, whether the ladder and its rates are documented, and whether the advertised ceiling is reachable by an ordinary player or only by the top tier. |
| Support & account handling | 15% | Consistency between what account terms state and what our own test tickets and account creation process actually found, including how clearly account-level limits and self-exclusion tools are surfaced. |
Bonus terms transparency and payout behaviour together make up half of every score, deliberately. A large headline offer with vague terms costs more under this method than a small, clearly stated one — our house edge guide and best crypto casinos 2026 post both work through why that trade-off is deliberate rather than an oversight.
How a score is actually assigned
Four steps, applied the same way for every brand we review
- We read the operator's own published terms first — cashier pages, promotions terms, help centre articles — rather than a third-party summary of them.
Where people trip up: Third-party summaries go stale fast and often repeat each other's mistakes. We go to the operator's own current page every time.
- We test what's directly checkable ourselves: account signup flow, whether a provably fair verification method is published and functional, and how support responds to a real test ticket.
Where people trip up: This step is what separates a claim from a verified fact — anything we couldn't personally check gets treated as unverified, not assumed true.
- Each of the five criteria gets scored independently against what we found, then combined using the published weights above.
Where people trip up: No single criterion can be overridden by a strong score elsewhere — a large bonus does not buy back points lost on unclear terms.
- Any figure that isn't published as a fixed, quotable number gets marked rather than estimated, and that gap counts against the relevant criterion rather than being ignored.
Where people trip up: A brand does not get credit for a wagering figure we couldn't confirm, even if it's likely to be reasonable — unpublished stays unpublished until we can quote it.
What evidence we accept
- The operator's own current terms pages, promotions pages and help centre articles
- Our own account creation, signup flow and provably fair verification tests, run directly
- Our own support test tickets, compared against what the operator's account terms state
- Published, checkable licence and registration information, where an operator makes it available
What we do not accept as evidence: unverified third-party forum claims, another review site's numbers, or an operator's own marketing copy where it conflicts with its terms pages. If a figure only exists as a marketing claim with nothing behind it to check, we treat it the same as an unpublished figure.
How often we re-check a score
Bonus terms, catalogues and support processes change without notice, so every score on this site is re-checked on a rolling basis rather than frozen at first publication. The date shown in each page's byline and in the site footer reflects our last confirmed pass, not the original publish date. A brand's score can move up or down between passes purely because its own published terms changed — we do not need a reason beyond that to update a review.
How unverified figures are handled
When a figure is not published by the operator as a fixed, quotable number at the time we last checked, we say so plainly rather than printing an invented number. It is not a stylistic choice — it's the alternative to guessing. A wagering multiple, a licence number or a restricted-country list either has a confirmable public source, or we decline to state it as fact. We would rather show a visible gap than a plausible-looking number nobody can verify.
Why this matters more than it looks like it should
A made-up wagering figure is worse than no figure at all, because it looks exactly as authoritative as a real one until someone tries to rely on it. We say so plainly specifically so you can tell the difference at a glance.
What this method cannot do
Being honest about the limits of this system matters as much as explaining how it works. It cannot score a brand's actual payout speed for your specific withdrawal, since that depends on network conditions, KYC status and account history we can't observe in advance. It cannot guarantee an offer's terms haven't changed since our last check — always confirm live terms in your own account before depositing. And it measures a brand against our fixed criteria, not against your personal bankroll or play pattern — a lower-scored brand can still be the better personal fit for a specific scenario, as our full ranking explains directly.
Every review, scored the same way
The five brands we track, each reviewed against the exact method above:
- Rainbet review — scored 4.8/5 under this method
- Stake review — scored 4.6/5 under this method
- Roobet review — scored 4.4/5 under this method
- BC.Game review — scored 4.2/5 under this method
- Thrill review — scored 4.1/5 under this method
- Shuffle review — scored 4.0/5 under this method
- Gamdom review — scored 3.9/5 under this method
See the full, ranked list with row-by-row reasoning on our crypto casino rankings page, or the ranked write-up version on best crypto casinos 2026.
Licence, geo-restrictions and playing safely
Licensing. Access is blocked in a number of countries and US states, and the list is maintained by the operator rather than published as a stable document. The current restricted list and licence details live on the operator’s own terms page — read them before you register.
Your side of it. Crypto casinos settle fast, which is exactly what makes them easy to overplay. Before your first deposit at these operators, set a deposit cap and a session timer in the account settings — not in your head.
- Deposit limits and self-exclusion tools live in account settings, not support chat
- A losing session is not a signal to raise the stake — it is a signal to stop
- Bonus turnover targets are not a reason to keep playing past your limit
- Free, confidential help: BeGambleAware and Gambling Therapy