The Short Version
PokerSites.org does not publish reviews based on press releases, operator-supplied copy, or "affiliate feed" specifications. Every operator that appears in a recommended list has been tested by a named member of the review team, using a real-money account, across a minimum of three sessions and at least one successful withdrawal. Reviews that cannot meet this standard are marked "limited-testing" and excluded from ranked lists.
This page documents the full protocol so readers can evaluate the site's work on the merits.
The Review Protocol
1. Account Creation and KYC
The reviewer signs up using their real identity and completes the operator's full know-your-customer verification flow — uploading ID, address proof, and (where required) payment-method proof. The KYC experience is logged: how long verification took, how many rounds of document upload were required, and whether support needed to be contacted.
Operators that cannot complete KYC within seven business days or that request documents beyond the regulator-mandated standard are flagged in the review.
2. Deposit Testing
The reviewer funds the account using their own money via two different deposit methods where possible (typically one card-based and one e-wallet or bank method). Deposit times, fees, and any rejection or friction events are recorded.
The site does not ask operators for review credit or comped deposits. Reviews are funded out of the publication's own testing budget, which is ring-fenced from commercial revenue for conflict-of-interest reasons.
3. Hands-On Play — Minimum 20 Hours
Every reviewer logs a minimum of 20 hours of real-money play across at least three of the following formats:
- No-limit Hold'em cash games (at least two stake levels)
- Pot-limit Omaha cash games
- Multi-table tournaments (at least one mid-stakes MTT)
- Sit-and-go tournaments
- Fast-fold variants (where offered)
- Mobile-only play (at least 25% of total hours)
During play, the reviewer logs hand counts, observed player-pool skill, table-stability events (disconnects, freezes, "all-in insurance" prompts), and any software quirks.
4. Customer Support Testing
Reviewers contact customer support at least three times per review, at varied hours including weekend and off-peak:
- One "easy" query (stake availability, bonus terms)
- One "hard" query (a specific hand-history dispute, a payment question)
- One live-chat test specifically conducted between midnight and 6am operator time
Response times, whether the support agent was human or scripted, and whether the agent's answer was accurate are all logged.
5. Withdrawal Verification
No review is published unless the reviewer has requested — and received — at least one withdrawal. Withdrawal time is measured from request-submitted to funds-cleared in the reviewer's real-world account, not just "funds approved by operator."
Operators that fail to process a reasonable-size withdrawal within the timeframe their own terms promise are disqualified from ranked lists and the failure is documented in the review.
6. Licensing and Compliance Review
The Reviews & Compliance Editor independently verifies:
- The operator's license number on the relevant regulator's public register
- Published responsible-gambling tools (deposit limits, time limits, self-exclusion, reality checks)
- Any active regulatory actions, fines, or advisory letters issued against the operator in the past 24 months
- The operator's complaints history on independent player-protection forums and alternative-dispute-resolution bodies
Operators with an open regulatory action related to player funds, KYC, or responsible-gambling failures are either excluded entirely or flagged with a prominent warning in the review.
7. Scoring
Each review is scored across six weighted categories:
| Category | Weight | What's measured |
|---|---|---|
| Trust & licensing | 25% | License quality, regulatory history, years operating, player-fund segregation |
| Game quality & player pool | 20% | Skill distribution, format variety, traffic at relevant stake levels |
| Software & mobile | 15% | Client stability, mobile feature parity, multi-table support |
| Bonuses & promotions | 15% | Effective value after wagering, not headline number |
| Banking | 15% | Deposit options, withdrawal speed, fee transparency |
| Support & responsibility | 10% | Support quality, responsible-gambling tools, complaint-handling |
The final score is displayed on a 5.0 scale. Any category below 3.0 automatically excludes the operator from the site's overall recommended list regardless of composite score.
8. Ongoing Monitoring
Reviews are not static documents. Every recommended operator is re-tested on a rolling schedule — at minimum every six months — and any reviewer-reported degradation in support, withdrawal times, or traffic quality triggers an off-schedule re-evaluation.
Reviews carry a "last updated" date in the byline. When a re-test causes a material change in the rating, the previous rating is preserved in the article history rather than silently edited.
What PokerSites.org Will Not Do
To make the commitments above concrete, the site explicitly does not:
- Accept paid rankings. No operator has ever paid for, been offered, or been charged for a higher position on any list on the site.
- Publish operator-written reviews. Operators are welcome to submit information about their product; none of that copy makes it into the review body.
- Use undisclosed AI-generated review copy. Where AI tools assist with outlining, grammar, or summarization, this is disclosed. Scoring and the final review body are written by the named reviewer.
- Paper over negative findings. If the review team discovers a problem — delayed withdrawal, soft licensing, hostile terms — the finding is published and the commercial relationship is renegotiated or ended. In multiple cases the site has pulled operators from recommendations while remaining commercially contracted to them.
Corrections and Appeals
Readers and operators can dispute factual claims in any review by emailing editorial@pokersites.org with the specific sentence, the correction requested, and supporting evidence. Corrections backed by verifiable evidence are typically published within 24 hours. The review team does not remove criticism purely because an operator objects to it; the site's obligation is to the reader, not to the operator.