We’re an editorial site, not a casino. Our job is to tell you which operators are worth your money and which aren’t — and we list both the casinos we earn commission from and the ones we don’t, so you get the full picture before you decide. That call doesn’t change based on whether we earn from the operator.
Who runs this site
Beat The Fish has been online since 2005. Joshua Hill — owner and editor in chief — has reviewed US online poker rooms and casinos for the entire run of the site. A small team of contributing reviewers covers specific verticals (poker, blackjack, video poker, bonuses), with the author identified on the published review. Every published review is edited and approved by Joshua before going live. We don’t publish anonymous reviews and we don’t run AI-generated content under fake author names.
What we cover
Beat The Fish reviews online poker rooms and online casinos that accept US players. We evaluate both state-licensed and offshore operators, because each serves a legitimate purpose for different players. State-licensed sites offer regulated consumer protections in the states where they operate; offshore sites remain the practical option for most US players. Every operator’s regulatory status is labelled clearly on its review page so readers can weigh it against their own priorities.
A site clears this bar before we list it
Our review process
Our review framework covers operator terms, games, banking, software, support, and player protections. Published terms and firsthand observations are different kinds of evidence. A documented test identifies its scope and date; it does not imply that every product or payment method was tested. Commercial relationships do not determine the assessment.
How we assess sites
Our written assessments cover the areas below, with criteria appropriate to the product. Poker rooms are evaluated as poker products; a casino’s blackjack rules do not establish the quality of a poker room. Crypto availability is not a prerequisite for good banking. Our numerical ratings are editorial assessments of documented features, terms and player protections. Each review explains its eight category scores and links to its supporting sources. The overall rating is the weighted average, rounded once to one decimal; it is not a measured payout-speed or support-response benchmark. Read the scoring weights and rating bands.
| Area | Review focus |
|---|---|
| Licensing and player protections | Relevant jurisdiction, operator and dispute process |
| Withdrawals | Method, approval, delivery and documented outcomes |
| Offer conditions | Value depends on the complete offer terms |
| Games and product fit | Evaluate the product being reviewed |
| Mobile access | App, browser and feature scope |
| Customer support | Available channels and the quality of documented answers |
| Banking options | Suitable methods, transparent costs and withdrawal access |
| Account usability | Clarity of terms, account tasks and controls |
Read the evidence and trade-offs behind the recommendation. An operator source, a documented player observation and an editorial preference have different scopes. We do not infer missing evidence from a numerical score.
Keeping reviews current
Payment rules, availability, and bonus terms can change. An editorial update date records a page edit; a source-check date records the specific information checked. We use these distinctions when updating reviews:
Review updates identify the facts or guidance that changed. Any new firsthand test needs its own genuine record, including the date, scope, and result. An older observation is not relabelled as a new test when the page is edited.
Automated tools can compare accessible operator pages and flag differences for checking. A fetch, scan date, or generated summary is not proof that the entire review is current or that an offer was personally tested.
Recorded editorial changes appear in the public changelog. Sources and checks describe the basis and scope of particular facts, separately from the page update date.
When we don’t recommend an operator
Some operators get a “not recommended” status despite being legal and operational. The flag is publicly visible on the review and explained in the editorial copy — we don’t silently de-list. Reasons we’ll downgrade or remove an operator include:
- Documented withdrawal slow-rolling beyond ordinary KYC delays
- Predatory bonus terms — wagering above 50×, expiry under 7 days, or max-bet rules disclosed only after the player has claimed
- Misleading regulatory claims — a licence we can’t verify with the issuing authority
- Repeated unresolved complaints we’ve verified across multiple independent sources
- Retroactive T&C changes that void player balances on terms the player never agreed to
- Any approach offering payment, commission uplift, or other incentive to improve a score or remove a review
Editorial independence and the commercial side
We earn most of our revenue from affiliate commissions when readers sign up at operators we recommend. That arrangement is the standard model for independent review sites — and it only works if readers trust the reviews. Here are the lines we hold to keep that trust:
No casino can pay to be added to the site
No casino can pay to improve a score
No casino can pay to remove negative coverage
Commercial partners can be downgraded or removed if their service deteriorates
Keep a public changelog on every review showing what changed and when
Check material changes against the applicable operator source and explain recorded updates in the public changelog.
We earn commissions from some of the operators we recommend when readers sign up through our links. This doesn’t affect our editorial assessments — we review brands honestly regardless of whether we have a commercial relationship with them. We also include operators we have no relationship with, particularly state-regulated US casinos, because we think readers deserve a complete view of their options. We receive no compensation for these mentions.
How we use AI
AI tools can assist with source comparison, research, copy-editing, and structural review. Extracted facts need to be checked against their sources; an automated comparison is not independent evidence that an operator pays reliably or that a player completed a test.
Editorial responsibility stays with the publisher. AI cannot make a deposit, receive a withdrawal, or establish firsthand experience on our behalf. Claims of personal testing must describe authentic observations. Recommendations and scores remain editorial assessments, distinct from automated output.
Corrections
We make mistakes. When we do, we correct them publicly — not silently. Spotted something wrong? Tell us via our contact form. We read every report and respond, usually within 48 hours. When we issue a correction, the review’s changelog records what changed and when. Material errors that affect a recommendation get flagged at the top of the page until the next test cycle catches up.
Common questions
Can a casino pay to be added to the site?
No. We pick what we cover based on whether US players actually use it and whether we can verify it ourselves. A casino offering us money to be reviewed isn’t a casino we’d want to recommend.
Can a casino pay to improve its score?
No. Commercial relationships do not determine the editorial assessment. Factual corrections and new evidence can change a recommendation; those changes are recorded in the review changelog.
What happens when a casino's bonus terms change?
A material change to wagering, payment limits, or eligibility calls for a check against the applicable operator terms. Recorded updates explain what changed in the public changelog. Check dates apply to the specific facts and sources identified.
Why do you include offshore casinos at all?
Because for most US players, offshore is the only option. Only a handful of states have a regulated online casino market, and outside those states offshore sites are what people actually use. Pretending they don’t exist or refusing to review them doesn’t make them go away — it just leaves players to figure it out from worse sources. We label every offshore operator clearly, show its licensing on the review page, and explain what “offshore” means for a player’s protections. See our state-by-state guide for the current legal status where you live.
How do I report something I think is wrong?
Use our contact form. Include the URL, the specific claim you’re disputing, and any evidence you have. We read every report and reply, usually within 48 hours.
Do you use AI to write reviews?
AI may assist with research, source comparison, editing, and organization. The publisher remains responsible for the review. AI output is not firsthand experience, and any claim of personal testing must be supported by an authentic observation.
What if a casino disputes a review?
We’ll consider factual disputes if the casino can provide documentation that we recorded something incorrectly. We won’t change opinions, soften negative copy, or move scores because a casino objects. Any improper approach — offering payment or threatening legal action over a review — gets noted in the review itself.
Editorial inquiries, corrections, story tips, takedown requests, or feedback on this policy: contact us. We read and respond to every editorial message personally — usually within 48 hours.