Mr Vegas
Pros
Cons
Rating Breakdown
Every criterion of our published 100-point method, with the points it earned here and the fact that produced them. Criteria we have not measured are marked Not assessed and take no part in the score — they are not counted as zero, and they are not filled with what Mr Vegas says about itself.
Assessed so far: 28 of 100 points, of which this casino earned 12.
| CRITERION | POINTS | WHAT DECIDED IT |
|---|---|---|
| 01 · Bonuses nothing assessed of 20 | ||
| Wagering requirement | — | Not assessed: no welcome offer with terms read on a dated snapshot. |
| Cash-out cap & expiry | — | Not assessed: bonus terms not read yet. |
| Terms you can actually read | — | Not assessed: bonus terms not read yet. |
| Value at a normal deposit | — | Not assessed: minimum qualifying deposit not read yet. |
| 02 · Games 0/6 assessed of 20 | ||
| Library & provider mix | — | Not assessed: 23 studios are named on the site, but we have not counted the library ourselves. |
| RTP transparency | 0/6 | No return-to-player figure or policy published anywhere on the pages we captured. |
| Live dealer | — | Not assessed: the live lobby could not be read without an account. |
| Demo play before deposit | — | Not assessed: demo play not tried on this lobby yet. |
| 03 · Payouts nothing assessed of 20 | ||
| Withdrawal time, measured | — | Not assessed: we have not withdrawn our own money from this casino. |
| Fees & limits | — | Not assessed: the banking pages we captured state neither a withdrawal fee nor a limit. |
| Verification | — | Not assessed: no list of documents is published on the pages we captured. |
| Method coverage | — | Not assessed: the site lists deposit methods without saying which of them pay out. |
| 04 · Security 11/20 assessed of 20 | ||
| Licence found in a public register | 6/6 | Domain found in the UKGC register against Videoslots Limited, checked Aug 26, 2026. |
| Regulatory action in the last 5 years | 0/4 | One case on the regulator's register, most recent Jun 15, 2023, largest £2,000,000. Scores 0: a penalty of £1m or more. |
| Ownership transparency | 2/4 | A licensee company is named, but the account number in the footer does not confirm it. |
| Complaint route | 3/3 | IBAS named, alongside the regulator that licenses the domain. Listed in the IBAS directory as "Mr Vegas", checked Aug 27, 2026. |
| Independent testing | 0/3 | No testing house named. |
| 05 · Mobile nothing assessed of 10 | ||
| Loading & stability | — | Not assessed: measured on a real handset with a funded account, which we have not done here. |
| Doing the job on a phone | — | Not assessed: measured on a real handset with a funded account, which we have not done here. |
| App parity | — | Not assessed: measured on a real handset with a funded account, which we have not done here. |
| 06 · Support 1/2 assessed of 10 | ||
| First response, timed | — | Not assessed: scored from three timed live-chat contacts, which we have not made here. |
| Answer quality | — | Not assessed: scored from three timed live-chat contacts, which we have not made here. |
| Channels & hours | 1/2 | email offered, without a round-the-clock commitment we could read. |
Who you are actually playing with
A casino brand is not a company. Mr Vegas is operated by Videoslots Limited, and that company — not the brand on the homepage — is the party holding your money, answering a complaint and appearing in the regulator's records. Its oldest active UKGC licence has run since November 2014.
Other sites run by the same company
These 3 domains are registered to Videoslots Limited in the same register entry. This matters for three practical reasons: a self-exclusion applied by the operator normally covers all of them, your verification documents are usually recognised across them, and a “different casino” offering you a fresh welcome bonus may be the same company you already have an account with.
Sister brands we have reviewed
One other brand in our catalogue is operated by Videoslots Limited. Their reviews are built from the same register entry and carry the same enforcement record as this page, because a penalty lands on the company rather than on the brand name.
Trading names on the same licence
Names Videoslots Limited has registered with the regulator. A name missing from this list is not proof of anything — operators only have to register the ones they trade under — but a name that is here can be tied to this licence.
Regulatory action on record
The Gambling Commission publishes the cases it settles. Below is every published case we can tie to the company behind Mr Vegas — not an allegation from a forum, and not our opinion, but a regulator's own record of what it found and what it cost. A fine is not automatically a reason to avoid a casino: what matters is what it was for and whether the same failure could reach your money.
| DATE | PENALTY | CASE |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Jun 2023 | £2,000,000 |
Videoslots Limited to pay £2m for regulatory failures
Against Videoslots Limited |
Videoslots Limited will pay £2 million after social responsibility and anti-money laundering failures were uncovered during a Commission investigation.
- not ensuring that customers displaying risk behaviours were identified as potentially experiencing harm because responsible gambling reviews were not undertaken as early, or as well, as they should have been.
- failing to identify whether a customer was at risk of experiencing harm by not considering whether the amount being deposited or lost was appropriate.
- allowing customers showing indicators of harm to continue to gamble significant amounts after interactions despite their behaviour continuing.
Quoted from the Commission's own notice — Videoslots Limited to pay £2m for regulatory failures.
Source: the Gambling Commission's enforcement-action feed, mirrored 26 Aug 2026. Cases are tied to an operator through the licensee company named in the register, so a case may cover sister brands run by the same company.
Where these facts come from
Everything above about the offer, the payment methods and the studios was read from Mr Vegas's own pages on the date below — not from another review site, and not from a press release. The page is fingerprinted so we can prove what it said on the day we read it, because the same URL serves different content on different visits.
| Page read | https://www.mrvegas.com/ |
| Date of the copy we read | Aug 25, 2026 |
| How we reached it | Fetched directly from the operator's site. |
| UK version confirmed | No — treat currency-specific figures with caution |
| SHA-256 of that page | 8518b0f2e3dba94a245146d531ef17bc6c34ba233a23cbd0ed44e4efca6f2f3e |
How we verified this
Our test protocol has 9 checks. On Mr Vegas we have run 1, and 8 are still untested — printed below as such. An untested line is never left blank and never counts as a pass: under our evidence rule, the criteria it feeds are not scored at all until we have done it, and their points leave the total this casino is scored out of.
- Method
- We look the domain up in our own mirror of the regulator's public register — not on the operator's site, where the claim costs nothing to make.
- Result
- Found: Videoslots Limited, account 39380 — 4 active licence(s).
- Artefact
- UKGC public register snapshot of 24 Aug 2026 (2,658 licensed businesses, sha256 974838837f9d). source
- Run by
- Automated register match (registry:match-operators)
- Method
- We register as a normal player, pass whatever verification is asked at sign-up, and deposit our own money — never a comped or affiliate-funded balance.
- Result
- Not tested yet. Nothing on this page claims otherwise, and the payouts points that depend on it are not scored — they are taken out of the total, not counted as a failure.
- Would produce
- The amount, the method and the date, printed below. Cashier confirmation kept on file.
- Method
- One withdrawal, timed from the moment the request is submitted to the moment funds land — including any pending period the casino applies. The clock is not stopped for weekends.
- Result
- Not tested yet. Nothing on this page claims otherwise, and the payouts points that depend on it are not scored — they are taken out of the total, not counted as a failure.
- Would produce
- Both timestamps, the elapsed time and the method used.
- Method
- We record the date of every document request against the date of the withdrawal request.
- Result
- Not tested yet. Nothing on this page claims otherwise, and the payouts points that depend on it are not scored — they are taken out of the total, not counted as a failure.
- Would produce
- The list of documents asked for and the day each was requested.
- Method
- The full terms page is read on the date shown, and four numbers are pulled out: wagering basis and multiplier, max bet while wagering, cash-out cap and expiry.
- Result
- Not tested yet. Nothing on this page claims otherwise, and the bonuses points that depend on it are not scored — they are taken out of the total, not counted as a failure.
- Would produce
- The four numbers, the date they were read, and a link to the terms page they came from.
- Method
- We count titles and live tables in the logged-in lobby ourselves, on the date shown, rather than repeating the number in the operator's footer.
- Result
- Not tested yet. Nothing on this page claims otherwise, and the games points that depend on it are not scored — they are taken out of the total, not counted as a failure.
- Would produce
- Our count, the operator's claim, and the gap between them.
- Method
- RTP is configurable by the operator, so one number lies. We open the game's own info panel at this casino and compare it with the provider's published default for the same title.
- Result
- Not tested yet. Nothing on this page claims otherwise, and the games points that depend on it are not scored — they are taken out of the total, not counted as a failure.
- Would produce
- Both figures and the title they were read from.
- Method
- Three chats at three different times of day, each opened with a question that has a checkable answer in the terms. We time the first human reply and grade the answer against those terms.
- Result
- Not tested yet. Nothing on this page claims otherwise, and the support points that depend on it are not scored — they are taken out of the total, not counted as a failure.
- Would produce
- Three response times, the median, and how many answers were correct.
- Method
- A 20-minute session on a named mid-range Android over 4G: deposit, withdrawal, live chat and deposit limits all reached from the phone.
- Result
- Not tested yet. Nothing on this page claims otherwise, and the mobile points that depend on it are not scored — they are taken out of the total, not counted as a failure.
- Would produce
- The device and OS used, time to an interactive lobby, and anything that broke.
Protocol version 1.0, last changed 2 August 2026 — the same 9 checks are printed on every casino review, in this order, whether we passed them or not. We re-run them at least every 90 days. Read the protocol in full on how we rate.
What the operator's own documents say
Every line below was read from Mr Vegas's own banking, help and terms pages on 25 August 2026, and each page was stored with a checksum so the reading can be re-checked. Nothing here is our own measurement: it is what the casino publishes about itself, which is a different and weaker kind of evidence.
| Support channels | |
| GAMSTOP | Not named on the pages we read |
THE PAGES THIS TABLE WAS READ FROM (1)
The same company as Videoslots, and why that is the useful fact
mrvegas.com resolves in the Gambling Commission register to <strong>Videoslots Limited</strong>, account 39380 — the same licensee as videoslots.com, videoslots.co.uk and megariches.com. Four domains, one company, one enforcement history.
Two brands under one licensee usually share more than they advertise: the same platform, the same payment processing, often the same terms template and the same compliance decisions. Where they differ is presentation and promotion, which is the part designed to make them look like alternatives.
The supplier list bears that out. We recorded the same twenty-three studios here as on the sister brand — NetEnt, Evolution, Big Time Gaming, Hacksaw, Push Gaming, Playtech, Microgaming, Red Tiger, Blueprint, Light & Wonder, Yggdrasil, Relax, Thunderkick, Quickspin, Playson, Wazdan, Inspired, Eyecon, Gamevy, Pariplay, Ezugi, Real Dealer and Stakelogic.
If you are choosing between the two, the choice is about interface, promotions and whichever offer you can actually read — not about which company holds your money, because that answer is the same.
Support: one channel, and what that costs
The only support channel we could confirm is e-mail, and not on a round-the-clock basis. That scores one of two on the channels-and-hours criterion, and it is worth more attention than a single point suggests.
The moment support matters is not when you are choosing a casino; it is when a withdrawal has not arrived and the reason is unclear. At that point the difference between live chat at midnight and an e-mail queue is the difference between an answer tonight and an answer in two working days.
It is possible the site offers live chat behind a login, or on a page we could not reach — several operators do exactly that. What we can say is that we did not find one on the pages available to us, and our method scores what is published rather than what might exist.
Our own protocol has two further support criteria — first response, timed, and answer quality — and both are unassessed here. Those require an account and a real question, which is one of the checks that cannot be done from code.
The regulator's record follows the licensee
The £2 million settlement of June 2023 was against Videoslots Limited, so it applies here in full. The Commission's findings — quoted above — describe responsible-gambling reviews that were not carried out promptly, deposit and loss levels not weighed against affordability, and customers continuing to gamble after interactions that changed nothing.
A player reading that should take away one operational point: this operator has been penalised for not intervening in time, so intervention is not something to rely on. Deposit limits, loss limits and session reminders are required of every British licensee and are entirely under your control.
It is also fair to note what a settlement usually brings with it — an agreed action plan and, in several recent cases, an independent audit. The Commission publishes the failure; it does not publish the subsequent assurance work, so we score the finding and say nothing about the remediation.
Under our five-year rule this case costs the full four points until June 2028, at which point it drops out of the window automatically. The date is printed next to the finding for exactly that reason.
What to settle before you deposit
Find out whether live chat exists once you are logged in. If e-mail really is the only channel, decide in advance whether that is acceptable to you — it is a reasonable trade for a good lobby, but it is a trade.
Read the welcome terms on the live British site and run them through our <a href="/bonus-wagering-calculator">wagering calculator</a>. We could not confirm a UK page, so this review deliberately carries no bonus figures at all.
Ask for the ADR provider's name in writing. Our <a href="/guides/how-to-complain-about-a-casino">complaints guide</a> explains why that name is the single most useful thing to have on file before anything goes wrong.
If you already play at Videoslots, remember that this is the same licensee: verification documents, account decisions and any limits applied at company level travel between the two.
Licensing & Security
Held by Videoslots Limited, account 39380.
- Bingo · Remote · 039380-R-319311-036 from 24 Jun 2025
- Casino · Remote · 039380-R-319311-036 from 1 Nov 2014
- General Betting Standard - Real Event · Remote · 039380-R-319311-036 from 7 Dec 2020
- Linked Gambling Software · Remote · 039380-R-319311-036 from 26 Mar 2015
Checked 26 Aug 2026 against the UK Gambling Commission public register, snapshot taken 24 Aug 2026 (2,658 licensed businesses).
A sister brand to Videoslots on the same licence and the same platform, with the same twenty-three-studio supply and a thinner support picture — e-mail only, on the pages we could read. The licensee's £2 million settlement from 2023 stands on the record, the British edition of the site would not open for our reader, and twenty-eight of a hundred assessed points leaves the brand unrated here.
Mr Vegas FAQ
Casinos like Mr Vegas
Picked by what the two catalogues have in common — the studios behind the lobby, the payment methods, the shape of the welcome offer — not by which casino scores highest. The line under each name says what the overlap is.
Or open the index of all 29 casino reviews, where every page carries the same nine checks and the date each one was run.
Player reviews
We do not publish player reviews for Mr Vegas, because we have none we can stand behind. A review section is easy to fill and almost impossible to verify — unverified submissions are the single most gamed part of this industry, in both directions. Until we can tie a review to a real account, this space stays empty rather than borrowed or invented.
Affiliate disclosure: we may earn a commission when you sign up via our links — this never affects our scores. Gambling can be addictive; please play responsibly. GAMSTOP · BeGambleAware.org