Payment methods

Each method page carries a table of the casinos in this catalogue whose banking and help pages we have read ourselves. Three of its columns need a word of explanation, and it is the same explanation on every method, so it is here rather than repeated fifteen times.

"Not stated" in the withdraw column means the operator lists the method among its deposit options without publishing which methods pay out. That is a gap in what the casino tells you, not a confirmation that the route is closed — and it is common enough that treating it as a "no" would misrepresent most of the catalogue. Where an operator does state that a method cannot be used for withdrawals, the table says no outright.

The payout time and the cap belong to the casino, not to the method. They are the operator's general payout statement and its overall withdrawal ceiling, which is why one casino shows the same two figures under several different methods. No operator in this catalogue publishes a payout time per method, and that is the single reason these pages do not rank methods by speed: there is nothing to rank them with that the operators have actually published.

On each method page there is a block of lines taken straight from the payment provider's own legal documents: its acceptable-use rules, its protection terms, its fee schedule. They are quoted rather than paraphrased because the wording carries conditions that a summary drops. PayPal's rule on gambling, for instance, ends with "if the operator and customers are located exclusively in jurisdictions where such activities are permitted by law" — a condition, not a ban, and a paraphrase would have to choose one of the two and be wrong half the time.

Those lines are also not arranged into a comparison table. The same heading means different things at different providers: a percentage that Skrill charges on a currency conversion is not the percentage Neteller charges to move money to a bank account, and lining the two up in one column would invite a comparison neither document supports. Where a provider publishes a figure as a table of destinations rather than a single rate, we publish nothing at all — the method is to show a number only when it can be tied to one named operation.

One more consequence of reading the documents rather than the marketing: a protection that the provider advertises on its home page may not apply to a casino deposit at all. That is the case with PayPal's Buyer Protection, and the method page says so with the clause that excludes it.

Every welcome offer in our catalogue has had its terms read in full and quoted with the date of reading. Where those terms name a payment method, the method page shows the sentence — in one of two columns. "Ruled out" means the operator wrote that a deposit by that method does not qualify, is not eligible or is excluded. "Activates the offer" means the operator listed the method among those that do qualify, usually as a debit-card-only or card-and-bank-transfer condition.

Nothing is inferred. An offer that lists Visa and Mastercard as qualifying methods does not, by that fact alone, get published as excluding Skrill, even though in practice it probably does: the operator did not write it, so we do not print it. Clauses where the direction is not stated in words are dropped rather than guessed, and the build is checked by a separate pass that re-reads each quote and disagrees with the parser when the nearest wording points the other way.

The exclusion matters because of where it lives. It is in the promotion terms, not on the cashier screen, and it is applied after the deposit has cleared — at which point the deposit cannot be taken back and the offer cannot be claimed. It is the single most common complaint in UK casino bonuses, and it is almost always unwinnable, because the term was published before the player deposited.