Editorial Guidelines
Operators have paid us for exposure and for placement. None has paid to change what a review concludes, and none has paid to keep a finding off a page.
That distinction is what these editorial guidelines exist to hold. Below is who writes here, what we accept as evidence, what commercial terms decide, and what happens when we get something wrong.
The site is funded by commission. When you sign up to an operator through one of our links, that operator pays us, at no extra cost to you.
The site has been publishing since 2013. It is operated by HHK eCommerce Consulting Ltd from Malta, and more about the company is on our about us page. This editorial policy covers every page on the site, from a poker room review to a strategy guide.
Who Writes What
Every page on this site has a named person behind it rather than a house voice. Below is who covers what.
| Who | Role | What they cover |
|---|---|---|
| João Mourato | Head of iGaming Product | Casino and crypto casino content, including bonus terms, licence checks and cashier findings. Responsible for what the casino section says |
| Mark Patrickson | Head of Poker Content | Poker room reviews, strategy, news and player profiles. Responsible for what the poker section says |
| Telma Casaca | Head of Publishing and Director | Works across both sides, and is a director of the company that owns the site |
Everyone who writes here is part of the team. Some are employed and some work on contract, which changes nothing about how a page gets made. What we do not do is outsource to agencies or content mills, accept guest posts, or publish sponsored articles and paid placements, whatever the fee.
Writing and testing are separate jobs here, so the name on a review is not always the person who opened the account. Who runs the testing, and what they check, is set out on how we test poker rooms and casinos.
Full profiles, including contributors who have written for the site in the past, are on our authors page.
Where Our Information Comes From
Most of what goes wrong on affiliate sites goes wrong at the sourcing stage. A figure gets lifted from an operator’s marketing page, repeated by ten other sites, and becomes true by repetition without anyone having checked it.
| What we use | How it is used |
|---|---|
| A funded account we opened ourselves | The primary source for anything about a cashier, a signup flow or a bonus, and the only source we treat as first hand |
| The terms inside the account | The terms attached to a live bonus are frequently not the terms on the marketing page. Where the two differ, the ones inside the account are what we publish |
| Official sources | Regulators, licensing bodies and public health authorities for anything legal, regulatory or harm related, taken from the issuing body rather than from a site quoting it |
| Our own data | The monthly poker traffic report uses SharkScope data through Poker Industry PRO. Our crypto casino research uses onchain deposit data |
| What players tell us | A source in its own right for what happens over months, which our own testing does not run long enough to see. Where we publish it, we attribute it as player reports rather than as something we saw ourselves |
What we do not treat as a source
- Affiliate manager emails and briefings. Useful for knowing something has changed. Not evidence that it works the way the email says it does.
- Press releases and marketing copy. An operator describing its own bonus is a claim, and we treat it as one until it is checked against the live terms.
- Other affiliate sites. A figure that appears on ten sites is usually one unchecked source repeated ten times.
- Screenshots from an affiliate pack. Supplied images show the product as the operator wants it seen, not as it arrives.
- Anything an AI produced. A language model cannot open an account or read a live cashier, so it is never the origin of a fact on this site. How we do use it is further down.
Where something cannot be checked, it does not go on the page. That rule has cost us claims we would have liked to make, including a testing claim we removed from this site in August 2026 because it turned out to be true of some operators rather than all of them.
Our published research, including the monthly traffic report, is on the research hub.
How We Use AI
We use AI, and we would rather say so than let you assume otherwise.
What it cannot do is the part that matters. A language model cannot open an account, pass verification, deposit money, request a withdrawal, or read the terms attached to a live bonus from inside a cashier. Every finding on this site starts with a person doing one of those things.
That is the whole distinction. AI is used on the writing, never on the evidence.
- A first draft we then take apart. It is faster at getting words onto a page than it is at being right, so nothing it produces survives unedited.
- Arguing with our own reasoning. Asking where a conclusion is weak, what a competitor would say, and which claim on a page cannot be backed up.
- Finding sources, not quoting them. Where it points us at a regulator, a register or a study, we open the original and read it ourselves before anything is published.
- Editing and consistency. Catching contradictions between pages, repeated phrasing and claims that drifted out of date.
Where we do not use it
No fact on this site originates with an AI. If a number cannot be traced back to an account we funded, a document a regulator published, or data we licensed, it does not go on the page.
No generated image is used anywhere that implies first-hand evidence. Screenshots of a cashier, a bonus term or a lobby are real screenshots. Photographs on author profiles are photographs of those people.
Why this takes longer, not less
A page like this one takes hours. Most of that time is spent arguing with a draft rather than accepting it, cutting claims that turned out to be unsupportable, and checking the things it asserted confidently and got wrong.
Used that way it sharpens what we already know. Used the other way it produces exactly the content that made everyone suspicious of AI in the first place.
What Commercial Terms Decide
Every cent this site earns comes from operators. The payment is triggered when a reader registers through a link or a code, and it is structured as revenue share, a one off fee per signup, or a combination of both.
Some operators pay for more than that. A featured position, a place higher in a list, or a slot on a page they would not otherwise hold. That is normal in this industry and we would rather name it than let a list look purely editorial when it is not.
| What a commercial deal can buy | What no amount of money buys |
|---|---|
| A featured or promoted position on a page | A verdict. What a review concludes is not for sale and never has been |
| Where an operator sits in a list of several | The removal of a finding. A slow payout or a bonus that never credits gets published either way |
| Being covered sooner rather than later | Staying on the site. Payment problems end coverage regardless of what an operator is worth to us |
| An exclusive offer we negotiated for readers | Silence. We do not agree to leave something out as a condition of a deal |
The two collide more often than you would think. An operator that pays well is exactly the one it costs most to warn readers about, and that is where a disclosure like this one either holds or falls apart.
We have failed that test in public rather than quietly. Where an operator has been dropped over payments, the page stays up carrying the warning instead of being deleted, because a player already signed up needs it more than a player who is not.
Content Updates and Corrections
Some of what we publish will be wrong. Offers get restructured, conditions are rewritten without announcement, and on the commercial pages accuracy has a shelf life measured in weeks.
Not every change is a correction. Two kinds, handled differently:
| Type of change | What we do |
|---|---|
| Material A figure, a bonus term, a licence detail or a finding that would change what a reader does | Corrected, with a dated note left in the body of the page saying what it previously said and what changed |
| Not material Typos, broken links, formatting, rewording that does not change the meaning | Fixed without a note. Marking these would bury the ones that matter |
Telling us something is wrong
Readers spot these before we do, because an account holder sees balances and conditions that are invisible from outside. Send it through our contact page.
- The page. A link, or the operator and the section it sits in.
- The figure or claim you think is wrong. Quoting the line back to us is quicker than describing it.
- What you are seeing instead. A screenshot from inside your own account settles most of these in one message.
What happens next
We take it back to the primary document, meaning the conditions as they appear inside a live account, or the entry on a regulator’s register. An affiliate manager’s reassurance does not settle it. Where the report holds up, the page changes.
A number changed without a word said about it is not a correction. It is just a different page.
Reviews carry a published date and an updated date above the byline, so you can see when a page last moved. Where the change was material, the note in the body tells you what moved and why.
When a page does not change
Sometimes what you see is genuinely different from what we published. Offers vary by country, by VIP tier and by the date an account was opened, and a term that applies to you may not be the term on the public page.
We say so rather than editing the page to match one account. And where an operator disputes something we verified ourselves, the finding stays until the operator can show us it is wrong.
Compliance and Legal Considerations
Gambling content is regulated differently in every market we publish in, and the rules are aimed at advertising rather than at editorial. We treat them as applying to both.
Nothing on this site is aimed at anyone under 18, or under the legal age where they live if it is higher. Age restrictions are set out in our terms and conditions, and they apply to every promotion we run.
What we do with your data, and what the site collects, is in the privacy policy.
Other people’s work
Content here is original or attributed. Where we cite research, a regulator or another publication, the source is named and linked so you can check it rather than take our word for it.
Our own research is published under the same rule. Data sources are named, including where a provider has a commercial relationship with an operator we cover, because a disclosed conflict is worth more to you than an undisclosed clean one.
Company Information
HHK eCommerce Consulting Ltd
86, Main Street, St. Julians, STJ 1015, Malta
Registration Number: C 62345
VAT: MT21502237
Directors: Dr Hermann Kresse and Telma Casaca
FAQs
Who writes the content on VIP-Grinders?
Each part of the site has one named person responsible for it. João Mourato covers casino and crypto casino content. Mark Patrickson covers poker room reviews, strategy, news and player profiles, and Telma Casaca is Head of Publishing and a director of the company. The name on a review is not always the person who opened the account, because writing and testing are separate jobs here.
Does VIP-Grinders use AI to write reviews?
We use AI on the writing and never on the evidence. A language model cannot open an account, pass verification, deposit money, request a withdrawal or read the terms attached to a live bonus from inside a cashier, so every finding starts with a person doing one of those things. No fact on this site originates with an AI, and no generated image is used anywhere that implies first-hand evidence.
Do casinos pay for better rankings on this site?
Some operators pay for a featured or promoted position, for placement higher in a list, or to be covered sooner. That is normal in this industry and we name it rather than letting a list look purely editorial when it is not. What no amount of money buys is a different verdict, the removal of a finding, or a place on the site once payments to players become unreliable.
Has an operator ever paid to change a review or hide a problem?
No. Operators have paid us for exposure and for placement. None has paid to change what a review concludes, and none has paid to keep a finding off a page. A slow payout or a bonus that never credits gets published either way.
How do I report an error on a page?
Send it through our contact page with the page it is on, the figure or claim you think is wrong, and what you are seeing instead. A screenshot from inside your own account settles most of these in one message. We take it back to the primary document, and where the report holds up the page changes with a dated note in the body saying what moved.
Do you accept guest posts or sponsored articles?
No. We do not accept guest posts, we do not publish sponsored articles or paid placements whatever the fee, and we do not outsource content to agencies or content mills. Everyone who writes here is part of the team and is named on the page, whether they are employed or on contract.