About NotGamStop
NotGamStop is an independent comparison of casinos, slot sites and sportsbooks that hold no UK Gambling Commission licence. It is written by one person, it is funded by affiliate commission, and it does not accept payment for a place in any table.
What is this site?
A reference for people who have decided to look at the offshore market and want the licence and the terms laid out before they deposit. It compares ten operators, each with a checkable Curaçao permit, and it publishes the wagering, the payment methods and the withdrawal window as the operator states them.
What is this site not?
- It is not a casino and does not accept bets.
- It is not regulated by the Gambling Commission and does not claim to be.
- It does not open accounts, deposit money or play at the operators it covers.
- It does not give personal advice on self-exclusion — the guides explain how the scheme works and where the official support services are, but nobody here assesses your situation.
- It does not claim that any operator is safe, guaranteed or risk-free.
How is this site funded?
Through affiliate commission: when a reader follows a link to an operator and registers, the site may be paid. That does not change what is written — the terms are published whether they flatter an operator or not — but it is a commercial relationship and the disclosure page sets out exactly how it works.
What rules does the site hold itself to?
- No claim that we tested, deposited or withdrew. We did not.
- No invented numbers. Every figure comes from a published term or a register.
- No “guaranteed”, “risk-free” or “100% safe”.
- No advice on getting around a self-exclusion.
- Corrections published when they are shown to be right.
Who is this site for?
Adults in Britain who have already decided that a UK-licensed casino is not where they want to play, and who want the offshore market laid out honestly before they deposit. It is not written for people who want a shortcut past a self-exclusion: the guides explain why that does not work, and the support page points somewhere better.
It is also written for people who want to understand the category without joining it. The licence and registration pages are read by journalists, by people checking a claim they saw elsewhere, and by relatives trying to work out what a site is. They are meant to be useful to all three.
What does it cost to read?
Nothing. There is no account, no newsletter wall and no paywall. The only thing you can click that makes money is an operator link, and those are labelled as commercial on the disclosure page. The support page and the legal pages carry no commercial links at all. Some guide pages do include an operator link where the subject makes one relevant — those are marked the same way as everywhere else on the site.
Who writes this site?
Bill Haggins, who has spent a decade reading operator terms, licence registers and payout complaints for UK-facing gambling sites. His background and the checks he applies to each operator are on the author page, and the method behind the ratings is on how we review.
What does the comparison leave out?
There is no section on “best payout speed” and no score for customer service, because neither can be established from published terms alone. The pending periods are listed as the operators state them; what happens after a request is filed is not something this site can observe. Saying so is more useful than inventing a ranking.
There is also no list of every offshore casino. The market has hundreds of domains and most are not worth a page. Ten are compared because ten could be verified, and the rest are left out rather than half-described.
How is the comparison maintained?
Each operator page is checked against three things: the permit register, the operator’s own terms, and the payment methods it lists. When a term changes, the page changes with it. When a permit changes status, that is recorded even if the change is unflattering — the note about GoldenBet’s operating company is there for that reason, not because it makes pleasant reading.
The table is not a league table in the ordinary sense. It is a set of published facts arranged so that the differences between nine similar brands become visible: the wagering figure, the payment menu, whether a sportsbook exists, and whether the bonus conditions are written down at all.
What is covered and what is left out?
Ten operators are compared. That is a small number for a market with hundreds of domains, and it is deliberate. A site can only be checked if it names a company and a permit, and only be reviewed if its terms can be read. Everything else would be a list of names with no evidence behind them.
Slots, betting, bingo and poker each have their own section because they are priced and regulated differently and a reader usually wants one of them rather than all four. The guides sit apart from the commercial pages on purpose: they are written for people who want to understand the scheme, including the people for whom this market is the wrong place to be.
How should you use this site?
Start with the product you actually want. A slot player and a football bettor need different pages, because the terms that matter — wagering on a bonus, margin on a market — are not the same. From there, the comparison tables sort the operators on published facts, and each review explains the one thing that makes that brand worth a page.
If you are not sure whether this market is for you, read the safety guide first. It sets out what a Curaçao permit does and does not protect, and it is the page most likely to change your mind — which is the point of publishing it.
Is the site editorially independent?
No operator has ever been offered, or given, a right to approve a page before publication. Ratings are not negotiated. Where an operator disagrees with a published figure, the response is to check the source and correct the page if the operator is right — not to remove the point.
How are corrections handled?
If something here is wrong, the contact page has the address. Corrections that can be evidenced are made and dated; where a source disagrees with another, the page says so rather than picking the flattering figure.