Get in touch
There is no contact form on this site. The fastest way to reach us is a plain email to [email protected]. Say which page you are writing about and, if you are challenging a fact, link the provider page you are comparing it against. That single line turns a conversation into a check we can finish in minutes.
We do not run a form for the same reason we do not run a live chat widget: a form implies a queue, a queue implies staff, and this is a small editorial operation rather than a support department. An email arrives in the same inbox as everything else and gets read by somebody who can actually change the page.
What we can help with
- Corrections. A specification here that does not match the studio's own page, a broken source link, an out-of-date check date, a demo that will not load.
- Questions about how a review was made. Why a score landed where it did, how long a session log ran, why a maximum win shows a dash instead of the number three other sites publish.
- Provider pages that have changed since we last looked. Studios revise their own figures and do not announce it. Readers spot this before we do more often than we would like to admit.
- Games you would like reviewed. We add slowly and deliberately, but the requests genuinely influence the order.
- Anything on this site that reads as a promise we cannot keep. If a sentence sounds like a guarantee about winning, it is badly written and we want to know.
What we cannot help with
- Deposits, withdrawals and account problems. We are not an operator and we have no access to anybody's account. Those go to the site you registered with, and to your provincial regulator if that site is registered with one - the provincial rules page says who that is.
- Legal advice. We can tell you which platform serves your province and what the legal age is there. We cannot tell you what is lawful in your specific circumstances, and anyone on the internet who says otherwise is guessing.
- Whether you will win. Every spin is resolved independently by the provider's random number generator. There is no read, no pattern and no system, and we will not pretend to have one.
- Gambling harm. This is the one where sending you elsewhere is the responsible answer rather than a brush-off. Free confidential help exists in every province - ConnexOntario covers Ontario, and your provincial health authority runs an equivalent service. Every regulated platform also offers deposit limits and self-exclusion, and setting a limit on the day you open an account takes about a minute.
How to write a correction that gets fixed the same day
Roughly half the corrections we receive take a couple of minutes to verify and half take an afternoon of hunting, and the difference is entirely in how the email is written. What makes the fast half fast:
- The page and the exact sentence. "The specification table on the Buffalo King Megaways review" beats "your Megaways page".
- The provider link. Not a competitor's review, not a database aggregator, not a forum post - the studio's own page for that exact title. This is the single thing that decides whether we can act immediately.
- The exact game name. Six machines share the buffalo theme across four studios, and Buffalo King and Buffalo King Megaways are two different Pragmatic Play releases. A correction that names the wrong one sends us in a circle.
- What you think it should say. Even a rough version. It tells us whether we have a typo, a stale figure or a genuine disagreement about interpretation.
- A screenshot if the demo is misbehaving, with your browser and whether you were on mobile. Demo endpoints belong to the provider and they do occasionally change behaviour without notice.
You do not need to be polite about it. A blunt "your RTP for this game is wrong, here is the provider page" is the most useful message we get.
| What you are writing about | What to include | What happens next |
|---|---|---|
| A specification that looks wrong | The page, the exact figure, and the studio's own link for that title | Checked against the provider and corrected with a note if we have it wrong |
| A demo that will not load | Which game, your browser, and whether you were on mobile | We reload it ourselves; provider demo endpoints do change without notice |
| A score you disagree with | Which part of the reasoning you think is wrong, not just the number | Answered on the merits. Facts get corrected, judgements get explained or defended |
| A game you want reviewed | The title, the studio, and where a Canadian can actually reach it | Added to the queue if it teaches something the five here do not |
| A deposit, withdrawal or account problem | Nothing - we cannot see any operator's systems | Redirected to the operator, and to your provincial regulator if it is a registered one |
| A paid placement or link offer | Nothing | Not answered. The scores are only worth something because they are not for sale |
Corrections policy
If a specification on this site disagrees with the game provider's own page, the provider wins the disagreement, full stop. A number on this site has no seniority over the studio that published it. Send the provider link, we check it against what is live, and the page is corrected with a note recording what changed - not edited silently, because a review that quietly becomes a different review is a rewrite of history rather than a correction.
What we will not change
Opinion. A score is a judgement and the testing method sets out exactly what it weighs, so it can be argued with on those terms - but not adjusted because an operator or a studio would prefer a different number. We also will not fill a provider's gap with a figure from elsewhere, however many other sites publish one.
Response time
Editorial mail usually gets an answer inside a working week. A correction with a provider link attached is usually the quickest, because it needs no back-and-forth before the page can be updated. Requests that need us to play a game for a few hours take longer, for the obvious reason.
Suggesting a game for review
We add titles slowly, because a review here means reading the provider's page, securing the studio's own demo endpoint, playing a logged session and writing all of it up. Five games covered properly is the point of the site rather than a limitation of it. What makes a suggestion likely to land:
- The studio publishes a real specification page with an RTP on it. Where a provider publishes nothing verifiable, we have nothing to build a review on.
- There is a public demo build we can call directly, rather than only an aggregator's tokenised embed on somebody else's licence.
- The game does something mechanically distinct from the five already here. Another pay-anywhere multiplier title would not teach a reader anything the Starlight Princess 1000 review does not.
- Canadian players can realistically reach it. A title that only appears on platforms unavailable here is an interesting read and a useless recommendation.
The most common request we get is for one of the Aristocrat buffalo games, and the answer is on the homepage: their online distribution in Canada runs through provincial operators, we hold no demo for them, and we are not going to relabel a Pragmatic Play game as a substitute.
Providers, operators and PR
We are happy to hear from studios and operators, and it is worth being explicit about what the answer will be.
- Corrections from a provider go to the front of the queue. You are the source of record for your own game. If we have your figure wrong, tell us and it is fixed.
- No paid reviews, no sponsored placements, no "featured" slots. Not at any price, because the whole value of the site is that the scores were set before the links existed.
- No copy approval. We will not send a review for sign-off before publication, and we will not agree in advance to a tone.
- No guest posts and no link exchanges. Pitches of that kind are not answered.
- Affiliate arrangements do not buy editorial anything. They fund the site and they stop at the door of the review. The about page explains the funding in full.
What happens to your email
It is read, it is answered where an answer is needed, and it is not added to a mailing list - there is no mailing list. We do not sell or share reader correspondence, and we do not pass an address to an operator. If you send us a correction and we publish a fix, we will not name you unless you ask us to.
Before you write, two pages that answer most questions
A good share of the email we receive is already answered on the site, usually on one of two pages, and reading them first is faster than waiting for a reply.
- If your question is "why does your figure differ from another site's", the RTP page covers the multi-build problem: studios ship the same title at several return percentages and the operator chooses which to licence.
- If your question is "why does this game feel so much worse than the ways count suggests", the volatility guide explains that the ways figure is a product of six reel heights recalculated every spin, swinging from over 200,000 down to 64 on the same machine.
- If your question is about where you may legally play, the provincial rules page lists the platform, regulator and legal age for each province.
- If your question is about currency, payment rails or bonus terms, the real money page works through all three.
And if the answer is there but badly explained, that is still worth an email. A page that fails to answer the question it was written for is a defect, and it is one we would rather hear about from a reader than not hear about at all.