This document is the operational charter that every reviewer, editor, and contributor at KiwiStake signs on their first day and re-acknowledges annually. It is not marketing copy — it is the working document we use when a casino complains about its ranking, when a reader asks why we recommended something, and when an outside regulator asks us to justify our process.
— Preamble · Binding since 2017Mission & scope
KiwiStake exists to help New Zealand players make informed decisions about online casinos. Our reviews are written for readers, not for operators. Every ranking, review, and guide on this site is produced with a single question in mind: would a reasonable Kiwi player lose money or peace of mind because of this recommendation? When the answer is even plausibly yes, the casino does not appear on our lists.
Primary audience. Adult (18+) New Zealand residents considering whether to use an online casino, and what criteria should guide that decision.
Secondary audience. Australian players, iGaming journalists, regulators reviewing our operator compliance, and casino operators who want to understand how we evaluate them.
Out of scope. Land-based gambling, sports betting beyond the TAB context, political or social commentary unrelated to gambling policy, and any content directed at persons under 18.
Editorial independence
The firewall between our commercial relationships and our editorial rankings is the single most important commitment on this site. We make money through affiliate commissions when readers sign up to casinos through our links — but the commission rate is identical across all partners, and no casino has ever been able to buy a higher ranking.
The firewall, specifically
- Commercial team does not see rankings before publication. The people who negotiate commission rates with operators have no access to our scoring model, our draft reviews, or our publication calendar.
- Scoring is algorithmic, then editorial. The initial rank order is produced by our 42-criterion scoring model. Editorial discretion can push a casino down but cannot push it up without documented reasoning recorded in the editorial register.
- Operators receive no preview. Casinos never see a review before it goes live. They have no opportunity to request changes, and "pre-publication fact-checking" is never offered.
- Commission rates are uniform. We accept the market-standard affiliate deal from every partner. We have explicitly refused offers to receive higher commissions in exchange for higher placement, and those offers are logged.
Review methodology
Every casino on this site passes through the same four-stage test before a review is written. The process is standardised, logged, and replayable — if a casino disputes its score, we can show them exactly which test case produced which outcome on which date.
The four stages
Stage I — Sign-up & verify. A reviewer creates a real account using genuine New Zealand personal details. KYC documents are submitted. Every step is timed from account creation to verified status. A casino that cannot verify a Kiwi account within 72 hours fails this stage.
Stage II — Deposit & play. A minimum of NZ$200 is deposited across at least two payment methods (POLi plus one alternative). The reviewer plays pokies, at least one live-dealer game, and tests wagering on the welcome bonus for a minimum of four hours of active gameplay.
Stage III — Support probe. Three customer-support interactions are initiated: an easy query during business hours, a technical question requiring escalation, and a payout-related question outside business hours. Response times and quality are recorded.
Stage IV — Withdrawal. A withdrawal is requested. The hours from request to funds arriving are logged. Casinos that fail withdrawal testing (unreasonable delays, unjustified document requests, withdrawal reversals) are removed from the site and not recommended again.
The scoring model
Each casino receives a score across 42 weighted criteria grouped into eight domains. The scoring model is maintained by Oliver Singh (Data & Methodology Lead) and revised quarterly. Criterion weights are public — see our methodology page for the full breakdown.
| Domain | Weight | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Licence & Regulation | 20% | Hard gate. Failing grades here disqualify entirely. |
| Bonus Fairness | 15% | Wagering, validity, max-bet, game-contribution realism |
| Payout Speed | 15% | Median hours from withdrawal request to funds arriving |
| Game Library | 12% | Studio roster, pokies count, live dealer availability |
| NZD Banking | 12% | POLi, Visa, e-wallets, crypto, conversion-free deposits |
| Mobile Experience | 10% | Load speed, landscape support, native app availability |
| Customer Support | 8% | Response times, quality, NZ-friendly hours |
| Responsible Gambling | 8% | Tools visible, self-exclusion functional, limits enforceable |
Sources & verification
A claim made on KiwiStake is not merely written — it is sourced. Our editorial process separates three categories of information and handles each differently.
Primary evidence comes from our own reviewers — deposits we've made, games we've tested, support conversations we've archived. This is the strongest category and is used whenever possible.
Regulator-verified data includes licence numbers cross-checked with the issuing authority, operator filings, and publicly registered company information. Every licence claim on this site is verified directly with the regulator before publication, not taken from the operator's own footer.
Industry data — RTP figures from game studios, payment-provider speeds, market statistics — is always attributed to its source and dated. We do not reproduce statistics without knowing who collected them, when, and under what conditions.
What we won't use as a source
- An operator's own marketing copy for factual claims. Marketing pages describe what a casino wants to be true, not always what is true.
- Unverified review aggregators where the aggregator is itself an affiliate of the casinos being reviewed.
- Press releases for performance claims without independent corroboration.
- Anonymous forum posts as evidence of casino behaviour, except as a prompt to conduct our own investigation.
Disclosure standards
Readers deserve to know, without digging, where we make money and where we don't. Our disclosure rules are designed around one principle: if it could plausibly affect your reading of a review, you should be told before you read it.
What we always disclose
- Affiliate commission — a clear disclosure bar appears at the top of every page
- When a reviewer has prior employment at a casino under review (they are recused)
- When a casino is owned by the same group as another partner brand
- Every sponsored piece of content, labelled as such before the first paragraph
- The date of the most recent review update on every ranking and guide
What we refuse to do
- Accept "native advertising" that blurs the line between editorial and promoted content
- Hide affiliate disclosure below the fold or behind a link
- Publish guest posts from third parties without full byline attribution
- Republish operator press releases as editorial content
- Accept free stay/travel from operators without declaring it inline on any related coverage
Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest are inevitable in any commercial publication. What matters is not whether they exist but how they are managed. Our rule is simple: disclose proactively, recuse when necessary, log everything publicly.
Recusal. A reviewer is automatically recused from covering an operator they have worked for in the previous five years, currently hold equity in, or have a close family member employed by. The recusal is logged in the editorial register.
Cross-ownership disclosure. When multiple casinos on our shortlist share common ownership (e.g., same parent company), this is disclosed in the individual reviews of each affected casino, not just in a general footer.
Gifts & hospitality. Contributors may not accept gifts, travel, accommodation, or hospitality from operators valued at over NZ$100 without Editor-in-Chief approval. All accepted items above NZ$25 must be declared in the register.
Personal gambling accounts. Reviewers may hold personal accounts at operators we cover, provided those accounts are separate from testing accounts and disclosed annually to the Editor-in-Chief. Winnings from personal accounts are not relevant to reviews.
Corrections & updates
We make mistakes. When we do, we correct them openly — not quietly. Our correction policy distinguishes between three types of change, each handled differently.
Factual corrections (incorrect licence number, wrong bonus figure, misstated deposit minimum) are made within 24 hours of verification. A footnote at the end of the affected review logs what changed, when, and why.
Material updates (a casino's licence status has changed, payout speeds have significantly shifted, ownership has transferred) trigger a full re-review. The "Last Updated" date on the page is advanced, and a note appears in the next weekly newsletter.
Substantive revisions (the overall recommendation has changed) are accompanied by a dedicated editorial note explaining the reason for the reversal. Prior versions are archived and available on request, not silently overwritten.
Readers who identify factual inaccuracies can report them to [email protected]. Reports are acknowledged within three business days and resolved within fourteen.
Our position on AI
Large language models have made it trivially cheap to generate plausible-looking casino reviews. We believe this is a problem for readers, because an AI-generated review cannot actually deposit money, cannot actually test support, cannot actually withdraw winnings. It can only describe what these things might feel like.
Our rule
- Every word of every casino review on KiwiStake is written by a named human reviewer. No exceptions.
- AI tools may be used for grammar and spell-checking, for formatting assistance, and for background research — but the final text, the judgments, and the recommendations are human-authored.
- Where AI tools are used in any substantive way (e.g., pattern-matching against terms and conditions across multiple operators), this is disclosed in the review's methodology note.
- We do not publish synthetic testimonials, AI-generated player quotes, or fabricated "case studies". Where we quote a player, that player is real and consenting.
Harm minimisation
Gambling causes real harm to real people. A site that profits from recommending casinos has a direct responsibility to make that fact visible, to direct at-risk readers to support resources, and to never — under any circumstance — publish content designed to exploit vulnerable players.
Responsible gambling resources appear on every page of the site, not just where we remember to include them. The link to responsiblegambling.org.nz is persistent across all templates.
We do not use exploitative copy. Phrases like "get rich quick", "guaranteed win", "recover your losses", or anything implying that gambling is a reliable income source are banned in editorial. This rule extends to headings, subheadings, and meta descriptions.
Audience protection. Every page includes an 18+ notice. We do not target our marketing or content to under-18 audiences under any definition. We do not use imagery depicting minors in or near gambling contexts.
Vulnerable readers. When a reader contacts us describing gambling-related harm to themselves or others, we respond with support resource information only — we do not recommend casinos, we do not continue marketing emails, and we remove them from communications on request.
Complaints process
Readers, operators, and regulators who believe we have breached this policy may lodge a formal complaint. We commit to the following process.
Acknowledgement. All complaints sent to [email protected] are acknowledged within three (3) business days, including a reference number and expected response timeline.
Investigation. Complaints are investigated by a senior editor not involved in the disputed content. The original author is given a chance to respond, and documentary evidence is reviewed.
Resolution. A written response is sent within fourteen (14) business days. Resolutions may include correction, clarification, retraction, apology, or — in cases of systemic failure — changes to this policy itself.
Escalation. If the complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution, they may request independent review by the Gambling Portal Webmasters Association (GPWA), of which we are a verified member. GPWA contact details are provided on request.
Matiu Henare
Policy changelog
Every revision of this document since publication. The full text of prior versions is available on request.
Reach the editorial team directly
For corrections, complaints, or editorial queries — including requests to see prior versions of this policy or our editorial register — contact the team using the dedicated inbox below.
[email protected]Responses acknowledged within 3 business days