An eight-criterion weighted framework, where each score is what a worksheet produces rather than a gut call. This page lays out the weights, the criteria, and what really tells a 7.5 from an 8.2 in practice.
A star rating is easy to give out and hard to stand behind. The figure topping the JeetCity review — 4.3 out of 5 — is the weighted average of eight subscores, each built from the test data gathered over the two-week cycle documented at how we test casinos. The weights are set ahead of time and don't shift per review, and the criteria stay identical operator to operator, which keeps the system comparable over time.
Pinning the weights down before testing matters. If they could shift review by review, a reviewer could tilt a borderline casino either way by piling weight onto the criterion it happens to handle best. Fixed weights are the main reason the cons list on the JeetCity page isn't any gentler.
| Criterion | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Safety & Licensing | 20% | Licence validity, TLS, 2FA availability, T&C fairness, dispute route |
| Withdrawals | 15% | Processing time, rails available, caps, consistency across tests |
| Bonuses & T&C | 15% | Wagering math, max-bet rule, max-cashout cap, game contribution transparency |
| Game Library | 12% | Provider mix, title count, live dealer breadth, mobile parity |
| Payments (deposits) | 10% | Number of rails, AU-specific methods (PayID), deposit speed, fees |
| Customer Support | 10% | Live chat wait time, agent knowledge, hours, channels |
| Mobile Experience | 8% | Browser performance on iOS and Android, mobile cashier, load times |
| Responsible Gambling | 10% | Deposit limits, self-exclusion flow, session alerts, enforcement |
Safety and licensing takes the single biggest weight, because the worst outcome at an unlicensed or abusively licensed operator — a seized balance with no route to escalate — dwarfs a slow withdrawal or a thin bonus. Withdrawals and bonuses share second, since those are the two places an offshore casino most often pulls value from players who didn't read the T&C closely.
Responsible gambling carries a real 10% weight, because a site that deliberately buries self-exclusion isn't one worth steering readers to. This criterion is also the main reason the framework is held against the current Google Quality Rater guidelines and the AU responsible-gambling support structure.
Weighed against four inputs. Is the licence live on the regulator's register? Is the corporate licensee the entity that actually runs the site? Do the T&C carry any red-flag clauses (unilateral T&C changes with no player notice, confiscation for "bonus abuse" left undefined, dormancy fees inside 90 days)? Is the dispute escalation route written down? The rating drops steeply — a full point or more — if any of those come up short.
This is test data, not marketing. Approved-to-account time is timed to the minute on at least two rails. A site that promises "within 24 hours" in the T&C and lands in 2h 39min on PayID scores full here; one that promises the same yet takes 36 forfeits the subscore whatever the cover copy says. Ceilings count too — a A$10,000 weekly limit shaves a fraction of a point for a site built for mid-volume players.
Scored on the math, not the headline. A 125% match to A$1,500 at 40× wagering on the bonus portion needs A$5,000 of turnover before a withdrawal. At 96% RTP that's a A$200 expected theoretical loss — bigger than the bonus itself — and the score says so rather than hide it. Sites running 50× on the combined deposit-plus-bonus fare worse, while zero-wager free spins — like the Dragon Pearls spins logged in the bonus section of the JeetCity review — earn a real positive adjustment.
Not the headline count — the mix. A library of 3,000 titles from second-tier studios scores under 1,500 titles spanning Pragmatic Play, Play'n GO, Hacksaw, Nolimit City and a working Evolution Live feed. Evolution or Pragmatic Live in the lobby is a genuine lift; their absence a genuine knock. Mobile parity — the same catalogue on phone and desktop — feeds in here too.
AU-specific rails count. Two-way PayID is a positive worth real weight — rare on Curaçao offshore sites and the fastest domestic option when it works. The lack of Apple Pay and POLi is noted, though POLi's 2022 closure isn't the operator's fault. Crypto support is a plus for readers who want it, and Neosurf running deposit-only is flagged for narrowing the withdrawal path when players aren't careful.
Agent answers specific T&C questions without reading a script? Plus. Agent pastes a link and hands off? Minus. 24/7 live chat genuinely 24/7? Plus. Phone line missing entirely? Small minus — most AU players do not miss a phone line, but some do, and the option is a real one.
Tested on two real devices over two networks. A pokie that loads in 3 seconds on home Wi-Fi and 5 seconds on 4G is acceptable. Anything over 8 seconds on 4G is a problem, because a lot of AU mobile play is on 4G.
The deposit-limit enforcement test counts. A site that lets you set a A$100 daily cap then quietly takes a A$150 deposit fails this criterion. The self-exclusion flow counts too — one click and a confirmation beats five screens and a "cooling-off before reactivation" that flips itself back on after a week.
Each subscore is marked 1–10. The final figure is the weighted average, rounded to the nearest tenth and mapped onto a 5-star display where a point equals 0.5 stars. JeetCity's current 4.3/5 comes from a weighted 8.6/10 across the eight criteria.
I don't publish the worksheet with each review — readers haven't asked, and it would clutter the page — but it sits in the editorial files and the breakdown is available on request via the editorial contact. If the headline score looks out of step with the narrative beneath, ask and the subscores are on their way.
Some findings trigger a fixed downgrade independent of the weighted score. Each of these is a question of trust, and the framework refuses to average them away:
JeetCity did not trigger any of these during the test cycle. If they do in a future re-test, the score will move, the cons list will lengthen, and the update will be documented by date at the top of the review in line with the editorial policy.
No eight-criterion framework can catch every nuance of every operator. The weights assume an average AU player: mid-stakes pokies, the odd live-dealer round, cards and PayID over crypto, mostly mobile. A high-roller chasing seven-figure progressives weights Game Library differently than I do, and a crypto-only player leans on Payments over PayID. The framework is tuned to the median reader, not everyone.
The framework is also revised when the market changes. The addition of "AU-specific rails" to the Payments criterion came after PayID availability at offshore sites became meaningful. When the Curaçao LOK reform finishes its transition, the Safety & Licensing criterion will likely add a new sub-input. Changes are versioned and announced; the last revision date is at the top of this page.
