Start with the relevant UK poker product
Reviews should identify the actual poker service being discussed, rather than relying on the reputation of a wider sportsbook or casino brand. Poker networks, account routes and product names can change. UK availability and licensing information should be checked against the relevant operator information and, where applicable, the UK Gambling Commission public register.
A licence reference needs to relate to the correct legal operator and service. A logo, an app-store listing or a globally accessible page is not enough on its own to establish a product’s status for UK players. Uncertain or conflicting information should be described as uncertain, not turned into a stronger claim.
Read the offer beyond its headline
We look at who can qualify, what a player must do, the value or cap, how rewards are released and the time limits that apply. Currency, rake requirements, eligible formats and deposit conditions can change the practical meaning of a welcome offer. Significant conditions should appear with the offer rather than being hidden in unrelated content.
Where official pages disagree, the review should flag that difference instead of choosing the largest number as if it were settled. An amount stated in euros or US dollars should not be silently converted into a sterling promise. Poker rewards must also be distinguished from free bets or casino promotions offered by the same brand.
What the ratings mean
The scores currently displayed on this website are offer-clarity ratings out of five. They consider the clarity of eligibility, qualifying requirements, headline value or cap, release and expiry rules, and the consistency of the published offer information. They are editorial assessments, not customer ratings.
These scores do not measure the strength of opponents, the likelihood of winning, withdrawal speed or the overall quality of an operator. A higher clarity score is not a promise of better results. The broader UK poker site reviews provide the context that a single offer score cannot supply.
Research and first-hand testing are different
Operator pages, public rules, app listings and screenshots can support factual research. Visiting a mobile website can show its navigation and presentation. Neither activity, by itself, establishes that a reviewer deposited money, played real-money hands, contacted support or completed a withdrawal.
A first-hand testing claim should be supported by a record of the date, device, action and result, with original evidence where appropriate. Claims about payments or support require the relevant transaction or interaction, not a general impression. We should state the scope of a test and avoid extending one observation to every player.
Software, games and image evidence
Reviews consider published access options, game formats and useful software features. Browser play, desktop downloads and mobile apps are separate access routes. A feature available through one route should not automatically be attributed to all of them.
Images should show the correct brand and poker product. A public website capture, an official app preview and a screenshot supplied by a reader are different forms of evidence and should be described accurately. Screenshots can become dated and do not replace checking the current service.
Commercial links, updates and corrections
We may receive affiliate commission through operator links. A commercial relationship must not be presented as a testing result or used to justify an unsupported factual claim. Pros, cons and material limitations should remain visible. The existence of a commercial link does not mean we manage the operator or its customer accounts.
Our editorial policy sets out how corrections, update dates and content assistance should be handled. To raise a question about this methodology or a particular review, email info@pokerwebsites.co.uk and include the relevant page address. This methodology explains the review framework; it is not a claim that every possible account, payment or support test has been completed.