Why I test slots the slow way
I’ve reviewed casino games for years, and the single habit that separates a useful review from a rewritten press release is embarrassingly simple: play the game first. Properly. Not five spins for a screenshot: full sessions, with a spin log open in a second window.
For this site that meant sitting with NetEnt’s official Narcos demo for several hundred logged spins before writing a word of the review. I noted every feature trigger, every Walking Wild, every Locked Up respin, and compared what I saw against the published rates. My samples are small and I say so; a few hundred spins can’t confirm a 96.23% RTP - but they can confirm whether the mechanics behave as documented, and they surface the texture of a game that spec sheets never capture.
That’s the job as I see it.
What I actually do
I’m a casino-games reviewer specialising in video slots, with a particular soft spot for licensed titles: games built on a film or TV brand, where the interesting question is whether the maths underneath deserves the licence on top. Narcos, released by NetEnt in May 2019, is one of the better answers I’ve found, which is partly why this whole site orbits it.
My testing routine is consistent across games:
- Demo sessions in the official client, logged spin by spin;
- A full read of the in-game paytable and rules, screen by screen;
- Cross-checking the studio’s published figures against spec sheets and, where the studio is silent, against named aggregators (always attributed as such);
- Scoring against fixed criteria (maths transparency, features, presentation, win potential) rather than gut feel.
The scoring system is documented in detail on the methodology page, including exactly why Narcos earned its 8.2/10 and where it lost points. When sources conflict, I show the conflict instead of quietly picking a side; the game’s two published max-win figures are the standing example.
Standards I hold myself to
Three rules, non-negotiable.
First, I don’t fabricate. If NetEnt hasn’t published an official volatility tier, my review says so and offers a hedged read, clearly labelled as mine. An honest “unpublished” beats a confident invention every time.
Second, money doesn’t touch ratings. This site earns affiliate commissions from some casino links - that’s disclosed on every page that carries them - but my scores were set before any commercial arrangement existed, and no operator or studio sees my content before it goes live. Nobody has ever successfully bought a decimal point from me, and honestly, a few have tried.
Third, I correct in public. When a reader catches an error, the fix goes on the page with a note. I’d rather look fallible than be wrong quietly.
I also write for adults. Slots are entertainment with a built-in cost, not an income strategy, and every strategy piece I publish starts from that premise. If you’re under 18, my work isn’t for you.
Getting in touch
The best route is the site’s contact page; everything sent to [email protected] reaches me. Corrections get the fastest turnaround, usually within a few days. I read feedback on which guides helped and which didn’t, and it genuinely shapes what I write next; the strategy page exists because three separate readers asked the same bankroll question in one month.
I can’t help with casino account problems (I’m a reviewer, not support staff) and I won’t predict when a slot will pay, because nobody can. Anything else, write in.