How the rating game actually works

I will start with the part most people in my industry never say in public: I make money from the thing I am about to describe.

For 16 years I have worked in betting and gambling. I started at Betfair in 2008 and worked in their Russian-language market. After that, bet-at-home, Rivalo, Catena Media. Then I built my own things. I founded Vseprosport, a sports-betting media company. I co-founded an affiliate network, UFFILIATES, that earns commissions when players sign up with bookmakers. I built bookmaker review sites. When I describe how the rating game works, this is not a theory from the outside. I helped build the machine, and I still operate parts of it.

That is exactly why I can tell you how it works.

How the ranking is really shelf space

When you search for "top-pick casino" or "top bookmaker," the list you get back almost never measures quality. It measures who pays. The sites doing the ranking are, in most cases, affiliates like the ones I run. They earn a commission every time you click through, sign up, and lose money after that. The "ranking" is not a verdict. It is shelf space, and the shelf space is for sale. An operator with a profitable affiliate deal moves up the page. An operator with a more profitable deal moves higher. The "editor's choice" badge usually means the editor's invoice was the largest.

I am not describing villains. I am describing the standard business model, and I have been on the inside of it for most of my career. Nobody has to be corrupt for this to happen. You just follow the money, quarter after quarter, and the page slowly rearranges itself around whoever pays most profitably. That is not a conspiracy. It is gravity.

Why the number on top is soft

The rating number itself, the figure on top of the page, is just as soft.

Most of these sites either average star reviews or count them. Both are easy to push. Stars get inflated by the operator's own funnel, where a satisfied player after the first deposit is nudged to leave five stars, and the angry one fighting for a withdrawal three weeks later is left to shout into nowhere. Counting is worse. If you reward "more reviews," you reward whoever can produce more reviews, and a large operator with a marketing budget can produce them industrially. That is not a quality signal. It is a measure of who spends the most on promotion.

There is a smaller trick that bothers me more, because it looks honest and is not. One operator's app sits in both the Apple and Google stores. Same product, same users, two listings. A lazy rating treats that as two independent sources and feels more confident because the brand "shows up in two places." It shows up in one place, counted twice. Stack that with the operator's own trust page and its onsite testimonials, and you have a number built entirely from one side of the conversation, presented as consensus.

Why I built the opposite

What changed for me is simple. I grew tired of the distance between what the industry says it does and what it actually does. Players make real financial decisions, sometimes harmful ones, partly on the basis of "ratings" that are advertising wearing the costume of analysis. The people who could fix that are the same people who profit from leaving it broken. I have been one of those people.

So I decided to build the opposite, on purpose, with my own name on it.

It is called IndexFair. The entire point is that it cannot be bought, by design and not by promise. A promise is worthless here. Every affiliate site I ever built promised independence in the small print, and the incentive at the top of the page ignored the promise every time. So I removed the incentive instead.

A few rules make that concrete. IndexFair takes no affiliate commission from the operators it rates, so there is no quarterly number pushing the rankings around. Every operator gets the same treatment and the same link out, with no "featured" tier to buy. It uses no stars and picks no winner, just numbers from 0 to 10 from a public, versioned method you can read and argue with. And when something has not been measured, that gap lowers stated confidence — it never quietly improves the score.

I want to be clear about the conflict, because hiding it would be exactly the dishonesty I am describing. I still run affiliate businesses. I have not become a different person. The difference is that IndexFair is built so that I cannot do to it what the affiliate model does to ratings everywhere else. You do not have to trust my character. You can read the method and check whether the money has anywhere to enter. That is the whole idea: not a more trustworthy person, a structure where trust does not depend on the person.