Eight operators publish a country list, and the eight lists agree on nothing
Eight of the ten operators compared on this site publish a list of countries they will not take as customers. Put end to end, those eight lists name 96 distinct countries, and 56 of the 96 appear on exactly one of them. Not one country appears on all eight. The operator this site is named after excludes three.
Eight of the ten operators compared on this site publish a list of countries they refuse. The lists were read on 26 August 2026 from each operator's own restricted-territories page, and those pages are not clause-numbered, so every figure below is a count of the names printed on the page rather than a citation to a clause.
How long is each list, and how many operators publish one at all?
Eight of ten. Set out in order of length, as read on 26 August 2026: Metaspins 58 countries, Wolf.bet 48, Rocketpot 34, Sportsbet.io 17, Empire.io 12, Rainbet 11, Bitcasino.io 1, Bitsler 1.
Two rows carry nothing. Vave has no restricted page in the reading, and Jackbit has none either, because its exclusion does not live on a page of that kind. An empty field on this site means unread, and it has never once meant that an operator takes everybody.
The gap between the longest and the shortest list is 57 names, and both ends were written by companies selling the same product under similar offshore licences.
That spread is the first thing worth absorbing. There is no standard list, no shared blacklist, and no regulator handing one down to all of them. Each operator wrote its own, for its own reasons, and the reasons are not published anywhere.
What do the eight lists agree on?
Nothing. Literally nothing: across all eight there is not one country that appears on every list.
The two most frequent names are the United States and the United Kingdom, each on six of the eight. Yemen, Curacao, the Netherlands, North Korea, Australia and France follow on five. After that the frequency collapses: of the 96 distinct countries named across the eight lists, 56 appear on a single list and nowhere else.
One of those recurring names deserves a second look. Curacao appears on five of the eight lists, and Curacao is the jurisdiction that licensed most of the operators printing it. An operator excluding the island that issued its own licence is an ordinary arrangement in offshore gaming, and it is also a plain statement that a licence is a permission to sell abroad rather than at home.
The practical consequence for a reader is unglamorous but firm: a country list from one operator predicts nothing about the next operator's list.
Why is the list on this brand only three names long?
Because it sits in a different kind of document. Clause 3 of the general terms, a document the operator self-dates 2 May 2022 and which was read here on 2 September 2026, holds the whole territorial exclusion in one sentence: access is not allowed to residents of, or from, Russia, Belarus and Georgia.
Three names, in a numbered clause, four years old.
Now measure those three against the other eight lists. Russia appears on one of them, Metaspins. Belarus appears on one, Rocketpot. Georgia appears on none at all. So this operator's entire published exclusion is close to invisible in the rest of the sample, and the countries the rest of the sample worries about are absent from it.
The three-name clause is also why the long lists circulating under this brand look nothing like it. Those come from clause 4 of the same document, which reprints a game supplier's own territorial conditions, and the difference between the two is set out name by name in the four lists, pulled apart.
Is a long list a warning or a reassurance?
Neither, and the instinct to read it as one or the other is where this whole cluster of questions goes wrong.
A long list usually means the operator has taken advice about markets with active local licensing, or has suppliers who impose conditions, or has payment partners who will not process certain jurisdictions. A short list can mean the same care was taken and written up elsewhere, or that the document is simply old. None of that is published, and inferring a compliance culture from the length of a list is guesswork wearing a number.
What the length does tell you is how much of the operator's own reasoning reached paper. Fifty-eight names is a document somebody maintained. Three names in a contract from 2022 is a document nobody has revisited in public since.
The number to plan around, then, is the date beside the list rather than the count of names on it.
What else can cut a country off, once the list has been passed?
Three further layers, all of them outside the restricted list, and all three exist on this brand.
The first is the supplier layer: a game studio's own territorial conditions, reprinted inside the operator's terms, deciding which titles may be served where. The second is the payment layer: clause 12 of the same 2022 terms names nine countries where Visa is not supported and 29, almost all European, where Mastercard is. The third is the promotion layer: the General Rules for Winnings page, stored on 27 January 2026, bars free spins and free bets for residents of seven countries, three of which appear in no other list on this brand.
So a reader can clear clause 3 and still meet a wall at the cashier or at the bonus. Those are different rules, written by different parties, doing different jobs, and the habit of collapsing them into one answer is what produces the forty-country figures attributed to an operator that named three.
What is worth checking, and when?
On the day money would go in, not before, because every figure above carries a read date and the oldest of them is a contract from 2022.
Three checks cover it. Find the operator's own territorial clause or page and read it rather than a reprint. Find the payments section and see whether the route you intend to use is available where you are. Find the promotion's own rules if a bonus is part of the plan, because eligibility for it is decided separately.
None of that answers the other question people arrive with, and this site answers it for no country: whether the law where a reader lives permits the bet. That belongs to a legislature, it changes on its own schedule, and a Curacao contract has no authority over it.
What each operator here publishes about identity checks, which is the rule that operates in every territory alike, is compared under what each one wrote down about verification. The full method behind the counts on this page, including what was read from an archived copy and what would not open at all, is in how this site reads a document.