In a follow-up interview, casino auditor Steve Thompson discusses his latest venture, the integration of community evidence into casino assessments, and the importance of accountability in an increasingly complex gambling environment.

When we last spoke with Steve Thompson, our discussion examined the relationship between casino operations, technical compliance and consumer protection in Australia’s gambling industry. Drawing on his experience at Crown Melbourne and subsequent work in European compliance auditing, Thompson outlined the principles behind his real-money testing methodology and the challenges of evaluating gambling operators beyond their published claims.

Since that conversation, Thompson has introduced PokiesAussies, a new community-driven casino research platform that marks a development in his approach to assessing operator performance.

The venture builds on more than 200 casino assessments and over AU$50,000 deposited across testing accounts. Unlike his earlier website, PokiesAustralia.com, the new platform incorporates registered members’ experiences into its assessment framework, allowing community feedback to inform rankings and the prioritisation of further investigations.

We returned to Thompson to discuss the reasoning behind this transition, the methodological challenges of incorporating player-generated information, and the wider implications of regulatory scrutiny and technological change for gambling industry transparency.

In our previous conversation, you emphasised the importance of direct testing over relying on an operator’s published claims. What has changed in your approach since then?

Steve Thompson: The underlying principle remains unchanged: conclusions should be supported by evidence that can be documented and examined.

What has evolved is my understanding of the limitations associated with assessments conducted at fixed intervals.

A comprehensive test can establish how an operator performs under particular conditions. It can document transaction processing, identity verification, payment availability and the application of promotional terms. However, those findings are necessarily confined to the period in which the assessment takes place.

Operational conditions are not static. Payment arrangements change, internal procedures are amended, and customer experiences can vary considerably.

I became increasingly interested in developing a framework capable of identifying those changes between scheduled assessments. That required a broader source of information while maintaining clear standards for verification.

Was that the principal motivation behind establishing Pokies Aussies independently of PokiesAustralia.com?

Steve Thompson: It was a significant factor.

PokiesAustralia.com was developed around a structured testing methodology. The emphasis was on examining operators through direct transactions and recording the results against consistent criteria.

With Pokies Aussies, I wanted to explore a more continuous model of assessment.

The distinction is not simply the addition of user comments or ratings. The objective is to establish a system in which information submitted by members can influence the direction of further testing.

That requires procedures for receiving reports, identifying recurring issues and distinguishing substantiated findings from individual accounts.

Creating a separate platform provided an opportunity to develop that structure around community participation from the outset, rather than treating it as an extension of an existing publication.

What methodological challenges arise when combining professional casino assessments with information submitted by members?

Steve Thompson: The principal challenge is ensuring that different forms of evidence are not treated as interchangeable.

A documented transaction provides a specific record of what occurred during a test. A member submission describes an experience that may be relevant but may not initially be independently verifiable.

Both can contribute useful information, although they carry different evidential weight.

For example, a report concerning a delayed withdrawal may identify a genuine operational problem. It may also reflect incomplete identity verification, a payment-provider delay or circumstances specific to that account.

The responsibility of the platform is to examine those possibilities before reaching a conclusion.

Community feedback is most valuable when it helps identify patterns that warrant investigation. It should strengthen the assessment process without compromising the distinction between reported experiences and verified findings.

Pokies Aussies has adopted a ranking formula weighted 60% towards expert assessment and 40% towards member ratings. How do you justify that allocation?

Steve Thompson: The formula reflects an editorial decision to preserve the importance of structured assessment while recognising the relevance of customer experience.

Technical and operational criteria require consistent evaluation. Matters such as licensing information, payment terms and published game disclosures cannot reasonably be determined through popularity alone.

At the same time, an operator’s performance cannot be understood entirely through a limited series of controlled transactions.

The community component introduces an additional perspective.

We require at least five member ratings before that component influences an operator’s ranking. Until the threshold is reached, the expert assessment determines its position.

I would not describe the weighting as a statistically validated measure of reliability. It is a transparent framework for combining two distinct sources of information.

Its credibility will depend on consistent application, appropriate safeguards and the willingness to reassess the methodology as evidence accumulates.

In practical terms, how will community reports influence the decision to conduct another casino assessment?

Steve Thompson: The first consideration is whether a report identifies a specific issue that can reasonably be examined.

A general expression of dissatisfaction provides limited investigative value. A report identifying a changed withdrawal limit, an unavailable payment method or a discrepancy in published terms is more actionable.

Where several members independently describe similar circumstances, the case for additional testing becomes stronger.

That does not establish wrongdoing. It establishes a reason to investigate.

The platform is designed to prioritise such reports alongside scheduled assessments. Recommended operators are subject to a recurring testing cycle, but significant new information may justify examining a particular issue sooner.

The broader objective is to make the assessment process responsive to evidence rather than dependent entirely on a fixed publication schedule.

Previously, you described withdrawal processing as one of the clearest indicators of operational performance. Has your interpretation of payment efficiency become more nuanced?

Steve Thompson: I have become increasingly focused on distinguishing the separate stages of a transaction.

The time between submitting a withdrawal request and receiving funds is important, but the total duration does not necessarily identify the source of a delay.

There may be an internal approval period, outstanding Know Your Customer requirements, payment-provider processing, or banking settlement.

Those stages should be documented separately wherever the information is available.

This is particularly relevant when operators advertise payment methods such as PayID or cryptocurrency transfers. The technical capacity of a payment network does not establish how quickly an operator approves a transaction.

A credible assessment should explain the observed result without making unsupported assumptions about responsibility.

Precision is more useful than simply classifying a payment as fast or slow.

Since our last discussion, casino governance has remained a prominent issue in Australia. What do the major regulatory inquiries reveal about the relationship between compliance and operational culture?

Steve Thompson: The major inquiries demonstrated that formal compliance structures are only effective when they are supported by appropriate governance and implementation.

The Bergin Inquiry, the Finkelstein Royal Commission, the Bell inquiries and Queensland’s Gotterson Inquiry examined different circumstances, but each contributed to a broader discussion about accountability within casino operations.

One recurring consideration is the distinction between maintaining documented policies and demonstrating that those policies function effectively.

The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission and the NSW Independent Casino Commission operate within their respective statutory frameworks, while Queensland’s Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation has responsibilities under that state’s regulatory arrangements.

These are formal regulatory functions, distinct from independent consumer research.

Nevertheless, the inquiries reinforce a principle relevant to evidence-based assessment: assertions about compliance or operational integrity must be considered in light of actual conduct.

How should consumers distinguish legitimate financial crime compliance requirements from unnecessary administrative barriers?

Steve Thompson: That distinction requires an understanding of both the regulatory obligations and the circumstances of the individual transaction.

AUSTRAC administers Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing framework under the AML/CTF Act 2006.

Depending on the entity and applicable requirements, obligations may include customer identification, ongoing due diligence, Suspicious Matter Reports, Threshold Transaction Reports and enhanced scrutiny of higher-risk relationships.

These measures are intended to address financial crime risks. They should not be characterised simply as administrative obstacles.

However, it is also reasonable to examine whether an operator communicates its requirements clearly and applies its published procedures consistently.

A consumer-facing assessment cannot determine whether a particular transaction should have triggered a regulatory control without access to the relevant evidence.

It can document what information was requested, how the process was explained, and whether the observed experience corresponded with the operator’s stated conditions.

Your earlier interview addressed RNG certification and the mathematical characteristics of pokies. What remains misunderstood about technical game assessments?

Steve Thompson: There is still considerable confusion between theoretical game characteristics and observed short-term outcomes.

Return to Player represents a mathematical characteristic calculated over a very large number of plays. It does not predict the outcome of an individual session.

Similarly, a small sample of spins cannot establish whether a Random Number Generator meets the relevant technical standards.

Formal game testing requires appropriate statistical methods, access to technical information and clearly defined certification procedures.

An independent consumer assessment can examine available documentation, verify published disclosures against credible sources and identify inconsistencies.

It should not claim to have established mathematical fairness through limited gameplay.

That distinction is fundamental. Technical terminology can create an impression of authority, but the strength of an assessment depends on whether its conclusions are supported by the methods actually employed.

What safeguards are necessary to preserve editorial independence when a research platform operates through affiliate partnerships?

Steve Thompson: The starting point is an explicit acknowledgement of the commercial relationship.

A platform that receives commissions from qualifying referrals should disclose that arrangement rather than expecting readers to infer it.

At Pokies Aussies, the stated policy is that assessment scores are established independently of commercial negotiations. Commission rates do not determine ranking positions, and paid placements must be identified.

However, independence cannot be demonstrated solely through a policy statement.

It must also be reflected in editorial conduct, including the publication of unfavourable findings, the correction of inaccuracies and the consistent application of assessment criteria.

Commercial relationships create potential conflicts that require management.

The responsibility is to make those relationships visible and establish procedures that allow readers to distinguish commercial considerations from documented conclusions.

How do you see the relationship between responsible gambling and operational transparency developing?

Steve Thompson: I regard responsible gambling measures as an important component of operational accountability.

The presence of deposit limits, session reminders and self-exclusion mechanisms is relevant, but their practical accessibility also matters.

An operator may formally provide a particular safeguard while making it unnecessarily difficult to locate or use.

The legal context must also be communicated accurately.

Australia’s Interactive Gambling Act 2001 restricts the provision of certain online gambling services to people in Australia. An offshore licence does not, by itself, authorise an operator to provide prohibited services within that market.

Consumer information should not obscure those distinctions.

More broadly, responsible gambling requires an understanding that no technical assessment or favourable operational finding eliminates the financial and personal risks associated with gambling.

Transparency should support informed understanding rather than create an unwarranted impression of safety.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being introduced into compliance and publishing workflows. Where do you see its most credible applications?

Steve Thompson: I see considerable potential in using automated systems to identify changes and organise information.

For example, software may assist in detecting amendments to published terms, classifying transaction reports or identifying recurring issues within community submissions.

Those applications could improve the efficiency of monitoring.

However, the ability to process information at scale should not be confused with the ability to establish its accuracy.

Automated systems can misinterpret context, overlook relevant circumstances or generate conclusions that are not supported by the available evidence.

Human judgement remains essential when determining whether a finding is material and whether additional investigation is justified.

The most credible application of artificial intelligence is therefore to support evidence collection and analysis, while retaining clear human responsibility for editorial conclusions.

Finally, what would you consider a meaningful measure of success for Pokies Aussies over the next several years?

Steve Thompson: I would measure success primarily through the quality and continuing relevance of the information the platform produces.

The number of registered members or operators assessed may indicate growth, but those figures do not necessarily establish credibility.

A more meaningful measure would be whether the platform consistently identifies material changes, investigates credible reports and corrects information when new evidence becomes available.

I would also like members to understand the difference between submitting an experience and establishing a finding.

That distinction is important if community participation is to contribute to a reliable body of information.

Ultimately, the objective is to demonstrate that structured professional assessment and carefully evaluated community evidence can operate together.

If Pokies Aussies develops a transparent, accountable and consistently applied methodology, that would represent a worthwhile outcome.

Editor’s Note

Steve Thompson is a casino auditor and gambling industry analyst with experience in casino operations, technical compliance and real-money testing. His professional background includes work at Crown Melbourne and European compliance auditing.

Following his earlier venture, PokiesAustralia.com, Thompson introduced Pokies Aussies, a separate community-driven casino research platform incorporating structured assessments and member feedback.

Website: https://pokiesaussies.com/
Media contact: [email protected]