Roobet's licence record, and how 41 others resolve

Roobet's footer legal line names two companies rather than one. The licence sits with Raw Entertainment B.V., a Curacao company, registration 157205, at Korporaalweg 10. The money moves through Raw Entertainment Ltd, registration HE421735, in Limassol, Cyprus, described in Roobet's own wording as the paying and operational agent acting on behalf of Raw Entertainment B.V. The entity holding the licence and the entity holding the payment relationship are in different places.

The number itself belongs to the 2024 Curacao series issued under the regime that replaced the older master-and-sub-licence arrangement. Seventeen alternatives carry numbers of the same shape and two carry 2023-series numbers, so the form is unremarkable in this set. What differs is the routing: those seventeen also publish a link to a certificate page, and Roobet publishes no certificate link in anything read. Where a row below says a thing is not published, it means it does not appear in the footer legal line, the terms of service or the cashier — the three documents read on 28 August 2026.

The certificate register at cert.cga.cw is the obvious place to take a 2024-series number, and it is where this site went. On 28 August 2026 its domain search returned no result for every domain put through it, including brands in this comparison that publish a working certificate link and are plainly licensed. When a lookup returns nothing for a licence that demonstrably exists, the lookup is broken, not the licence.

Three words are therefore absent from this record. Verified is absent because no independent source confirmed the number. Invalid is absent because nothing suggests it, and a failed lookup is not a finding. Unlicensed is absent because Roobet publishes a specific number in a recognised series, which is the opposite of what an unlicensed operator does. Unresolved is a statement about this site's evidence, not about Roobet: a number was published, an attempt was made to resolve it, and the register did not answer. If the register starts answering, or Roobet publishes a certificate link, the record changes and the date on it changes with it.

The same caution runs the other way. Seventeen alternatives are recorded with the status Active, and none was confirmed by a search either — each was read from a certificate link the operator itself publishes. That is the operator's own account of its own certificate: better than nothing, and not an independent check.

Roobet's terms of service carry a clause numbered 3.5, headed Restricted Territories. It names twenty-five places, and the United States is one of them — printed as a numbered term of the agreement rather than in a support article.

The list below is as the terms print it, in the order they print it. One entry reads United Kingdoms. That is Roobet's spelling, reproduced rather than corrected, because a contract quoted with its errors tidied away has been rewritten. Anyone matching this list mechanically has to allow for that spelling as well as the ordinary one.

Among the sites like Roobet on file, thirty-nine of the forty-one name a licensing authority and print a number. Two — Nitrobetting and BetPlays — do neither in anything read. The naming is inconsistent in a way that matters when you count: five different forms of words point at Curacao and two point at Anjouan, so a tally by exact string misrepresents the set unless the families are grouped.

Grouped by family, twenty-one sit under a Curacao authority in some form, seventeen under an Anjouan one, one names M.I.S.A. and two name nothing. Within the Curacao group the split is between the current regime and the old: seventeen carry 2024-series or 2023-series OGL numbers, four carry older forms — 8048/JAZ twice, 1668/JAZ once and 8048/JAZ2019-015 once. Every row below gives the authority exactly as the operator writes it; rows that look like the same body under different names are left separate, because merging them would be this site's judgement rather than the operators' words.

A number is only checkable if something outside the operator will confirm it, so the useful question is not whether a record has a link but where the link goes. Across the forty-one, thirty-three lead somewhere a third party runs, six lead back to the operator's own website, and two lead nowhere because no link is recorded.

The thirty-three split three ways. Seventeen carry a per-certificate link into the Curacao certificate viewer, each keyed by a long opaque identifier the operator publishes: Wild.io, Metaspins, Bitsler, Bitcasino.io, Shuffle, Thunderpick, Cloudbet, Sportsbet.io, Stake, Playbet.io, BetFury, CryptoLeo, Mirax, KatsuBet, TrustDice, Livecasino.io and BitStarz. Fifteen point at the Anjouan Gaming Board's public licence register: Flush, Rainbet, DuckDice, JacksClub, Rakebit, Bspin, Fairspin, Empire.io, Windice, FortuneJack, CoinPoker, Wild Fortune, Weiss, Betcoin.ag and Chipstars. BC.Game is on its own, with a validation URL keyed to the domain bc.game rather than to a certificate or a list.

Those fifteen Anjouan links deserve a caveat: all fifteen are the same URL. Following any of them lands on the board's register page rather than on that brand's entry, and a link to a register is a weaker thing than a link to a record. Six brands record only their own pages — Wolf.bet, Rocketpot, LTC Casino, Primedice, Sportbet.one and Bitdreams — publishing the number but not the place to check it. That is not an allegation about any of the six; it describes how far the paper trail goes before it stops.

Thirty-three of the forty-one carry a status word: seventeen read Active, fifteen read valid, one reads Valid. The casing differs because each was transcribed as displayed rather than tidied into a house style, and the wording tracks the source — Active is what the Curacao certificate pages show, valid is what the Anjouan register shows.

A status word is evidence of one narrow thing: what a page displayed on the day the record was read, which for all forty-one alternatives was 26 August 2026. It is not a warranty, it does not survive a licence changing the week after, and it says nothing about how the operator behaves. Eight of the forty-one carry no status at all — Wolf.bet, Rocketpot, LTC Casino, Primedice, Sportbet.one, Bitdreams, Nitrobetting and BetPlays — and Roobet is a ninth record in the same position. Where no status is on file, nothing should be read from the gap in either direction.

No record in this set carries a status reading as revoked, withdrawn or cancelled. The ordering code checks for those words and drops any brand carrying one below every brand that does not, but on the data as it stands the rule has nothing to act on. It is described here so a future reader who finds a brand at the bottom of the table knows the mechanism exists.

Matching on numbers rather than names turns up four cases where one number appears under two brands. This is what a master-licence structure looks like from the outside: a single licence under which more than one front end operates. It is a normal arrangement and not a criticism of any of the eight brands involved.

It is also weak evidence and must not be read as anything stronger. A shared number is not proof of common ownership, common management or common banking. What it does establish is narrower and still worth knowing: two brands on one licence are not two independent counterparties, so choosing both as a hedge against each other is not the hedge it looks like.

Nitrobetting and BetPlays publish no licensing authority, no number and no register link in anything read on 26 August 2026. They are the only two in that position and it is why both sit at the bottom of this site's ordering. That is a description of what is missing, not an accusation: Nitrobetting publishes a 2013 founding year, which only ten of the forty-one do at all, and a seven-coin cashier, while BetPlays publishes a nineteen-studio list and a 5,000 EUR weekly withdrawal ceiling at clause 6.11. What neither publishes is the field this page is about, so a reader wanting to check either brand's licensing position has nowhere to start.

Licence records change. Numbers are reissued, registers come back online, and a status displayed in August may read differently in November — which is why everything above carries the date it was read. If a figure here is wrong, the correction address is [email protected]. What settles a disputed figure is the operator's own document with the clause number, or the register entry itself, and a corrected figure is republished with a new read date beside it.