Non GamStop No Deposit Bonus and the Reality of Free Offers

A non GamStop no deposit bonus is a free-play credit from a casino that holds no Great Britain licence, so it sits outside GamStop and outside UK rules. Free chips typically carry wagering of 40× to 60× with a €50–€100 cashout cap, and no British regulator will look at a dispute about them.

A free chip is the oldest trick in this trade, and the oldest trick is the one that works. It costs the casino nothing to print, it is worth nothing until it is played through forty or fifty times, and it buys a deposit-or-nothing relationship with a customer whose own national self-exclusion scheme cannot reach the operator offering it.

That last point is the whole story, and it is worth stating plainly before anything else. GamStop is the UK's national online self-exclusion scheme, run by The National Online Self Exclusion Scheme Limited, free to use, open since 27 April 2018. (It is often typed "gamestop"; the scheme's own name is GamStop.) Since 31 March 2020 every online operator must be part of it as a condition of its Gambling Commission licence, under social responsibility code provision 3.5.5 of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice. A site with no Commission licence is not in the scheme. It is not that it has found a loophole: it is simply not in the room.

So offshore sites are not licensed in Great Britain, UK protections do not apply to them, and a person who registers with GamStop remains excluded for the full term chosen — 6 months, 1 year, 5 years or 5 years with auto-renewal — and thereafter stays excluded until they contact GamStop to have the registration removed. It cannot be cancelled early. An offshore site is not a way round it, and any page that implies otherwise is selling something.

This page is about the free offer that such sites dangle, and, because of the angle this site takes on every topic, about the only question that matters after the fun stops: where a complaint can go, and who decides it. As of 13.11.2026, the honest answer for most of these sites is: nowhere you would want, decided by someone you have never heard of.

On help: the National Gambling Helpline, run by GamCare, is free on 0808 8020 133, 24 hours a day, every day. In Wales the number given is 0808 2819 265. Gamblers Anonymous England, Wales & Ulster runs about 250 meeting locations and can be reached on 0330 094 0322, and Citizens Advice Scotland runs a gambling support line on 0800 328 1131, Monday to Friday, 10am to 3pm. None of those bodies has any power over an unlicensed operator. They have power over the harm it does.

Why Non GamStop Casino No Deposit Bonuses Exist

A free no deposit bonus is a marketing cost with a legal tail. The UK rules that shape the version sold to British players are unusually specific, because the Gambling Commission spent years watching operators hide behind them.

From 19 January 2026, licensees are barred from offering mixed-product promotions requiring two or more types of gambling, and wagering requirements on bonus funds are capped at a maximum of ten times. The Commission chose a cap over an outright ban, and said so bluntly: a limit "will take out extreme levels as some licensees currently apply up to 60 times wagering requirements". Read that alongside the cap and you have the regulator's own estimate of what the industry did when nobody was stopping it.

Offshore, nobody is stopping it. Trade comparisons put typical offshore welcome-bonus multipliers at 35× to 50× and no-deposit multipliers at 40× to 60×, usually with a cashout ceiling of €50–€100. Those figures are not from a regulator and should be treated as a range, not a promise, but they are the range the market settles into when the constraint is competition rather than a licence condition.

Regulation is not the only lever. Since 31 October 2025 all gambling businesses must prompt customers to set a financial limit before their first deposit, must make it easy to review and change it, and must remind customers every six months to check their account and transaction information. Under RTS 12E the limit-setting screen has to be the default option, and a customer who declines it must take an action to decline and confirm that decision. A British operator therefore has to ask a new player to think about a number before they play. An offshore site has no such obligation and, in my experience of reading these term sheets, no interest in acquiring one.

The credit card ban belongs here too, because it shapes how offshore sites are funded. The Commission banned credit cards for gambling from 14 April 2020, adding licence condition 6.1.2 to the LCCP, and operators must also ensure that money arriving from an e-wallet was not loaded from a credit card. That rule applies to British licensees. An offshore operator is not bound by it, which is one reason offshore brands lean so heavily on e-wallets and crypto.

What Offshore Licences Actually Cost

It pays to know what a licence is worth, because "licensed and regulated" on a footer is doing a lot of work for a document that can cost less than a family car.

Curaçao reformed its regime. The National Ordinance on Games of Chance took effect on 24 December 2024, replacing the old master-licence and sub-licence model with direct licensing by the Curaçao Gaming Authority. The legacy "orange" sub-licence certificates ended on 15 October 2025, and licensing activity ceased for the four former master licensors on dates running from 18 August 2024 to 31 January 2025. A historic /JAZ number or an old seal is not proof of anything current. The application fee for a Curaçao B2C licence is a one-time, non-refundable EUR 4,592, with EUR 150 per ultimate beneficial owner; the total annual B2C fee is EUR 47,450, made up of a EUR 24,490 licence fee to the National Treasury and a EUR 22,960 supervisory fee to the CGA, payable in full by 15 January. Two seals exist: a Certificate of Operation Seal, issued only to B2C operators and only for an approved, registered player-facing domain, and a License Certificate Seal, available to B2B and B2C entities and not domain-specific. Clicking a Certificate of Operation Seal has to redirect to cert.cga.cw; if the design, colour or format differs, the site is not authorised. If the certificate shows a different domain from the one being visited, the site is displaying another operator's paperwork.

Anjouan is the cheaper door. The Anjouan Gaming Authority publishes EUR 17,828 for B2C licence issuance and the same figure for annual renewal, identical for B2B, with EUR 500 per additional domain or URL. An ABC News investigation published on 31 December 2025 reported that Anjouan Licensing Services claims to have issued more than 1,300 gambling licences at around EUR 17,000 each per year, and that Comoros financial intelligence officials described Anjouan Corporate Services as operating illegally; a former attorney-general of the Comoros called the licensing seller "an illegal entity" and said the AOFA was stripped of recognised-regulator status by Comorian banking laws passed in 2013 and 2015. Anjouan Gaming stated on 10 June 2026 that an Anjouan licence "is not, and has never been presented as, a universal authorisation to operate in every country in the world", and that no licensing authority can exempt an operator from local law.

That is about as candid as this industry gets. The regulator has told you it does not authorise you.

Kahnawà:ke is the long-running alternative: the Kahnawà:ke Gaming Commission was established in 1996 and enacted its interactive gaming regulations on 8 July 1999. It issues one Interactive Gaming Licence, held by a single entity — Mohawk Internet Technologies, since 1999 — plus Client Provider Authorizations, which is how most brands are covered. There is no limit on the number of CPAs. Kahnawà:ke's Logo Certificate Program, effective 15 January 2010, lets a player click the Commission's logo to generate a Certificate of Good Standing confirming whether a site holds a valid permit. Kahnawà:ke's own rules require a licensee's relationship with players to be contractual and free of unfair or unreasonable terms, require sites to allow limits including zero, and state that its voluntary self-exclusion is permanent and irrevocable. It also provides that a player who breaches a self-exclusion prohibition forfeits funds deposited or won to a third-party charity chosen by the Commission — a sharper remedy than anything in the British system, and one nobody would want to test.

By contrast, Costa Rica does not operate a comprehensive gambling licensing regime at all. Its Legislative Assembly rejected Bill No. 25,057 in early 2026, which would have introduced mandatory licensing. The "data processing license" occasionally cited in this trade is not a licence in any strict legal sense. When a footer says Costa Rica, it very often means nothing.

How Free Chips Are Measured

The free offer arrives in a handful of shapes, and the shape matters more than the headline number. The table below compares them by method, on the terms that actually decide whether money leaves the account. It is not a list of brands, and no two offers are ever identical to the letter — but the mechanics repeat.

Three points about that table. First, the UK row is there to show the gap, not to sell anything: British licensees cannot impose any maximum limit on the amount a consumer may withdraw from their deposit balance, so a published cashout ceiling on a deposit-funded offer is a warning sign in itself. Second, a cashout cap on a free chip is not always unfair in the abstract, but it is always worth reading, because it is the term that converts a €100 win into a €50 payment. Third, and this is the one I would mark in red: the complaint route column is the same three words on every offshore row, and those words are doing an enormous amount of work.

Where terms build in delay, it is usually here. A maximum-bet-while-wagering clause is the classic. One offshore operator caps the maximum bet while wagering at €5 for regular players and €10 for VIP players and rejects any bet above the limit; another states that all bonuses carry a max bet restriction relative to the deposit amount, with a casino max bet per wager of 20 per cent of the deposited amount, and that failure to adhere "may result in account closure, forfeit of the Bonus, and any winnings generated during the wagering of the Bonus". A table-games weighting schedule does the same job more quietly: one operator's published chart gives slots and specialty games 100 per cent, table games 20 per cent, video poker and blackjack 10 per cent, roulette and baccarat 5 per cent, and craps, live dealer and some jackpots 0 per cent. Play blackjack on a free chip at 10 per cent weighting and the wagering requirement multiplies tenfold without a single word changing.

Five Signs of a Trustworthy Operator

There are careful offshore operators. They exist, they pay, and they are not hard to spot once you know what to look for. The signs below are about the operator and the service, not about the offer.

The licence is current, and verifiable from the regulator's own register

Check that the licence is live and that it names the domain being used. For Curaçao, click the Certificate of Operation Seal and confirm it lands on cert.cga.cw and shows the same domain; a mismatch means the certificate belongs to somebody else. For Kahnawà:ke, click the Commission's logo and generate a Certificate of Good Standing. A historic /JAZ number, or an "orange" certificate, ended on 15 October 2025 and proves nothing.

The terms on the bonus are short enough to read in one sitting

Look for wagering expressed clearly, game weightings given as percentages, a stated maximum bet while wagering, and an expiry date that is not buried. A term that reserves sole discretion for the operator to void winnings is the issue that got one operator fined £170,000 in July 2025 for a clause stating it "have the right at their own discretion to close accounts or forfeit winnings". Where terms run to several thousand words across four linked pages, the delay is built into the reading, not the paying.

A named ADR provider appears in the player-facing terms

This is the single most useful check on an offshore site. Anjouan requires licensees to appoint an Authority-approved ADR provider and to list its name and contact details in player-facing terms, and expects complaints to be resolved within 30 days before escalation; the providers currently approved include EGIS ADR, Axion ADR, iGaming ADR and other approved ADR services If the site names none of them, or names a mailbox, there is no route.

Withdrawals are not gated by documents first requested at withdrawal

The British version of this problem is well documented: a 2026 Commission blog reported that over a quarter of complaints reaching its Contact Centre concern identity verification, raised when documents are demanded only on attempting to withdraw. Licence condition 17.1.1 exists to stop it — a withdrawal request must not trigger a demand for information the licensee could reasonably have requested earlier — and the Commission has said plainly that an operator with no regulatory concerns has no valid reason to delay a payout. Offshore, that safeguard is absent, so the check is behavioural: did the site verify identity at sign-up, or is it only now, at the cashier's window, that a folder of documents is needed?

The customer-funds position is stated in writing

Where an operator holds customer funds, British rules require it to choose one of three protection ratings — "not protected", "medium protection" or "high protection" — to make clear in its terms which applies, and, if "not protected", to remind the customer every six months, stating the value of funds held. A careful offshore operator publishes something equivalent. Note the honest caveat in the British guidance as well: keeping funds in a separate client account does not mean customers get their money back if the operator becomes insolvent, and funds can lawfully be held in overseas accounts. Money staked within an open bet is not customer funds at all and is not covered by any insolvency arrangement.

Common Disputes and How Money Is Handled

The thing this whole topic turns on is not the free chip. It is the identity check, because that is where the free chip turns into a locked account, and because it is the point at which a dispute goes from theoretical to personal.

In Great Britain, identity verification is a licensing requirement, not a courtesy. Licence Condition 17 was introduced on 7 May 2019 and requires licensees to obtain and verify information establishing a customer's identity before that customer is permitted to gamble, including name, address and date of birth. The Commission now expects identity and age checks to be brought forward to before a deposit or stake, and has said that onboarding on partial information — initials instead of full names, nicknames, commercial addresses instead of residential ones — is not sufficient. It has also warned about "fuzzy matching" through third-party verification providers, and made a point that ought to be taped to every product manager's screen: onboarding a customer under a middle name instead of a forename can create mismatches with records held elsewhere, including GamStop, undermining self-exclusion itself.

The first time an honest site checks, it is usually invisible. Companies can often match an account against credit reference agencies and the electoral roll, in which case no documents are needed. If a document is required, the Commission says it cannot give a timescale, because it varies: electronic verification may be instant, and paper documents take longer. Passports, driving licences and household bills are the usual asks. A selfie may be requested where fraud is suspected, for instance identity theft using someone else's details. Bank statements may be sought to check that source of funds is legitimate, and for higher-risk accounts the operator will also need source of wealth.

Later checks are where offshore sites behave differently. The British expectation is that a check happens once, early, and then leaves the customer alone; the withdrawal-time ambush is precisely what condition 17.1.1 was written to prevent. An offshore site has no such condition. Some are brisk and verify at sign-up regardless; others treat the first withdrawal as the moment to begin. The warning signs, in order of how much trouble they predict:

• A first withdrawal that triggers a document request the site could plainly have made at registration.
• A verification requirement that arrives after a win, not before the deposit that produced it.
• A document list that keeps growing — a passport, then a utility bill, then a bank statement, then a selfie, then a source-of-funds questionnaire.
• A term allowing funds to be confiscated for failed verification. British guidance is explicit that a deposit balance cannot be docked on the basis that a consumer failed identity or age verification, and that un-staked deposits remain the customer's. Offshore, that protection does not exist.
• A processing period measured in "business days" with no stated maximum, and no published complaint route to test it against.

One further trap is worth naming, because it catches people who are being careful. Bonus and deposit balances should be displayed separately, and winnings from a deposit-funded offer should not have wagering attached to them at all. A "sticky" bonus — a non-cashable one — can be used for wagering but the bonus amount itself can never be withdrawn and is removed on cashout. That is an industry explanation rather than a regulator's, and it should be read as such, but it is a coherent description of a real practice. The reason British rules ended it is simple: the Commission's guidance requires that wagering requirements must not apply to any play with the customer's deposit balance, and that players must be allowed to withdraw their deposit balance at any time, including when a bonus is pending or active. Where a cashout leaves you with less than you staked, the offer was never free.

Deciding Disputes in the UK and Offshore

This is the section this site exists for, so I will be exact about it.

For a British licensee, the route is defined and cheap. Social responsibility code provision 6.1.1 requires licensees to have arrangements for customers to refer any dispute to an ADR entity free of charge if it is not resolved to their satisfaction within eight weeks of receipt; a consumer must have gone through the operator's own complaints procedure first, and the operator may issue a "deadlock letter" confirming they can now escalate. Licence holders should allow complaints to be raised for at least six months from the incident, acknowledge within 24 hours where they offer 24-hour facilities, and complete the whole process including internal escalation within eight weeks. ADR providers must receive information from operators in full and within ten working days. The approved providers list includes ADR Group, Pegasus ADR Service, several other providers, CEDR, eCOGRA, IBAS, ProMediate and Tattersalls Committee, with IBAS specialising in gambling and free to consumers.

The record is imperfect but it is real. eCOGRA's report for 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025 records 911 disputes received, of which "Deposits & Withdrawals" accounted for 150 valid disputes; the average time to resolve domestic disputes was 31 days, and 17.8 per cent of completed disputes were ruled in favour of the consumer. Notably, 361 of 499 invalid disputes — 72.3 per cent — had not been through the operator's internal complaints procedure first. IBAS's report for the same period records 3,721 domestic disputes, 217 of them Banking/Financial, an average completion time of 20 days for domestic disputes, and 100 per cent operator compliance with decisions in the consumer's favour in both 2023-24 and 2024-25. That last figure is the one that should give anyone pause: IBAS upholds comparatively few complaints, but when it does, the operator pays.

Offshore, the equivalent is thin. Anjouan requires a designated ADR provider and a 30-day resolution window before escalation. Kahnawà:ke employs a full-time Dispute Resolution Officer and treats the player relationship as contractual. Curaçao reformed its licensing and issues domain-specific Certificates of Operation, but the scope of its player-dispute machinery is not something I would stake a week's winnings on. Where the site names no provider, the practical position is that the casino decides, and the casino is the party you are complaining about. The Commission is not a substitute: it is a regulator and not an ombudsman, cannot resolve individual complaints and cannot help consumers get their money back.

And the market is not small. The Commission's analysis published on 5 November 2026 estimates that among respondents who had gambled online in the past four weeks, 2.5 per cent had engaged with illegal gambling websites, with a further 1.5 per cent in the past twelve months. H2 Gambling Capital put the amount staked with illegal operators in the UK at £16.6 billion in 2025, up from about £5 billion in 2019. Separately, the Commission's illegal gambling dashboard recorded 586 illegal gambling websites accessible to GB consumers in September 2026, and 311 sites had disruption action taken against them in the second quarter of 2026 to 2027, with 77 per cent of disrupted websites seeing a reduction in estimated traffic. Its Illegal Markets team has, since April 2024, issued 3,140 cease and desist and disruption notices, referred 447,778 Bing and Google URLs and secured 287,961 removals. Across 160 illegal gambling websites with traffic data, engagement fell by an average of 32 per cent after disruption. By method, registrar blocks and website suspensions produced the largest average fall — 91 per cent each — ahead of GEO IP blocking at 60 per cent, Bing removal at 52 per cent, Google removal at 30 per cent and Facebook removal at 8 per cent. The Commission's own conclusion, published on 21 October 2025, is that search-engine removal makes a site harder to find without blocking access.

There is a reason the Commission set up its Illegal Markets team in the first place. Its warning notice of 20 January 2025 flagged licensed operators' casino games appearing on unlicensed websites available to GB consumers, and noted that such sites often target customers who have self-excluded via GamStop and may have inadequate social responsibility and anti-money-laundering controls. Read that sentence twice. The commercial model of a chunk of this market is not "free chips for everyone". It is "free chips for the people the British system has just locked out".

So: a reminder, stated as a fact rather than a warning. A GamStop registration holds for the full term chosen and then remains in place until you contact GamStop to remove it under the terms of use — you cannot cancel or deactivate it during the exclusion period, GamStop Online registrations cannot be removed early, and its 2025 annual report devotes a section to refusing exactly that. If you do not deactivate after your chosen period, the scheme holds your data through a further automatic seven-year self-exclusion period during which operators are told you were previously excluded. And the numbers are not marginal: Gamstop Online reported 614,738 consumers on the register as of July 2026, with more than one in two having opted for the maximum five-year exclusion. An offshore site that takes your deposit has not lifted that; it has simply stepped outside it.

How to Judge a Free Offer in Six Steps

Ordinary, lawful checks, in the order I would do them.

1. Check the licence against the regulator's own register, not the site's footer. Look up the operator and confirm the licence is live and names the domain in front of you. For Curaçao, click the Certificate of Operation Seal and confirm the redirect to cert.cga.cw and a matching domain; for Kahnawà:ke, generate a Certificate of Good Standing from the Commission's logo. Reason: a footer is a claim, a register is a record, and the two disagree often.
2. Read the bonus terms in full before registering, and note four numbers. Wagering, cashout cap, maximum bet while wagering, and expiry. Reason: those four decide the outcome of almost every free-chip dispute, and all four are usually on a page you have to click to reach.
3. Check the game weighting table for the game you actually intend to play. Reason: a 10 per cent weighting on blackjack turns a 40× requirement into an effective 400×, and the multiplier itself never changes.
4. Confirm the site is not connected to GamStop and understand what that means. GamStop Online blocks access to gambling websites and apps licensed in Great Britain only, and its obligations apply only to UKGC-licensed operators; it cannot prevent access to services run by organisations that do not participate. Reason: the flag on your register is not stopping the site, so the decision to play is yours and yours alone.
5. Set the bank-side and device-side defences before you need them. The Gambling Commission's list published on 16 October 2026 names Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Halifax, HSBC, Lloyds Bank, MBNA, Monzo, NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander and Starling as offering a gambling block; the blocks work by declining payments under gambling Merchant Category Codes, are applied at card level so must be enabled on each card, and most banks use a 48-hour or 72-hour cooling-off period before gambling transactions are allowed again, with no effect on your credit score. Gamban and BetBlocker are the blocking-software options Gamstop signposts. Reason: these are the only tools on this list that work against a site with no licence.
6. Before depositing, find out who would decide a complaint, and keep the evidence. Read the terms for a named ADR provider, save the bonus terms as they stood on the day, and keep the transaction references. Reason: the whole difficulty of these sites is that the decision-maker is often the counterparty, and a dated copy of the terms is the only thing that turns a disagreement into a record.

A note on one of those steps that surprises people. Bank gambling blocks are not a licence matter — they are a commercial decision by the bank, they are applied at card level, and they cover online casinos, betting websites, gaming apps and physical venues. They are also the only protection in this list that does not depend on the operator's goodwill or on a regulator's jurisdiction. If a single measure on this page were mandatory rather than voluntary, I would pick that one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a non GamStop no deposit bonus legal in the UK?

The offer is not the problem; the operator's licence is. Under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 it is an offence for a person to provide facilities for gambling without an operating licence, and it is immaterial whether the facilities are provided wholly or partly by remote communication, or inside or outside the UK. The Commission states plainly that this includes an operator licensed in another jurisdiction. Precisely because the Act's general gambling offences attach to those providing facilities, the offence is committed by the operator rather than the adult customer.

Where can a complaint go if an offshore casino refuses to pay?

Check the terms for a named ADR provider first: Anjouan requires licensees to appoint one of several approved ADR providers and to publish its details, and expects complaints to be resolved within 30 days before escalation. Kahnawà:ke runs a full-time Dispute Resolution Officer. If neither is present, the site decides. The Gambling Commission is a regulator and not an ombudsman, cannot resolve individual complaints and cannot help consumers recover money.

Why do these free chips carry such high wagering?

Because there is no regulator to stop them. Since 19 January 2026 British licensees must not apply wagering requirements over a maximum of ten times, and the Commission said the limit would "take out extreme levels as some licensees currently apply up to 60 times wagering requirements". Offshore, the constraint is competitive rather than regulatory, and trade comparisons put no-deposit wagering at 40× to 60× with a €50–€100 cashout cap. The cap matters as much as the multiplier.

Can I keep gambling on an offshore site while self-excluded with GamStop?

That is what the site will let you do, and it is why the warning notice of 20 January 2025 said such sites often target customers who have self-excluded via GamStop. But the registration itself does not lapse, and the Commission's own rules treat middle names and partial details that cause mismatches with GamStop records as a serious failure. A GamStop exclusion runs for its full term — 6 months, 1 year, 5 years or 5 years with auto-renewal — and then stays in place until you contact GamStop to remove it.

What is the difference between a free chip and free spins?

Mostly the game, and therefore the weighting. A free chip is usually playable across the site, subject to a published contribution schedule — one operator gives slots and specialty games 100 per cent, table games 20 per cent, video poker and blackjack 10 per cent, roulette and baccarat 5 per cent, and craps, live dealer and some jackpots 0 per cent. Free spins are tied to one slot, so the multiplier is honest, but an expiry clock and a per-spin value you did not choose do the work the weighting does elsewhere.

Does verifying my identity mean I will be paid?

Not necessarily, but it is a useful signal. British operators can often verify through credit reference agencies and the electoral roll with no documents at all, and Licence Condition 17.1.1 stops a withdrawal request triggering a demand for information that could reasonably have been sought earlier. Offshore, ask whether the site verified you at sign-up or only at the cashier's window. A first withdrawal that triggers a document request the site could have made at registration is the clearest warning you will get.

The Free Chip That Costs the Most

A no-deposit offer is free in the same sense that a complimentary taxi is free when the destination is chosen by the driver: the ride costs nothing, and the meter is somewhere else entirely. The whole question is not what the bonus pays but who decides when it pays, and on an offshore site the answer is usually the party standing opposite you.

The British comparison is there for anyone who wants it. A licensed operator, on these terms, carries a ten-times wagering cap, a ban on mixed-product promotions, a written customer-funds disclosure, a free route to an independent adjudicator within eight weeks, and a bank-side block that can be switched on before the first deposit. That is not a perfect system — 49 per cent of people who had gambled in the past twelve months agreed in consumer research published in July 2026 that "it is quick and easy to withdraw and collect my winnings", which means half of players say something else — but it is a system, with named decision-makers and published outcomes.

Offshore, the protections are contractual, voluntary and reversible, which is a polite way of saying they last as long as the operator wants them to. The one number I keep coming back to is this: the Commission's illegal gambling dashboard recorded 586 illegal gambling websites accessible to GB consumers in September 2026, and in the single quarter from July to September 2026 it referred 1,835 websites to search engines — 7,677,211 URLs — and issued 546 cease and desist notices. Seven and a half million URLs in three months, and not one of them was a site with a Gambling Commission licence. If the free chip is real, ask who is paying for it.

The National Gambling Helpline, run by GamCare, is free on 0808 8020 133, 24 hours a day, every day of the year; in Wales the number given is 0808 2819 265. Neither GamCare nor the Commission can get your money back from an unlicensed operator. They can help with everything that matters more.