The highest count in the pool
Oshi Casino repeats 72 of BitStarz's 74 excluded countries
Oshi Casino shares the top overlap figure on this site: 72 of the 74 countries BitStarz excludes appear in the Oshi terms as well. The two exceptions are Guadeloupe and Russia. This page sets out what that count is built from, which direction it runs in, and the four things it settles nothing about.
Seventy-two names in common, and the two that are absent
Take the territory list BitStarz publishes in its terms — 74 country and territory names, read live from the operator’s own terms page on 26 August 2026. Take the equivalent list from Oshi Casino, read from a stored copy of the operator’s terms on the same date. Cross one against the other, name by name.
Seventy-two of the BitStarz names appear in the Oshi document. Two are absent from it: Guadeloupe and Russia. That is the whole of the highest similarity figure on this site, and it is the same figure PlayAmo carries.
The count runs in one direction, and the reverse looks nothing like it
The Oshi terms name 224 territories. The BitStarz terms name 74. So the sentence “Oshi repeats 72 of the BitStarz 74” is true, and the mirrored sentence is a different animal altogether: BitStarz repeats 72 of the 224 Oshi entries, leaving 152 Oshi names with no counterpart on the BitStarz side.
Both counts describe the same intersection. They differ because they divide it by different denominators, and the denominator is the thing most similarity claims quietly drop. Printing 72 alone would suggest two nearly identical policies. Printing 72 of 74 and 72 of 224 together shows a small list sitting almost entirely inside a much larger one.
Which direction matters depends on the question. A reader checking whether the countries BitStarz excludes are also excluded elsewhere wants the first figure. A reader comparing how restrictive the two documents are wants the second, and the second says the Oshi policy is roughly three times the length.
| Casino | Operator | Licence | Countries barred | Withdrawal limit | Visit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vavepaid placement | TechOptions Group B.V. | Curaçao no number | list not read | from 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8 | Visit |
| BitStarz | Gareton B.V. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 74 | not published | |
| Oshi Casino | Novatrix SRL | Anjouan Gaming Board | 224 | not published | |
| PlayAmo | Novatrix SRL | Anjouan Gaming Board | 217 | not published | |
| Bitdreams | Hollycorn N.V. | Antillephone N.V. | 216 | not published | |
| 7Bit Casino | not published | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 216 | not published | |
| Bitkingz | Novatrix SRL | Anjouan Gaming Board | 218 | not published | |
| Mirax | Scores55 Tech B.V. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 220 | not published | |
| Slotum | Novatrix SRL | Anjouan Gaming Board | 216 | not published | |
| Metaspins | 3-102-959384 SRL | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 58 | not published | |
| CryptoLeo | Uno Digital Media B.V. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 74 | not published | |
| Bets.io | Techno Wave Systems S.R.L. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 42 | not published |
Guadeloupe and Russia, and how unusual each absence is
The two gaps are worth separating, because one of them is common in this pool and the other is close to unique.
Russia is named by BitStarz and by four of the ten operators whose lists were read alongside it. It is one of the least uniform names in the whole comparison: the majority of the operators measured say nothing about it. Its absence from the Oshi terms puts Oshi with the majority.
Guadeloupe behaves differently. It sits in eight of the ten other lists, usually alongside the rest of the French overseas group — Martinique, French Guiana, Réunion and Mayotte all appear in the Oshi document. Guadeloupe alone was left out of it. A single missing member of an otherwise complete set looks more like drafting than policy, though the terms give no reason and this page invents none.
Where the paperwork parts company
Six of the seven checks used here have nothing to do with country names, and two of those six are where the distance opens up.
The licensing authority: BitStarz trades under a Curaçao Gaming Authority permit numbered OGL/2024/165/0185, verifiable through a per-certificate link on cert.cga.cw. Oshi Casino trades under an Anjouan Gaming Board permit numbered ALSI-202508056-FI2, listed in the Anjouan public register. Different regulator, different register, different complaint route. That check is worth 15 points and Oshi scores zero on it.
The company on the licence: Gareton B.V. against Novatrix SRL. Another 15 points, another zero — and worth stating plainly, because the phrase “sister site” gets attached to pairs like this constantly. A sister brand in the strict sense shares the company on the permit. These two share a similar territory policy, which is a different claim entirely.
Add the checks Oshi does pass — casino without a sportsbook, a VIP programme, and a verification posture described without a published threshold — and the total lands at 59 points of 100.
What the withdrawal clauses say, and where the comparison stops
Clause 12 of the Oshi terms carries two figures. A ceiling of €4,000 a day, and a 40-day window after which winnings may be confiscated if requested documents remain unsupplied. Both were read on 26 August 2026.
The BitStarz side of that comparison is blank. The terms were read on the same date and no withdrawal ceiling was recorded from them, so the field stays empty here. An empty field is a statement about our reading, and it is never printed as an absence of limits — the full ceiling record for all twelve operators sits under seven ceilings read of twelve.
Four things 72 of 74 leaves entirely open
A country-list overlap is one signal built from one document. It carries no information about the game library or the studios behind it, because territory clauses and supplier catalogues are drafted by different parties. It carries none about the cashier: coins, networks, minimums and confirmation counts are published elsewhere and were counted separately. It carries none about how a payout actually behaves once requested. And it carries none about ownership, which is the field where these two operators are furthest apart.
What it does carry is this: two operators drafting territory clauses that agree on 72 names out of 74 are working from very similar commercial constraints. That is a real finding, it is checkable in twenty minutes against two published pages, and it is smaller than the word “similar” usually implies.
Checking it yourself
Open the terms page of each operator, find the section listing excluded territories, and count. Both lists are alphabetical by country name in the versions read here, which makes crossing them a mechanical job rather than a judgement. Attach the date you read them, because these documents are revised at the operator’s initiative.
The tie at the head of the overlap column has a second half, and the two halves disagree: PlayAmo reaches the same figure while missing a different pair of names. A place lower, 7Bit Casino repeats 71 of them on a record with two fields missing from it. For the denominator itself, see what is inside the 74. The ordering of all ten rows lives on the alternatives table, the point values behind it on the scoring rules, and the shortlists on Points of Match itself.