PlayAmo ties the top score and disagrees about which names are missing

Two operators reach 72 of 74 on this site, and they are not missing the same countries. PlayAmo skips Russia and Slovakia; Oshi Casino skips Guadeloupe and Russia. Both brands trade under one Anjouan permit number held by one company, which makes the disagreement the interesting part.

A tie at the top, and a disagreement inside it

Two operators reach the same figure against BitStarz, and it is the highest figure anywhere in this pool: 72 of 74. One is Oshi Casino. The other is PlayAmo.

Identical scores invite the assumption that the two documents are interchangeable. They are not. Oshi omits Guadeloupe and Russia from the BitStarz set; PlayAmo omits Russia and Slovakia. Three distinct names are involved across a pair of ties, and the arithmetic hides that completely.

This page follows that disagreement, because of everything the measure produced, it is the finding that says most about what a territory list actually is.

One permit number stands behind five brands

The PlayAmo licence recorded on 26 August 2026 is an Anjouan Gaming Board permit, ALSI-202508056-FI2, held by Novatrix SRL. The Oshi Casino licence carries the same number and the same holder. So do the permits behind Slotum, Bitkingz and Winz.io. Five brands, one identifier, one company — the strict definition of sister sites, and rare enough to be worth stating carefully.

Now put the four territory documents side by side. PlayAmo names 217 territories. Oshi names 224. Bitkingz names 218. Slotum names 216. Four documents from one licensed company, four different lengths, and four different sets.

That is the finding. A shared permit fixes the regulator, the register entry and the complaint route. The country list stays a brand-level document, drafted per site and revised per site, and it drifts between brands that share everything else on paper. Anyone using “sister site” as shorthand for “same rules” is making a prediction the documents contradict.

What each operator publishes about itself: the company named on the licence, the permit number and where it was read, and how many countries the operator excludes in its own terms. Similarity here is a count with a denominator printed beside it — BitStarz names 74 countries, and an operator's overlap is stated as a share of those 74. An operator whose own list was not read carries nothing to compare rather than a low score, because an unread list is not evidence of difference. An empty cell means the document was not read — it is not a zero, and it is not a permission.
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

Russia and Slovakia

Of the pair PlayAmo leaves out, Russia is the ordinary case. The BitStarz terms name it and four of the ten comparison documents do the same, which makes it one of the least consistent entries in the whole comparison — most of these operators publish nothing about it either way.

Slovakia is the sharper difference. It appears in seven of the ten other documents, including those of the three sibling brands on the same permit. Bitkingz, Oshi and Slotum all name it; PlayAmo, drafted under the same licence, leaves it out. Two of the twenty-seven European Union member states in the BitStarz list behave like this across the pool, and Slovakia is one of them.

There is no explanation available in either document, and none is offered here. What is available is the count and the date it was taken.

Three ceilings under nearly the same clause number

Clause 12 of the PlayAmo terms publishes a withdrawal ceiling of €7,500 a week. Clause 12 of the Oshi terms publishes €4,000 a day. Clause 13 of the Slotum terms publishes €15,000 a week. All three read on 26 August 2026, all three from brands on one permit.

Restating those on a common footing is tempting and misleading. A daily ceiling of €4,000 spends up to €28,000 across seven days if a player withdraws every day; a weekly ceiling of €7,500 caps the same period at a quarter of that. But the clauses govern windows, not rates, and a single large payout meets the daily ceiling first and the weekly ceiling later. Converting one into the other produces a number the contract never uses.

The BitStarz row in this column is blank. No withdrawal ceiling was recorded from the terms read on 26 August 2026, and a blank field here means the document was not read on that point.

The verification wording, and why it scores

Seven checks make up the total, and the seventh compares verification posture rather than strictness. Three states are possible: a threshold published with a figure, verification described without a figure, or the subject unaddressed.

PlayAmo falls in the middle state. Identity documents may be required before a withdrawal is processed, a phone call or video check may be requested, and accounts may remain locked until the process completes. No monetary trigger appears. BitStarz sits in the same middle state, so the two match and PlayAmo takes the 10 points.

Matching here means the two documents are equally vague, which is worth saying out loud. A shared posture of discretion is a genuine similarity between contracts and a poor guide to what either operator will ask for.

What the tie is worth to a reader

PlayAmo finishes on 59 points of 100, level with Oshi Casino, behind Mirax on 73 and Metaspins on 68. The 30 points of overlap are almost all collected — 29 of them. The 15 for a matching regulator are gone, because BitStarz answers to the Curaçao Gaming Authority under permit OGL/2024/165/0185 while PlayAmo answers to the Anjouan Gaming Board. The 15 for a shared company are gone as well: Gareton B.V. on one permit, Novatrix SRL on the other.

So the honest summary is narrow. Two contracts that agree about which territories to refuse, drafted under two different regulators by two unrelated companies, with a shared habit of leaving verification undefined. Everything a player experiences after depositing — the library, the cashier, the pace of a payout — sits outside this measure and outside these documents.

Three further readings follow from this one. The other half of the tie takes the identical figure apart from the opposite side. Seventy-one of 74 with a half-read record shows what a gap in the paperwork costs. And the 74 names themselves set out what all of this is being divided into. How the points are assigned is on the scoring rules; every row in order is on the alternatives table; the shortlists open on Points of Match.

Questions people actually type

Is PlayAmo similar to BitStarz?

On territory policy it is as close as anything measured here: 72 of the 74 countries named in the BitStarz terms also appear in the PlayAmo terms, both read on 26 August 2026. On the wider measure PlayAmo scores 59 of 100, losing 15 points on the licensing authority and 15 on the company named on the permit.

Are PlayAmo and Oshi Casino the same operator?

Both licences carry the same Anjouan Gaming Board number, ALSI-202508056-FI2, and the same holder, Novatrix SRL, as recorded on 26 August 2026. Three further brands in this pool sit on that permit. Their published territory lists still differ from each other in length and in contents, so a shared permit predicts the paperwork rather than the policy.

What is the PlayAmo withdrawal limit?

Clause 12 sets €7,500 a week, read on 26 August 2026. The comparable Oshi Casino clause, bearing the same number, sets €4,000 a day, and the Slotum figure under clause 13 is €15,000 a week. Three brands on one permit publish three different ceilings over two different windows.

Does PlayAmo require verification?

The terms describe verification without attaching a monetary threshold to it. Identity documents may be required before a withdrawal is processed, a phone call or video check may be requested, and an account may stay locked until verification finishes. That posture — described, no figure — is the same one recorded for BitStarz, and it earns PlayAmo 10 points on the seventh check.