Singapore is on ten of thirty-eight lists, and on none of these nine

The three short lists, opened

Rakebit's thirteen are China, Costa Rica, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Cambodia, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Ukraine, the United States and Yemen. Four of the thirteen are in Southeast Asia, which gives the list a regional shape rather than a purely regulatory one.

Shuffle's fifteen are Australia, Cuba, Curaçao, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Iran, North Korea, the Cayman Islands, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Singapore, Syria and the United States. Most of that list is either a licensed market the operator has chosen to stay out of or a sanctions jurisdiction. Singapore sits inside it alongside Australia and the Netherlands.

BetPlays names Aruba, Bulgaria, Bonaire, Curaçao, Cyprus, Israel, Iraq, Iran, the Comoros, North Korea, Myanmar, Singapore, Sint Maarten, Ukraine and the United States. Two entries there are the operator's own licensing jurisdictions, which is a common pattern and a reminder that a restricted list mixes several different reasons into one paragraph.

Three lists, three different logics, one country appearing in all three.

One licence number, five brands, two answers

Four of the ten brands naming Singapore share a single registration. Oshi Casino, PlayAmo, Slotum and Bitkingz all resolve to the Anjouan number ALSI-202508056-FI2, held by Novatrix SRL.

A fifth brand sits on that same number: Winz.io, whose list runs to ninety-two countries and does not include Singapore.

One company, one licence number, five sets of terms and two different answers about the same country. The registration is issued to the company; the restricted list is written per brand. Anyone treating a licence number as a proxy for a market position is reading the wrong document, and checking an operator sets out which document answers which question.

It also means a reader who is turned away by one of those brands may meet a different answer at another brand of the same company, without anything having changed about the company.

The nine lists on this table, and the one with a single name in it

Nine of the ten operators compared here publish a restricted-country list we could read. Singapore is absent from all nine.

The lengths vary as widely as they do everywhere else: Metaspins tops the list at 58 countries, then Wolf.bet at 48, Wild Fortune at 47, Wild.io at 45, Rocketpot at 34, DuckDice at 16, Empire.io at 12, and Rainbet at 11.

Bitcasino.io's list contains exactly one country, and that country is Japan.

Across all one hundred brands, no other list names a single country and stops. Whatever produced it, the result is that a reader in Singapore looking at Bitcasino.io's clause finds a document that excludes one market and says nothing about theirs.

The tenth operator, Vave, is the one whose list we could not read. Its cell says unread, which describes a gap in our reading rather than anything about Vave's terms. An unread clause can say anything, and the honest handling of that gap is the same as everywhere else on this site: it stays empty and it is never scored as an advantage.

Why an absent name settles nothing about Singapore law

This is the part where a comparison table can do real damage if it stops one sentence early.

An operator's restricted list is a statement about who the operator will accept. Singapore's statute is a statement about what may be done in Singapore, and it is addressed to a different party.

The Gambling Control Act 2022 does not stop at the operator: the person placing the bet sits inside the statute too, and the Gambling Regulatory Authority licenses exactly one operator for remote gambling — Singapore Pools — which is not among the ten compared here. Nothing about a missing entry on an offshore operator's own list changes either of those facts. The two documents are not in conversation with each other. What the Act covers, who administers the blocking, and what changed in 2025 are set out in full on the law page.

An absent name means one thing only: on the day we read it, that clause did not name Singapore.

Reading the clause yourself, and the spelling that hides it

Restricted lists are among the easiest clauses to check and among the easiest to check badly.

Search the terms page for two strings, not one. Some operators write country names in full, and some publish nothing but two-letter codes, in which case a search for “Singapore” returns nothing while “SG” returns the entry. A list read with only one of the two spellings is a list read wrong, and this is the single most common way a reader concludes that a clause is silent when it is not.

Read the surrounding section as well as the list. The same paragraph usually says what the operator may do about an account opened from a named country, and that sentence is where the practical consequence lives.

Note the date you read it. A clause is a snapshot; ours were read on 26 August 2026 and an operator can revise the list without notifying anyone. Where the same brand publishes more than one version of its terms, which version binds you covers what happens when they disagree.

What is missing from this count

Sixty-two of the hundred brands publish no readable list at all, which is a majority. Any statement of the form “only ten operators restrict Singapore” would therefore be false, and this page does not make it. The accurate statement is narrower: ten of the thirty-eight lists we could read name Singapore.

Nobody here has opened an account, so no clause has been tested against a real registration.

Screenshots on this site are captured from a live browser in the Netherlands, which means an access result seen from that machine describes the Netherlands and nothing else. That is why access is never used as evidence of a clause, and why the desk's method treats a refusal screen as unusable. The only readable evidence of a restricted-country position is the paragraph itself.