Why ten tables instead of one
A single composite score is useful for a first pass and useless the moment you know what you want. Someone who cares about how fast money leaves the cashier is badly served by a number that also contains catalogue size and bonus generosity. Each ranking here answers one question and orders the field on that measurement alone.
Why these pages show facts, not scores
The figure beside each casino is the measurement itself — a year, a number of hours, a bonus package — rather than a mark out of ten. Ten-point scales are good for adding things up and bad for telling two sites apart on one dimension: they group two dozen casinos into the same band and stop discriminating. Ordering on the underlying value keeps the distinctions that matter.
Who is missing, and why we say so
Coverage differs by measurement, and every ranking states its own gap on its own page. Mobile is the starkest: not one of the fifty has a native app, and for 26 of them we could not establish even whether an installable web app exists, so they are left out rather than guessed at. Verification was meant to rank speed until it turned out that a stated number of days existed for two operators out of fifty — so it ranks documented friction instead, and says so.
Leaving a casino out of a ranking is not a judgement on it. Giving it a zero or a middling score to keep the list tidy would push every other entry around for no reason.