CoinPoker vs Roobet
CoinPoker makes a stronger promise than Roobet and then partly withdraws it in a second document, which leaves a reader with less certainty than Roobet's plainly unfavourable clauses do.
Written by Jordan Vela/Last checked:
Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say
CoinPoker against Roobet, side by side
| CoinPoker | Roobet | |
|---|---|---|
| Licence | Anjouan Gaming Board | Government of Curaçao |
| Licence no. | ALSI-202412004-FI1 | OGL/2024/687/0427 |
| Register status | valid | Not checked in the register |
| Providers | Not verified | Not published |
| Coins | 5 | 11 |
| Stated KYC threshold | Not published | Not published |
| Withdrawal cap | Not verified | Not published |
| Since | 2018 | Not published |
Source: roobet.com, 2026-08-28.
CoinPoker is one of the 41 Roobet alternatives compared here, each on its own published records.
CoinPoker markets itself as a no-KYC operator, stating that no identity documents are required to sign up or to withdraw in cryptocurrency. Its responsible gambling policy then says it may ask users to verify their identity, or freeze accounts until they are verified, for example to prevent underage play. Both statements come from the operator, and they are not fully consistent with each other.
Roobet says one thing. Clause 4.9 allows KYC documents to be requested at any time at its discretion and permits deposits and withdrawals to be restricted until identification is complete. Clause 10.5 refuses withdrawals until identity is fully verified. It is the less appealing position and the more predictable one, and predictability has a value of its own when a balance is involved.
A promise in one document, a reservation in another
The two CoinPoker statements can be reconciled — a site can operate without routine verification and still reserve the right to check in specific circumstances — but the reconciliation is the reader's work rather than the operator's. A player who chooses CoinPoker on the strength of the no-KYC claim should read the responsible gambling policy first, because that is the document that describes the exception.
Roobet's clauses require no reconciliation. They are unambiguous, and unambiguously in the operator's favour. The choice between the two brands on this ground is a choice between an operator that promises more and qualifies it elsewhere, and one that promises nothing and qualifies nothing.
The rest of the record, side by side
CoinPoker publishes a founding year of 2018 and a five-coin cashier: BTC, ETH, USDT, SOL and TRX. Every one of those also appears on Roobet's eleven-coin list, so the cashier comparison goes to Roobet without qualification. Neither brand names a game studio in anything we have read.
| Roobet | CoinPoker | |
|---|---|---|
| Coins listed | 11 | 5 |
| Year founded | Not published | 2018 |
| Verification position | Clauses 4.9 and 10.5, discretionary | Marketed as no-KYC, with a policy exception |
| Licence | OGL/2024/687/0427, Curacao | ALSI-202412004-FI1, Anjouan |
| Register link | None held | Anjouan public licence register |
| Studios named | None published | Not read |
Roobet read 2026-08-28. CoinPoker from our operator record, checked 2026-08-26.
Licence, limits and costs
CoinPoker's Anjouan licence ALSI-202412004-FI1 is recorded as valid, with the register link pointing at the Anjouan Gaming Board's public licence register rather than at coinpoker.com — an independent reference, and better than Roobet's, where our record holds no register link at all. Roobet's number returned nothing when queried on 2026-08-28, alongside every other domain tried that day, so the non-result is uninformative.
Neither publishes a maximum withdrawal. Roobet's terms contain none; no cap document has been read for CoinPoker. On charges only Roobet has figures: 1% on all successful fiat deposits at clause 9.7, 2% from the tenth fiat withdrawal in any rolling thirty-day period at clause 10.8, and a requirement at clause 10.1 that a deposit be wagered before it can be withdrawn. No fee schedule has been read for CoinPoker.
Pros
- States that no identity documents are required to sign up or to withdraw in cryptocurrency.
- Publishes a founding year of 2018; Roobet publishes none.
- Anjouan licence recorded as valid with a link into the board's public register.
Cons
- The responsible gambling policy allows accounts to be frozen until verified, which qualifies the no-KYC claim.
- Five coins against Roobet's eleven, with none that Roobet does not already carry.
- No studio list, fee schedule or withdrawal cap read.
Questions people ask
- Does CoinPoker really require no verification?
It markets itself that way and says crypto withdrawals need no documents. Its responsible gambling policy separately allows it to ask for verification or freeze accounts until verified, so the claim carries an exception in another document.
- Is Roobet's position clearer?
Yes, and less favourable. Clauses 4.9 and 10.5 allow documents to be demanded at any time and refuse withdrawals until identity is fully verified, with nothing elsewhere softening it.
- How many coins does CoinPoker take?
Five: BTC, ETH, USDT, SOL and TRX. All five also appear in Roobet's eleven-coin cashier.
- Which licence reference is stronger?
CoinPoker's, because it points at the Anjouan Gaming Board's public register. Roobet's OGL/2024/687/0427 carries no register link on our record.
- Does either publish a withdrawal cap?
Neither. Roobet publishes no maximum withdrawal, and no cap document has been read for CoinPoker.
CoinPoker · alternatives to Roobet