Skip to content

Livecasino.io vs Roobet

Livecasino.io publishes the verification figure Roobet withholds, but it also admits to random account health checks, and its licence certificate is shared with another brand.

Written by /Last checked:

Editor — reads operator documents and records what they say

Livecasino.io against Roobet, side by side

 Livecasino.ioRoobet
LicenceCuraçao Gaming AuthorityGovernment of Curaçao
Licence no.OGL/2023/111/0069OGL/2024/687/0427
Register statusActiveNot checked in the register
Providers50Not published
CoinsNot verified11
Stated KYC thresholdEUR 2,500Not published
Withdrawal capNot verifiedNot published
SinceNot verifiedNot published

Source: roobet.com, 2026-08-28.

Livecasino.io is one of the 41 Roobet alternatives compared here, each on its own published records.

Clause 6.6 of Livecasino.io's terms is one of the more informative verification clauses in this comparison. KYC may be carried out at any time at the operator's discretion, including what the terms call random account health checks. Identity documents can be required on first deposit, before withdrawals are processed, and on any withdrawal above 2,500 euros or the cryptocurrency equivalent, as the gaming licence regulates.

Roobet publishes no figure of any kind. Clause 4.9 allows documents to be requested at any time and deposits and withdrawals to be limited until identification is complete; clause 10.5 refuses withdrawals until identity is fully verified. A reader gets the same open-ended power with none of the surrounding detail — no threshold, no named trigger, no description of when checks are run.

A figure, a first-deposit check and random reviews

The 2,500 euro line is useful and should not be oversold. The clause keeps discretion below it, adds the possibility of a check on first deposit, and describes random reviews on top — so the figure marks where checks become likely, not where they begin. Read in full it is a heavier regime than the number alone suggests.

Roobet's is lighter to read and no lighter in effect. Its two clauses reserve the same discretion and describe nothing about how it is exercised. Between an operator that documents an intrusive process and one that documents none, the first at least lets a player decide with their eyes open, and this comparison treats that as the point in Livecasino.io's favour.

Fifty studios against no studio list

Livecasino.io names fifty studios on its own pages, among them Evolution, Ezugi, Pragmatic Play Live, Play'n Go, NetEnt, Nolimit City, Bombay Live and Live Solutions — a roster weighted towards live dealer suppliers, which matches the brand's name. Roobet publishes no studio list at all.

Published detail
RoobetLivecasino.io
Verification figureNone stated2,500 euros, clause 6.6
Studios namedNone published50
Coins listed11Not read
Licence numberOGL/2024/687/0427OGL/2023/111/0069
Licence number unique in our libraryYesNo, also on Bitcasino.io
Register linkNone heldCertificate link into the Curacao register

Roobet read 2026-08-28 from its terms and cashier. Livecasino.io from our operator record, checked 2026-08-26.

A shared certificate, and the cashier neither record settles

Livecasino.io's Curacao Gaming Authority number, OGL/2023/111/0069, is recorded as active with a certificate link into the register. The identical number appears on Bitcasino.io's record in this library. That is a master-licence structure — one certificate covering more than one site — which means the document a reader opens is not specific to livecasino.io. It is weak evidence about the relationship between the two brands and it is not proof of common ownership.

We have not read a coin list for Livecasino.io, so the cashier cannot be set against Roobet's published eleven: BTC, USDT, USDC, ETH, SOL, SUI, BNB, XRP, TRX, LTC and DOGE. Neither brand publishes a maximum withdrawal — Roobet's terms carry none and no cap has been read here.

Only Roobet publishes charges: 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.

Pros

  • A stated verification figure of 2,500 euros at clause 6.6, where Roobet states none.
  • Fifty studios named, weighted towards live dealer suppliers.
  • Active Curacao certificate with a register link, against no register link at Roobet.

Cons

  • The same clause allows random account health checks and a check on first deposit.
  • Licence number OGL/2023/111/0069 also appears on Bitcasino.io, so the certificate is not site-specific.
  • No coin list, fee schedule, withdrawal cap or founding year read.

Open site

Questions people ask

When does Livecasino.io ask for documents?

Clause 6.6 allows checks at any time, including random account health checks, on first deposit, before withdrawals are processed, and on withdrawals above 2,500 euros or the crypto equivalent.

Does Roobet publish anything comparable?

No. Clauses 4.9 and 10.5 reserve the same discretion without stating a figure, a trigger or a process.

Why does the licence number matter?

OGL/2023/111/0069 also appears on Bitcasino.io's record, which indicates a master-licence structure covering more than one brand. It is weak evidence and not proof of shared ownership.

How many studios does each name?

Livecasino.io names fifty on its own site. Roobet names none; the sixty-four providers in our Roobet record come from our own library.

Which coins does Livecasino.io take?

We have not read a coin list for it. Roobet publishes eleven coins in its cashier.

Livecasino.io · alternatives to Roobet