Which of these seven casino brands actually have a licence number you can look up?

Four brands, the same PDF, and no licence-number column in it

747, BingoPlus, Ninogaming and OKBet all carry the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation as their licensing authority in this record, and every one of the four licence rows reads the same way: number "not published."

That is not a gap in our own research. It is what PAGCOR itself chooses to publish, and the record says so rather than guessing a figure. The distinction matters for a reader deciding whether a domestic licence badge means anything at all. It means PAGCOR approved the brand's game offering and its administrator. It does not mean a number exists to quote back.

PAGCOR's own accredited-brands PDF runs five columns: a row number, the game offering, the system administrator, one root brand name, and up to six registered sub-brand names. OKBet sits on row 14, under Gavin Ventures Inc., listed against Specialty Games and Electronic Bingo, alongside sub-brands OKGames and OKDunk. Nowhere in that table is a licence-number field. None of the five columns holds one. That is the whole finding, and it took reading the file, not guessing at it, to state plainly.

Three brands, and three individually numbered rows

Melbet, Rajabets and Eaglebet99 sit outside PAGCOR's remit. Each is licensed instead by a regulator that publishes a per-operator row rather than a brand list. Three regulators. Three different documents.

Melbet's row comes from the Curaçao Gaming Authority's own online licence register, a PDF republished monthly rather than left standing. Row 446 of the edition dated 31 August 2026 names Pelican Entertainment B.V. against licence number OGL/2024/561/0554, registration 134359, issued 24 December 2025, status Indefinite, no expiry date. The operator's own terms name the same company and number.

Rajabets and Eaglebet99 both hold Anjouan Gaming Authority codes instead, and Anjouan's register works differently again: a searchable web page keyed to the code, not a downloadable list. Rajabets' code, ALSI-202509014-FI1, resolves to a company registered as 3-102-936502 SRL, issued 16 September 2025, expiring 15 September 2026, against two named domains: reybets.com and rajabets.com. Rajabets' own front page states the same number. Nothing on that page hints that the same authority's register carries a second code, for a different brand, with a very different outcome.

The third Anjouan row now reads revoked

Eaglebet99's code, ALSI-202605046-FI2, resolves on the same Anjouan register to a different outcome than Rajabets' does.

As of 14 August 2026, the date this record was last checked, the code sat not in the active list but in Anjouan's enforcement register, against a company named Amor 25 Limited, status revoked, dated 10 July 2026, reason stated: illegal sublicensing. The domain named against the entry is eaglebet99.com, the same brand this record carries.

This record still lists Eaglebet99's brand status as active, and that is not a contradiction so much as a reminder of what the two fields measure. Brand status describes whether the site is operating. The licence row describes what its regulator says about the paperwork behind it. The two can move in opposite directions.

Still active. Also revoked. Both statements come from a primary source, and both are true on the same day. The only way to know which one has changed is to read the register again on the day it matters, not to trust the date already on file.

What a bulk accreditation list proves, and what it never claimed to

PAGCOR's PDF is not weaker evidence than Anjouan's web page or Curaçao's register. It answers a narrower question.

Presence on the accredited-brands list confirms PAGCOR approved the game offering and the administrator behind it, which is the domestic regulatory relationship PAGCOR is built to police. It was never designed to let an outside reader look up one operator's paperwork the way Curaçao's numbered register or Anjouan's searchable code does, because PAGCOR's enforcement runs through the administrator relationship rather than through a public number a player can quote back. That is not weakness. It is a different design.

That design choice is why the two mechanisms fail differently, too. A missing PAGCOR number is the regulator's own publishing choice, checkable against the same PDF every reader can open for free. A revoked offshore number, the kind Eaglebet99 now carries, is the regulator actively saying the paperwork stopped working, and it will keep saying so until Anjouan updates the page.

[The domestic brands checked against this same accreditation file](/casinos/pagcor) sit in one place on this site, listed separately rather than folded into one shared claim of "PAGCOR licensed" doing the work for all four.

How to run this same check on a brand we have not written up yet

Find the regulator named in the operator's own footer or terms page first, never a badge image alone. A badge proves nothing about the number behind it.

A PAGCOR licensee is checked against the accredited-brands PDF above, by brand or administrator name, never by a licence number the PDF does not carry. A Curaçao licensee is checked against the Gaming Control Board's own monthly register PDF, by company name, since the operator rarely displays the registration number either. An Anjouan licensee carries a code on its own site, and that code should resolve on Anjouan's public register to the same company and domain the operator names, not a different one, and not the enforcement list.

Three regulators, three lookup habits, one rule underneath all of them: read the primary document, not the badge sitting on top of it. A logo cannot be searched. A PDF or a register page can.

Write down the date the register answered, not only what it said. Eaglebet99's own row is the reason: a licence check with no date attached ages the moment somebody else copies it into an article, and by the time a reader sees it, the regulator may already have moved the same number from one list to the other. Note the date. It is the cheapest fact in this whole record, and the one every roster site leaves out.