Publisher responsibility and author credit
Deep Poker publishes this site. Deep Poker Team receives the author credit for its guides. Nathan Cole, Marcus Bell and Sofia Marchetti are team-owned editorial pen names assigned to topics; they are not personal biographies, credentials or named reviewers. The authorship directory shows their coverage.
Responsibility and review evidence are different things. A publishing credit identifies the responsible team. It does not establish that a particular individual checked a page or that a complete factual review has taken place.
Core publishing standards
Match the evidence to the claim
A source supports only the product, version, date and subject it addresses. Keep private Clubs, public games, memberships and general platform terms separate. A software report is not evidence about a Club administrator or an outside service.
Distinguish fact, attribution and analysis
Tie a factual statement to the relevant record. Label information supplied by an owner or operator as such. Explain the assumptions behind an editorial conclusion and leave unresolved questions unresolved.
Keep changing information dated
Names and identifiers, features, schedules, eligibility and legal material need a source with a stated scope and date. A content update does not certify that every claim has been rechecked.
Disclose relevant interests
Deep Poker publishes this site and has business relationships in the poker sector. A relevant relationship belongs near the affected coverage. It is not evidence of platform approval, a licence, safety or product quality.
Make material corrections understandable
A factual correction should identify the affected statement and the evidence for the change. Record substantive changes separately from typos or formatting. Add an explanatory note when readers need it to understand a changed conclusion.
These requirements guide publication and corrections. The evidence and limits stated on an individual page determine what has been checked there; this policy should not be read as a retrospective claim that every historical page has completed the same process.
What the dates mean
- Published
- The original publication date, retained when an article is edited.
- Updated
- A recorded substantive change, with a date and reason in the editorial update record. It can be a bounded correction rather than a complete review. A build, deployment, code comment, layout adjustment or formatting-only edit does not refresh this date.
- Research cutoff or source-check date
- The date attached to a particular investigation, observation or source. It stays separate from later article edits and does not establish present eligibility, availability, safety or legal status.
An unsupported historical update declaration is withheld until it has been mapped to evidence of a substantive change. Its absence does not mean the page has never changed. When shared content changes materially, the record must identify the affected pages; editing a template does not automatically make every page current.
Visible update dates, Article data and sitemap dates follow the same record. None of those fields alone certifies a complete factual review, and a later edit must not replace an older research cutoff.
Evidence by subject
A secondary article can help locate evidence. The claim should then be checked against the closest relevant primary source and labelled according to what that source supports. Independent corroboration and an attributable first-party statement have different strengths; neither should be relabelled as the other.
On a narrow screen, scroll within the table. With a keyboard, focus the table area and use the left and right arrow keys.
| Subject | Preferred evidence | Publication label and limit |
|---|---|---|
| ClubGG product rules | Current official product pages, terms, help articles and named technical reports | Product-specific evidence with a scoped check date |
| Club or Union identity | The displayed in-app name/ID and a dated statement from the responsible party | Dated identity check or attributed owner statement; an identifier alone is not a role certificate |
| Another product or operator | Its official documentation, relevant regulator records and clearly identified reporting | Sourced coverage with applicable commercial interests disclosed |
| Law and eligibility | Primary legislation, regulator material, qualified local review and the exact activity scope | Educational reference; no individual legal conclusion |
| Poker rules and strategy | Stable game rules, reproducible examples and clearly stated assumptions | Educational analysis within the example’s limits |
Checks required for a substantive change
- Define the page purpose, audience, affected product and claims that can change.
- Keep the source title, URL, date and exact scope with the research record.
- Place attribution beside a reported statement and state the assumptions behind analysis.
- Check visible text, metadata, FAQ answers, structured data, images, captions and links together.
- Record the source-check scope separately from the substantive edit, and retain unresolved questions.
- Explain a changed conclusion when a correction needs context for readers.
AI assistance and publisher responsibility
AI tools may help organize research, propose a structure, draft text or code, and find possible inconsistencies. Generated output is not evidence. Factual claims still need the appropriate source; invented identities, qualifications, citations or relationships must be rejected.
Deep Poker Team remains responsible for publication and corrections. The required checks include whether a technically accurate sentence creates an unsupported broader impression. For example, a software RNG report does not certify a Club, administrator, outside arrangement or legal status. This policy is not evidence that a named individual completed those checks on every page.
Business relationships and support responsibilities
Coverage can include Deep Poker, private Clubs, platforms and third-party operators. Relevant ownership, referral or operating relationships should be disclosed near the affected coverage. A relationship does not establish regulatory approval, platform authorization, safety or superiority; a disclaimer does not grant permission for a prohibited promotion.
Deep Poker’s website and account support, a Club’s administration, and ClubGG’s own product support have different responsibilities. A claim about one should not imply authority over the others. An onward link needs the same accurate scope as the page that supplies it.
How to request a correction
Use the contact page or its correction route. Include the page URL, exact statement, proposed correction, relevant evidence and the date checked. The source needs to address the same product, activity and period. Do not send account passwords, sign-in codes or personal identity documents.
A material factual correction should receive a recorded substantive-update date. Add a visible explanation when it helps readers understand the changed conclusion. A typo or formatting fix does not need a new update date, and a correction does not make unrelated research fresh.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is responsible for the site’s content?
Deep Poker is the publisher, and Deep Poker Team receives the author credit for its guides. Nathan Cole, Marcus Bell and Sofia Marchetti are secondary topic pen names used by the team, not identified individual authors or reviewers. A team credit establishes publishing responsibility, not a completed personal review.
Does Deep Poker use AI tools?
AI tools may assist research organization, drafting, code and checks. Their output is not a primary source and does not establish that a claim is true. Deep Poker Team is responsible for publication. These policies do not certify that a named human reviewer checked every page.
What evidence is needed for a ClubGG claim?
Identify the exact product and claim first. Official documentation can support software or product statements; an owner statement must be attributed to its source. An identifier, logo or role title does not establish platform endorsement or prove a particular in-app permission. Missing evidence remains a limit on the claim.
How can I request a correction?
Use the contact page’s correction route. Include the page URL, the exact disputed statement, a relevant source and the date you checked it. The evidence needs to cover the same product, activity and time as the claim being challenged.
Does an Updated date mean every fact is current?
No. Published identifies the original publication. Updated records a substantive content change, which may be a bounded correction rather than a full review. Research and source-check dates apply only to their stated scope. A missing update date does not prove that a page was never edited; historical update declarations need evidence before they are displayed.