Casino dice games in Australia in 2026: craps paytables, the IGA ban, and the offshore brands on the ACMA list

Two paths exist for an Australian who wants to roll dice at a casino. The first is the onshore licensed casino floor, where state regulators approve the rules and consumer protections apply; the second is the offshore online casino, where craps, sic bo and baccarat variants are marketed under licences that mean nothing under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. This page is the comparison between those two paths — what each actually offers, what each costs the player in house edge, and which offshore brands the ACMA has put on notice for offering prohibited services.

Data current as of 28 October 2026 and verified against the ACMA’s blocking register and formal warning publications.

How this comparison is built, and what the ACMA’s list of warned offshore brands contains

The comparison on this page is not a ranking of “best online casinos”. The eleven brands in the table below sit on the ACMA’s formal warning register; each has had an operator formally warned for offering prohibited interactive gambling services to people in Australia. The list exists because the ACMA issued those warnings, not because any third party has rated the brands. The same offshore market returns dozens of other brands for the same search terms; those are not on the table, and the absence is not an endorsement.

Three patterns jump out of the table. The first is concentration: more than half of the listed warnings landed in 2025, and the ACMA has continued to add to the list in 2026. The second is operator repeat: a single parent company — Dama N.V. alone — accounts for three of the eleven brands, and Consolutetish S.R.L. accounts for two. The third is the listings-only signal: for three of the eleven, external directory pages mention casino dice games as part of the offering; for the remaining eight, the brand’s dice-game support is not independently confirmed.

The table is also the answer to what counts as a casino dice game for an Australian reader in 2026. The same terms — craps, sic bo, dice, live casino — return dozens of offshore brands in any search, most of which have no ACMA action against them at all. The list above is the ACMA’s answer to the marketing those offshore sites direct at Australians; it is not a directory of every offshore dice casino. A reader using this page to size up the offshore side of the comparison should treat the eleven brands as a sample of the regulator’s workload, and the regulatory perimeter as the data that makes the comparison meaningful.

The table’s last column — Casino dice games confirmed — is the one most likely to be misread. Eight of the eleven brands carry an em dash because the research carried no independent listing evidence that the brand specifically offered casino dice games as a product, only that the brand offers online casino games in general. The three brands with an “External listings only” tag have some mention in directory pages or in passing coverage; the rest are inferred from the broader offer. This is the part of the comparison the marketing pages would rather not surface.

The fundamentals of a casino dice game

A casino dice game is any wagering game in which the result is determined primarily by the face-up value of one or more thrown dice. The category covers craps (two dice, a layout of bets on a felt table), sic bo (three dice, a layout of bets on a Big/Small/Number grid), and a handful of regional variants such as chuck-a-luck and the Australian two-up — the last of which is a coin-toss game that sits beside dice games in any regulator’s ruleset. Baccarat and blackjack use cards, not dice; they appear in this guide because offshore sites bundle them under the same “casino” tab and the IGA treats them identically.

The Australian landscape splits the dice game in two. Onshore, casino dice games are dealt on the floors of licensed casinos: Crown Melbourne and Crown Perth run two-up at certain times of year; Crown Melbourne runs three baccarat variants approved by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission; the broader licensed network of clubs and casinos offers blackjack and table games under state-level approvals. None of this reaches Australian homes online. Offshore, brands like the eleven on the ACMA list market dice tables — sometimes live-dealer, sometimes RNG — to Australians over the web. The IGA makes that offer a prohibited interactive gambling service, whatever overseas licence the operator displays.

The house edge — the single number that decides which dice game costs the least over time — varies by bet more than by game. Pass Line in craps runs at 1.41% and Banker in baccarat at 1.06%; Any Craps in craps runs at 11.11% and the Tie in baccarat at 14.36%. A reader comparing games by headline “house edge” figure is being misled; the comparison that matters is between specific bets on the layout in front of you. The arithmetic is the same in any Australian casino — onshore or offshore — and it is the same regardless of whether the marketing on the site promises “fair” games or “provably fair” outcomes. The number is the number.

The offshore brands on the ACMA list compete on this layout, with the same numbers and the same bets, but under a regulatory regime that is not Australia’s. Two things follow for the Australian reader. First, no offshore brand is licensed to take an Australian bet on a casino dice game, and the brand’s licence from Curaçao, Anjouan or elsewhere carries no Australian consumer protection. Second, the offshore brand can be added to the ACMA’s blocking list at any time, with the player’s balance still in the account. The licence on the footer is a marketing choice; the licence on the footer is not an Australian one.

The arithmetic gap — the spread between the cheapest and most expensive bet on a single layout — is the engine of casino dice games. Craps, sic bo and baccarat all share this shape: a small group of bets with low edges, a much larger group with edges two to ten times higher. The shape is not an accident; it is the marketing strategy. The cheap bets get advertised; the expensive bets are where the casino’s expected profit actually comes from. A player who reads only the marketing will end up on the wrong side of the gap.

Prohibited under the Interactive Gambling Act, and how the ACMA enforces it

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — the IGA — makes it an offence for an offshore operator to provide online casino games, online pokies or in-play betting to a person in Australia. The Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017 strengthened the IGA and gave the ACMA the power to direct Australian internet service providers to block illegal sites. No state or territory in Australia licenses online casino games; no licence issued outside Australia has any effect under the IGA. What is licensable is wagering on races and sports placed before the event, lotteries and keno — in practice licensed by the Northern Territory through the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission, which oversees 52 of Australia’s online bookmakers (including Sportsbet, Bet365 and Ladbrokes) for tax reasons, with no full-time staff and a monthly meeting in Darwin.

Enforcement runs through the ACMA. As of the regulator’s report in June 2026, a cumulative total of 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites had been blocked since the first blocking request in November 2019. The most recent reported round, in June 2026, added 12 more sites: 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz.com, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino and Wildsino. The blocks are issued in rounds; rounds range from around a dozen sites to several dozen, with most of the volume concentrated in 2025 and the first half of 2026. The same enforcement effort has seen more than 230 unlicensed gambling services leave the Australian market entirely since 2017, either by withdrawing or by blocking themselves.

The penalty sits on the operator, not the player. An Australian who plays on an offshore dice site does not face prosecution under the IGA; the Act targets the provider. What the player loses is the Australian consumer protection framework: there is no local complaints body, no local regulator to escalate to, and no Australian court with clear jurisdiction over a Curaçao-licensed operator. The ACMA’s block list can be updated at any time, and a block can take effect while a balance remains in the player’s offshore account. H2 Gambling Capital’s 2025 estimate puts Australian losses to illegal gambling sites at around A$3.9 billion a year, with the share of gambling going through legal channels falling from 74% in 2021 to 64% — a slow drift from licensed to offshore rather than an outright migration.

The 2026 reform context is worth noting. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026; its advertising and inducement measures commence 1 January 2027, which means the law is on the books in 2026 but the new advertising rules do not bite until next year. A reader comparing what is and is not lawful reads the IGA as it stood after the 2017 amendments, with the 2026 reform sitting alongside as a forthcoming layer rather than an active one. The 2026 bill does not legalise any new form of online casino gambling; it tightens the framework around advertising and inducements aimed at Australians.

Payment is the next enforcement seam. Credit cards, credit-related products and digital currency have been banned as payment for licensed online wagering since 11 June 2024, with penalties of up to A$247,500 for operators. Legal deposit routes for licensed wagering are debit card, bank transfer, PayID/Osko and BPAY. An offshore dice site that asks for a credit card or a crypto deposit is operating outside the Australian rules; an Australian player using those routes cannot expect the protections of the licensed framework, including the credit-card ban, the BetStop register and the dispute resolution that goes with a licensed bookmaker. The payment rail is one of the cleanest signals that an offer sits outside the Australian regime.

A separate point worth surfacing: tax. Gambling winnings of a recreational Australian player are not assessable income (section 6-5 ITAA 1997) and losses are not deductible, unless the person carries on a business of gambling — a category the ATO applies narrowly and case by case. A reader who asks “do I owe tax on this?” can usually answer “no” for recreational play; the model only matters for a small set of professional or semi-professional cases. The ATO’s website is the place to confirm; “check with the ATO” is the only honest framing for a guide that does not know the reader’s full situation.

Responsible gambling tools: what actually applies in Australia

The Australian responsible-gambling framework is built around licensed services. BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, has been live since August 2023, and binds every Australian-licensed online and phone wagering service. Self-exclusion through BetStop runs for a minimum of three months and can extend up to a lifetime; a person who has registered cannot open new accounts with participating operators and cannot deposit into existing ones. State-level self-exclusion registers — for example, the ones operated by the relevant casino regulators in Victoria and New South Wales — apply to the casino floors those regulators oversee.

The critical limitation for a reader of this guide is that BetStop binds only Australian-licensed services. An offshore dice casino is not connected to BetStop, has no obligation to honour an Australian self-exclusion, and offers no complaints body. Self-excluding through BetStop will not stop a person from playing on an offshore site, and an offshore site has no mechanism for a state-level exclusion to be honoured either. The framework that applies to Australian-licensed wagering does not extend to the eleven brands in the table above, or to any of the larger set of offshore sites the same operator names run.

The free 24-hour support line is the National Gambling Helpline on 1800 858 858, with chat at Gambling Help Online. Both are funded by the Australian Government and operate across every state and territory. For someone whose dice play is on an offshore site, neither service is a substitute for the protections a licensed Australian wagering service would provide — but they are the right place to start if a player is deciding whether to keep playing at all, and they can be reached anonymously. The line is the front door to the framework that the offshore site does not extend.

The further reality is that offshore sites do not advertise these tools, do not link to BetStop, and do not display the National Gambling Helpline. An Australian who is concerned about their own play, or about someone else’s, will not find the framework on the offshore site; they have to bring it to the screen themselves. The framework exists; it just is not in the marketing.

Paytable mechanics: house edge across craps, sic bo, two-up and baccarat

The single most useful number on a casino dice game is the house edge on the bet the player actually makes. The marketing on offshore dice sites — “fair”, “provably fair”, “best odds” — is decoration around this number. The comparison below is the maths of the throw, in the terms a player would read on a paytable.

Craps leads the comparison because it is the dice game most often marketed to Australians under this topic. The Pass Line bet, the bet a first-time craps player is most often steered toward, runs at a house edge of 1.41%. Don’t Pass, the mirror bet that wins when the table loses, runs at 1.36% — slightly better for the player but socially awkward, since it wins when the shooter loses. The Pass Line and its close cousin Come bet sit at the low edge of the layout. The one-roll bets — Any Craps at 11.11%, the Hardways in the 9–11% range, the Proposition bets in the 13–16% range — sit at the other end. The shape of the craps table is the shape of this gap: a strip of low-edge bets down the centre, and a ring of much harsher bets around the perimeter. The centre strip is what the marketing photographs; the perimeter ring is where the maths actually earns its keep.

Sic bo is the other dice game this topic returns. Sic bo is played with three dice on a grid of bets, with 216 equally likely combinations of which 56 are distinguishable as outcomes. The game is of ancient Chinese origin; the name literally means “precious dice”, and it was introduced to the United States by Chinese immigrants in the early 20th century. The simplest bet, Big/Small (a total of 4–10 or 11–17, excluding triples), carries a house edge of 2.78%. Specific Triple bets — wagering that all three dice will show a specific number — carry edges ranging from 11.6% to 30.09% depending on the ruleset, with the worst case landing on the “any triple” wager. Sic bo’s paytable is more compressed than craps’s; the gap between the cheapest and most expensive bet is wider than craps’s, and the cheapest bet is still nearly double the cheapest craps bet. The promise of a “single roll decides everything” headline is true; the price of that single roll is the edge.

Two-up is an Australian context this topic returns less often but which is worth including because it has no parallel offshore. Two-up is played by tossing two coins rather than rolling dice, evolved from the 18th-century English and Irish game “cross and pile” and brought to Australia by convicts. It is illegal in Australia outside specific exceptions: New South Wales permits it on Anzac Day under the Gambling (Two-Up) Act 1998, played in RSL clubs and hotels; Kalgoorlie in Western Australia hosts Australia’s only year-round legal two-up school; the game was legalised in Australian casinos starting in 1973 at Hobart’s casino, and is now offered only at Crown Perth and Crown Melbourne among licensed casinos. The “house edge” on two-up is essentially 0% on a fair coin at even odds, with the bank taking a small commission or the game being played socially — a structural outlier in a category built around casino rake. An offshore site offering two-up is doing something Australia does not otherwise license online, which is itself a flag worth reading.

Baccarat sits next to the dice games in any offshore casino’s “table games” tab. The Punto Banco variant, dealt from a shoe of six or eight decks, has three primary bets: Banker at 1.06%, Player at 1.24% and Tie at 14.36%. Cards 2–9 count at face value, 10/J/Q/K count as zero and aces count as one, with hand totals taken modulo 10. The casino banks the game at all times in Punto Banco and plays both hands to fixed drawing rules, which removes any player decision from the hand. The same Edge Table (Baccarat) structure applies whether the game is dealt at Crown Melbourne under VGCCC approval or at an offshore site under a Curaçao licence; what differs is the regulatory perimeter around the table.

Baccarat’s history explains the variety under the same name. Some accounts place the game in 19th-century France; others say it was introduced from Italy at the end of the 15th century during the reign of King Charles VIII, with writer David Parlett considering Macao its immediate precursor. Punto Banco — the form most played today — came out of Havana in the 1940s, with the casino banking the game and playing both hands to a fixed rule. Chemin de fer, French for “railway”, is a two-player variant that emerged from baccarat banque in the late 19th century and is named for being quicker to play than the original game. The Australian onshore market deals Punto Banco; offshore sites may offer any of the three, sometimes under a name that does not flag which variant is in play.

Blackjack rounds out the comparison because it is the table game with the lowest house edge under optimal play. Under liberal Las Vegas Strip rules — dealer stands on soft 17, double on any two cards, double after split, resplit aces, late surrender — the house edge with optimal strategy is around 0.28%. Under Atlantic City rules it is around 0.43%. The game’s roots trace back to vingt-un in England and veintiuno in Cervantes’ Rinconete y Cortadillo (around 1601–1602); formal rules were published in Britain in 1800; the name “blackjack” came into use around 1899, with Klondike Gold Rush prospectors often credited with the modern term. Cards count as their number, face cards as ten, ace as one or eleven; a starting two-card total of 21 is a “blackjack” or “natural”, the strongest hand. Crown Melbourne’s blackjack variants, including renamed “Crown Pairs” and the “Free Bet” with the “Pot of Gold” side bet, are approved by the VGCCC under the Casino Control Act 1991 (Victoria), with the VGCCC’s public log recording the “Perfect Pairs” to “Crown Pairs” renaming on 23 December 2024 and the “Free Bet” introduction with the new “Pot of Gold” side bet on 25 March 2024. The NSW equivalent regime runs under section 66 of the Casino Control Act 1992, which requires every game and rule change to be approved before play and the approved rules to be made available to patrons on request. An offshore dice site carries none of this approval trail.

The conclusion across the four games is the same. The bet matters more than the game. Craps’s Pass Line and baccarat’s Banker are within a fraction of a percent of each other; craps’s Any Craps and baccarat’s Tie are within a fraction of a percent of each other too, but on the wrong side of the comparison. A reader who picks the right bet on the right game and stays there will pay the casino roughly 1% of turnover over time; a reader who wanders into the proposition bets or the tie hands will pay closer to 15%. The dice is random; the paytable is not.

The eleven offshore brands on the ACMA list

Each of the brands below has had an operator formally warned by the ACMA for offering prohibited interactive gambling services to people in Australia. Online casino games cannot be licensed anywhere in Australia; whatever licence any of these brands displays in its footer, that licence is not an Australian one and carries no Australian consumer protection. A reader who came to one of these brands through marketing should know the name is on the ACMA’s list before any deposit is made.

RocketPlay

RocketPlay sits at the most recent end of the ACMA’s warning record. In March 2026 the ACMA issued a formal warning to Pulsup Ltd, the operator behind Rocketplay.com.au, for offering prohibited interactive gambling services to Australians. RocketPlay is the freshest data point in the ACMA’s enforcement record, and its inclusion signals that enforcement activity has continued into 2026 rather than slowing. The verdict on RocketPlay is the simplest statement the ACMA’s register allows: an offshore operator with no Australian licence, named in a formal warning in the same quarter the brand appeared in marketing to Australians.

Level Up Casino

Level Up Casino was named in one of the earliest of the ACMA’s modern enforcement actions: a May 2022 formal warning to Dama N.V., covering six of the operator’s brands — Bambet, Dazard, Level Up, Rocketplay, Wild Tornado and Cobra Casinos. Level Up has external listings mentioning its casino dice offerings. The verdict on Level Up is that it sits inside Dama N.V.’s wider pattern — the operator has been warned three more times since 2022 for different brands, and the May 2022 batch is the origin of that pattern rather than an isolated event. A reader who recognises Level Up from before 2022 is reading the same warning the ACMA wrote then; the operator has only widened the catalogue since.

Woo Casino

Woo Casino was named in a March 2025 formal warning to Dama N.V., the same parent company behind Level Up and Spirit Casino. The verdict on Woo is the operator pattern in concentrated form: Dama N.V. has now been warned three separate times for three separate brands, and the data point is the parent company, not the brand name on the site. The brand’s “exclusivity” or “VIP” framing, if any, is marketing copy layered over a record the regulator has already published. (Note: for brands like Woo, casino dice game support is not independently confirmed by external listings.)

Spirit Casino

Spirit Casino was named in a May 2025 formal warning to Dama N.V., two months after the same operator was warned for Woo Casino. The verdict on Spirit is the same as on Woo: the data point is the operator, not the brand. The ACMA’s enforcement continues to find Dama N.V. brands marketing to Australians; the brand names rotate faster than the regulator’s warnings can follow them, and the regulator’s response is to name the operator, not to chase every brand.

National Casino

National Casino was named in a July 2025 formal warning to Consolutetish S.R.L., alongside Bizzo Casino. National has external listings mentioning its casino dice offerings. The verdict on National is that it sits inside a single enforcement action covering two Consolutetish S.R.L. brands in the same month — the ACMA’s July 2025 enforcement wave named several operators at once, and National was one of them. The brand’s “Australian-friendly” framing, common across offshore sites at this scale, sits on top of a formal warning the regulator published the same month the framing was running.

Bizzo Casino

Bizzo Casino has been the subject of two separate ACMA formal warnings under two different parent companies. The first was in 2022, when the ACMA warned TechSolutions (CY) Group Limited and TechSolutions Group N.V. over Bizzo. The second was in July 2025, when the ACMA warned Consolutetish S.R.L. over National Casino and Bizzo Casino in the same action. The verdict on Bizzo is the rare data point of a brand that has been warned twice under two different owners — the company behind the brand has changed, and the warning has followed the brand rather than the operator. A reader who remembers Bizzo from before the ownership change is reading the same brand the ACMA has now named twice.

Ignition Casino

Ignition Casino was named in a July 2025 formal warning to Bamboo Media, alongside other actions in the same month. The verdict on Ignition is that it is one of the brands the ACMA picked up in the July 2025 enforcement wave — a single round that touched several operators at once, and an Ignition warning is part of that batch rather than an isolated action. The wave matters because it shows the regulator moving through a list of operators in a single month, not because any one of the warnings stands alone.

Instant Casino

Instant Casino was named in a February 2025 formal warning to EOD Code SRL, an early 2025 action ahead of the larger mid-year wave. The verdict on Instant is that it was one of the first ACMA actions in 2025, before the enforcement volume picked up in the middle of the year. EOD Code SRL has not appeared again in the ACMA’s published register for a different brand, which makes Instant a single-operator data point rather than part of a pattern.

Jackbit

Jackbit was named in an April 2026 formal warning to Ryker B.V., alongside CasinOK, in the most recent enforcement round reported on this page. The verdict on Jackbit is the parallel structure of the Ryker B.V. action — the same warning covered two brands, suggesting the regulator treats the operator as the unit of enforcement rather than the brand. CasinOK does not sit on the eleven-brand table only because the table covers eleven ACMA-warned brands; the warning covered Jackbit and CasinOK together, and the data point is the operator behind both.

Casino Intense

Casino Intense was named in an April 2025 formal warning to Sterplay Holding Ltd, an isolated mid-spring action outside the larger July 2025 cluster. The brand has external listings mentioning its casino dice offerings, with multiple sources referencing the offering. The verdict on Casino Intense is that it sits in a quieter part of the ACMA’s record — a single warning in April 2025, with no second action against the same operator in the published register. The brand’s relative quietness on the warning side does not change its offer to Australians; the offer is still prohibited, the warning is still on the regulator’s site, and the licence on the footer is still not an Australian one.

Sky Crown

Sky Crown was named in a 2022 formal warning to Hollycorn N.V., alongside Blue Leo, in an early enforcement action under the IGA. The verdict on Sky Crown is that it was one of two Hollycorn N.V. brands caught in a single warning action — the same pattern that recurs across the register, with parent operators warned for multiple brands at once and the brand names cycling underneath. The brand’s 2022 warning places it at the older end of the table; the regulator’s enforcement has not been idle in the four years since, and the offer that triggered the warning is the same offer Sky Crown makes in 2026.

The blocking rate: how fast the ACMA’s list has grown

The cumulative count of 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites blocked by the ACMA between November 2019 and the report dated June 2026 yields a working figure for the pace of enforcement. Spread across 79 months, the average works out to roughly 22 sites per month — a band of around 20 to 25 per month depending on whether the rolling window cuts off at an early or a late round.

The condition behind the band matters. Individual blocking rounds have ranged from a dozen sites — the June 2026 round added 12 — to several dozen in the heavier months of 2025. The 22-sites-per-month average is therefore an average of uneven rounds, not a steady monthly drip; a reader looking at the ACMA’s enforcement record should expect the next round to add somewhere between roughly 10 and 40 sites, with 22 as the long-run average. The H2 Gambling Capital estimate that the legal share of Australian gambling has fallen from 74% in 2021 to 64% sits alongside this enforcement pace: roughly 22 blocks per month over six and a half years has not been enough to reverse the drift from licensed to offshore.

The figure is also a cumulative count of sites blocked plus affiliate marketing pages; the brand-by-brand ACMA warning register, which is the source for the eleven operators above, is a different and smaller list. The two registers overlap — most warned brands are also on the block list — but they are not the same list, and the warning register is the one that carries an operator name and a date. A reader should read the block count as the size of the regulator’s overall workload and the warning register as the named operator behind a subset of that workload.

Frequently asked questions

What house edge does a Pass Line bet carry in craps?

A Pass Line bet on a standard craps layout carries a house edge of 1.41%, meaning the casino keeps about A$1.41 of every A$100 wagered on the bet over time. The bet resolves on the come-out roll — natural seven or eleven wins, two/three/twelve loses — and continues through the point phase if established.

Why is the Any Craps one-roll bet so much worse for the player than Pass Line?

Any Craps is a single-roll wager paying 7:1 on a next roll of two, three, eleven or twelve. With 36 equally likely outcomes of two dice and four winning numbers, true odds imply 8:1, so a 7:1 payout carries an 11.11% house edge. Pass Line’s multi-roll resolution brings its edge down to 1.41%.

Are craps and other dice games dealt on Australian licensed casino floors?

Craps and other table games including baccarat and blackjack variants are dealt on Australian licensed casino floors under state-level regulation. Crown Melbourne offers three VGCCC-approved baccarat variants. Two-up runs at Crown Perth and Crown Melbourne, plus NSW Anzac Day exceptions and the year-round Kalgoorlie school. Online casino dice games are not licensed in Australia.

What separates a ‘right’ bettor from a ‘wrong’ one at the craps table?

A ‘right’ bettor wagers with the shooter — Pass Line and Come bets, winning when the table wins. A ‘wrong’ bettor wagers against the shooter — Don’t Pass and Don’t Come — winning when the table loses. Don’t Pass carries a slightly lower edge (1.36% versus 1.41%) but is socially awkward because it wins when most of the table loses.

Is an online dice game lawful for someone based in Australia?

No. Under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, strengthened by the 2017 amendments, providing an online casino game — including craps or sic bo — to a person in Australia is a prohibited interactive gambling service. No Australian licence exists for online casino games, and any offshore licence displayed does not legalise the offer to an Australian player.