This page sets out the rules 3PattiAdda writers and reviewers follow. It is enforceable: any deviation we discover triggers a correction notice on the affected article.
Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial relationships. Specifically:
- No app gets a higher score because they pay us a commission.
- No app gets coverage withheld because we don't have a commission deal.
- Our affiliate disclosure (see disclaimer) is visible on every review.
- We do not accept guest posts in exchange for payment.
Sourcing
Every factual claim in an APK review must be traceable to one of three sources:
- Our own primary test (deposit, play, withdraw, support interaction).
- The operator's published documentation or in-app disclosure.
- A named, verifiable public source (court ruling, news article, regulator notice).
Claims that can't be traced to one of these get cut before publish, no matter how plausible.
AI assistance
We use AI tools to help with drafts, structure, and translation. Every published article is reviewed by a named editor before going live. The byline is the person accountable for the accuracy of the piece.
Updates
Teen Patti is a fast-moving market. Apps change KYC flows, raise minimum withdrawal thresholds, lose payment partners, get banned in new states. We re-test every reviewed app at least once per quarter.
Every article shows two dates: Published and Last verified. If the gap is more than 90 days, treat the facts with appropriate skepticism — and tell us so we can re-test.
Corrections
If we get something wrong, we correct it. Visible corrections appear at the bottom of the article with the date of change. Major corrections (e.g., a star rating change) are noted at the top.
To request a correction, reach us via one of the channels on the contact page with the article URL and what specifically is wrong. Include evidence — screenshots, statute references, app disclosures.
Operator complaints
Operators who believe a review is unfair are welcome to write to us. We will:
- Re-read the original article with the operator's feedback in hand.
- Re-run any tests the operator believes were misconducted.
- Publish corrections where we got something wrong.
- Decline to change conclusions that hold up under re-test.
We will not delete a critical review because an operator objected. The only exception is a factual error.
What we will not do
- Promise wins.
- Suggest gambling as an income strategy.
- Recommend apps to users below 18.
- Recommend apps in states where real-money Teen Patti is banned.
- Hide affiliate links.
- Use loss-aversion language designed to push deposits.
Last updated:

Adda · Discussion
Pull up a chair, argue with us
Disagree with something here? Spot a factual error? Got a story from your own table? Drop it below. We read every comment. Be respectful of other players; spam and threats get removed.
Adda comments are warming up. We're finishing the Giscus integration — once the GitHub Discussions backend is wired, comments appear here. Until then, share your take on Telegram and we'll publish notable ones under the launch thread.
(No login wall. No tracking. No ads. The Adda's discussion layer is GitHub-backed, free, and respects your privacy.)