Platform
Game Analytics & Monitoring
A national monitoring capability based on the Georgian GAMS programme: administrative control, direct technical data collection and analysis over a single authoritative record.
Technical data collection
Real-time device-level monitoring of land-based gaming machines.
Architecture
Three pillars
Monitoring only produces regulatory value when the administrative record, the technical feed and the analytical layer sit on the same foundation.
Administrative and legal
Centralised registration of operators and venues, licensing workflow with conditions and renewals, and product certification. This layer establishes who is authorised to do what, and it is the reference every technical and analytical output resolves against.
Technical data collection
Real-time device-level monitoring of land-based gaming machines, and transaction-level API integration with online operators and aggregators. The regulator receives the underlying events rather than a periodic summary prepared by the licensee.
Data analysis
Automated integrity rules over the collected record, anomaly detection across venues, devices, operators and time, and predictive risk analytics used to direct inspection and audit capacity where it is most likely to be warranted.
Data analysis
Automated integrity rules, anomaly detection and predictive risk analytics.
Integrity check
Data sameness
Automated comparison of operator and aggregator records to confirm that they agree.
The same wager is recorded by more than one party: the operator that accepted it and the aggregator or platform that routed it. Where those records are collected independently, they can be compared automatically, transaction by transaction.
Agreement is the normal case and needs no attention. Divergence — a missing transaction, a different stake, a different settlement time — is raised as an exception with both source records attached, so the regulator investigates a specific, evidenced discrepancy rather than a general suspicion.
Operator record
Collected at source
Aggregator record
Collected independently
Comparison
Agreement or exception
Georgia, 2020–2025
What complete visibility contributed to
One attributed figure, stated carefully.
US$72m → US$720m
State budget income from the sector, approximately US$72 million in 2020 to a forecast US$720 million in 2025.
This result should be attributed carefully. It is the outcome of regulatory reform, taxation change and complete transaction visibility together — not of the monitoring system alone.
We do not present it as a guaranteed outcome, and we do not project it onto another jurisdiction. What the monitoring system contributes is the visibility component: a complete, independently collected transaction record against which liabilities can be assessed and compliance verified.
Request a technical briefing
We brief regulators, ministries and licensing authorities on the architecture, evidentiary model and delivery sequence in detail.