### 7 Responses to Bonus Costs: Are You Losing Money?

1. Hello, interesting calculations. But your WW based true cost formula means, when more Wager requirements, then more money we loosing with our bonus strategy.
In first case, with the WR 20, bonus = 100 and HA 2.7% there are 54 USD will stay at casino pokets. If we grow wager to 40, then WR 40, bonus 100 and HA 2.7 – there are 108 USD will stay at casino after bonus is wagered.
And in case of WW calculation, with WR 40, bonus 100 and WW is 2.5% means what 100USD of withdrawall will be. And when WR larger, then casino spend more money on their bonus strategy. it is so strange. How you explain this?

In our casino WW is 3% in average FYI.

2. Excellent observation, Dmitriy. The 2nd perspective is in fact another look at what we as operators cause when we ask our players to circulate the awarded bonus money.

If we agree that regardless of anything that we do, a certain portion of any money wagered is being cashed out, then in fact – the more we ask them to play, the more money we lose.

Obviously, we can go back to the known graph of wager vs. time (https://igamingcrm.com/2011/12/29/boot-camp-summary/) and understand that while in theory the assumption above is correct, in practice the players will lose ALL their money before at some point.

3. Wayne Field says:

An interesting debate, but when trying to calculate the WW ratio, surely it is not safe to assume that every participant in the promotion will stake £100 x 20?

Each person will get a different amount into the wagering, Mr A (unlucky) may only stake £100 and bust out, Mr B may get to £450 before busting out… so on average it will be less than £2000.

So shouldn’t it be this “average” figure that you apply the WW ratio to?
——-
OR:
Looking at it another way, on average if I staked £100 once, I would expect to lose £100 x 2.7% = £2.70 (or I would expect to keep £97.30). I would then stake £97.30 and expect to keep £94.67, etc…

In general I would expect to keep £100 x (0.973)^20 = £57.

So does the promotion cost £57?

As you may be able to tell, we don’t have wagering requirements where I currently work, so I am trying to get my head around them! :-)

• Hi again Wayne – indeed, this is more of an intellectual exercise. I think your questions justify a separate post, which will probably happen in the next few weeks.

4. TomV says:

I know this is 3.5 years old… but anyway….

1. Wayne: “In general I would expect to keep £100 x (0.973)^20 = £57” That’s not right because you would not have reached the wagering requirement of 20 x 100 = 2000. In your example, you only bet 100 once, and after that the bet goes down.

2. Shahar: Was there ever a follow-up post to this?

3. So given the effects from wagering requirements, the theory behind the “periodic withdrawal” and the conclusion that “players will lose ALL their money before at some point” – what are your recommendations for wagering requirements when creating campaigns?

5. Hi Tom,

Thanks for re-floating this post! It reminds me that I do need to write this post, and I plan on doing it real soon :)

(BTW: I am good for my word…. Ask my wife – when I promised to do something around the house, she knows there’s no need to nag about it every few years!)

As for your other topic, I believe that this needs to take also into calculation objective parameters, such as taxation regime in regulated markets; care to share some further info?

6. Katie says:

Hello
Thanks for this post! I understand it was produced back to 6 years ago now. :)
Is it any possible you will update this? Thanks.