Bonus with 'floating' WR?

[SlotMonster]

Hello forum heads,
Today I was reading about “bad bonuses” – you even could find my few posts regarding this issue – and sudden thought came into my mind: what if there could be bonuses with “floating” wagering requirements? By saying “floating” I mean that the amount to be wagered depends on the bet size.

As an example I took common 100% up to $100 Welcome Bonus, for slots only. Let’s say the player deposited $100 and received $100 bonus. So, based on their bet size, the wagering requirements would be the following:

For $0.25 stake – 25x(bonus) = $2500 to wager.
For $0.5 stake – 24x(bonus) = $2400 to wager.
For $1 stake – 22x(bonus) = $2200 to wager.
For $2 stake – 20x(bonus) = $2000 to wager.
For $5 stake – 18x(bonus) = $1800 to wager.

So, with larger bet size player will have less WR, but their chances to bust are increasing. All numbers are given as an example!

If player wants to play with different bet sizes, their WR will change accordingly. For example, player made $300 in bets with $0.25 stake ($2500 - $300 = $2200 to go) and then decide to up their bets to $0.5. According to the WR table, they will have to complete $2112 instead of $2200 and so on.
For $1 stake they will have to complete $1936 instead of $2200.

As I said, with such bonus players could vary their WR, but their chances to bust will increase with the bet size. So they will be able to select how to play: more safely but with more WR, or more risky but with less WR.

Any opinions? Thanks!

P.S. I don’t know, maybe someone somewhere proposed something similar, but I didn’t find it. And until someone provide me with the link – I will consider it as my own idea

[gerilege]

Hello forum heads,
Today I was reading about “bad bonuses” – you even could find my few posts regarding this issue – and sudden thought came into my mind: what if there could be bonuses with “floating” wagering requirements? By saying “floating” I mean that the amount to be wagered depends on the bet size.

As an example I took common 100% up to $100 Welcome Bonus, for slots only. Let’s say the player deposited $100 and received $100 bonus. So, based on their bet size, the wagering requirements would be the following:

For $0.25 stake – 25x(bonus) = $2500 to wager.
For $0.5 stake – 24x(bonus) = $2400 to wager.
For $1 stake – 22x(bonus) = $2200 to wager.
For $2 stake – 20x(bonus) = $2000 to wager.
For $5 stake – 18x(bonus) = $1800 to wager.

So, with larger bet size player will have less WR, but their chances to bust are increasing. All numbers are given as an example!

If player wants to play with different bet sizes, their WR will change accordingly. For example, player made $300 in bets with $0.25 stake ($2500 - $300 = $2200 to go) and then decide to up their bets to $0.5. According to the WR table, they will have to complete $2112 instead of $2200 and so on.
For $1 stake they will have to complete $1936 instead of $2200.

As I said, with such bonus players could vary their WR, but their chances to bust will increase with the bet size. So they will be able to select how to play: more safely but with more WR, or more risky but with less WR.

Any opinions? Thanks!

P.S. I don’t know, maybe someone somewhere proposed something similar, but I didn’t find it. And until someone provide me with the link – I will consider it as my own idea

Such a scheme could only work in practice the other way around. If you increase your bet size, wr increases as well. Your original proposal would be very unfavorable for the casinos, and favorable for the player, all in all I am afraid not feasible.

[SlotMonster]

Such a scheme could only work in practice the other way around. If you increase your bet size, wr increases as well. Your original proposal would be very unfavorable for the casinos, and favorable for the player, all in all I am afraid not feasible.

CASINOS are for PLAYERS, but not PLAYERS are for CASINOS. Anyway, here could be "a middle ground", just some calculations need to be done.

[gerilege]

CASINOS are for PLAYERS, but not PLAYERS are for CASINOS. Anyway, here could be "a middle ground", just some calculations need to be done.

True, but it is not that easy to favor the players and steadily keep the business up&running at the same time. Upon first glance it might seem that it is the interest of the casino that the player bust quickly. But it is not, the casino's interest is that the player keeps playing. Therefore it is very unlikely that any casino would offer incentives like lower WR for play which could result in quicker bust and wagering less. Your idea is interesting, but if any casino adopts, I think it is going to be implemented the other way around.

[SlotMonster]

True, but it is not that easy to favor the players and steadily keep the business up&running at the same time. Upon first glance it might seem that it is the interest of the casino that the player bust quickly. But it is not, the casino's interest is that the player keeps playing. Therefore it is very unlikely that any casino would offer incentives like lower WR for play which could result in quicker bust and wagering less.

Agree, but if player will keep playing with the same bonus too long - it's not profitable for casino. The best way is if player loses their current deposit+bonus as quickly as possible and then deposit again.
If I will wager $25 deposit + $25 bonus 2 or three days - it will be unprofitable for casino. They are interested in players who play a lot and deposit frequently.

[Wildfire7]

Hello forum heads,
Today I was reading about “bad bonuses” – you even could find my few posts regarding this issue – and sudden thought came into my mind: what if there could be bonuses with “floating” wagering requirements? By saying “floating” I mean that the amount to be wagered depends on the bet size.

As an example I took common 100% up to $100 Welcome Bonus, for slots only. Let’s say the player deposited $100 and received $100 bonus. So, based on their bet size, the wagering requirements would be the following:

For $0.25 stake – 25x(bonus) = $2500 to wager.
For $0.5 stake – 24x(bonus) = $2400 to wager.
For $1 stake – 22x(bonus) = $2200 to wager.
For $2 stake – 20x(bonus) = $2000 to wager.
For $5 stake – 18x(bonus) = $1800 to wager.

So, with larger bet size player will have less WR, but their chances to bust are increasing. All numbers are given as an example!

If player wants to play with different bet sizes, their WR will change accordingly. For example, player made $300 in bets with $0.25 stake ($2500 - $300 = $2200 to go) and then decide to up their bets to $0.5. According to the WR table, they will have to complete $2112 instead of $2200 and so on.
For $1 stake they will have to complete $1936 instead of $2200.

As I said, with such bonus players could vary their WR, but their chances to bust will increase with the bet size. So they will be able to select how to play: more safely but with more WR, or more risky but with less WR.

Any opinions? Thanks!

P.S. I don’t know, maybe someone somewhere proposed something similar, but I didn’t find it. And until someone provide me with the link – I will consider it as my own idea

An interesting idea. The main problem I can see with this, is the absolute nightmare and confusion it would create to players trying to work out if they have met WR.

The bonus system needs to be simplified, not complicated further.

Mike