Question Deposit bonuses - do they benefit the player or the casino?

[Mango]

Sorry if this is in the wrong section, wasn't quite sure where the question should go.

Here's something I've been thinking about recently. Who actually gets the better edge from a deposit bonus - the player or the casino?

The answer itself seems fairly obvious, especially in cases where the players' funds are locked in to the bonus until wagering is met. In that case, surely the casino has the upper edge. But to me it doesn't seem like casinos quite have the same idea. For example, whenever I ask for a deposit bonus at a casino (which I've done at many different sites, believe me!), they seem really hesitant to give me one, regardless of how their bonus system works. Players have so low chances of actually meeting wagering requirements, shouldn't casinos happily provide bonuses upon request in order to maximize their profits?

Another event that made me think harder about this question is my recent play at 32Red. I take pretty much every deposit bonus they throw at me, as long as it's 100% or higher. I've deposited a little bit more than €200 in total using these bonuses I believe. I've never managed to meet wagering (playing at low stakes, even), and I've never made a cashout (aside from a puny €14 cashout from 10 freespins on Immortal Romance). Having had such bad luck, I approached their customer support in hopes of a free chip or a deposit bonus to compensate for my horrendous luck. They flat-out refused to give me either, citing the fact that I've been taking bonuses as the cause. Had I made straight deposits, it would've been a different story, or so I was told. This makes zero sense to me, as with straight deposits I would've had a much higher chance of making a cashout as opposed to when depositing with a bonus.

Can I have some thoughts on this? Am I thinking incorrectly here?

 

[The Dude]

Answer: the casino.
More on this here:
Casino Bonuses 2025 | Best Online Casino Bonuses

and here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Mango]

Answer: the casino.
More on this here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/bonus-offers/

and here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I've seen those writeups already, very interesting reads. But I still can't wrap my head around one thing - if the casinos benefit from the bonuses, why are they so reluctant to give them out to players? Are personalized bonuses simply too much work, or are other factors involved?

 

[lockinlove]

I think you will get various types of responses. Some people seem to like them and do okay some dont.

I personally believe its the casino that benefits. Many casinos have terms that restrict you from playing certain games, high wagering which is hard to make and if you do hit a $200 score in your first handful of spins on a $100 deposit+100% bonus... you still have a very good chance of not making the wagering.

I have no idea why casinos get so stingy with offering them to people who want them. I think they are stuck in the past when they offered 10x wagering and we had a good chance of winning. Now its like 40x wagering and so many ridiculous rules its very hard to get a decent score from them

I hate bonuses.

 

[The Dude]

If casinos didn't make money off of them (generally speaking), they wouldn't offer them.

 

[Simmo!]

They flat-out refused to give me either, citing the fact that I've been taking bonuses as the cause. Had I made straight deposits, it would've been a different story, or so I was told.

This relates to a conversation I had a few years ago with a MG casino but I think may still be relevant. They told me that because of licence fees, game contributions, processing costs and support time there are a significant percentage of players who are simply not profitable. This tended to be lower rollers who took bonuses and deposited small amounts. The casino said they couldn't turn them away because it would create bad publicity but it actually cost them money to have these players.

Processors charged (and presumably still do) a % of the amount both deposited and withdrawn but many had a minimum amount which was the killer on a small depositor. Licensing costs varied depending on the games a player played but a % of their losses on certain games was also payable to the software developers. The main hits came from branded games and progressives.

The casino said all they could do was to stop offering incentives to the players that fell into this category.

I'm not saying 32red do this but it does make sound business sense for any operator to reduce costs. No business wants customers that cost them money even if it isn't the customer's fault. In iGaming, the associated costs just happen to be significant enough to make this happen.

 

[Jono777]

My answer to your question after years of play would be both!

Quick, simple example.

I play roughly with a bonus 60% of the time 40% of the time straight cash only.

On occasions if it was not for the bonus I'd have long busted out, the bonus has 'saved me' allowed me to recover the balance, clear the WR and make a successful cash out.

Other occasions however I have been tied into a WR, had an excellent start and a high balance but then every slot has turned cold on me and the bonus and associated wagering has more or less destroyed my balance and stop me cashing out which would have been guaranteed if I had not accepted the bonus on this occasion.

Defo works both ways but percentage wise I would err on the side of the casinos and as Bryan has already said casinos offer them for a reason!

IMO it is not just to entice players to deposit either!

 

[KasinoKing]

Simmo made some excellent points.
You have to remember all the overheads the casinos have, processing fees, affiliates to pay , licencing fees, staff, property, etc. etc...
If you deposit and lose say €50 - I would be surprised if many casinos make more than €10 clear profit from that.
If they also give out free NDBs, free-spins, cash-back etc - it doesn't leave them with much!

I prefer to take bonuses myself (as long as they are at least 50% and the WR isn't stupid-high), for the extra play-time (more chances to hit a big win), the challenge of trying to meet the WR with a profit, and because they give me a definitive "stop and cash-out" point... as long as my will-power isn't waning that day!

KK

 

[hedgehok]

The answer to your question can be Yes and No. There are bonuses around that combine the benefits of non-bonus play (freedom to withdraw whenever you like) with getting a bonus. These bonuses are fine for the player.

However you will need to invest some time to find suitable bonuses for your taste. Generally speaking you can't do anything wrong with bonuses from casinos like Vera & John, LeoVegas, MrGreen or CherryCasino (there are some more, but these are some of the more prominent).

These bonuses won't tie your initial deposit into wagering requirements and give you the freedom to play like you would do with non-bonus funds basically. If you win you can withdraw whenever you like (forfeiting the initial bonus). In case you lose your deposited funds you keep playing with bonus funds (I call this one cashback-bonus). However only wagering with bonus funds will contribute to wagering requirements.

Nowadays there are literally 5-6 different bonus-types. Sometimes only nuances are different. Sometimes only cash-play will contribute to wager (Royal Panda), sometimes only bonus-play counts to wager (the aforementioned casinos that offer these cashback-bonuses), at Betat/SlottyVegas both count towards wagering.

Most of them are indeed favoring the casinos. I would estimate like 80-90% of them. The arguments are well described in Simmo's and Bryan's articles.

The main-problem however is to keep track with all the bonus-rules. It will take more time reading some T&C and to figure out how the bonus-system works than you will actually end up playing. That can't be the idea of the whole thing. So it's more a problem of understanding how the bonuses work and don't violate any T&C then actually questioning if they are beneficial.

 

[nikantw]

The answer is the casino. Unless they make a mistake.

The idea is simple. The casino wants more deposits, so they use bonuses to attract them. They don’t want withdrawals, so the bonus is constructed in a way that only extreme luck can give possibility for a withdrawal. So, bottom line is that the bonus is only supposed to give some more playtime (but no withdrawal) to players that have particularly low RTP on latest seasons.

The player gets his money worth of playtime, and the casino gets the deposited money, fair trade IMHO.

 

[dave1888]

More often than not the casino has an edge when you take the bonus as it mentioned above. It's simple if you take the bonus you're committed until it is completed.

There are only a few reasons I will take a bonus 1:If I want to play a game that costs a lot in bankroll(like Immortal,SWR,TH2,Rhino etc even Twin Spin will often drain you) 2 If they have a tier system where each deposit earns you an extra reward.

I tend to avoid B+DX offers mostly if you are going to take one.
Bet small,
Only take XBonus amount(bonus offers not B+DX),
switch games alot.

(Remember you want to get through wagering so focus on that before focusing on winning massive)

 

[Rhyzz]

Generally the Casino wins. However, law of averages would assume if you bring enough people in and give all of them free money, it only takes 1 person to win to negate all profit from the others who lost.

Look at it mathematically - if I give 100 people a £1 free bet on a 100/1 shot, you'd expect 1 person to win, so whilst you could argue you'll make £99 profit from the others, you've just lost £100 to the last one, resulting in a £1 loss.

That's Sportsbook logic, but you get the idea. If you gave 37 people the opportunity to place a £1 bet on Roulette and they each chose a number, 1 person would walk away with a £36 profit.

So, answer is, in the short term over a single offer, the Casino could make a juicy profit. However, when that 1 big player comes along and decides to go balls deep with their play, it could end up being very costly.

 

[Jono777]

IIRC, I took a bonus the day I had 'that' win (see Avatar)

Not sure as it was a while back (Aug 2013) but I'm reasonably confident I had dipped into the bonus portion of my balance at some point prior to the huge hit.

If not for the bonus I would have busted and the casino would have saved £2,650 (total end cash out amount from £20 deposit) - This was on minimum bets (0.30p) but could have been a high roller on much higher stake.

Freak and very rare instance/example but as you say it can happen!!

 

[nikantw]

IIRC, I took a bonus the day I had 'that' win (see Avatar)

Freak and very rare instance/example but as you say it can happen!!

That is why they have WR and max bet and average bet and allowed games and reverse period and max cashout and.......

 

[Jono777]

That is why they have WR and max bet and average bet and allowed games and reverse period and max cashout and.......

Hee hee very true indeed!

Luckily it was won at a 'BS free zone' lol when there are none of those worries.

32 Red all the way, sure I'm due a win the same as your Avatar soon to complete my 'set'

 

[randomiam]

take them small

It all depends on deposit and bet size if its a deposit 10 get 10 free go for it if your only going to play 30 cent spins
even with 20 et 20 free on 30 cent spins the wagering is still clear able. But when its buy 50 get 60 free even at 35x wagering its 1750 and thats a huge amount for a 100 doller start the min bet to finish would be 90. anything under 100% isnt realty worth it

 

[nikantw]

......sure I'm due a win the same as your Avatar soon to complete my 'set'

Me too, since it is not my win, it was just so pretty that I “borrowed” it!!
Personally I had up to 4 WD reels and just up to 3 WS reels.

 

[spintee]

I know people have mentioned the fees involved, Surley 90% of fees would already be accounted for? if played or not, Such as staff already there, computers servers already on, Games already hired,

Its not as if they get charged for every spin you do, Say somebody walked in my shop, every things there, Its costing me any way to run every think, If some one wanted a drink and they didnt have enough, The drink cost me 50p and I was selling for £1 and they had 80p, I am not going to say no to a profit, I could say sorry its costing me to run the fridge,

If I had to open the shop, switch lights on leave put the fridge on for 30 minutes it would be another story, Its not as if they have to pay proses fees as some site charge for that and others have it in house, or in with the network deal,

I have taken many bonus in my time, and yes some have come to my rescue but I can assure you many have not,