Should Crypto Casinos Follow the UK's 10x Bonus Wagering Limit?

[Hatchy]

I saw a topic discussing the 40x wagering requirement, which many believe is too high and unrealistic, but did you know that the UK Gambling Commission has already recognized this concern, and they now have a regulation that took effect earlier this year requiring casinos under its regulation to impose a maximum wagering requirement of 10x?

They should, but I doubt how many of these casinos would be willing to operate in jurisdictions with such regulations. Wagering requirements are usually put in place to make it very difficult for players to unlock their bonuses and actually benefit from them. Even if you manage to meet the requirements without losing all your money, you might just be lucky not to end up on their bad side. I've received so many bonuses with ridiculously high wagering requirements, but I don't think I've ever managed to unlock any of them. The chances of winning are still very low, even when you place the smallest bets. So, what's the point of offering a bonus if I cannot withdraw my winnings after meeting the requirements?

[retreat]

do you think other regulators overseeing crypto casinos should implement a similar rule?

It depends on whether they see it as really necessary or not. Anyway, each regulator has different rules. If the UK regulator wants to do that, then other regulators might still give casinos the freedom to set their own wagering requirements, as long as they comply with their respective regulations. But if other regulators start seeing that this rule is pretty good to follow, then that's a good thing for players because it can make bonus terms fairer and more accessible to users. It's not just a gimmick that casinos usually make to attract people to their casinos.

[Filicius]

And won't that mean that British casinos will be forced to offer fewer bonuses?

Bonuses with a very high wagering requirement are practically free to the casino, and they are a great way to promote it in a very cheap way, apart from making it easier for users to get used to the games and the platform. But with a relatively low requirement like the one imposed, they are no longer almost free to offer, and probably no longer a way to promote themselves so cheaply.

[Pandu Geddon]

do you think other regulators overseeing crypto casinos should implement a similar rule?

Wagering requirements are also related to the bonuses and promotions offered by casinos. I am not sure about many crypto casinos that are willing to follow these rules, but how big the impact will be on the gamblers and the casinos themselves that will implement them. After all, with lighter requirements, can it guarantee that gamblers can enjoy the winnings?

[Hispo]

It sounds good on paper.
It would mean more people would feel the appeal to deposit money on casinos in order to fulfill that laxer requirement.
I may sound those kind of regulations are set in detriment of the casino itself, but in reality, if it was implemented on any crypto casino, it would attract more people to deposit more money, since they would believe they have got more chances to get that money out their account, into their personal wallet.

Though, I don't know if small casinos and bookies would feel comfortable enough and implement those limits.

[hedgeh0g]

It sounds good on paper.
It would mean more people would feel the appeal to deposit money on casinos in order to fulfill that laxer requirement.
I may sound those kind of regulations are set in detriment of the casino itself, but in reality, if it was implemented on any crypto casino, it would attract more people to deposit more money, since they would believe they have got more chances to get that money out their account, into their personal wallet.

Though, I don't know if small casinos and bookies would feel comfortable enough and implement those limits.

Of course, this would have a positive impact on the gambling ecosystem; players would realize that clearing bonuses is actually achievable and within reach. It might motivate them to play more, thereby boosting casino traffic. When wagering requirements are high around 40x a player completely loses interest in the bonus; it feels like playing for free, just wasting time with no real hope of a payout. Honestly, back when wagering requirements were lower, I viewed them as genuine bonuses, but I simply don't get that feeling anymore, I’d rather just play with real money and even then, only in small amounts.

[theoddwright]

Nobody has put numbers on it yet, so here they are. A wagering requirement isn't a target you have to win; it's turnover, and what it costs you on average is turnover × house edge.

Take a $100 bonus on a slot with 96% RTP (a 4% edge):

• 10x: you wager $1,000, and the expected loss on that is $40. On average you keep about $60 of the bonus.
• 40x: you wager $4,000, and the expected loss is $160, more than the bonus itself. Most players lose it all before they finish; only variance gets some of them through.

So the UK cap turns a typical bonus from "worth close to nothing" into "worth most of its face value". That's also why TopTort777 is probably right that UK casinos will offer fewer of them: at 10x the casino actually pays for the bonus.

Two things make it worse in practice: offers that count deposit + bonus towards the requirement (double the turnover), and game weighting (if table games count 10%, every $1 there only clears $0.10).

[uneng]

Take a $100 bonus on a slot with 96% RTP (a 4% edge):

• 10x: you wager $1,000, and the expected loss on that is $40. On average you keep about $60 of the bonus.
• 40x: you wager $4,000, and the expected loss is $160, more than the bonus itself. Most players lose it all before they finish; only variance gets some of them through.

The measure will lead casinos to abolish such bonus offers, due to being heavily unprofitable for them to afford, or may encourage casinos to create further requirements, like allowing the bonuses only for whales, since they are prone to bet larger sums of money (and consequently losing it), compared to the small gambler who has been placing cheap bets every week.

The way it's being proposed, it seems a money making method for gamblers, as they can create one account on each casino available and take advantage of the 60$ potential profit to be made (in worst case) from each bonus. And then move to the next platform.

[Royal Cap]

do you think other regulators overseeing crypto casinos should implement a similar rule?

To be honest, if such a rule is applied, it would be good for gamblers. But I don't think betting companies will accept it very easily. Even if they do, I think they will set up specific games with low RTP to meet this wagering requirement. However, this is my opinion. Because making a 10x wager is not a big deal. Because playing low-risk games can easily complete the 10x wagering requirement. And some dishonest gamblers can abuse it if they want.

[Awaklara]

It depends on whether they see it as really necessary or not. Anyway, each regulator has different rules. If the UK regulator wants to do that, then other regulators might still give casinos the freedom to set their own wagering requirements, as long as they comply with their respective regulations. But if other regulators start seeing that this rule is pretty good to follow, then that's a good thing for players because it can make bonus terms fairer and more accessible to users. It's not just a gimmick that casinos usually make to attract people to their casinos.

What needs adjustment is the casino. Gamblers might not mind too much, as long as there are profits to be gained. But for the casino, it might be necessary to create other promotions or calculate how those wagering requirements can be applied correctly to their games. You are right, every regulator has their own rules. And all of that will be adjusted according to how appropriate they are for the gambling situations they oversee.

[Adiljutt156]

It sounds good on paper.
It would mean more people would feel the appeal to deposit money on casinos in order to fulfill that laxer requirement.
I may sound those kind of regulations are set in detriment of the casino itself, but in reality, if it was implemented on any crypto casino, it would attract more people to deposit more money, since they would believe they have got more chances to get that money out their account, into their personal wallet.

Though, I don't know if small casinos and bookies would feel comfortable enough and implement those limits.

No doubt it's a good workout by the British gambling authority, but it's also only working for casinos that are operating under British legislation, which means it's not having a big impact for mostly crypto casinos, which are not having any license from them because of many regulations and things that are not favorable for them.

Just because of these rules and strict policies, mostly casinos are having licenses from regions where things are not like developed countries because they always understand the consequences of having a license from them. No doubt more gamblers will be attracted, which means more revenue and business. If someone is working here, he needs to have enough funds for the following because it's never been easy for casinos, which do not have enough sources and funds.

[Texac]

I saw a topic discussing the 40x wagering requirement, which many believe is too high and unrealistic, but did you know that the UK Gambling Commission has already recognized this concern, and they now have a regulation that took effect earlier this year requiring casinos under its regulation to impose a maximum wagering requirement of 10x?

I think limiting bonus wagering requirement to 10x is actually very reasonable move and other regulator should definitely consider introducing similar rule.
But there's one important point here.  Casino could make up for these new restriction by introducing other condition, such as lowering maximum withdrawal amount, shortening bonus expiration period or limiting which game count toward wagering requirement.
However I'd actually go little further. Casino should show player not just bonus amount and wagering multiplier, but also exact total amount they need to wager before they can withdraw their fund.

Overall I think these kind of restriction could definitely make casino bonus policy fairer. But most important thing is that regulator don't just focus on making rule look good on paper.

[Leahized]

I saw a topic discussing the 40x wagering requirement, which many believe is too high and unrealistic, but did you know that the UK Gambling Commission has already recognized this concern, and they now have a regulation that took effect earlier this year requiring casinos under its regulation to impose a maximum wagering requirement of 10x?

This could be quite a good step, which makes the bonus conditions somewhat less complicated. But it is not certain that, every gambler will benefit. Because the casino is bound by its own rules. Which will make it difficult for gamblers to meet the conditions even with 10x wagering. Since it has not been permanently implemented and may change in the future. So, one should not have too much hope for certainty.

However, for now this decision is somewhat fruitful. Nevertheless, it will drive a gambler towards these low wagering casinos. Which, at first glance will significantly cause losses. However, will the casino implement this condition?

[Queentoshi]

It sounds good on paper.
It would mean more people would feel the appeal to deposit money on casinos in order to fulfill that laxer requirement.
I may sound those kind of regulations are set in detriment of the casino itself, but in reality, if it was implemented on any crypto casino, it would attract more people to deposit more money, since they would believe they have got more chances to get that money out their account, into their personal wallet.

Though, I don't know if small casinos and bookies would feel comfortable enough and implement those limits.

All casinos do not need to offer bonuses especially the small casinos in that region who are under this new requirement if they know that they are not comfortable with the wagering limits. They could impress and still keep gamblers who come to their platform to gamble by becoming more active in engaging the gamblers on their platform already through closer communities like on discord and Telegram, have a loyalty program that rewards loyal gamblers etc. Many gamblers can ignore that you do not offer regular bonuses like other casinos if your services and relationship is good with them.

[serjent05]

As someone who plays on a gambling platform, anything that is beneficial for players should be supported.  So yes, I think that all casinos, not only crypto casinos, should follow the UK's 10x Bonus Wagering Limit.  It is really unfair for gamblers to have a 40x wagering requirement on any bonus or promotional bonus of the casino.

I also think that they should abolish the mechanics of depleting the initial funds first before enabling the counting of wagering requirements.  This thing makes it harder for the player to meet the wagering requirement.

[Davidvictorson]

For example, if you receive a bonus of $100 with a 10x wagering requirement, the total amount you need to wager cannot exceed $1,000. So this is the kind of player protection that shows the regulator is concerned about gamblers and wants the rules to be fair, do you think other regulators overseeing crypto casinos should implement a similar rule?

This is very nice coming from the UK Gambling Commission. It shows that they are indeed working and have consumer/customer protection at the top of their list.
Once again just as I have written in another post, I am completely in support of strict regulations over a complete ban.
However, how much is their reach?
Can this regulation touch on online casinos that are not domicile in the UK but can be accessed by people who live in the UK?

[Cryptomultiplier]

As someone who plays on a gambling platform, anything that is beneficial for players should be supported.  So yes, I think that all casinos, not only crypto casinos, should follow the UK's 10x Bonus Wagering Limit.  It is really unfair for gamblers to have a 40x wagering requirement on any bonus or promotional bonus of the casino.

I also think that they should abolish the mechanics of depleting the initial funds first before enabling the counting of wagering requirements.  This thing makes it harder for the player to meet the wagering requirement.

Beyond enforcing a strict rule that would protect gamblers in this regard, I think gamblers should also be aware about such kinds of bogus rules by casinos mostly as regards huge wagering requirements in their TOS before even joining the platform, so as to avoid problems.

Also, I think when casino platforms make bonus funds contribute to wagering requirements, it's fair enough, and considering these new regulations, because those gamblers that are too lazy to study the TOS would easily avoid the traps that aim to lock up their funds and make them spend more than necessary.

[red4slash]

It becomes a good regulation for gamblers only in this case not all will follow especially for small cases when talking about sites in forums that are currently active are likely to have little or even nothing to do with this UK regulation.

So for gamblers who are in the UK will feel the benefits if this rule applies but for global gamblers this must return to the regulation of the country they live in even though we are in a gambling site as many operate now but still the sites also have their own ToS which boils down to how the regulation in their country operates.

It is undeniable that x10 looks much friendlier because after all this can make the probability of a bonus getting bigger but this may also be a little difficult for some gambling sites because of course when this rule occurs there must be an adjustment for them let alone the amount of bonuses and promos they do.

[Itz-prisigold]

Beyond enforcing a strict rule that would protect gamblers in this regard, I think gamblers should also be aware about such kinds of bogus rules by casinos mostly as regards huge wagering requirements in their TOS before even joining the platform, so as to avoid problems.

Also, I think when casino platforms make bonus funds contribute to wagering requirements, it's fair enough, and considering these new regulations, because those gamblers that are too lazy to study the TOS would easily avoid the traps that aim to lock up their funds and make them spend more than necessary.

Yeah I agree with every point you made. Players too have a duty to understand what they are signing up for but I believe that the casinos themselves should make these conditions clear and easy to comprehend in the first place, rather than keeping important details buried inside a long term & condition making it very difficult to find.

And also people should consider that not every gambler is aware of how these wagering requirements works. Since different casinos comes with their own different rules. That's why I think there should be some sort of sensible limit on these requirements, and more transparency.  This way the players can still use promotions without having the need to make players play more than they actually planned to.

[Muba20]

Crypto casinos often design bonus offers in a way that often disregards the interests of players. If there is a 40x wagering requirement for $100 bonus, then to get that bonus, gamblers will have to bet $4,000, which is undoubtedly a trap. Such requirements are only deceiving players. The policy decision taken by the UK Gambling Commission to protect gamblers is certainly a commendable initiative. By doing so, gamblers will get at least some more benefits. If a 10x requirement is imposed, many will be able to fulfill that goal. All institutions under the UK license commission will have to provide benefits to gamblers by following these rules. If crypto casinos do not follow these rules, then legal action should be taken against them. The commission will not only consider the interests of gambling platforms, but also the interests of those who gamble.