The margin we assume

Every costed example on this site rests on one stated working assumption: the wagering multiple in a bonus term is applied to the bonus alone, not to the deposit plus the bonus. A stated assumption lets you check our arithmetic and correct it against the term sheet in front of you. A silent one would hide the single number that most changes the answer.

The assumption in one sentence

The assumption is this: where a term sheet says a bonus must be wagered a given number of times, this site reads that multiple as applying to the bonus amount alone. If the bonus is AUD 100 and the multiple is 30, the turnover requirement in our examples is AUD 3,000. That is the whole of the assumption. Everything else on this page follows from it, and every costed figure elsewhere on the site can be traced back to this one choice.

We make the choice for a practical reason. Applying a multiple to the bonus alone produces the smaller of the two possible turnover requirements, so it gives the reader the more favourable reading first. If the term sheet in front of you turns out to apply the multiple to deposit plus bonus, your real requirement is larger than our illustration, and you will notice the gap immediately because we have shown you the working. A conservatively framed example that you can scale upward is more useful than an aggressively framed one that you cannot check.

All figures on this page are in Australian dollars (AUD).

The two readings of a wagering term

A wagering term is a multiplier attached to a base amount, and the term sheet has to say which base. The common form says the bonus must be wagered some number of times. A different form says the deposit and bonus together, or the total credited to the account, must be wagered the stated number of times. The multiplier may be identical in the two documents and still produce very different obligations.

Take a deposit of AUD 100 and a bonus of AUD 100 under a multiple of 30. On our reading, the base is the bonus alone, so the turnover requirement is 100 x 30, which is AUD 3,000. On the deposit-plus-bonus reading, the base is AUD 200, so the requirement is 200 x 30, which is AUD 6,000. The multiplier has not changed. The base has doubled, and the work the reader has to do has doubled with it.

This is why the site never treats a headline multiple as information on its own. A multiple of 30 on a bonus-only base and a multiple of 30 on a deposit-plus-bonus base look identical in a promotional paragraph and behave very differently on the account. The reader has to find the base. We say plainly that a term sheet applying the multiple to deposit plus bonus produces a much larger turnover requirement, and that you should check which one applies before you accept anything. If you cannot find the base stated clearly, treat that as a reason to slow down rather than to guess.

The same caution applies to any second multiple in the same document. A term sheet may set one multiple for the bonus and another for any winnings generated from it, or a separate multiple for different parts of the balance. We do not fold those into a single number. Our assumption covers only the primary wagering multiple applied to the bonus, and if a term sheet layers further conditions, our illustration understates the total work required.

A worked illustration in round figures

Here is the arithmetic in full. It is this site's own illustration, built with round numbers for legibility. It is not any operator's term, it does not describe any real offer, and the figures have been chosen to make the multiplication easy to follow rather than to match any document.

Suppose an illustrative bonus of AUD 100 is offered with an illustrative wagering multiple of 30, applied on our assumption to the bonus alone. The turnover requirement is the stake multiplied by the multiple:

AUD 100 x 30 = AUD 3,000 of turnover.

Turnover is the total amount that must be staked, not the amount that must be lost. The reader cycles the balance through qualifying wagers until the cumulative stake reaches AUD 3,000. Individual wagers may win or lose along the way. The turnover figure describes the volume of staking required, and it is a condition of the offer rather than a prediction of the outcome.

To turn turnover into an order of magnitude for expected loss, we divide by a notional return rate. This site uses a notional return rate of 95 per cent for the purpose of illustration, which means we treat AUD 100 staked as returning AUD 95 in the long run and costing AUD 5. Applied to AUD 3,000 of turnover:

AUD 3,000 x (1 - 0.95) = AUD 150 of expected loss.

That is the shape of every costed example on this site. Stake times multiple gives turnover. Turnover times the notional cost per dollar staked gives an order of magnitude for expected loss. Change the multiple and the expected loss moves in proportion. Change the base from bonus alone to deposit plus bonus and the turnover, and therefore the expected loss, doubles. Change the notional return rate and the expected loss moves again.

Two features of this arithmetic deserve emphasis. First, the expected loss figure can exceed the bonus. In the illustration above, an AUD 100 bonus sits alongside an expected loss of AUD 150 over the required turnover. A bonus is not a payment that arrives free of conditions; it is a credit attached to a staking obligation, and the obligation can cost more in expectation than the credit is worth. Second, the figure is an order of magnitude, not a quotation. Rounding, the choice of return rate, and the reader's own pattern of staking will all move the real outcome.

The return rate is our illustration, not a rule

The notional return rate of 95 per cent used above is chosen by this site to make the division easy. It is an illustration and nothing more. It is not a published Australian requirement, it is not a regulatory minimum, and it is not drawn from the documentation of any particular product. We use it because a costed example needs some figure in the denominator, and a round one keeps the arithmetic visible.

On the regulatory question, the position is plain. No minimum return to player percentage for Australia is published in the material this site read. The parameter exists in a land-based standard, and our reading notes record that fact, but the value attached to it was not retrievable from the sources we could reach. We therefore do not state a figure. This is not caution for its own sake. A number invented to fill a gap in a calculation would propagate into every costed example on the site and would carry an authority it has not earned.

For the same reason, this site does not state a return to player percentage, a hit rate, a volatility rating, or a maximum win for any named game or any studio. Those figures vary by product and by configuration, and a general page is the wrong place to attach a specific number to a specific product. Where a reader wants the figure for a particular game, the game's own information screen is the place to find it, and the term sheet for a particular offer is the place to find the wagering terms.

What this means for the illustration is simple. The 95 per cent figure is a lever we have set at a round position to show the mechanism. Move the lever and the expected loss moves. If a product's actual long-run return were higher, the cost per dollar staked would be lower; if lower, the cost would be higher. The structure of the calculation is what transfers between products. The specific number does not.

Why a margin is an expectation, not a forecast

A margin is an average over many plays. It describes what happens to a very large volume of staking spread across a very large number of sessions, and it says nothing about what will happen to one reader in one session. The expected loss of AUD 150 in the illustration above is the centre of a distribution, not a schedule of deductions. A reader working through the same turnover could finish ahead of the starting balance or could finish well behind it.

This matters because the language of expectation invites a false precision. If a page says the expected cost of a requirement is a particular amount, a reader may hear a prediction. It is not one. Over a short run, the variance around the average can be large, and a single session is a short run. The illustration tells you the scale of the commitment, not the result of it. You can lose more than the illustration in any given session, and you can lose less.

There is a second reason to keep the distinction sharp. The expected loss figure is conditional on completing the turnover. A reader who stops partway through has not incurred the full expected cost of the requirement, but may have forfeited the bonus and any winnings attached to it under the terms. The cost of stopping is a term sheet question, not an arithmetic one, and it is worth reading before starting rather than after. If you find yourself chasing a turnover requirement to justify a credit that has already been outweighed by losses, the arithmetic is no longer the useful frame. Knowing when to stop is a decision that sits outside the calculation.

Why we put the assumption beside the figure

The assumption appears in the same paragraph as the figure it produces, not in a footnote or a general disclaimer at the foot of the page. The reason is that a footnote separates the number from its condition, and readers reasonably carry the number away without the condition. A figure presented alone reads as a fact about the offer. A figure presented with its base and its multiple reads as what it is: a calculation that you can reproduce or correct.

There is also a practical test embedded in the placement. If an assumption cannot be stated in the same breath as the figure it supports, it is probably doing too much work. Our assumption is short enough to sit beside the arithmetic: the multiple applies to the bonus alone, the return rate is a notional illustration, the result is an order of magnitude. A reader who disagrees with any element can substitute their own and redo the multiplication in a few seconds. That is the point of showing the working.

On the regulatory side, the statutory liability for a prohibited service falls on the operator. Section 15 is written about the provider, and the same is true of sections 15AA, 15A and 15C; the simplified outline in section 3 lists duties on providers, internet service providers and advertisers. No offence or civil penalty provision directed at a customer for using a prohibited service was found in the material this site read. A page may therefore say that the statutory liability falls on the operator. It may not say that playing is therefore without cost. The losses are losses of protection, not of liberty, and the arithmetic on this page is about the cost of an offer, not about who answers for a contravention.

What is the working assumption this site uses?
The wagering multiple is applied to the bonus amount alone. On a bonus of AUD 100 and a multiple of 30, the turnover requirement in our examples is AUD 3,000.
What changes if the term sheet applies the multiple to deposit plus bonus?
The turnover requirement becomes much larger. With a deposit of AUD 100 and a bonus of AUD 100, a multiple of 30 on the combined AUD 200 gives AUD 6,000 of turnover instead of AUD 3,000. Check which base applies before accepting an offer.
Where does the return rate in your illustrations come from?
It is chosen by this site as a notional figure to make the division legible. It is not a published Australian requirement and not a term from any operator's document.
Does Australia publish a minimum return to player percentage?
No minimum return to player percentage for Australia is published in the material this site read. The parameter appears in a land-based standard, but the value attached to it was not retrievable from the sources we could reach, so we state no figure.
Is the expected loss figure a prediction for my session?
No. A margin is an expectation over many plays. You can lose more or less than the illustration in any given session, and a single session is a short run.
Why is the assumption not in a footnote?
Because a footnote separates a number from its condition, and readers carry away the number. Stating the assumption beside the figure lets you reproduce the calculation or substitute your own inputs.

Licensing note

Section 15 creates a civil penalty of 7,500 penalty units, and sections 15(2) and 15(2B) both run per day: section 15(2) makes each day the contravention continues a separate offence, and section 15(2B) provides the civil equivalent. This page states no dollar maximum penalty, because no primary source reviewed by this site states one under section 15. The statutory liability is directed at the provider. Sections 15AA, 15A and 15C are written the same way, and the section 3 simplified outline lists duties on providers, internet service providers and advertisers. No offence or civil penalty provision directed at a customer for using a prohibited service was found in the material this site read. That is a statement about where liability sits, not a statement that using a service is free of cost.

Where to go next