Wagering Requirements by Casino: Every Term We Hold, Side by Side
Seven bonus offers sit on our record, and the six with a deposit side to compare — four welcome deposit matches, one recurring monthly reward and one welcome cashback — fill the two tables below. The seventh, Decode Casino’s 25 free spins at 35×, asks for no deposit at all, so its terms are priced on no deposit bonuses instead of in a deposit comparison. Four of the six publish a multiplier: 30× at 777, at 888casino and at NetBet — a three-way tie — and 40× at BitStarz, each of them written against the bonus rather than against the deposit. Two publish none — BC.Game’s monthly RakeBack and Betway’s cashback — and their two empty multiplier cells are not saying the same thing, which is what the rest of each row is for. Two offers of the six state a maximum bet while wagering, and both land on €5 — BitStarz in its bonus terms, NetBet in its irregular-play terms rather than on its offer page. Where we have read no clause, the cell says so instead of guessing, and a good many cells say so.
The three numbers the search asks for
#Ad — affiliate disclosure: the brand names below are links to our reviews, which is where the paid outbound links live. No commission decides which clause gets printed, which cell is left empty, or where a row lands (full disclosure). 18+. Free help in Malta: rgf.org.mt, Supportline 1777.
Rows run on the multiplier each operator publishes, smallest first, with the two that publish none at the end. That leaves two knots the criterion cannot untie — 777, 888casino and NetBet in a three-way tie at 30×, and BC.Game and Betway, neither printing anything — and wherever it cannot separate offers they fall into alphanumeric order by brand name, which is a sorting convention and not a result (it is why 777 sits first). The second pair is the one to read nothing into: there is no figure on either side, so nothing has been placed above anything. Nor is a multiplier ordering a cost ordering — what these offers ask for in euros puts them in a different sequence, and reverses even that above a certain deposit size, which is worked through on lowest wagering requirements casinos.
| The offer, and when we read it | Multiplier | What the multiplier multiplies | Maximum bet while wagering |
|---|---|---|---|
| 777, 20 August 2026 | 30× | The bonus; winnings withdraw only after 30× the initial bonus amount is wagered, and low-risk wagers do not count | Not on record — the bonus policy polices stakes through the low-risk exclusion instead of a ceiling |
| 888casino, 16 July 2026 | 30× | The bonus; stakes placed from the cash balance are not counted | Not on record |
| NetBet, 16 July 2026 · cap 30 July 2026 | 30× | The bonus, before any of it converts to cash | €5 a spin, or €0.50 a line — from the irregular-play terms, not the offer page; a stake above it can forfeit the bonus and its winnings |
| BitStarz, 10 July 2026 | 40× | The bonus sum, separately on each of the 4 deposit legs | €5, a ceiling that also covers double-up wagers and bonus-buy features |
| BC.Game, 10 July 2026 | None published | No bonus balance sits behind a multiplier; the RakeBack is locked, and betting is what releases it | Not on record |
| Betway, 13 August 2026 | None published | No figure is published for one to be worked against: the 30% is calculated from net casino losses once a 24-hour window has closed, rather than applied to a bonus sum | Not on record |
Every figure there is an operator describing its own promotion, and not one of these six rows stands on anything stronger. Two of the readings came off pages anyone can open without an account: the 888casino welcome-offer page, and the EU-language variant of NetBet’s. Two more arrived as the owner’s captures of the BitStarz and BC.Game promotions pages, and our record does not say whether either was taken while signed in. Malta was the connection in those four cases, and the owner vouched for that geography on 28 July 2026. The fifth was checked another way altogether: Betway’s welcome-offer terms were read on 13 August 2026 in the version its own content endpoint serves to the Malta jurisdiction, which is the source confirming the market rather than us confirming the connection. The sixth reading is the newest and a third kind again: 777’s welcome page and bonus policy were read on 20 August 2026, and the operator itself served the Malta template for them — its page payload marks the site country as Malta — which is the operator scoping its own content, not a connection anybody vouched for. Nothing in either table has been accepted or cleared on an account of ours, so not one of these clauses has been watched doing its job — and the €10 that went into Betway on 12 August 2026 was paid in with no bonus claimed and nothing locked to wagering, which makes it evidence about that cashier and none at all about this offer.
The last column is the one worth slowing down on, and it is the column that moved. Two of the six publish a maximum bet and both say €5: BitStarz in its bonus terms, where the cap sits over double-ups and bonus buys as well, and NetBet — not on the offer page we scanned, which prints nothing, but in its irregular-play terms, where the same figure appears as €0.50 a line on slots and carries the only stated consequence on this table for crossing a ceiling. That is the useful lesson of the column: a maximum bet absent from an offer page is not a maximum bet absent from the operator. The four cells beside them stay unread rather than unlimited — 888casino read and empty across its offer terms and its bonus policy; 777 the same shape after one reading of its bonus policy, which voids low-risk wagering from the count instead of capping the stake; BC.Game answering in neither direction, though its bonus is a locked balance that unlocks as you wager rather than a multiplier a per-spin cap would police; and Betway carrying neither a figure nor a note on our record, which is the thinnest of the three silences. Nor does anything we hold attach a clause number to either figure, so the table prints them without references — an autoplay stake respects a ceiling you have found, never one you assumed was absent.
Everything else, and what a blank is saying
The remaining terms answer per clause rather than per brand, so they are laid out the other way round: the clause is the row and the operator is the column.
Two things that look alike in a grid are worth separating before you read it. Not on record means we have read no clause either way — the promotions page did not state it and no terms document we hold settles it. A stated absence is a reading, and it appears as words: our BitStarz record puts it in writing that no maximum cashout is stated on the deposit-match bonuses, which is thinner evidence than a printed clause and much thicker than never having opened the page. The ceiling row now holds a second one: Betway’s offer says of itself that no maximum cashback amount applies to it — a sentence scoped to that offer alone, since the same operator’s general casino bonus terms do cap other products. Of the 42 cells below, 15 are the first kind.
| Clause | 777 | 888casino | NetBet | BitStarz | BC.Game | Betway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Game weighting | Wagering contributions from the bonus policy: Video Slots, Slots, Scratch card, Keno, Race, Arcade, Dice and unlisted games 100%; all versions of Roulette, Pai Gow, Caribbean and Triple Card Poker and poker table games 20%; Blackjack, Live Blackjack, Hi-Lo, Video Poker, Baccarat, Live Baccarat, Live Casino Hold'em and Live Roulette 10%; Craps 5% | Slots, scratch cards and keno weigh 100%; poker variants 20%; blackjack, roulette, baccarat and live casino 10%; craps 5%. Not valid on Live Baccarat or Live Roulette, and progressive-jackpot play doesn't count. | Not on record | Slots contribute 100%; table, live, instant-win, lottery and bingo games 5%; progressive jackpot and accumulating-mechanic games excluded (list is dynamic) | Not on record | All casino and live-casino games, the operator states; no contribution percentages are published behind that, so what any one game counts for is unknown rather than uniform |
| Smallest deposit that qualifies | Not on our record — the qualifying amount is “specified in the applicable Promotion Terms”, which the public pages do not print | €10 | Not on record | €20 | 5 BCD for the first tier — the operator’s own dollar-pegged token, which we do not convert | $5 and up, published in US dollars with no euro equivalent anywhere in the offer — and it is the threshold for the bonus, not the cashier’s minimum deposit |
| How long the offer runs | 90 days to complete the wagering, on every bonus including the welcome — and the FreePlay needs a claim email actioned before any clock matters | 90 days | 7 days | 7 days on the package; whether that clock runs per deposit or across all four is not settled on our record | No window on our record for the RakeBack itself; the operator states that unlocked rewards carry no expiration, which is its statement and not our test | 14 days, counted from registration rather than from the deposit — so whatever passes between opening the account and funding it comes off the fourteen |
| Ceiling on what the bonus converts to cash | None stated on the welcome offer. The account-level withdrawal policy schedules instead of capping: winnings above 30,000 may arrive in monthly instalments of up to 30,000 — a clock, not a ceiling | Not on record | €1,000, with the excess deducted — and the same figure applies to the spin-derived bonus on its own separate count | None stated on the deposit-match bonuses, in our record’s own words; the €100 in the Bonus T&Cs (§1.1) is scoped to no-deposit winnings | Not on record | None stated: the offer publishes no maximum cashback amount. That sentence covers this offer only — the operator’s general casino bonus terms do cap other products |
| What winnings on the free spins become | Not on record | 100 spins on Book of Dead: their own 30× wagering, stopping at €20 | 10 spins on Shining Crown: bonus money at 40×, under a €1,000 conversion ceiling of its own, counted apart from the one on the match | Not on record | The monthly RakeBack we read carries no free-spins leg | Not on record |
| Deposit methods the offer refuses | A first deposit funded through Skrill or Neteller is not eligible for the welcome bonus — the same two wallets NetBet writes out of its own offer | Not on record | Deposits funded through Skrill or Neteller do not qualify for the welcome offer at all | Not on record | Not on record | Not on record |
| What accepting does to the deposit | Attempting to withdraw before the wagering completes cancels the bonus and its associated winnings upon cashout | Not on record | Withdrawing before the wagering is finished forfeits the bonus and its pending winnings | The deposit is locked while an accepted bonus runs, and walking away from that bonus — or letting the clock run out on it — costs the bonus and every winning attributed to it (Bonus T&Cs §3.22) | Not on record | Not on record |
Three of those rows deserve a sentence each. The three weighting grids are not built to the same shape: BitStarz drops table, live, instant-win, lottery and bingo games into a single 5% band, 888casino runs four bands and then lifts two live tables out of the offer altogether, and 777 — an 888/evoke sister — runs the same four-band architecture (100/20/10/5) with a low-risk-wagering exclusion in place of a stake cap. Two of the three records also put progressive-jackpot play outside the count entirely, which is a nought rather than a small number. The three brands with no grid are not brands playing without weighting, and they are not silent in the same way either: at NetBet and BC.Game nobody here has read a contribution table at all, while Betway’s offer page was read, names the games the offer covers and publishes no percentages behind them — which leaves what a game counts for unknown rather than settled.
The refused-deposit row catches people before any turnover begins, and two records now carry one — the same two wallets at each. NetBet puts a deposit funded through Skrill or Neteller outside its welcome offer entirely, and 777’s bonus policy makes a Skrill or Neteller first deposit ineligible for its welcome bonus. That matters locally, because the single NetBet cashout we have timed went out on Skrill and arrived about three hours later, on 11 July 2026 (our test log has the detail) — so at that operator the quick rail and the promotion pull against each other. The four blanks beside them are not a licence for every rail, and they do not all mean the same thing: three of them record a page or a terms document that names no exclusion — our BitStarz record tells us in as many words to treat that as unknown rather than as none — while Betway’s is thinner still, because nothing on payment-method exclusion sits on our record for that offer at all.
The last row is about what accepting an offer does to money already yours, and BitStarz is the sharp case: the deposit is pinned in place while the bonus is live, and ending the bonus early — or letting it lapse — takes the bonus and its attributed winnings with it. NetBet’s version is written into the offer rather than into a deposit rule: withdraw before the wagering is finished and the bonus goes with its pending winnings. One further blank is worth naming, because it is easy to misread. BitStarz has 180 free spins, and its blank in the spins row is not an absence of spins but an absence of any line in our record about what money won on them becomes.
We publish tested readings beside the published ones only after a real deposit, withdrawal and timed verification — no estimates, no marketing numbers.
Where each cell came from
A comparison table flattens the difference between a figure read off a promotions page and a clause read out of a terms document, and on this material that difference decides how much weight a row can carry. Four strengths of evidence stand behind the cells above, and they are not interchangeable.
- A promotions page, read and dated. All of the first table and most of the second. It is what the operator was publishing on the day, and promotional terms move without announcement.
- An owner-extracted line from a terms document. BitStarz’s Bonus T&Cs, dated 25 June 2025, reach our record as lines somebody copied out, never as a file we can open again. The §3.22 citation above rests on that, and the limit comes with it: we can tell you what our record carries, not that we have turned the document’s pages.
- An archived document held in full. BitStarz’s general terms of the same date, kept as a verbatim text snapshot we can search. Its one clause bearing on a bonus win — §8.7.3, on settling substantial wins in monthly instalments — belongs to max cashout caps rather than here, since it bounds speed and not size.
- An extraction of a terms page. BC.Game’s terms come to us as text the owner supplied, because the live page renders as a script-driven application that turns automated readers away. It is the source of that operator’s monthly withdrawal caps, which are a cashier limit and not a bonus term.
Two clause numbers this table used to print have been taken out, and the reasons are different. One of them resolves nowhere in anything we hold: the €5 maximum bet is recorded and real, but no numbered clause is attached to it in our sources, so the figure now stands alone. The other pointed at a clause about winnings issued to players in restricted countries and was being used for the wagering base, which is a separate subject. The working rule that came out of it is short — where a number cannot be traced to a document we can name, print the fact and drop the reference. The same sourcing discipline decides the order of the ranked welcome offers, where these multipliers turn into euro clearing costs.
The brands this table does not cover
Searching a brand alongside “wagering requirements” — Casumo, LeoVegas, 32Red, Unibet, Mr Green — reaches a table that does not hold any of them. Betway belonged on that list until this month and no longer does: its welcome offer was read on 13 August 2026 and now fills the fifth row and the fifth column. There is one condition for entry and it is not demanding: somebody reads the operator’s own offer page in the version served to Malta and writes down what it said, with the date. Six operators have been through that — 777 the newest, on 20 August 2026. No other operator’s casino offer has been read that way for this table, so a brand missing here describes our queue and says nothing whatever about the operator or its terms — with one exception worth naming, because its absence is not a queue matter: King Billy’s own terms bar Malta outright, so no offer of its can be read “as served to Malta” at all; the dated check has its own page (cross-silo — logged exception, acceptance evidence).
When a row and the casino disagree
Both tables are a reading aid and neither is a contract. Where a cell and the operator’s live page differ, the live page is the binding text and this one has gone stale — the contact page is the quickest way to tell us which cell to re-read.
A different problem takes a different route. If an operator applied terms that differ from the ones it had published, that is a complaint rather than a correction, and the steps sit on what to do when a withdrawal goes pending (cross-silo — logged exception). We hold no instance of it at any of these six, and the reason is worth stating plainly: our record covers what six operators published on four days across July and August, and holds no observation of any of those terms being applied to anybody.
Frequently asked
How do wagering requirements compare across these six casinos?
Four of the six publish a multiplier and three of those four publish the same one. 777, 888casino and NetBet all state 30× against the bonus; BitStarz states 40×, against the bonus sum of each of its four deposit legs. BC.Game’s monthly RakeBack states none, and Betway’s cashback states none either — both cells read “None published”, which records an absence and not a zero. The multiplier is where a comparison starts rather than where it ends: two of the six publish a maximum bet and only one of those two says what crossing it costs, only three publish a weighting grid, and the clause that ends an offer early is rarely the one in the headline. Four of the readings were taken on a Malta connection on 10 and 16 July 2026, with the owner confirming that geography on 28 July 2026; the fifth was read on 13 August 2026 in the version Betway’s own content endpoint serves to the Malta jurisdiction, and the sixth — 777’s — on 20 August 2026, on pages the operator itself served as its Malta template. Not one of the six has ever been claimed on an account of ours.
Which of these casinos publishes a maximum bet while wagering?
Two of the six, both at €5. BitStarz states it in its bonus terms, where the cap reaches double-up wagers and bonus-buy features as well. NetBet states it too — as €5 a spin or €0.50 a line — but in its irregular-play terms rather than on the offer page we scanned, which prints nothing, and it is the only one of the six attaching a consequence: a stake above the ceiling can forfeit the bonus balance and everything won on it. 888casino is read and empty across two readings, 777’s bonus policy is the same shape after one reading, BC.Game answers in neither direction, and Betway carries neither a figure nor a note on our record — which makes those four unread rather than unlimited, and makes each operator’s full bonus terms the place to look before an autoplay session fixes a stake. No clause number appears against either €5 in anything we hold, so we print the figures without one.
What does an empty cell in the table mean?
That we have read no clause either way — the promotions page did not state it, and no terms document on our record settles it. It is not a zero, and it is not a finding that the operator’s terms are silent. Where our record does hold an absence, it appears as words instead of a blank: on BitStarz our record puts it in writing that no maximum cashout is stated on the deposit-match bonuses, which is a reading, and a thinner one than a printed clause.
Why is BC.Game in a wagering comparison when it publishes no multiplier?
Because leaving it out would imply its offer is wager-free, and it is not. The monthly RakeBack holds no balance behind a multiplier: it is locked, and betting is what releases it, so the first table has no product to print. Betting therefore still comes before the reward, and how much of it our record cannot say. The tiers are priced in the operator’s own token too, so the headline percentage means nothing in euro until somebody converts it, and our record does not.
Where does Betway’s cashback offer sit in these tables?
At the end of the first table, outside the ordering, because there is nothing to order it by: the offer publishes no multiplier and no figure for one to be worked against, so both of those cells record an absence rather than a number. It earns its place in the second table instead. Three of its rows print readings — the games the offer covers, a qualifying deposit stated in US dollars only, and a 14-day life counted from registration rather than from the deposit — and a fourth prints a stated absence, the offer’s own line that no maximum cashback amount applies to it, scoped to that offer and not to Betway’s other products. The last three are blanks, which on this page means unread: nothing on our record settles a maximum bet, a spins leg, a payment-method exclusion, or what accepting the offer does to money already in the account.
18+. Every row above is a price rather than an opportunity: a wagering requirement has a negative expected value while it is being cleared, which is what makes a bonus paid entertainment and not a source of money. Set the limits before you deposit, not while the counter is filling. Support that costs nothing and stays confidential: rgf.org.mt, Supportline 1777.