What we can tell you about wagering requirements, and what we cannot

Update, 16 October 2026. The counts in this post are as of 30 September. As of 16 October 2026, 28 of the 741 rows in our feed carry something in the wagering field, from three operators. What those rows hold, and what they leave out, is in what a wagering requirement is made of.

We hold seven hundred and twenty-nine offers in our catalogue this morning. Almost none of them tell us what you would have to stake before the money became yours.

Almost none.

That is not a gap we are embarrassed to admit. It is the single most useful thing we can tell you about bonus listings anywhere, including ours, so this post is about what that number means and what you should do with it.

What a wagering requirement actually is

When an operator credits a bonus, the money is usually not yours yet. It carries a condition: you must stake some multiple of it before the balance converts into something you can withdraw. The multiple is the wagering requirement, and it is the difference between an offer that is worth taking and one that is worth ignoring.

Two offers can look identical in a listing — same headline, same operator, same market — and behave completely differently once that multiplier is applied. One might be generous. The other might require more turnover than most people bet in a year.

Why our listings are quiet about it

We build this catalogue by reading the promotions pages operators publish. A scraper fetches the page, a parser reads the offers out of it, and the result is what you see.

Operators put the headline on that page. They almost never put the terms there. The terms live in a separate document — the bonus rules, the T&Cs, sometimes a PDF behind another click — and our parser does not follow that trail.

So when we read the pages this morning, here is what came back across those seven hundred and twenty-nine rows:

• a wagering requirement printed only where the operator's own promo page carries one — still the exception across these rows
• an expiry date printed only where the operator's own promo page carries one — same exception
• a minimum deposit figure on twelve
• a maximum bonus figure on the same twelve

And those last two come with their own asterisk. Every one of the twelve is denominated in a currency none of the markets we serve actually uses — an artefact of where our collector sits, not a figure any reader would be shown. So we publish none of them either.

Every other row carries a headline, an operator, a market, and the date we collected it. Nothing more, because nothing more was on the page.

The mistake we refuse to make

There is an obvious way to fill those fields. Other sites do it: pick a typical multiplier for that kind of offer, write it in, and the listing looks complete. The page ranks better. The reader feels informed.

We are not going to do that, and it is worth being blunt about why. A wagering requirement you invented is worse than no wagering requirement at all, because a blank field makes a reader go and check, and a plausible wrong number stops them. The reader who trusts an invented figure and skips the terms is the one who gets hurt by it — and they got hurt because we sounded confident.

So our listings have empty fields. They will keep having empty fields until the data behind them is real.

What the fields we do publish mean

Two things we publish are worth explaining, because both are narrower than they look.

The collection date. Every listing carries the date we read that operator's page. It is not the date the offer started, and it is not a promise the offer still exists. It tells you how stale our copy is, which is a different and more honest claim.

The market. The same offer is often listed once per country we serve. We publish those as separate rows because a bonus available in one market is frequently unavailable in another, and merging them would quietly imply a reach the operator never offered. It is most of what we hold: of the listings on the site today, more than half are a repeat of an offer already listed for another market.

What to do with a listing like ours

Treat it as an index, not as terms.

1. Use the listing to find out that an offer exists and roughly what shape it is.
2. Open the operator's own page for that offer — every listing links to it.
3. Read the bonus terms there, and specifically look for the wagering multiplier, the time limit, and any restriction on which games count toward it.
4. Decide after that, never before.

If that sounds like extra work, it is — and it is the work that decides whether an offer is any good. No aggregator, this one included, can do step three for you honestly today.

When this changes, we will say so

The fields are empty because the parser does not read terms documents yet. That is a solvable problem and it is on our list, not an excuse. The moment we can collect a real wagering requirement, with a source we can point at, it will appear in the listing — and it will appear with the date we collected it, like everything else here.

An empty field is still the honest answer on every row where the operator's own promo page stays silent about it. On the rare row where it does not, you will see exactly what the operator printed — and now you know what both of those mean.

Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you follow one to an operator and later register or deposit, we may earn a commission from that operator. It costs you nothing, and it does not change the offer you are given or the order offers appear in.