Saturday, October 10, 2026New slots, published RTP versions and provider news — checked against the source.Telegram ↗
Player guideRTP · 5 min read

Best slots for wagering requirements: how RTP sets the cost of clearing a bonus

The slots that cost least to clear a wagering requirement are those with the highest RTP that count 100% towards it. The expected cost is the amount you must wager times the house edge.

Key takeaways

  1. 01The cheapest games for wagering are those with the highest RTP that the bonus terms count at 100%. Expected cost = total wagering required × house edge.
  2. 02A $100 bonus at 35x means $3,500 of bets. At 96% RTP the expected cost is $140; at 97%, $105. In both cases the expected cost is larger than the bonus.
  3. 03Game weighting changes the maths. A game that counts 30% needs $3.33 of bets for every $1 of requirement, so a low-edge game can still be the expensive one.
  4. 04In Great Britain, wagering requirements on bonus funds have been capped at 10 times since 19 January 2026.
  5. 05Only 6.8% of the 1,195 slots with a published RTP in our database reach 97%; the median top version is 96.37%.

The best slots for clearing a wagering requirement are the ones with the highest RTP that the bonus terms count at 100%. The reason is arithmetic. The expected cost of clearing a bonus is the total amount you must wager multiplied by the house edge (100% minus RTP). A $100 bonus with a 35x requirement means $3,500 of bets. On a 96% RTP slot, the expected cost is $140; on a 97% slot, $105. Either way, the expected cost is bigger than the bonus. No slot makes a wagering requirement free, and the terms decide which games you are allowed to use.

What a wagering requirement is

Great Britain’s Gambling Commission defines it in its licence conditions as a requirement “to make wagers totalling a particular value for funds to become withdrawable”. The Commission’s own example is a £10 bonus with a 50 times requirement, which means £500 of bets before the winnings can be withdrawn.

Since 19 January 2026, British licensees must not apply wagering requirements over a maximum of 10 times to bonus funds. The Commission noted that some licensees had applied up to 60 times. The 35x figure used below is for illustration only. It would no longer be allowed for a British-licensed bonus, but multiples of that size still appear in other markets.

The expected cost of clearing

Expected cost = bonus × wagering multiple ÷ game contribution × (100% − RTP)

Table 1Expected cost of clearing a $100 bonus at different RTPs and wagering multiples
Slot RTPCost at 35x ($3,500 wagered)Cost at 10x ($1,000 wagered)
95%$175$50
96%$140$40
96.37% (median in our data)$127$36
97%$105$30
98%$70$20

These figures assume the game counts 100% and that the multiple applies to the bonus alone. If the terms apply the multiple to the deposit plus the bonus, the total doubles for a 100% match. They are long-run averages, not predictions of one session. A player can lose the balance before finishing the requirement, or finish well ahead.

The gap between RTPs is small per spin but large over a requirement. Moving from 96% to 97% saves $35 of expected cost on a 35x $100 bonus. That is why RTP matters more when wagering a bonus than in casual play.

Game weighting can outweigh RTP

Bonus terms often count games at different rates. The Commission gives the example of roulette with a 30 percent weighting: each £1 wagered contributes 30 pence towards the requirement.

Weighting divides into the total you must bet. With a $3,500 requirement, a game counting 30% needs about $11,667 of bets. Even single-zero roulette, with its 2.70% house edge, then has an expected cost of about $315. A 96% slot counting 100% costs $140. A game’s RTP only helps if it counts in full.

Terms that change the cost

Table 2Bonus terms that change the cost of clearing, and what UK and Ontario rules say about them
TermWhat it doesWhat the rules say
Game weightingCounts some games below 100%The CMA expects operators to explain that contributions vary and link to the details
Excluded gamesBets on listed games do not count, or are not allowedSame CMA expectation; operators need not list every game in the ad
Maximum betCaps stake size while a bonus is activeA significant condition for the CMA; the Gambling Commission says bet-size limits must be clear
Time limitRequirement must be met by a deadlineListed by the CMA as a significant condition

The Competition and Markets Authority’s 2018 guidance to the industry lists these as “significant conditions” that must be shown clearly and prominently. It says operators need not list all restricted games but should explain that some games do not qualify or that contributions vary, and link clearly to the details. It also says play restrictions and wagering requirements must not apply to play with the deposit balance. The Gambling Commission’s player guide adds that operators should be clear about restrictions on bonus play, such as the size of bets, and should let you keep what is left of your deposit and winnings from it.

In Ontario, the AGCO’s Registrar’s Standards for Internet Gaming require material conditions of an offer to be disclosed at its first presentation, with all other conditions no more than one click away. An offer may not be described as free if the player has to risk their own money.

Exclusion lists and reduced weightings can cover exactly the games that would be cheapest to clear with, such as low-edge table games or the highest-RTP slots. Bonus-buy features may also be excluded or restricted. In Great Britain they are not available at all: the Commission instructed licensees to remove slots that let players buy the bonus feature. Read the exclusions before choosing a game, not after.

Volatility: the other half of the problem

RTP sets the average cost; volatility sets how widely results swing around it. On a high-volatility slot, more of the return arrives in rare large wins. Over a fixed requirement, that makes it more likely that the balance runs out before the requirement is met, and more likely that a rare win finishes it early. Lower volatility brings results closer to the average cost. See our guide to hit frequency for how often slots pay anything at all.

Finding the RTP you are actually playing

High RTPs are rarer than headline figures suggest. In our slot database, 1,195 slots publish an RTP; the median top version is 96.37%, and only 81 (6.8%) reach 97%. Some studios publish several versions of the same slot, and the casino chooses which one to run. Check the RTP in the game’s rules screen before you start wagering. See is 96% RTP good for a slot? and RTP explained.

A bonus is gambling with conditions attached, not free money, and there is no need to accept one. If gambling stops feeling like entertainment, free help is available 24/7: 1-800-MY-RESET in the US, 0808 8020 133 in Great Britain and ConnexOntario on 1-866-531-2600.

Questions

What are the best slots for wagering requirements?

Slots that count 100% towards the requirement and have the highest RTP available in the version you are playing. Each extra percentage point of RTP lowers the expected cost of clearing by 1% of the total amount you must wager.

How do I work out the cost of a wagering requirement?

Multiply the bonus by the wagering multiple to get the total bets required, divide by the game’s contribution rate, then multiply by the house edge (100% minus RTP). A $100 bonus at 35x on a 96% slot counting 100% has an expected cost of $140.

What is game weighting in a casino bonus?

The share of each bet that counts towards the requirement. The Gambling Commission’s example: with a 30% weighting on roulette, each £1 wagered contributes 30 pence.

Is there a legal limit on wagering requirements?

In Great Britain, yes. Since 19 January 2026 licensees must not apply wagering requirements over a maximum of 10 times to bonus funds. Other jurisdictions set their own rules.

Can high-RTP games be excluded from a bonus?

Yes. Bonus terms can exclude games or count them at a reduced rate. The CMA expects operators to explain that some games do not qualify or contribute differently and to link clearly to the details.