The strictest-sounding period let through eight times more than the mildest

A withdrawal cap is the one figure that decides whether a large win can be taken out at all. 14 of the 100 brands in our library publish one. The remaining 86 do not, and that is where most readers find themselves.

Why the period in the clause does not tell you how tight the cap is

A cap always has two parts: an amount and a period. Readers usually fix on the amount, but it is the combination that decides how much gets through, and the two pull in opposite directions.

Take the two cleanest examples from the library, both in euros and both with a clause number. Oshi Casino sets the cap at 4,000 euros per day in clause 12. Wild Fortune sets it at 15,000 euros per month in clause 11.8. The amount at Wild Fortune is almost four times larger, and the clause therefore looks milder.

Converted to a year the picture reverses. 4,000 euros per day is 1,460,000 euros a year. 15,000 euros per month is 180,000 euros. The daily cap lets through 8.1 times more than the monthly one. The conversion is our own, and it assumes the cap is used in full in every period.

The words «per day» sound like the strictest formulation in the whole document, and are in practice the loosest.

What the fourteen published caps look like over a year

The spread across periods is uneven. Six of the fourteen caps apply per week, five per month, two per day and one per individual payout. By currency: eight in euros, three in dollars, two in USDT and one stated in euros or dollars.

Convert them all to a year and the range becomes indecently wide. The lowest is Rocketpot's US$5,000 per month in clause 11.5, that is US$60,000 a year. The highest is Bitcasino.io's 1,000,000 USDT per week in clause 6.10, that is 52,000,000 USDT. The ratio between the two is 867 to 1.

Two operators that both «publish a withdrawal cap» can therefore sit almost three orders of magnitude apart. The sentence «the operator states a cap» is thus nearly without informational value until the figure and the period are read together.

One of the fourteen falls outside the pattern entirely: Bets.io states US$10,000 per payout in clause 10. A cap like that does not limit the total over time at all — it only decides how many times you have to repeat the process, and every repetition is another round in the processing queue and another network fee. What that repetition costs on chain is measured under network fees on three chains.

What the ten operators in this comparison state

Four of the ten publish a figure. Two of them with a clause number.

Wild.io states US$100,000 per week in clause 9.6, which comes to US$5,200,000 a year. Vave's clause 8.8 is not a cap at all: it gives the operator the right to pay out a win from 50,000 USDT in instalments. That is a third form, and it is worth separating out — a cap stops the amount, an instalment clause stops the pace.

Converted to a year it is US$1,300,000 against US$588,000. The weekly limit, which looks the strictest because the period is shortest, lets through 2.2 times more than the monthly one.

None of the ten states a daily cap. The two daily caps in the whole library sit at other brands.

And the six that state no figure do not state that there is no cap — they state nothing. What an empty field means on this site, and why it is never counted as «unlimited», is under how we rank.

Why an accumulated cap bites harder than a per-transaction cap

The three forms act quite differently on the same win.

A per-payout cap limits only the transaction. Win five times the cap and you withdraw five times — it takes longer and costs more in fees, but the amount gets through.

An accumulated cap per week or month, by contrast, limits the total within the period, however you split it up. Win twelve monthly caps at Wild Fortune and it takes a year to get the win out, and in the meantime the money sits in an account at an operator you have no Norwegian complaints body against. Who your counterparty actually is in such a situation is covered under a dispute with an operator.

An instalment clause like Vave's 8.8 does the same without stating any period at all. It says when the splitting may begin, not how long it may last.

Time, then, is the real limit, not the amount.

The deposit limit: the figure we do not have

The headline of this article promises two sides of the matter. Only one of them can be delivered.

We have not read a deposit limit at a single one of the 100 brands in the library. The field does not exist in the data set, because the clause has never been read by anyone here. That is not information that the limits do not exist — most operators have both a minimum and a maximum deposit somewhere in the cashier — it is information about what we have not done.

A gap we know about is worth more than a figure we cannot point to.

What can be said about the deposit side from what we have actually read is this: the minimum deposit and the size of a withdrawal cap are not connected in any of the fourteen clauses, and a low minimum deposit therefore says nothing about how much comes out again. How the cap should be read together with VIP tiers and cashback is under high roller casino.

Gambling is for people over 18. The operators in the comparison hold no Norwegian licence and are not supervised by Lotteritilsynet. Hjelpelinjen gives advice on gambling problems.