MPDigital
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2025
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 3
I want to ask the community if others are seeing the same pattern when working with T2 and T3 GEOs.
In many affiliate programs, markets like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and most T3 countries are still treated with the same configuration as T1.
Minimum deposits are often set at €20, which is a standard baseline for UK, Germany, or Nordics, but then pushed unchanged into T2 and T3.
What I keep noticing is that players from these markets will usually deposit once, test the casino, and then move to another brand that offers a lower entry point, for example a €5 minimum deposit or local currency. After that, the traffic often gets labeled as low quality, low intent, or even fraud.
From my perspective, this does not look like fraud at all. It looks like normal player behavior driven by economics and psychology. €20 is a relatively high entry barrier in T2 and especially T3 markets. The lack of local currency adds extra friction, and a higher minimum deposit removes the ability for a player to safely test the product.
Player psychology also suggests that users are more comfortable making several smaller deposits than one larger one. Lower entry points reduce perceived risk, increase engagement, and often trigger repeat deposits through loss recovery behavior. In many cases, this leads to higher total lifetime value rather than lower. The same logic applies even more strongly to T3 markets, where purchasing power is lower and trust barriers are higher. Applying T1-style deposit thresholds and then expecting T1-style retention seems unrealistic.
I’m curious how others see this. Are you experiencing the same issues with T2 and T3 traffic being flagged because of high minimum deposits or lack of localization? And are the programs you work with actually adapting deposit levels and currencies per GEO, or mostly running one global setup?
In many affiliate programs, markets like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and most T3 countries are still treated with the same configuration as T1.
Minimum deposits are often set at €20, which is a standard baseline for UK, Germany, or Nordics, but then pushed unchanged into T2 and T3.
What I keep noticing is that players from these markets will usually deposit once, test the casino, and then move to another brand that offers a lower entry point, for example a €5 minimum deposit or local currency. After that, the traffic often gets labeled as low quality, low intent, or even fraud.
From my perspective, this does not look like fraud at all. It looks like normal player behavior driven by economics and psychology. €20 is a relatively high entry barrier in T2 and especially T3 markets. The lack of local currency adds extra friction, and a higher minimum deposit removes the ability for a player to safely test the product.
Player psychology also suggests that users are more comfortable making several smaller deposits than one larger one. Lower entry points reduce perceived risk, increase engagement, and often trigger repeat deposits through loss recovery behavior. In many cases, this leads to higher total lifetime value rather than lower. The same logic applies even more strongly to T3 markets, where purchasing power is lower and trust barriers are higher. Applying T1-style deposit thresholds and then expecting T1-style retention seems unrealistic.
I’m curious how others see this. Are you experiencing the same issues with T2 and T3 traffic being flagged because of high minimum deposits or lack of localization? And are the programs you work with actually adapting deposit levels and currencies per GEO, or mostly running one global setup?