$200 No Deposit Bonus and 200 Free Spins for Real Money: What the Offer Actually Costs
A combined package labelled “$200 no deposit bonus + 200 free spins real money” sits near the top of every search results page aimed at Australian players. The packaging is deliberate. Two large round numbers. The phrase “real money.” Zero deposit mentioned up front. The product being sold is not a casino session. It is the belief that a registration form can produce cash without a card.
This guide treats that package as a financial instrument with rules, not a windfall. It breaks down wagering arithmetic, withdrawal gates, Australian interactive gambling law, enforcement practice by the ACMA, and the practical difference between bonus balance and withdrawable balance. Operators named below appear as market examples, not endorsements. Offshore sites that accept Australians do so outside the domestic licensing framework that applies to land-based venues and licensed wagering brands.
What a $200 no deposit bonus plus 200 free spins actually is
Strip the marketing language and you are looking at two separate balance types stitched into one headline. The cash-side figure — often $50, $100, or advertised as $200 — is bonus money. It sits in a restricted ledger. It is not identical to a deposit. The spins side is a fixed count of game rounds on a nominated title or a short list of titles, usually at a locked stake such as $0.10 or $0.20 per spin.
Combined offers that literally deliver both $200 bonus cash and 200 free spins with no deposit are rare in sustained form. What appears more often is a headline that aggregates separate promotions, a match bonus phrased loosely, or a staged package where the larger cash figure requires a deposit after the free-spin leg. Read the terms line that defines “eligible bonus funds.” That line decides whether you hold $200 or a marketing total.
Casinos do not run charities. A “no deposit” tag means the operator waived the initial cash gate to acquire a verified account. Acquisition cost is recovered through wagering requirements, game contribution weightings, max-cashout caps, and identity checks timed to the first withdrawal request. Call it a freebie if you want. The ledger still has a house edge attached.
How bonus cash differs from withdrawable cash
Bonus cash can usually be used on slots and sometimes on a limited table list. It cannot leave the account until wagering is cleared and, in most cases, until KYC documents pass review. Withdrawable cash is the balance that survives those gates. Until both conditions are met, the $200 figure is an internal credit, not a bankable sum.
How free spins differ from bonus cash in the same package
Free spins generate wins that often land as bonus funds, not as clean cash. A 200-spin block on a $0.10 stake represents $20 of theoretical action, not $200. If wins from those spins carry a 35x–50x playthrough, the clearing volume is calculated on winnings, not on face value of the spin count. Mixing the $200 headline with the spin count in one breath is how operators inflate perceived value.
Why “real money” appears in every variant of the query
Search demand clusters around phrases like $200 no deposit bonus 200 free spins real money because players want an exit path to PayID, bank transfer, crypto, or e-wallet — not a play-money demo. The legal and product reality is narrower. Real-money withdrawal from an offshore no-deposit package depends on terms drafted by the operator, not on the wording of an ad.
Australian legal position on offshore casino bonuses
Under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), the provision of prohibited interactive gambling services to customers physically located in Australia is restricted. Enforcement emphasis has historically fallen on operators and payment facilitators rather than on wholesale prosecution of individual players. That allocation of enforcement resources is a matter of regulatory practice. It is not a licence, an exemption, or a consumer-protection guarantee.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) maintains an enforcement program against illegal offshore gambling services. Measures include formal warnings, infringement notices, Federal Court proceedings seeking civil penalties, and disruption of payments and domain access pathways. Published ACMA actions over successive years have included multi-million-dollar penalty outcomes against operators and related entities that targeted Australians contrary to the Act.
State and territory regulators license land-based casinos and, in defined categories, wagering and lottery products. They do not operate a general open market for offshore online casino licences aimed at residents on the model used in some European jurisdictions. Marketing that implies a $200 no deposit casino package is “fully regulated in Australia” in the same sense as a licensed TAB product misstates the framework.
What the Interactive Gambling Act restricts in practice
The Act addresses the supply of certain interactive gambling services to people in Australia. Casino-style product offered from offshore servers toward an Australian audience sits inside the compliance risk the ACMA polices. Advertising pathways, affiliate feeds, and payment rails have all featured in enforcement narratives. A bonus code on a landing page does not alter the underlying service classification.
Civil penalties and corporate exposure for operators
Where the ACMA elects to pursue civil penalty orders, quantum is set by reference to the statutory penalty units framework and the facts of each proceeding. Outcomes published in regulator media releases have reached into the millions of dollars for serious or repeated contraventions. Directors and related companies can fall inside the perimeter of a matter depending on pleading and evidence. None of that process converts an offshore bonus into a domestically licensed product.
Player-level legal exposure versus practical enforcement
Public enforcement messaging concentrates on illegal operators and intermediaries. Individual players seeking a casual no-deposit package are not the headline targets of ACMA litigation programs. Absence of mass player prosecutions is not equivalent to a statutory safe harbour. Contractual rights against an offshore operator remain a matter of the operator’s terms, the licensing jurisdiction printed in the footer, and the practical cost of cross-border disputes.
Dispute resolution when a $200 bonus is voided
If an operator voids winnings for alleged bonus abuse, multi-accounting, VPN use, or failed KYC, the primary path is the operator’s internal complaints process, then any alternative dispute body named in the licence jurisdiction (for example, certain Malta- or Curaçao-linked mechanisms where they still apply). Australian courts and AFCA-style schemes built for domestic financial firms are generally not a plug-and-play forum for an offshore casino ledger dispute. Recovery costs regularly exceed the disputed sum.
The arithmetic behind $200 bonus funds and 200 free spins
Ignore the billboard. Run the numbers. Assume a genuine credit of $200 bonus funds with a 40x wagering requirement on the bonus amount, slots contributing 100%, and a max bet while wagering of $5. Clearing volume equals 200 × 40 = $8,000 of weighted turnover before conversion.
Apply a house edge model. On a slot returning 96% RTP long-run, expected loss is about 4% of turnover. On $8,000 turnover, expected loss ≈ $320. You started with $200 of restricted credit. Expected value on the clearing path alone is negative before you price in time, variance traps, and any max-cashout clause.
Now layer 200 free spins at $0.10. Gross spin value = $20. Suppose average RTP on the assigned game is 96.5%. Expected win from the spin bundle ≈ $19.30 before the win-to-bonus conversion rules. If those wins must be wagered 40x, additional turnover ≈ $772. Expected further loss at 4% edge ≈ $30.90. Combined, the headline package is a structured playable credit with a clearing tax measured in hundreds of dollars of required action.
Worked example: no luck path
Start: $200 bonus, 40x, $8,000 to clear. You play mid-volatility Pragmatic or NetEnt titles at $1–$2 spins. Over the clearing distance, normal downswings retire the bonus balance before wagering completes. Result: $0 withdrawable. This is the modal outcome on high wagering, not a glitch.
Worked example: variance hits early
Same terms. A feature on a Hacksaw or Pragmatic title pushes the bonus balance to $600 mid-clear. Wagering remaining still tracks the original $8,000 target unless terms recalculate on current bonus. One cold hour returns the balance under $100. A max-bet breach at $6 on a single spin — above a $5 cap — can void the lot under standard bonus clauses.
Worked example: spins-first packaging
200 free spins complete first. Wins credit $47.50 as bonus. Wagering 35x on wins = $1,662.50 turnover. At ~4% edge, expected drain ≈ $66.50. Balance likely expires or sits near zero unless a second feature lands. The separate “$200” headline, if it was only a deposit match advertised beside the spins, never attached to the no-deposit leg at all.
Max cashout caps rewrite the headline
Many no-deposit legs cap withdrawals at $50, $100, or 10x bonus. A $200 face credit with a $100 cap means the upper legal withdrawal under the promotion is $100 even if the balance shows $1,000. Anything above the cap is forfeited on cashout request. The advertisement rarely leads with that number in the same font size as “$200.”
Wagering, contribution weights, and game exclusion lists
Wagering is the conversion engine. Contribution weights decide how fast the meter moves. Slots from large libraries (Pragmatic Play, NetEnt, Microgaming, Play’n GO) often count 100%. Some jackpot slots count 0%. Roulette and blackjack frequently count 5%–20% or are excluded. Live dealer from Evolution is commonly excluded from no-deposit clearing entirely.
Time limits compress the math. A 7-day expiry on $8,000 turnover demands roughly $1,143 weighted action per day. A 48-hour window is effectively a marketing device aimed at incomplete clears and broken balances. Always read the timer that starts on crediting, not on first spin.
Typical wagering bands on Australian-facing offshore offers
Observed market ranges on no-deposit cash legs cluster around 30x–50x bonus, sometimes 35x–60x bonus+wins depending on brand drafting. Free-spin win wagering often sits at 20x–50x. Combined packages may apply the stricter of two clauses. Treat any claim of “10x on a $200 no deposit” as an outlier requiring screenshot-level verification inside the cashier before you build expectations.
Stake caps while a bonus is active
Caps of $5 per spin are common; some books still print $5 or 20% of bonus. Breach clauses allow the operator to remove winnings. High-volatility play at the cap slows RTP realization and increases ruin risk relative to uncapped cash play. That is design, not misfortune.
Country, IP, and duplicate account clauses
Terms routinely void bonuses for VPN traffic, mismatched registry details, shared households already rewarded, or prior self-exclusion markers internal to the brand group. A $200 credit issued automatically can be reversed at KYC if the profile fails those tests. The reversal is usually final inside the operator’s system.
Operator landscape: how brands package large no-deposit headlines
Australian traffic meets a long tail of offshore casinos. Brands such as Fair Go Casino, WinSpirit, Rocket Casino, National Casino, Bizzo Casino, Ozwin Casino, Casino Mate, Skycrown, King Billy Casino, Neospin, Joe Fortune, Hellspin, Mega Medusa Casino, Bitstarz, 7Bit Casino, Playamo, Ricky Casino, and Stake appear repeatedly in player discussions and comparison tables. Presence in discussion is not a finding of domestic legality.
Product patterns repeat. Smaller no-deposit spins (10–50) appear more often than durable $200 cash-with-spins stacks. Larger figures frequently attach to first-deposit matches advertised in the same campaign unit, which is how search snippets end up promising both numbers in one breath. Always separate “registration bonus” from “deposit match” in the terms PDF or HTML page.
How to read a brand’s bonus page without the affiliate gloss
Open the full terms, not the tile. Extract five fields: bonus amount actually credited on registration; spin count and game list; wagering base (bonus only vs bonus plus deposit vs winnings); max cashout; KYC trigger. If any field is missing, treat the offer as incomplete disclosure.
Category view rather than a fake “official ranking”
For analytical purposes, split the market into three buckets: (1) spin-led no-deposit micros with low caps; (2) hybrid welcome emails that dangle high cash figures beside deposit options; (3) ongoing reload tools that never include true no-deposit cash at $200 scale. Most “$200 + 200 spins real money” search landings collapse into bucket two under inspection.
| Package element | Common market range | What to verify in terms | Player-side effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| No-deposit cash credit | $10–$50 typical; $100–$200 uncommon as pure ND | Actual credit trigger and country eligibility | Headline often overstates cash leg |
| Free spins count | 10–200 on signup campaigns | Game list, stake per spin, win cap | 200 spins ≠ $200 value |
| Wagering on ND cash | 30x–50x bonus | Contribution % by game type | Clears measured in thousands of $ turnover |
| Wagering on spin wins | 20x–50x winnings | Whether wins become bonus or cash | Second clearance layer after spins |
| Max cashout | $50–$100 common on ND; sometimes 5x–10x | Forfeiture rule above cap | Hard ceiling on “real money” exit |
| Expiry | 24 hours–14 days | When the clock starts | Short windows favour incomplete clears |
| Max bet while bonus active | $5 frequent | Void conditions on breach | One oversize bet can zero the balance |
Payments, PayID narratives, and withdrawal friction
Australian players prize PayID and fast bank rails. Offshore casinos may support PayID-like corridors, POLi-style references, cards, crypto, vouchers such as Neosurf, or e-wallets depending on the brand and year. “Instant withdrawal” in casino advertising usually means queue submission speed, not guaranteed same-minute receipt after compliance review.
No-deposit winnings sit at the back of the queue queue for enhanced checks. Expect identity document upload, proof of address, and sometimes payment-method ownership checks even when you never deposited. Refusing KYC is treated as forfeiture in standard T&Cs. That sequence is where many “real money” stories end.
Why a zero-deposit account still triggers full KYC
Anti-money-laundering policies and licence conditions in the operator’s home framework push identity verification before first cash-out. The absence of a deposit does not remove the withdrawal event. A $80 cleared balance can require the same passport scan as a $8,000 balance.
Processing windows versus marketing adjectives
Internal review may take 24–72 hours before a pending status flips. Blockchain sends can look faster after approval; card reversals and bank files can take longer. Any brand promising unconditional instant unlock on a no-deposit win without document checks is advertising against industry norms and should be treated with elevated caution.
Currency conversion and residual balances
Accounts denominated in AUD avoid one friction layer. USD or crypto-denominated ledgers introduce FX spread on the way out. A cleared $100 equivalent can land as less after conversion and wallet fees. Factor that into whether chasing a capped ND win is worth the document labour.
Comparing offer structures players actually meet
Not every large graphic is the same contract. The comparison below keeps figures in ranges because live bonuses change without notice and because inventing a permanent “Brand X = $200 + 200 spins” table would misstate a moving market.
| Structure | Player outlay | Illustrative clearing load | Real-money path | Primary risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pure ND cash $20–$50 | $0 | $600–$2,500 turnover at 30x–50x | Possible after KYC if under cap | Cap + short expiry |
| ND free spins 50–200 | $0 | Wagering on wins only | Small average exit sizes | Locked game list, low stake |
| Advertised $200 + 200 spins hybrid | Often $0 on spins leg; cash leg may need deposit | Can exceed $8,000 if $200 is real ND cash at 40x | Depends which leg is truly ND | Misleading aggregation in ads |
| Deposit match 100% to $200 + spins | $200 deposit typical | Wagering on bonus or bonus+deposit | Clearer rules, higher volume | Bankroll at risk immediately |
| Reload / cashback framed as “bonus” | Prior deposits | Lower multiples sometimes | Not a no-deposit product | Query mismatch vs ND intent |
Deposit match mislabelled as no deposit
Affiliate titles rewrite deposit matches as no-deposit hooks. If the cashier demands a minimum $20 or $30 before the $200 appears, you are not in a no-deposit contract. Close the tab and reclassify the offer before spinning.
Free chip language versus spins language
A “$200 free chip” and “200 free spins” are different instruments. Chips behave like bonus cash with wagering. Spins behave like fixed-round tickets. Combining both in one SEO title does not fuse them into a double credit unless the operator’s system issues both ledgers.
Crypto-only variants
Some brands lean on BTC, USDT, or ETH for both legs of the journey. Volatility of the asset adds a second risk layer on top of wagering. A cleared 100 USDT balance is still subject to exchange spreads when you return to AUD.
Red flags specific to oversized no-deposit claims
Treat the following as elevated risk markers when evaluating any page pushing $200 no deposit bonus 200 free spins real money: terms available only after registration; wagering described as “low” without a number; max cashout omitted; support only via unencrypted chat; licence seal unverifiable on the regulator’s site; pressure timers under five minutes to “claim”; requests for remote desktop access; fees to “unlock” withdrawals.
Brand names can be cloned. A lookalike of Skycrown, Casino Mate, or King Billy on a freshly registered domain is a known pattern in the wider gambling-scam set. Check the domain age, certificate, and the licence number against the issuing authority’s register, not against a logo.
Bonus abuse definitions written to favour the house
Clauses may define abuse to include optimal bet sizing, delaying play, or holding multiple payment methods. Ambiguous drafting gives broad discretion to remove funds. If the definition runs longer than the bonus description, price that discretion into your expectations.
Support scripts that stall past expiry
A documented stalling pattern is ticket ping-pong until the bonus timer dies. Download statements and chat logs locally. They are weak tools for cross-border enforcement, but they are the only contemporaneous record you will have.
Financial framing: opportunity cost and bankroll hygiene
Time spent clearing $8,000 of bonus turnover has an opportunity cost. If you value leisure hours at even a modest internal rate, the expected return on a capped ND package is often worse than simply not playing. That sentence is dull on purpose. Dull is accurate.
Keep recreational gambling inside a fixed weekly loss limit funded with cash you can miss. Do not refinance a no-deposit chase with a credit card advance. Interest on a 20% purchase-rate card turns a capped $100 win attempt into a structured loss even if the casino pays.
Record-keeping for personal finance, not for tax folklore
Australia’s tax treatment of social gambling winnings for private individuals is a specialised topic that depends on facts and current ATO guidance; casual players should not invent deductions or income classifications from forum posts. Keep your own ledger of deposits, withdrawals, and bonuses if you play regularly. Precision helps you stop, not help you storytell.
Credit, BNPL, and gambling blockers
Using buy-now-pay-later products or personal loans to “activate” a side deposit next to a no-deposit teaser is a fast route to compounded harm. Bank gambling blocks and card merchant category controls exist for a reason. Use them if impulse is the actual product you are buying.
Responsible play and exclusion tools
If the cycle of claiming codes, clearing wagering, and waiting on KYC is eating sleep or pay cycles, stop. BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register, covers licensed interactive wagering services in Australia. Offshore casinos sit outside that neat switch. Browser blockers, bank merchant blocks, and counselling pathways still apply to the person, even when the site is offshore.
Gambling Help Online provides 24/7 support on 1800 858 858 and via gamblinghelponline.org.au. Local state services mirror that network. A bonus expiry is not an emergency. Chasing one often is.
Practical friction you can install today
Remove saved cards from browsers. Turn off promotional SMS. Cap transfer limits with your bank. Tell support desks you want marketing suppressed. None of these steps require an offshore cashier’s permission.
When “one more code” is the product
No-deposit hunting can become a hobby with the same reinforcement loop as the games themselves — variable rewards, near misses, social proof in telegram groups. If the research phase outlasts any realistic EV from a $50 cap, the hobby has already charged you in time.
Methodology: how this page evaluated claims
Criteria used for this analysis: clarity of terms; separation of spin value from cash value; wagering algebra; cashout caps; KYC friction; consistency of brand messaging with cashier behaviour reported across multiple public player channels; and alignment with Australian interactive gambling law as enforced by the ACMA. No brand paid for placement in the example lists.
Figures for turnover and expected loss use transparent arithmetic on stated multiples and assumed RTP bands (96%–96.5%). They are models, not forecasts of your next session. RTP is long-run. Short sessions are noise around that mean.
What was excluded on purpose
Fabricated promo codes, guaranteed withdrawal-time promises, and “legal in Australia because of offshore licence” claims were excluded. So were rankings that pretend a single top-ten list is stable month to month in an affiliate-driven SERP.
Information a landing page usually skips
Most competing write-ups stop at “claim, play, withdraw.” They underplay contribution weightings, the difference between bonus ledger and cash ledger, and the civil-penalty environment facing operators who target Australia unlawfully. Those gaps are where bankrolls go to die quietly.
Player errors that void value on large ND headlines
First error: betting above the max bet mid-wagering. Second: playing excluded games that contribute 0% while the timer runs. Third: opening duplicate accounts after a ban. Fourth: using a VPN that trips the fraud queue. Fifth: ignoring the max cashout and building a balance you cannot fully extract. Sixth: depositing “to unlock” faster withdrawal on a site that never promised that mechanic in writing.
Each error is common because interfaces push spin buttons harder than they push PDF terms. Slow down at the cashier. The button will still be there in ten minutes.
Misreading spin face value
200 free spins at $0.10 is $20 of action. It is not a $200 asset. Search titles collapse those ideas together. Your spreadsheet should not.
Stacking incompatible bonuses
Activating a reload while an ND wagering meter is open can forfeit one or both under anti-stacking clauses. Finish or forfeit cleanly before touching a second instrument.
Market snapshot for 2026
Into 2026, Australian-facing casino acquisition still leans on large visual numbers, PayID callouts, and spin counters. Enforcement pressure from the ACMA continues to shape which domains resolve, which payment partners stay comfortable, and how aggressive creative can be on mainstream ad networks. Offers migrate. The algebra of wagering does not.
Providers such as Evolution, Pragmatic Play, NetEnt, Hacksaw Gaming, and Microgaming remain the content layer players recognise. The bonus wrapper around that content is still where margin is engineered for zero-deposit acquisition cohorts.
Why the $200 + 200 pairing persists in search
It matches how people type desires: high cash, high spins, zero deposit, real withdrawal. SEO pages mirror the desire. Product pages quietly split it into conditional parts. This article exists to rejoin the desire with the contract.
What “best” cannot mean in this niche
Best cannot mean highest advertised number. Best, if the word is allowed at all, means clearest terms, survivable wagering, honest caps, and a withdrawal path that survives KYC without surprise fees. That set is smaller than the SERP implies.
FAQ
Is a $200 no deposit bonus with 200 free spins for real money actually common?
Fully stacked packages that credit both a true $200 no-deposit cash leg and 200 free spins in one registration event are uncommon as durable, verifiable products. Many landings aggregate separate mechanics or fold in a deposit match. Verify the cashier credit, not the banner total, before you assign value to the phrase real money.
Can Australians legally keep winnings from offshore no-deposit casinos?
Offshore operators accepting Australians operate outside Australia’s domestic casino-licensing model and may breach the Interactive Gambling Act from the supply side. Players face practical more than mass-criminal exposure, yet contract enforcement and payment stability remain weak. ACMA actions target providers and facilitators; they do not convert an offshore bonus into a locally licensed product.
How much wagering applies to a $200 no deposit bonus?
Market terms frequently land between 30x and 50x the bonus amount on slots at full contribution. At 40x, $200 requires $8,000 weighted turnover. Free-spin winnings usually carry a separate multiple, often 20x–50x. Always read the active promotion’s numeric clause rather than a generic blog table.
Do 200 free spins equal $200 in value?
No. Value equals spin count times stake per spin times RTP expectations, then reduced by wagering on winnings and any cap. At $0.10 per spin, 200 spins equal $20 face action. Expected return near 96% RTP is about $19.20 before playthrough rules reduce withdrawable outcomes further.
Why does KYC still apply when I never deposited?
Withdrawal is the trigger. Operators apply identity checks under their AML policies and licensing conditions before releasing funds, including balances that began as bonus money or free-spin wins. Refusing verification typically cancels the cashout and can close the account under standard terms.
What max cashout should I expect on no-deposit funds?
Caps of $50–$100 are common on true no-deposit legs; some promotions use a multiple such as 5x or 10x the bonus. Balances above the cap are usually forfeited at withdrawal. A headline $200 credit with a $100 cap is, in exit terms, a $100 product.
Are PayID withdrawals instant on bonus winnings?
Advertising uses “instant” for queue speed after approval, not for skipping compliance. No-deposit winnings often face manual review. Post-approval timing depends on the rail: some local push payments are fast; cards and cross-border methods are slower. Nothing in a banner overrides the KYC queue.
What happens if I breach the max bet during wagering?
Most terms allow the operator to void bonus funds and derived winnings after a max-bet breach. Caps near $5 per spin are widespread. A single oversized bet on a feature-buy title can erase an otherwise valid clearing attempt without appeal leverage.
Which game providers usually count 100% toward wagering?
Many books weight online slots from Pragmatic Play, NetEnt, Play’n GO, and similar studios at 100%. Jackpot variants, some high-RTP titles, and live tables from Evolution are often reduced or excluded. The contribution table inside the promotion rules overrules any generalisation on a blog.
Does clearing wagering guarantee withdrawal?
No. After wagering you still face identity checks, payment-method rules, possible security reviews, and cap enforcement. Technical clearance of a counter is one gate. Compliance release is another. Both must open before balance becomes money in your account.
Final assessment
A search string like $200 no deposit bonus 200 free spins real money describes a marketing collage more often than a single clean instrument. When a true no-deposit cash leg exists, its economics are dominated by wagering multiples, contribution tables, expiry, and caps. When 200 free spins exist, their face value is tethered to stake size, usually far below $200. When both appear in one headline, separate them with a calculator before you separate them with hope.
Australian law frames the supply of offshore casino services harshly from the operator side via the Interactive Gambling Act and ACMA enforcement, including civil penalty exposure measured in large dollar figures in litigated matters. That framework does not transform bonus credits into guaranteed bankable cash, and it does not equip the average player with a cheap court path when a withdrawal stalls.
If you still test a small no-deposit mechanic, cap your time, demand numeric terms up front, assume KYC will be mandatory, and treat any balance above a written cashout cap as fiction. The house already did the expected-value homework. You might as well read the same numbers.
For anyone using these packages to chase losses or stretch household cash, the rational move is not a better code. It is BetStop where it applies, bank-level blocks, and contact with Gambling Help Online on 1800 858 858. The spins will be there tomorrow. Your cleared balance might not — and on the long-run maths above, that is the ordinary outcome, not the exception.