Meet Kevin Martin,
our bonuses & promotions analyst.

Kevin joined SlotsGamblers in November 2025 to run the bonus desk. He reads a set of bonus terms the way most people read a mystery novel — slowly, twice, and never from the marketing page — and everything he knows about a given offer sits in the worked-EV spreadsheet he keeps for it, not in a claim you have to take on trust. Before the site existed, the same "100% match up to $500" headline was the reason he started keeping the spreadsheet in the first place — a friend had chased a match bonus for three weeks without realising the max-win cap made the whole exercise close to pointless, and nobody at the operator had explained that in the terms. That spreadsheet has since grown into the standing template every offer on the site is measured against, and Kevin still adds a new row to it himself rather than handing the first pass to anyone else — he wants to be the one who reads the clause first, not the one who reviews someone else's summary of it.

His job is to turn a headline percentage into a real number — the wagering multiplier, the max-win cap, the game-weighting table — and show what it actually costs to clear. His standard on the desk is that a bonus write-up ships with a worked EV example; if the maths doesn't hold up, the offer doesn't get listed as favourably, or at all. That standard isn't a courtesy to the reader, it's the only way Kevin trusts his own rating — a percentage on its own tells you what the operator wants you to see, not what a real deposit actually returns once the small print is applied. He's found the same handful of tricks turn up again and again once he's read enough of these terms: a wagering multiplier quoted against deposit-plus-bonus rather than the bonus alone, a game-weighting table that quietly drops the site's most popular slots to a fraction of their stated contribution, or a max-win cap set so low that clearing the full wagering requirement wouldn't have mattered anyway. None of those tricks show up in the headline number — they only show up once someone actually reads the page the promo banner doesn't link to. Since the payments desk was set up in January 2026, Marc Gagnon tests the payout side against Kevin's numbers, and when Marc's stopwatch disagrees with what the terms promised, Kevin goes back and re-reads the clause before either of them signs off.

Based in Toronto, he covers GB, CA and US offers and works closely with David Clarke, who won't clear a review for final sign-off until the bonus maths checks out. Working three markets from one desk means Kevin keeps separate notes on how the same offer type behaves under each jurisdiction's rules — a wagering structure that's standard in one market can read very differently once it's checked against another region's disclosure norms, and he'd rather keep the comparison in his own spreadsheet than assume it travels unchanged. Since Helen Robinson joined the fact-check desk in June 2026, she has begun cross-checking the wagering figures and licence details Kevin publishes against their source before they go live — and she has already caught two figures that didn't match his own spreadsheet, which is exactly the kind of second pair of eyes he says the desk needed from day one.

Kevin doesn't treat the spreadsheet as finished once a review publishes, either. Operators change wagering terms without much fanfare — a multiplier gets nudged up, a cap gets quietly introduced, a game gets reweighted — and when Susan Taylor flags an operator change on the news desk, the bonus terms are one of the first things Kevin re-checks against what's currently live, rather than assuming the number he modelled at launch still holds. It's a small, unglamorous part of the job compared to building a new worked example from scratch, but it's the difference between a rating that was accurate on the day it published and one that's still accurate for the reader who lands on it eight months later.

Most of the wagering language that shows up across GB, CA and US welcome offers isn't unique — Kevin has now read enough versions of it to recognise the same handful of structures wearing different headline numbers, which is part of why he can spot an unusually generous or unusually restrictive clause quickly. But he's careful not to let that pattern recognition replace the actual read: a clause that looks familiar can still hide a change in the small print, so a new worked example gets built from the current terms every time, not copied forward from the last offer that looked similar. That discipline is slower than it needs to be on the days when the terms really are standard, but it's the only way he's caught the offers that weren't.

Wagering terms also don't read the same in every market, and Kevin keeps that distinction explicit rather than assuming a UK-style offer structure behaves identically once it's rewritten for a Canadian or US audience. A multiplier, a cap or a game-weighting rule that's routine under one jurisdiction's disclosure conventions can be phrased more loosely — or more aggressively — once it crosses into a market with different expectations, and it's exactly the kind of gap a reader wouldn't notice unless someone had already checked both versions side by side.

None of this is meant to sound more complicated than it is — the spreadsheet is a spreadsheet, not a proprietary model, and the steps are the same five every time. What makes the difference is that Kevin actually runs them on every offer rather than reusing an old number, and that he's willing to downgrade or drop an offer entirely when the worked EV doesn't support the headline it's being sold on. That's turned into a habit the rest of the desk has come to expect from him: if Kevin hasn't signed off on a bonus figure, it doesn't go in front of David for final review, no matter how straightforward the offer looks on the surface.