Three Accounts.
Same Change.
Same Result.

Forex, casino and a high-risk funnel. Different products, different markets, one structural change. In every case registrations fell and deposits rose — on identical budgets.

Combined spend$377,300
Deposits before513
Deposits after1,493
Registrations−39%

The summary

Quick answer

Across three accounts and $377,300 of spend, moving the optimisation event from registration to first-time deposit produced 1,493 deposits against 513 before, while total registrations fell by 39%. Less volume, roughly three times the revenue events.

Every one of these accounts was working correctly before. That is the part worth sitting with. They were producing exactly what they were instructed to produce — registrations, in quantity, at a falling cost per registration.

The instruction was the problem.

Client names stay sealed under NDA. Vertical, market, channel, window and every figure are published. Nothing here is estimated or borrowed from campaigns we did not run.

Side by side

Every Figure,
One Table

Read the registration rows and the deposit rows together. Separately, either one tells you the wrong story.

MeasureCase 01 · ForexCase 02 · CasinoCase 03 · High-Risk
VerticalForex & CFDReal-money casinoHigh-risk funnel
ChannelMetaMetaMeta
Window14 weeks9 weeks10 weeks
Spend$164,000$94,800$118,500
Registrations before9,8601,9407,320
Registrations after5,1404,7603,980
Deposits before26847198
Deposits after719418356
Reg to deposit before2.7%2.4%2.7%
Reg to deposit after14.0%8.8%8.9%
Improvement5.2x3.7x3.3x

Open any file

Full Breakdowns

Each file includes what was broken, what we changed, and what we tried that did not work.

Case File 01 · Forex & CFD 268 → 719 First-time deposits, same budget Registrations halved. Deposits nearly tripled. Fourteen weeks, $164,000, four European markets. Registration to deposit from 2.7% to 14.0%. Open the file → Case File 02 · Real-Money Casino 2.4% → 8.8% Registration to deposit Accounts are consumable. Deposit learning is not. Nine weeks, $94,800. Recovery after a disable moved from days to hours. Open the file → Case File 03 · High-Risk Funnel 198 → 356 First-time deposits, same budget Pay for registrations, get registrations. Ten weeks, $118,500. One structural change: which event the budget was paid to produce. Open the file →

What repeats

The Pattern
In All Three

PATTERN 01Volume fell every timeRegistrations dropped 48%, 46% and grew only alongside budget in the casino account. Nobody should be surprised by this, and everybody is.
PATTERN 02Revenue events rose every time168%, 789% and 80% more deposits. The improvement came from the same budget, not a larger one.
PATTERN 03It got worse before it got betterDelivery destabilises when the optimisation event moves. In each account performance dipped for one to two weeks. Reverting during that dip is why most teams conclude it does not work.
PATTERN 04Deposit volume had to support learningThe deeper event has to occur often enough to leave the learning phase. Where it did not, we ran a middle event until volume supported the change.

What it means

The Takeaway

→An advertising platform buys whatever it is paid to buy, efficiently and indefinitely. Pay it for registrations and it will find people who register. Pay it for deposits and the entire funnel reorganises around money arriving. Everything else — creative, audiences, budget — matters far less than which event sits underneath.

If you want the arithmetic on your own account before any conversation, the FTD calculator takes about a minute and stores nothing.

Discuss your account → All twelve documented files