mukeshsharma1106
Member
I’ve been thinking about something lately and figured this forum might be the best place to toss the question out. Has anyone here actually compared how different casino ads behave in tier 1 versus tier 2 GEOs? I used to assume an ad format was an ad format and that the results wouldn’t change much across regions. But after a few months of testing, I realized I might have been oversimplifying things.
For a long time, I kept running Ads the same way for both GEO groups without paying much attention to how people in each region react to them. I’d get frustrated when the same setup delivered great numbers in one area but tanked in another. At first, I blamed targeting or the offer itself. But the more I looked at it, the more it seemed like the actual format of the ads played a bigger role than I thought.
There was a point where I felt pretty stuck. Tier 1 traffic was expensive, and losing money fast felt way too easy. Tier 2 GEOs were cheaper, but the engagement patterns were unpredictable. I couldn’t tell if the issue was creative fatigue, audience mismatch, poor timing, or something entirely different. That’s when someone casually mentioned in another thread that formats behave differently depending on how familiar people are with online gambling ads in their region. That idea stuck with me.
So I started paying closer attention. Instead of just running one main format everywhere—usually display because it felt the safest—I decided to try a mix. For tier 1 GEOs, I experimented with native ads and high-quality display banners. For tier 2, I tried push ads, pop traffic, and sometimes even simple text-based creatives. And honestly, the difference surprised me more than I expected.
In tier 1, I noticed users tend to scroll past anything that looks too loud or too flashy. Native ads blended better into their feeds and didn’t come off as intrusive. They didn’t bring crazy click numbers, but the people who did click were actually interested. Display ads worked too, but only when I used cleaner designs—nothing too "in your face." So although the traffic was expensive, the conversion quality made up for it.
Tier 2 was almost the opposite. Push ads stood out more because people still engage with them actively. Pop traffic wasn’t always stable, but when it worked, it worked surprisingly well, especially during late evenings. The cost was low enough that even average-looking creatives got attention. It almost felt like the audience didn’t mind more direct or catchy designs. Of course, there were times when the numbers went all over the place, but overall, cheaper traffic gave more room to experiment.
One thing I learned along the way is that you can’t force one successful format onto every GEO and expect it to behave the same. Different regions are basically different browsing cultures. What feels intrusive in tier 1 might feel normal in tier 2. What feels too subtle in tier 2 might feel professional in tier 1. Once I started thinking of it that way, things made a lot more sense.
I’m not saying I’ve cracked the entire puzzle, but I did figure out one thing: it helps to test formats separately and not lump them together just because the offer is the same. I also started documenting results instead of mentally guessing what worked. After a couple of weeks, patterns appeared on their own.
Around this time, I came across a detailed breakdown someone shared about best casino ad formats for different GEOs, and it matched a lot of what I had seen in my own tests. It’s here if anyone wants to check it out:
What really helped me was understanding that GEO differences aren’t just about ad costs or disposable income levels. They also reflect how used people are to seeing certain types of ads, how they react to aggressive formats, and how quickly they trust new offers. Once I saw it from that angle, my testing approach changed completely. Instead of stressing over why tier 1 wasn’t responding to push ads or why tier 2 wasn’t converting on subtle creatives, I just picked formats based on what the audience seemed to expect.
If you’re dealing with the same confusion I had, I’d say start by isolating just one or two formats per GEO. Keep the creatives similar but adjust the tone slightly. Then watch how the engagement shifts. It’s slow at first, but it gives you way more clarity than throwing everything at the wall at once.
Anyway, that’s been my experience so far. I’m still experimenting, but at least now I feel like I have a direction instead of guessing blindly. If anyone else has tested formats across these GEO groups, I’d love to hear what kind of patterns you’ve seen.
For a long time, I kept running Ads the same way for both GEO groups without paying much attention to how people in each region react to them. I’d get frustrated when the same setup delivered great numbers in one area but tanked in another. At first, I blamed targeting or the offer itself. But the more I looked at it, the more it seemed like the actual format of the ads played a bigger role than I thought.
There was a point where I felt pretty stuck. Tier 1 traffic was expensive, and losing money fast felt way too easy. Tier 2 GEOs were cheaper, but the engagement patterns were unpredictable. I couldn’t tell if the issue was creative fatigue, audience mismatch, poor timing, or something entirely different. That’s when someone casually mentioned in another thread that formats behave differently depending on how familiar people are with online gambling ads in their region. That idea stuck with me.
So I started paying closer attention. Instead of just running one main format everywhere—usually display because it felt the safest—I decided to try a mix. For tier 1 GEOs, I experimented with native ads and high-quality display banners. For tier 2, I tried push ads, pop traffic, and sometimes even simple text-based creatives. And honestly, the difference surprised me more than I expected.
In tier 1, I noticed users tend to scroll past anything that looks too loud or too flashy. Native ads blended better into their feeds and didn’t come off as intrusive. They didn’t bring crazy click numbers, but the people who did click were actually interested. Display ads worked too, but only when I used cleaner designs—nothing too "in your face." So although the traffic was expensive, the conversion quality made up for it.
Tier 2 was almost the opposite. Push ads stood out more because people still engage with them actively. Pop traffic wasn’t always stable, but when it worked, it worked surprisingly well, especially during late evenings. The cost was low enough that even average-looking creatives got attention. It almost felt like the audience didn’t mind more direct or catchy designs. Of course, there were times when the numbers went all over the place, but overall, cheaper traffic gave more room to experiment.
One thing I learned along the way is that you can’t force one successful format onto every GEO and expect it to behave the same. Different regions are basically different browsing cultures. What feels intrusive in tier 1 might feel normal in tier 2. What feels too subtle in tier 2 might feel professional in tier 1. Once I started thinking of it that way, things made a lot more sense.
I’m not saying I’ve cracked the entire puzzle, but I did figure out one thing: it helps to test formats separately and not lump them together just because the offer is the same. I also started documenting results instead of mentally guessing what worked. After a couple of weeks, patterns appeared on their own.
Around this time, I came across a detailed breakdown someone shared about best casino ad formats for different GEOs, and it matched a lot of what I had seen in my own tests. It’s here if anyone wants to check it out:
What really helped me was understanding that GEO differences aren’t just about ad costs or disposable income levels. They also reflect how used people are to seeing certain types of ads, how they react to aggressive formats, and how quickly they trust new offers. Once I saw it from that angle, my testing approach changed completely. Instead of stressing over why tier 1 wasn’t responding to push ads or why tier 2 wasn’t converting on subtle creatives, I just picked formats based on what the audience seemed to expect.
If you’re dealing with the same confusion I had, I’d say start by isolating just one or two formats per GEO. Keep the creatives similar but adjust the tone slightly. Then watch how the engagement shifts. It’s slow at first, but it gives you way more clarity than throwing everything at the wall at once.
Anyway, that’s been my experience so far. I’m still experimenting, but at least now I feel like I have a direction instead of guessing blindly. If anyone else has tested formats across these GEO groups, I’d love to hear what kind of patterns you’ve seen.
231 Nguyễn Văn Cừ, Phường Chợ Quán, TP. Hồ Chí Minh
