Since the size of the bonus depends on so many unknown factors it is virtually impossible to simulate it in any meaningful way. Taking a flat bonus of 1 % into account each game might make sense, though.
Yeah, that's probably the best way to do it.
Kind of makes it less useful then, no? Since it's well established by this point that you can't beat the house in the long-run, bonuses are the only way to win, yet you can't calculate them with this? What's the point then other than making little kids feel good about their script lasting 500 games without busting?
Back testing with "what bonus you would have gotten" using historical actual user bet data would be pretty cool, but I also would worry it can give pretty misleading results. As you'd expect the very act of playing would change the behavior of other players (especially those also bonus hunting) in a way that's unknowable.
But anyway, I still think it's pretty cool the simulator. It can help debug a script and generate a neat chart of how your profit chart looks (e.g. martingale gives very different looking patterns than flat betting)