RTG - changed gameplay?

[Rusty]

Heya,

In Oz there's no display of RTP...there'd likely be a revolt if there was, since the typical pub will use 85% and most clubs 87%.

Makes it tough for the Government to defend their "player protection" role when they allow RTP percentages that are pure murder...but hey, they're addicted to the tax revenue from the industry.

Re the RTG games, operators have the ability to infrequently change which variant they use, but there have been no changes to the maths in use.
Many of the RTP variants across the suite do use reel strip length adjustments between variants (typically we're talking here only about 1 or 2 symbols on 1 reel, such as Cleo reel 2).

We haven't noticed any prolonged spin periods in test over here (beyond the intended anticipation length). Will have to check it out.

Woooof

I am not disagreeing with most of that and I know it is a practice that other software developers employ but on the slots I tested the games were very different to any other RTG I had ever played.
Cleopatras Gold, Achilles and Ronin to be precise.

This fact along with the Cleo scatter chime bug being fixed and the new stake system suggests strongly to me that this is a new and different version of the RTG software than is being run at other Casinos or at least since I last played them (maybe 2 Months).

Obviously we strongly disagree about whether it is ok for software to be manipulated/changed to alter the expected return to player.
Especially since the vendor does not have to stipulate what that return is or even that it is lower.

One very obvious concern with this or any other method of weighting that is used to change expected player returns is that the technology exists to employ this on a real time basis (no pun intended) so that the weighting can be used dynamically - or in simple terms for the uninitiated the dreaded lose switch that can be thrown at any time is a theoretical reality.

In fact any amount of control can be built into such a system and as you will know many of my arguments on here maintain that it already is.
Of course you would disagree with those observations but the fact is I have played Million+ spins in a real money environment, not to mention the Millions of spins on all other software - not to mention my own flash AS3 remake of certain slots for testing purposes and those are my unbias conclusions.

RTG are not the worse offenders and some of their new RTG Casinos are a big improvement (Buzzluck, Cherry Red to name but Two) but unfortunately the untrustworthy RTG casinos are still very much in operation apparently with RTG's blessing.
This is a shame as they drag the whole operation down.

Still these are issues we will never agree on and too broad to discuss here but I would like to ask a couple of purely technical questions if I may.

When you say;
Re the RTG games, operators have the ability to infrequently change which variant they use, but there have been no changes to the maths in use.

Since it is possible to change returns using weighting of existing symbols rather than using the more conspicuous method of adding or removing symbols to the reels, why did RTG choose this more complicated route?

When you say infrequently - you suggest that RTG tells its customers (Casinos) when it can and can not make changes to the expected player return (payout).
Does this not conflict with the idea that RTG want to give its customers (Casinos) control over the expected player return by having several different versions of the software available?

Or translated into a statement from RTG it would be;
"Please buy our software as we offer you unprecedented control over your expected payout BUT only when we say so."
I doubt that would be a big selling point so it makes much more sense to me that these elements of control are part of One software package rather than individual packages that can be clumsily changed now and then on RTG's say so.
That is why I fully believe that Casino Titan software is the only true alternative RTG suite and that all RTG will be "upgrading" to this version soon.

When you state, "no changes to the Maths in use" could you explain what you mean, are you refering to the game algorithms or something else?

Assuming there are a few different RTG suites all independent from One another offering different RTP is this return based on all Casino games?
Or put another way if I switch from a 95% to 91% suite which games are affected by lower returns?

[Rusty]

How bizzare.
Checked the freeplay last night and that seemed normal so thought I would make another real cash deposit to check and what do you know the reels and symbols are all back in line with other RTG.
Cleopatras gold makes you ill though it flickers so much, something very wrong there as indeed there is with this Casino if you ask me.
Enjoy

[DogBoy001]

This fact along with the Cleo scatter chime bug being fixed and the new stake system suggests strongly to me that this is a new and different version of the RTG software than is being run at other Casinos or at least since I last played them (maybe 2 Months).

The error with the Cleo chime was fixed at the same time as bringing out the new denomination options because it's easier than doing a point release.
The game maths have not changed.

One very obvious concern with this or any other method of weighting that is used to change expected player returns is that the technology exists to employ this on a real time basis (no pun intended) so that the weighting can be used dynamically - or in simple terms for the uninitiated the dreaded lose switch that can be thrown at any time is a theoretical reality.

In fact any amount of control can be built into such a system and as you will know many of my arguments on here maintain that it already is.
Of course you would disagree with those observations but the fact is I have played Million+ spins in a real money environment, not to mention the Millions of spins on all other software - not to mention my own flash AS3 remake of certain slots for testing purposes and those are my unbias conclusions.

The dynamic changes to RTP that you suggest are not used in RTG games.

The method you suggest is typical of UK AWP games, where there is a check of "current RTP" versus "expected RTP", and once the current RTP goes outside of a range (either higher or lower), the game takes remedial action to ensure RTP comes back into the expected range.

IMHO games that function in that fashion suck.

Random games (which RTG games are) are far and away a better option, and over large numbers of games RTP will still fall within an expected range anyway.

RTG are not the worse offenders....

In fact, not offenders at all

When you say;
Re the RTG games, operators have the ability to infrequently change which variant they use, but there have been no changes to the maths in use.

Since it is possible to change returns using weighting of existing symbols rather than using the more conspicuous method of adding or removing symbols to the reels, why did RTG choose this more complicated route?

Because the games are designed for use with our land-based clients as well as on-line, and while some regulatory regimes allow weighting of stop positions, many do not.
(By weighting I gather you are referring to an unequal chance of hitting any given stop position on a given reel, e.g.: Stop position 1 has a higher chance of being called than Stop 2)

Simple combinational maths using an equal chance of each stop position being called is the cleanest way to go.
Having a weighted system (used in 3 reel US steppers, for example) is, IMHO, inherently deceptive.
It is used as a mechanism to create "near miss" scenarios.
Again, this is not the way RTG games operate.

When you say infrequently - you suggest that RTG tells its customers (Casinos) when it can and can not make changes to the expected player return (payout).?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is that operators make changes infrequently, if at all.
Changing on a daily basis just does not occur.

When you state, "no changes to the Maths in use" could you explain what you mean, are you refering to the game algorithms or something else?

No changes have been made to any of the game maths.
No changes have therefore been made to prizes, reel strips, reel strip layout or feature pick probability schedules (if the game has those) and so forth.

As stated, it's likely that any "chang" you have noted refers purely to the RTP variant in use (again using the Cleo example, there are reel strip changes between variations)

Assuming there are a few different RTG suites all independent from One another offering different RTP is this return based on all Casino games?

Variations can be selected on a game-by-game basis.

Hope it helps

Woooof

[Rusty]

The dynamic changes to RTP that you suggest are not used in RTG games.

The method you suggest is typical of UK AWP games, where there is a check of "current RTP" versus "expected RTP", and once the current RTP goes outside of a range (either higher or lower), the game takes remedial action to ensure RTP comes back into the expected range.

Yes this is very much where I get off and you stay on the bus.

Would you believe by a powerful coincidence that my best win at Titan was followed by my worse losing streak?
These are always exaggerated losing streaks as well.
Would you also believe I have countless examples of the exact same thing?
You should - it is fact.
When does a series of repeating coincidences become a pattern?

Perhaps it is more obvious to me because I do not generally cash out but continue to play but if anyone who plays a lot of RTG would care to check past logs they will see that if they look for the end of a good streak or after a big win (The zenith as it were) they will undoubtedly find the losing streak that follows is unusually brutal.
These slots operate very much like AWP slots in some respects IMO although they are able to benefit from virtually unlimited memory and more complex coding as well as real time monitoring and updating which the remote environment affords.

Rusty> RTG are not the worse offenders.

In fact, not offenders at all

In a lawless land there are no offenders that much is true but I was referring to weighting and the lack of information the player receives regarding the return of the game they are playing.
It is inconceivable that any software in its current guise would pass UKGC regulations for example but I concede these games are not bound under such regulations.
If players don't care enough to complain or want to educate themselves in such matters I guess I can't blame software providers for pushing ethical concerns aside in the name of profit.

Because the games are designed for use with our land-based clients as well as on-line, and while some regulatory regimes allow weighting of stop positions, many do not.
(By weighting I gather you are referring to an unequal chance of hitting any given stop position on a given reel, e.g.: Stop position 1 has a higher chance of being called than Stop 2)

That makes sense and yes I was referring to weighting reel stop positions.

Simple combinational maths using an equal chance of each stop position being called is the cleanest way to go.
Having a weighted system (used in 3 reel US steppers, for example) is, IMHO, inherently deceptive.
It is used as a mechanism to create "near miss" scenarios.
Again, this is not the way RTG games operate.

On this we are not so far apart and I agree it is less disingenuous to weight by adding or removing certain symbols than to weight the reel stop positions - nevertheless it is still a method of weighting and being it is done without the players knowledge I still see at as unethical at best.

I have no problem with different Casinos running slightly different versions of the same slot just so long as the player is able to make an informed choice.
Also any changes to a different version should also be made clear to the player - anything else is obviously unfair regardless of how things are done in Oz.

I have no idea why this sort of thing is considered acceptable - slots players are singled out as cash cows it seems.

Imagine playing Blackjack and the deck has half the Aces and Tens taken out and replaced by lower value cards.
Can you imagine what would happen if players asked for the deck to be inspected and this was revealed?
There would be a lynching but somehow if its slots being manipulated it's ok but if it is a table game it is called rigging the deck.

Variations can be selected on a game-by-game basis.

That is interesting.
Am I right in saying that it is not a package then but Casinos can order variants of individual games?
This would mean there could be a significant difference in RTP between not only different Casinos but in individual slots within a Casino?

Are you now officially representing RTG by the way or is it still in an unofficial capacity?
I have to give you credit for being here DogBoy even though we do disagree on most things - in particular weighting not being dynamic - because you have given a lot of useful information as well.
I have often invited MGS and Rival representatives to engage in debate over the fairness of their software but the silence has been deafening.

[DogBoy001]

Am I right in saying that it is not a package then but Casinos can order variants of individual games?
This would mean there could be a significant difference in RTP between not only different Casinos but in individual slots within a Casino?

Yes, slot variants can be selected on an individual basis.

Are you now officially representing RTG by the way or is it still in an unofficial capacity?

We're not part of RTG, we just supply quite a few games to RTG.
RTG are, however, aware that I engage in these debates and provide information on these forums to shed light on various issues.

Many of the games are in the land-based market as well, and having worked extensively with both land-based teams (including Bally) and RTG, the coding process is the same.
I know we disagree strongly on this, but dynamic components within the code to adjust RTP "on the fly" just aren't used in either case.

I have to give you credit for being here DogBoy even though we do disagree on most things - in particular weighting not being dynamic - because you have given a lot of useful information as well.
I have often invited MGS and Rival representatives to engage in debate over the fairness of their software but the silence has been deafening.

Thanks and no worries Rusty, I always enjoy our vigorous debates

Woooof

[KasinoKing]

I just want to give a BIG thanks to Rusty & DogBoy!
Rusty is obviously convinced RTG slots are manipulated, DogBoy is adamant they are not.
I (like most others I guess) am just sitting on the fence enjoying the view!

Big up to both for keeping this discussion cordial and to the point.

One thing I definitely agree with Rusty on is that each & every online slot should have it's return % clearly visible to the players - preferably on the slot's main screen, or at worst in the pay-table.
If Rival, WagerWorks & Online Arcade slots can do this, why can't the other softwares?

KK

[Rusty]

I agree KK and DogBoy - these discussions make for good debate and I think we both use plain English so it is easier for people without any technical knowledge to follow.

Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
When you state, "no changes to the Maths in use" could you explain what you mean, are you refering to the game algorithms or something else?

No changes have been made to any of the game maths.
No changes have therefore been made to prizes, reel strips, reel strip layout or feature pick probability schedules (if the game has those) and so forth.

As stated, it's likely that any "chang" you have noted refers purely to the RTP variant in use (again using the Cleo example, there are reel strip changes between variations)

This statement appears contradictory in that you state there are changes in reel strip layout (added symbols eg) that effects a change in RTP for individual game variations the Casino can change but at the same time say there is no change to the game maths when obviously the point of changing the reel layout is to alter the theoretical player return percentage (game maths?).

For example added symbols where no extra Feature trigger symbol is added would obviously mean a lower frequency of feature triggers.
The only way around this would be to only substitute symbols and maintain the same reel strip length but we are talking about ADDED symbols here as your previous statement clearly shows.
(in Cleopatras case there is a change where 2 symbols are added to reel 2).

Could you explain exactly what you mean by "Feature pick probability schedule" , as this suggests that the probabilities involved in this element of the game are independent of the reel strip layout (probability of any given combination occurring)
Are you strictly talking about "pick em" bonus games here and not Free spin triggers?

Also how can you change the RTP without changing the Maths?
(the probability of outcome of winning combinations)

[DogBoy001]

This statement appears contradictory in that you state there are changes in reel strip layout (added symbols eg) that effects a change in RTP for individual game variations the Casino can change but at the same time say there is no change to the game maths when obviously the point of changing the reel layout is to alter the theoretical player return percentage (game maths?).

For example added symbols where no extra Feature trigger symbol is added would obviously mean a lower frequency of feature triggers.
The only way around this would be to only substitute symbols and maintain the same reel strip length but we are talking about ADDED symbols here as your previous statement clearly shows.
(in Cleopatras case there is a change where 2 symbols are added to reel 2).

Also how can you change the RTP without changing the Maths?
(the probability of outcome of winning combinations)

Heya,

The different maths variations have always existed, so when I refer to "no changes to the maths" I mean that no changes have been made to these variations since the games were first introduced.
However, given that there are multiple RTP variations for operators to choose from, on a casino-by-casino basis players may see a change in a particular game (such as Cleo reel 2) if an operator changes from one variation to another.

Could you explain exactly what you mean by "Feature pick probability schedule" , as this suggests that the probabilities involved in this element of the game are independent of the reel strip layout (probability of any given combination occurring)
Are you strictly talking about "pick em" bonus games here and not Free spin triggers?

Yup, strictly talking about features that have some form of probability schedule involved in a picking feature, such as Paradise Dreams flower picks, Warlock's Spell potion feature or the Hidden Riches wheel feature.

e.g.: In Warlock's there are 6 prize outcomes, but as we're all aware there are different chances to hit the top prize of 100 free games versus the bottom prize.

Woooof

[RobWin]

e.g.: In Warlock's there are 6 prize outcomes, but as we're all aware there are different chances to hit the top prize of 100 free games versus the bottom prize.

Woooof

How is that? Are you saying that the feature is not already pre-determined anyway from the moment the RNG triggered it?

[Rusty]

The different maths variations have always existed, so when I refer to "no changes to the maths" I mean that no changes have been made to these variations since the games were first introduced.
However, given that there are multiple RTP variations for operators to choose from, on a casino-by-casino basis players may see a change in a particular game (such as Cleo reel 2) if an operator changes from one variation to another.

So therefore in plain English the probability of hitting the feature has been changed if one variation is changed for another.
As indeed is the RTP by changing the probability of outcome through changes to the reel strip.

OK so now we only differ on how often this happens.

Yup, strictly talking about features that have some form of probability schedule involved in a picking feature, such as Paradise Dreams flower picks, Warlock's Spell potion feature or the Hidden Riches wheel feature.

e.g.: In Warlock's there are 6 prize outcomes, but as we're all aware there are different chances to hit the top prize of 100 free games versus the bottom prize.

Gotcha

I do understand why weighting is used in the pick games for entertainment purposes and that there need be nothing untoward about it.
The One thing I would say though (actually more than One thing as always ) is that it is not necessary just as there is an alternative to weighting reel stop positions.
For example with Warlocks spell you could achieve the same probability of outcome with an un-weighted pick game and make it just as, if not more, exciting by having multiple rounds.

Rough example;
So Six picks
1st round
1=8 spins 2=8 spins 3=8 spins 4 =10 spins 5=10 spins 6 = qualify next round

2nd round

1=10 spins 2=10 spins 3=15 spins 4=15 spins 5=20 spins 6= Qualify next round

3Rd round

1=15 spins 2=20 spins 3 =20 spins 4=25 spins 5=25 spins 6=100 spins

OK so so the probability of 100 Free spins is probably higher than 1 in 216 and the other probabilities too but you get the gist. (No weighting)

Since you are involved in slot design (I think) you will know there are many other ways to accomplish this.
The other thing was that I believe RTG should state the probability of outcome in these pick em games.
If it is 1 in 1000 to hit 100 free spins say so it is no big deal but it gives the player information they should have.

Yup, strictly talking about features that have some form of probability schedule involved in a picking feature, such as Paradise Dreams flower picks, Warlock's Spell potion feature or the Hidden Riches wheel feature.

I am just wondering how "schedule" fits in here as it suggests some events are preordained.
Maybe this ties in with Robs question?