RTG - changed gameplay?

[Rusty]

I am not sure on this because I stopped playing RTG but tried Casino Titan out of curiosity to see if CS etc was as described in a thread here.

CS is very friendly and responsive even though my deposit went the usual way.
You can now play 3 or 4 coins as well as 1 or 2.
Good move there but here is the strange thing, the games no longer play the same.
So for example in Cleopatras Gold when you get the long spin it spins much longer than before and I had no idea if the scatter would hit as it was completely different. (the chime when scatter lands has been fixed)

Now the change to the stake system and how the slots play may seem completely unrelated but why has the gameplay changed?

Without employing my curious mind - I would just say that the stake system is an improvement and long overdue but not sure what has changed in the slot programming or what the purpose is.

So people what do you think?
Is this the same at all RTG's?

 

[chuchu59]

I dont know but I happened to play about 24 hours ago at Titan and they underwent maintenance and I wasnt able to play for half an hour. Could it have been this? However, the bug could have been fixed before this and that is a plus for RTG going to the right direction. As for 3-4 coins, It is good for many those playing with a bonus as they get to play $0.60$0.75 or $0.80$1.00 stakes at the 20line/25-line slots. Previously the juunp from 2 coins to 5 coins was too steep and many would not like to risk their playtime against clearing WRs though at 2 coins you are caught dead usually even with a big win.

Seems you have been lured back to RTG Rusty. Go get
some big wins. You are overdue for a change of luck.

 

[slotheadlizard]

wow

Rusty, you are right. It goes like that up to 2.50, then the usual 6.75. I think its great! No longer do you have to go from 50c up to 1.25.

I was already playing in fun mode at CTitan because they have the new slots. They seem pretty fun. Anyone know when the other rtgs will add the new slots? I can't find them on any of the CM listed casinos, although I like Casino Titan.

You may be right, they do seem to take an extra turn or two! I wonder if that's on purpose. It doesn't really bother me though, sort of prolongs the suspense.

 

[Rusty]

Thanks Guys,
The thing is you could always predict with 100% accuracy (if a slot junkie) when you would hit the feature becaase of where the long spin started.
That seems to have changed at Titan or was it a bug I encountered or have all RTG changed?
Is there a relationship between the improved staking system and the new way the games play?

 

[slotheadlizard]

Cahnge

No, I have only so far seen the change at Casin Titan, and Lucky18

 

[Rusty]

No, I have only so far seen the change at Casin Titan, and Lucky18

Does Lucky 18 have the new stake system as well?
Do the other Casinos with the old gameplay have the new stake system?
I wish to know if there is a link.

 

[zebedy]

i hope all rtg casino's take up the 3&4 coin bet sizes

 

[cpdnd31]

What new slots?

 

[slotheadlizard]

new

Texan Tycoon, and Loose Caboose-I think, but only at a few so far.

 

[Tengil]

snip. read slotheadlizards edit

Well could add that the new stake system is a big step forward.

 

[Rusty]

This should be huge news but I guess it is normal with the industry being so unregulated.
The reel layouts are different!
Just noticed this with a little more play.
So I could play the same slot on the same software at Two different Casinos and be playing Two different games.

Well in truth that situation has always existed because the return is not based on the paytable and probability of outcome but there ya go.

Can you imagine playing the same slot at MG with Two different reel layouts?
Bizzare, I assume they will update all the Casinos with this new version of the software eventually but you would think they would of all updated at the same time with the relevant announcement to the players.
Oh F*** the players - I was at the meeting

 

[Rusty]

OK I have conluded my test of this Casino and my advice?
Steer well clear. (that would go for all RTG but I know you don't listen )

How RTG software is not at least "not recommended" is beyond me.
It should actually be rogued but I am trying to be diplomatic.

How can you have Two different versions of the same slots running at the same time?

Extra symbols have been added here (Casino Titan) but no extra scatters so even if you ever believed the software was fair (Free head testing here) the features are less likely to trigger so obviously lower return.

Maybe they have increased variance by giving higher free spin wins?
If they have that would prove the software is rigged anyway.

So slot mechanics changed with no explanation or information supplied to the player. (A huge no, no if regulated)

Absolute silence on how the Rushmore RJ's are so much higher than anywhere else even accounting for slots being linked.

No explanation of why the software has different payout returns and which Casinos offer which return.

It is a ridiculous situation and speaks volumes for the lack of any regulation imposed on any of these Casinos.

 

[DogBoy001]

How can you have Two different versions of the same slots running at the same time?

Extra symbols have been added here (Casino Titan) but no extra scatters so even if you ever believed the software was fair (Free head testing here) the features are less likely to trigger so obviously lower return.

Rusty, you know there are multiple RTP versions of all the reel series games.

So yes, it is entirely possible to have 2 different (RTP) versions of the same slot running at the same time on different casinos.

And you've answered your own question.
To create a higher or lower RTP version reel strips may very well be altered by adding or deleting several symbols from 1 or more reels (in Cleopatras case there is a chance where 2 symbols are added to reel 2).

There's nothing untoward about this, and even in traditional, land-based casinos operators are permitted to make changes to the RTP in use, and no, they do not have to advertise this to players.
In Australia operators are allowed to switch from one RTP version to another once every 30 days.

Woooof

 

[slotheadlizard]

Rusty

Wow, you have made some really good observations today. I don't really understand the techie talk, but it sounds important. However, I must respectfully disagree with discontinuing to play all rtg slots. I as a player really like most of them.

I am even more, not less enthused about the denomination change at a couple of casinos. What I am most happy about is the return of Sherlock at a couple of the casinos previously mentioned on this thread today. It was my fav. game until it left, and my play with rtg went down because of it. It is now back and re branded as London Inspector. Yippee

 

[Rusty]

Rusty, you know there are multiple RTP versions of all the reel series games.

So yes, it is entirely possible to have 2 different (RTP) versions of the same slot running at the same time on different casinos.

And you've answered your own question.
To create a higher or lower RTP version reel strips may very well be altered by adding or deleting several symbols from 1 or more reels (in Cleopatras case there is a chance where 2 symbols are added to reel 2).

There's nothing untoward about this, and even in traditional, land-based casinos operators are permitted to make changes to the RTP in use, and no, they do not have to advertise this to players.
In Australia operators are allowed to switch from one RTP version to another once every 30 days.

Woooof

Yes, I am already familiar with old RTG switcheroo but this is something else.

All the RTG Casinos I have played, maybe 20 or 30 and Millions of spins this is the First time i have experienced these extra long reel strips.
It is not just cleopatras Gold or One reel or even 1 or 2 symbols it is all the slots I tried and several reels and several symbols added so this is a new thing not something that has been around before so we can nip that in the bud before we start.
Just to emphasize this, the difference is so profound that there is no way I can predict if a 3rd scatter will hit from the reel start position (long spin) something I was able to do with 100% accuracy at all other RTG after some playtime. (maybe they all had the exact same return at all times? )

As far as I am aware landbase Casinos have to state the minimum RTP on their slots, certainly here in the UK.
There is a reason for that.
Do they have to display the new RTP in Australia when they change them?

Is it just me or does it seem a little unfair to the player that they can play the same slot with a theoretical 93% payout One Day and who knows what the next Day, or the next spin for all we know.

 

[Rusty]

Wow, you have made some really good observations today. I don't really understand the techie talk, but it sounds important. However, I must respectfully disagree with discontinuing to play all rtg slots. I as a player really like most of them.

I am even more, not less enthused about the denomination change at a couple of casinos. What I am most happy about is the return of Sherlock at a couple of the casinos previously mentioned on this thread today. It was my fav. game until it left, and my play with rtg went down because of it. It is now back and re branded as London Inspector. Yippee

Yeah that is fair enough, it is up to you where you play.
I agree RTG make some great slots, some of the best IMO.
The stake change is definitely a step forward and a good move.

I wish I felt differently about the software but I can not ignore the serious concerns I have.
Concerns that are not just limited to RTG it has to be said.
I would play RTG before Rival for example but that doesn't say much.

 

[DogBoy001]

Yes, I am already familiar with old RTG switcheroo but this is something else.

All the RTG Casinos I have played, maybe 20 or 30 and Millions of spins this is the First time i have experienced these extra long reel strips.
It is not just cleopatras Gold or One reel or even 1 or 2 symbols it is all the slots I tried and several reels and several symbols added so this is a new thing not something that has been around before so we can nip that in the bud before we start.
Just to emphasize this, the difference is so profound that there is no way I can predict if a 3rd scatter will hit from the reel start position (long spin) something I was able to do with 100% accuracy at all other RTG after some playtime. (maybe they all had the exact same return at all times? )

As far as I am aware landbase Casinos have to state the minimum RTP on their slots, certainly here in the UK.
There is a reason for that.
Do they have to display the new RTP in Australia when they change them?

Is it just me or does it seem a little unfair to the player that they can play the same slot with a theoretical 93% payout One Day and who knows what the next Day, or the next spin for all we know.

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

 

[chuchu59]

At my 2 favourite RTG slots, Diamond Dozen and Warlock's Spell, they played exactly the same as in beofre accross all RTG casinos and I was able to predict with a great amount of accuracy on whether a 3rd scatter will hit just by glancing at where the reel in question starts spinning. I am not familiar with most other slots, however, and it could well be that they had some alterations. I played a bit on Cleo and I just felt that it was different from before though I cant figure out exactly what it is.

 

[jas2587]

At my 2 favourite RTG slots, Diamond Dozen and Warlock's Spell, they played exactly the same as in beofre accross all RTG casinos and I was able to predict with a great amount of accuracy on whether a 3rd scatter will hit just by glancing at where the reel in question starts spinning. I am not familiar with most other slots, however, and it could well be that they had some alterations. I played a bit on Cleo and I just felt that it was different from before though I cant figure out exactly what it is.

I agree I also played Cleo an there is for sure something very different about it as I played it night before last an tonight was like a complete new game

sumptin is up Thanks Rusty an ChuChu thought I had lost it for a sec there

Cindy

 

[silcnlayc]

Good to see others picking up on these very slight changes that have been happening for the past year. Now I feel redeemed a little bit !

.

 

[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! :notworthy
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?

 

[DogBoy001]

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.

Heya,

Yep, not a bad example of an alternative method.

The primary reason we mainly opt for shorter 2nd screen bonus rounds that lead to free games is due to land-based considerations.
In some markets (Australia being one), B&M casino operators specifically request short 2nd-screen bonus rounds.

That being said, there's certainly a stronger argument for altering the games for on-line play to provide multiple rounds in the manner you suggest, since there aren't the same requirements.

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.

As a player I'm in 2 minds about that sort of information...it's in the "nice to know" category, but also sort of kills the "live in hope" factor.
As Han Solo would say, "Never tell me the odds!"

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

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

It's the same result whether the result is called for from a probability table at the time of trigger or time of selection (I term a table "schedule", so it's simply a table of Possible Results vs Probability, adding up to a Probability of 1).

Results are called for at time of trigger in some games, such as Aladdin's Wishes and 3 Stooges.
In Aladdins it's necessary as there's always a 25 Free Games somewhere in the 5 picks (rather than just giving the player a percentage chance to be awarded the 25 games).
In 3 Stooges we display the "what could have been" prizes on the non-selected zones. As per normal land-based productions, we only ever display these prizes if they were distributed prior to the start of the selection process, since calling for a result afterwards would be deceptive.

That's why in most of the pick screens RTG does not display what non-selected prizes would have yielded.

Woooof

 

[silcnlayc]

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.

All due respect DogBoy001, but one knows when something has changed after hundreds of thousands of spins on the same games and one does not need numbers, or algorhythm or whatever to prove it...just stats from one session to the next...all this is good for many that feel the need to understand the workings but doesn't mean anything at all really when it comes down to the actual play of the game..what you give are scenerios of what should be...what a player gets is what "IS".

.

 

[me_and_ed]

I dont usually play at RTG's, I signed up at Titan, 2 dep's with bonus I have had the worst return of any RTG I have ever played at.....Closed account, I just cannot feel I can win there, must have the lowest payout settings.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Oh Dear!

It's worse than I thought.

It seems RTG casinos can choose to have some slots at, say, the 95% variant, some at, say, 93%, and maybe one or two at 97%.

There is considerable scope for abuse here. An obvious example is choosing 97% for new games, getting players hooked, and "infrequently changing them" to the 93% variant to suck the bankrolls of those players seduced into thinking the new games were "great".

Generally, I can no longer be confident of claims (where a RTG casino offers them) that "our slots pay 95%". This may be true, but may hide the fact that there is considerable variation between them.

Another abuse would be to lower the RTP of popular slots (on an infrequent basis of course), to ensure that more money was made.

It doesn't matter whether land slots have to show RTP, the online casino world is far less regulated, and can do without this kind of thing.

RTG just make things worse for themselves. By engaging in SOME kinds of deception, they fuel the fears that there are OTHER things that we still DON'T know about RTG.

When I play Munchkins, I play the SAME game, SAME RTP, in whichever of the dozens of MGS casinos I play it. The same CANNOT be said of RTG.

When players complain that MGS slots are "bad this month", then the general view is that this is down to bad luck. If the same happened at RTG (and oddly enough, it HAS), we have an alternative explanation, that many of the RTG casinos have asked for an "infrequent version change" to their slots to one of the lower RTP levels. A change of 95% to 93% may look small, but it makes a BIG difference to how long a bankroll will last on average.

We also have an insight as to why RTG casinos have been so resistant to publishing monthly RTP figures, the version changes would have shown up.

 

[bb28]

Fascinating reading although I admit much of it is over my head.

 

[me_and_ed]

Oh Dear!

It's worse than I thought.

It seems RTG casinos can choose to have some slots at, say, the 95% variant, some at, say, 93%, and maybe one or two at 97%.

There is considerable scope for abuse here. An obvious example is choosing 97% for new games, getting players hooked, and "infrequently changing them" to the 93% variant to suck the bankrolls of those players seduced into thinking the new games were "great".

Generally, I can no longer be confident of claims (where a RTG casino offers them) that "our slots pay 95%". This may be true, but may hide the fact that there is considerable variation between them.

Another abuse would be to lower the RTP of popular slots (on an infrequent basis of course), to ensure that more money was made.

It doesn't matter whether land slots have to show RTP, the online casino world is far less regulated, and can do without this kind of thing.

RTG just make things worse for themselves. By engaging in SOME kinds of deception, they fuel the fears that there are OTHER things that we still DON'T know about RTG.

When I play Munchkins, I play the SAME game, SAME RTP, in whichever of the dozens of MGS casinos I play it. The same CANNOT be said of RTG.

When players complain that MGS slots are "bad this month", then the general view is that this is down to bad luck. If the same happened at RTG (and oddly enough, it HAS), we have an alternative explanation, that many of the RTG casinos have asked for an "infrequent version change" to their slots to one of the lower RTP levels. A change of 95% to 93% may look small, but it makes a BIG difference to how long a bankroll will last on average.

We also have an insight as to why RTG casinos have been so resistant to publishing monthly RTP figures, the version changes would have shown up.

I am no expert but feel very confident that Titan has the lowest settings. I have never experienced RTG playthrough as poor as my last few deposits. $170.00 Dep, $640.00 playthrough, last session, $80.00 and $160.00 playthrough, low rolling $1 or less, no bonus rounds???

 

[Rusty]

Oh Dear!

It's worse than I thought.

It seems RTG casinos can choose to have some slots at, say, the 95% variant, some at, say, 93%, and maybe one or two at 97%.

There is considerable scope for abuse here. An obvious example is choosing 97% for new games, getting players hooked, and "infrequently changing them" to the 93% variant to suck the bankrolls of those players seduced into thinking the new games were "great".

Generally, I can no longer be confident of claims (where a RTG casino offers them) that "our slots pay 95%". This may be true, but may hide the fact that there is considerable variation between them.

Another abuse would be to lower the RTP of popular slots (on an infrequent basis of course), to ensure that more money was made.

It doesn't matter whether land slots have to show RTP, the online casino world is far less regulated, and can do without this kind of thing.

RTG just make things worse for themselves. By engaging in SOME kinds of deception, they fuel the fears that there are OTHER things that we still DON'T know about RTG.

When I play Munchkins, I play the SAME game, SAME RTP, in whichever of the dozens of MGS casinos I play it. The same CANNOT be said of RTG.

When players complain that MGS slots are "bad this month", then the general view is that this is down to bad luck. If the same happened at RTG (and oddly enough, it HAS), we have an alternative explanation, that many of the RTG casinos have asked for an "infrequent version change" to their slots to one of the lower RTP levels. A change of 95% to 93% may look small, but it makes a BIG difference to how long a bankroll will last on average.

We also have an insight as to why RTG casinos have been so resistant to publishing monthly RTP figures, the version changes would have shown up.

I thought there was a thread where you state that MG changed the return to Munchkins and the features were less frequent?
I really would not be so confident that MGS operates much differently.
I know I do a lot of RTG bashing but that is because I played the RTG software most.
MG are only just ahead IMO.
Since we are comparing software, how about Rival?
That is the most obviously weighted software I have ever played.

I really wish One of these software providers would get a grip and offer 97% return slot that can take advantage of the high play through from players in the online environment in a way that land based slots can not.
(It's not rocket science Boys)
Will it ever happen?

I am no expert but feel very confident that Titan has the lowest settings. I have never experienced RTG playthrough as poor as my last few deposits. $170.00 Dep, $640.00 playthrough, last session, $80.00 and $160.00 playthrough, low rolling $1 or less, no bonus rounds???

Well my experience was similar to yours but others have won.
Is that a matter of luck or were we playing different versions of the game or playing slots with lower return settings?
That's the question and the problem is all Three of those examples could be correct on any given Day.

 

[DogBoy001]

It doesn't matter whether land slots have to show RTP, the online casino world is far less regulated, and can do without this kind of thing.

RTP changes occur just as frequently in land-based casinos as they do in on-line, and in the vast majority of land-based jurisdictions there is no display of RTP to the player.
And having different RTP settings on different machines is also the norm.

I worked for IGT, we've done a lot of work for Bally, for WMS, for a multitude of smaller manufacturers and a heck of a lot of casino groups at one time or another.

Sorry Vinyl, but if you say that the land-based industry is any different from the on-line industry regarding the frequency of RTP variation changes then you're choosing to ignore the word "infrequent".
And at least on-line you don't have the 85%, 87%, 89% and 90% RTP variations that are, far and away, the most commonly-used RTP settings in major terrestrial jurisdictions.

Woooof

P.S.: It's also worth remembering that there are a lot of operators, both land-based and on-line, that never change their RTP settings.

 

[zebedy]

very interesting thread this,
and like some others, way above my head,
so the way i see it in laymens terms and correct me if I'm wrong,
if the casino isn't going to make its expected profit margins for a particular month they can change the reel layouts IE remove an extra scatter or wild symbol to make the slot tighter, so it pays out less, so bringing up there profit margins
if that is true is that the norm across all online casinos? mg rival ect

 

[silcnlayc]

they can change the reel layouts

I think you hit the nail on the head with that! Anyone can spout all the gobblygook they want but the proof is in the pudding (play).

.

 

[Rusty]

very interesting thread this,
and like some others, way above my head,
so the way i see it in laymens terms and correct me if I'm wrong,
if the casino isn't going to make its expected profit margins for a particular month they can change the reel layouts IE remove an extra scatter or wild symbol to make the slot tighter, so it pays out less, so bringing up there profit margins
if that is true is that the norm across all online casinos? mg rival ect

Hi Zebedy,
I will try to clarify things as stated in this thread by myself and Dogboy and I will do my utmost not to misrepresent anything Dogboy has said.

Regarding RTG Dogboy states that there are currently various versions of each slot which differ in that the reel layouts are slightly different - meaning that RTP/payout can changed by the Casino changing the version of the slot.
So yes a Casino could change all its slots so that the payouts to players is less and they make more profit without most players knowing.

Dogboy states that Casinos change versions of the game (change payout) only infrequently and his position is that when any changes are made it is totally unconnected to an individuals previous results.

My contention is not only that the Casinos can change the slot version on a whim and often - but much of this can be and is automated so that RTP and payouts are tightly controlled.
Or in other words if you are due a little treat from the Casino you could be playing slots with a very high RTP until reaching a trigger point where the games would be switched to a much lower RTP.
As evidence of my hypothesis I suggested that people should check their old game logs and find the highest point of a winning streak and then consider if the losing streak that followed was any different to the average streak.
Another way would be to consider your winning streaks and how out of the normal gameplay experience they were.
Of course the problem with all this is that any streak by definition is going to be somewhat outside the norm but I would strongly suggest that a pattern does exist.

Of course Dogboy strongly disagrees with me on this.

So of the Two views it is safe to say that the slot you play One Day may have a much lower *set payout/RTP/expected theoretical return the next Day.
(*they all describe the same thing- house edge)

Silcnlayc pretty much states that One who plays these games extensively knows intuitively when/how the games have been changed and I would agree with that.

As for all other software?
There are a few threads on MG gameplay and Rival that describe similar views. As far as I am concerned they all use weighting, some less ethically and more greedily than others.
Ultimately you will just have to go off your own experience and preference but personally I would avoid the Rival platform like the plague and play the others for entertainment purposes only until such time the industry gets some proper regulation.

Hope that helps some.

 

[DogBoy001]

Heyas,

To clarify a little;

1) Not all operators change RTP variations in use, many do not change them at all.
2) The variations are not vastly different RTP and do not drastically change game play. Where possible, normal game hit rates (therefore including feature hit rates) and so forth are kept entirely as per (so no reel changes in main game, instead reel strip changes may occur during the free games, or changes are used to pick probability schedules).

...until such time the industry gets some proper regulation

I understand that regulation in the manner of the land-based industry may improve player confidence, however it will not alter the fact that operators will have several RTP variations that they can choose from, and that they may change infrequently.

In the land-based sector this is typically limited to no more than 1 change per 30 day period, which of its own accord is more frequent than is used by any RTG operators.

Woooof

 

[Rusty]

I understand that regulation in the manner of the land-based industry may improve player confidence, however it will not alter the fact that operators will have several RTP variations that they can choose from

It will alter the fact that they have to display the RTP to player though and make clear any changes made at any time, at least if I have anything to do with it.

 

[DogBoy001]

It will alter the fact that they have to display the RTP to player though and make clear any changes made at any time, at least if I have anything to do with it.

Yep, completely understand re display of RTP, though it does bring to mind Vinyl's comment that he doesn't trust such information from the casino anyway.

And as for a regulator having the power to require display of RTP, and publicise RTP change dates to players...well that doesn't happen in the land-based industry, and that's run by probably the same regulatory regimes that will cover on-line play...not sure that'll happen purely from a regulatory basis.

It's far more likely that self-regulation prompted by player feedback will eventually lead to that outcome.

Woooof

 

[Rusty]

Yep, completely understand re display of RTP, though it does bring to mind Vinyl's comment that he doesn't trust such information from the casino anyway.

And as for a regulator having the power to require display of RTP, and publicise RTP change dates to players...well that doesn't happen in the land-based industry, and that's run by probably the same regulatory regimes that will cover on-line play...not sure that'll happen purely from a regulatory basis.

It's far more likely that self-regulation prompted by player feedback will eventually lead to that outcome.

Woooof

Trust comes with proper regulation and transparency, I believe VWM will be relating his comments with the current regulatory situation.

The following is an excerpt from the Gambling Commissions Remote Technical Standards consultation reply from PartyGaming Plc.

Q18. Do you agree with the Commissions approach to displaying information
about the likelihood of winning and the prizes on offer?

For games against the house, PartyGaming agrees with the Commissions approach to the displaying of information about the likelihood of winning and the prizes on offer.

Q19. Do you have a view as to what method should be used for return to player percentage calculations?

PartyGaming agrees with the Commission that RTP information should be available for customers to view in order to make an informed choice. However we believe that the specific location of the RTP information should be up to the operator to determine. Again this could only apply to games against the house.

From UKGC site on Machine standards.

This standard is applicable to all categories of gaming machine as defined under section 235 of the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act). This standard will come into force for any gaming machine terminal, sited within Great Britain on or after 1 September 2007, that is dependant upon some external device for the purpose of gambling (including software downloads, server based systems or external random number generators), subject to the Implementation Annex to this standard (published separately). That Annex identifies those requirements of the standard which will come into force on various dates in the period 1 September 2007 to 1 September 2008.

1.4 Pay table/denomination configuration changes
Player terminal control programs that offer multiple pay tables and/or denominations that can be configured via an external communication must comply with the following:
a. information relating to the players likely return (%RTP) must be transparent to the player for the pay table in operation and in particular where any changes occur at times when the system is available for play;
b. the game is in an idle state when any update occurs; and
c. any change to the pay table will not cause inaccurate crediting or payment.

and

Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards: June 2007

RTS requirement 3C
For each virtual event, game (including bingo), or lottery, information that may reasonably be expected to enable the customer to make an informed decision about his or her chances of winning must be easily available before the customer commits to gamble. Information must include:
i. a description of the way the game works and the way in which winners are determined and prizes allocated;
ii. house edge (or margin);
iii. the return to player (RTP) percentage; or
iv. the probability (likelihood) of winning events occurring.

 

[DogBoy001]

Yes, the UK is one of the few exceptions (we have games such as Aztecs, Cleopatra's Gold, Goldbeard and quite a few others that are in the RTG stable operating in the UK with mainstream land-based groups).

However, all of this only relates to companies seeking a UK license. If you're talking about universal internet regulation I doubt very much that this will be driven by the UK, and in the vast majority of jurisdictions there is little to no requirement for display of player odds or return.

Woooof

 

[Rusty]

Yes, the UK is one of the few exceptions (we have games such as Aztecs, Cleopatra's Gold, Goldbeard and quite a few others that are in the RTG stable operating in the UK with mainstream land-based groups).

However, all of this only relates to companies seeking a UK license. If you're talking about universal internet regulation I doubt very much that this will be driven by the UK, and in the vast majority of jurisdictions there is little to no requirement for display of player odds or return.

Woooof

(This answer is not specifically in response to Dogboy but a general reply on the issues of regulation.)

I agree, all of which goes to show how poorly the player is protected and that most regulatory regimes are more interested in Dollars than truly fair gaming. You yourself make this point about Australian regulation.

I can see absolutely no argument in principle why the player should not only be entitled to this information but it should be a condition of the license for a software provider by any serious licensing authority.

Software providers, Casinos, affiliates and players all have common ground which a Licensing authority can work with to make proper sensible regulation that suits all.
The UKGC is by far and away the best example of any licensing authority that does this because of its extensive consultations with all concerned parties and its large budget.
Also because it is based on UK law and is ultimately answerable to UK government (and more importantly UK press) then there is unlikely to be any Whitewashing of serious issues.
This is why I use the UKGC as a standard to be followed

If software companies are against displaying RTP they should at least be prepared to explain their position and players should take any licensing authority to task that does not have it as a requirement.

Payments that Casinos and software companies currently have to make to the various licensing authorities that offer a cut price license (screw the player-give us the money) can be accurately described as scandalous.
The blame lies equally with both parties.
Mickey Mouse Licensing authorities offer slack regulation and cut prices because many Casinos and software companies are happy to go this route- a cosy little deal where only the player suffers.

Tougher regulation and the higher cost of a license and extra player protection that comes with it is currently simply seen as not worthwhile by both these sham regulatory bodies and Casinos because any player backlash against these insidious business partnerships is largely Whitewashed.
So the majority of Casinos gravitate toward the sham Licenses such as Kahnawake.

Thank God for the few people such as Bryan (Casinomeister) who actually understand it is possible to make a Buck and still be ethical.
In fact this can be used as a marketing tool and Bryan deserves every success in this and I respect his judgement though I fully appreciate he does not seek or need any endorsement from me.

This forum is One of the very few places where Players can voice their concerns and know they will be heard and have a genuine chance of a fair outcome they would not have got even at some of these so called regulatory authorities.
Why is this the case?
Because if enough of the player community shout and scream loudly enough when something is wrong it hits the Casinos where it hurts most (since most of them have no balls) that is in their pocket.

God forbid some of the players that come here and get redress should actually put something back into the community by trying to help others and demanding the same justice for others that they have received or actually thank Bryan or Max or the membership that helped them but there you go at least right was done by them and the information is out there.

Players;
The majority of Casinos, software providers, sham authorities and unscrupulous affiliates are all dining out at your expense.
We are just ants and if we bite alone they can simply brush us off or squash us.
But if we are many and get into their food and annoy them enough they will either have to pack up and leave or make provision for us.

Yes there are much bigger issues in life but this is a gaming forum and we are here so get involved in any small way and help to make things better for everyone. Lurkers use your voice.

Sorry for sermonising but at least I feel better.

 

[Pinababy69]

Because if enough of the player community shout and scream loudly enough when something is wrong it hits the Casinos where it hurts most (since most of them have no balls) that is in their pocket.

We are just ants and if we bite alone they can simply brush us off or squash us. But if we are many and get into their food and annoy them enough they will either have to pack up and leave or make provision for us.

Yes there are much bigger issues in life but this is a gaming forum and we are here so get involved in any small way and help to make things better for everyone. Lurkers use your voice.

Sorry for sermonising but at least I feel better.

You are my hero, wanna go steady?

 

[Rusty]

You are my hero, wanna go steady?

Haha, We are and I thought it was our secret.

 

[Pinababy69]

Haha, We are and I thought it was our secret.

Damn, stupid me. Remind me to lay off the sauce before noon.