Accredit Betvoyager Already.

[spiderman]

To whomever it may concern;
I am no affiliate of any kind or have any vested interested. But I really think BV needs to be looked upon and graded as it so deserves. It has a mechanism where you can compare a certain set amount of decisions to the pre-fabricated decisions already determined and see if they are identical to prove that their is no cheating algorithym (Checksum). Only one of it's kind in this industry and the only RNG casino I would play at. It deserves attention and can't be in the back burner anymore. No odds games too if you are interested but they do take 10% of your winning withdrawals so it could be comparable, better or less favorable than regular casino odds depending on how you play and how much you win, I guess so that is kind of a wash there. Nevertheless, this casino needs to be seriously looked at since it very is the next 3Dice phenomenon. I don't trust any RNG's but this, period.

[Nifty29]

Interesting. I've heard of their no house edge games and wondered how they made a profit.

Any maths geeks wanna compare that setup to a normal RTP figure?

[Marie2473]

isn´t it up to them to "apply"??

[maxd]

isn´t it up to them to "apply"??

Pretty much. There are a number of expectations and responsibilities for Accred casinos so they have to be interested and willing to go that extra distance. Typically the casino approaches Bryan and that begins the process.

[Glunn11]

Interesting. I've heard of their no house edge games and wondered how they made a profit.

Any maths geeks wanna compare that setup to a normal RTP figure?

Any winnings on the no edge games are subject to a 10% commission upon withdrawal. So, if I'm not mistaken, if a player only plays these games, he can expect a 90% RTP regardless of how many times he/she plays through his/her deposit.

With normal casino games, the eventual return of a player's deposit keeps going down and down until they bust. Sure, if you only play through once you'll definitely lose less in the long run than you would with the no house edge option, but most players keep going until they reach a certain target. For instance, although single zero roulette has a 97.3% RTP, if someone deposits $20 and plays through 20 times, they can expect to see about half their money. Therefore, if you deposit $100 with the intention of playing it through several times, I would think the no house edge option would be a better choice.

Of course, I'm not an expert, and any clarifications or corrections are appreciated.

[GrandMaster]

Any winnings on the no edge games are subject to a 10% commission upon withdrawal. So, if I'm not mistaken, if a player only plays these games, he can expect a 90% RTP regardless of how many times he/she plays through his/her deposit.

Well, you are mistaken.

[Glunn11]

Well, you are mistaken.

Care to explain what the real figures are? I'd like to know myself, then.

I should have clarified that it's net winnings, not any winnings. Upon withdrawal, any profit over the original deposit is subject to a 10% commission. The original deposit is returned to the player, then 90% of any profit.

When I made the above post, I was under the impression that the entire balance was deducted by 10% upon withdrawal.

Thanks

[Jufo]

Any winnings on the no edge games are subject to a 10% commission upon withdrawal. So, if I'm not mistaken, if a player only plays these games, he can expect a 90% RTP regardless of how many times he/she plays through his/her deposit.

This is not true because the 10% commission is only taken upon withdrawal and not after settling the outcome of every bet/spin/hand. So, how the 10% commission translates to house edge depends on how long you are planning to play with your deposit, and with zero house edge you could easily be playing a very very long time with no long-term loss.

If you typically wagered your deposit only once then the 10% commission might translate to 5% house edge tops (and even then only if you wagered your whole balance in single spin). But if you typically wager your deposit, say 20 times, then the 10% commission translates to less than 0.5% house edge.

Overall it is difficult to translate the commission into house edge because they are two completely different ways to take the rake from player. However, a constant house edge is severely worse for the player as it sneakily eats away his/her balance until it is zero eventually. With zero house edge games you don't on average lose any money so you get much more gambling action for the same amount of money. I think for a typical gambler Betvoyager's system is much better in the long run and I hope that many members in this forum eventually see that.

[Glunn11]

This is not true because the 10% commission is only taken upon withdrawal and not after settling the outcome of every bet/spin/hand. So, how the 10% commission translates to house edge depends on how long you are planning to play with your deposit, and with zero house edge you could easily be playing a very very long time with no long-term loss.

If you made just one full deposit sized bet on no-zero roulette then the 10% commission would translate to 5% house edge at most. But if you typically turnover your deposit, say 20 times on zero house edge games, then the 10% commission translates to probably less than 0.5% house edge.

Overall, it is difficult to translate the commission into house edge especially since the commission is only taken if you win. But based on my experience, for a typical gambler Betvoyager's system would be vastly better choice to play because the accumulated house edge over long period of time is usually much larger monetary amount than 10% commission on net winnings.

Thank you for this useful post! I was definitely mistaken.

I just ran a basic simulation on no-edge roulette. $100 deposit, $5 at a time, 20x playthrough, and ended up with a mean final value of $96.1097. The per-dollar edge on that turns out to be a little less than .2%.

[Jufo]

And yes I agree with the OP that Betvoyager deserves to be accredited simply because of their transparent and unique way of running a casino. If they simply deserve to be accredited as such I don't see why they would need to contact CM first?