Nonsensical Calculation of Wagering Requirements

If you thought Bell-fruit Casino had a complicated wagering system then this one is even more strange.
I came across this casino it's called Prospect Hall, the wagering is based on the theoretical RTP of each slot.

Why is nothing simple anymore?

What happens if the RTP is 96.5%?
Does that make the wagering 50x 58.3x or 66.6x ??

brianmon said:

What happens if the RTP is 96.5%?
Does that make the wagering 50x 58.3x or 66.6x ??

Click to expand...

I guess they will probably round it up, it must be some system they have to be able to track this for every spin of every slot.
Also Wild Blood, Flowers, Jack Hammer 1+2 excluded from wagering? These are some of the tightest slots out there!

Actually, it kinda makes sense to make the WR proportional to the RTP, complicated though it may seem.
I guess that includes cards games & Roulette too...?
The only thing which worries me, is if they REALLY have any games with less than 95% RTP

Any yes, this is not the first time I have seen low variance games with no "saving up features" like Jack Hammer excluded - it makes absolutely no sense whatever to me

KK

Imagine explaining that to somebody who never played online before.

Every casino is free to set up their own rules whats allowed and whats not, but when i need a calculator to calculate my WR im not interested in taking a bonus anymore.

KasinoKing said:

Actually, it kinda makes sense to make the WR proportional to the RTP, complicated though it may seem.
I guess that includes cards games & Roulette too...?
The only thing which worries me, is if they REALLY have any games with less than 95% RTP

Any yes, this is not the first time I have seen low variance games with no "saving up features" like Jack Hammer excluded - it makes absolutely no sense whatever to me

KK

Click to expand...

I can see why - Hack Spammer is notoriously hard to lose on given the near 97% RTP and gives all but the worst multiple x deposit bonuses an EV+ edge. You will now say "with a 3% loss on each pound and 35x or more WR will mean an average bust" which mathematically is correct but there are certain slots that seem to defy that and grind away for hours on low stakes and small deposits.

P.S. KK - if you watch my videos at all you'll notice how I redeemed several SUB bonuses from the Caddell group casinos with an evil 35x D+B WR by playing Twin Spin which is only 96%. Obviously they 'keep an eye out' here because when I took the last available SUB of theirs at Cyberclub casino last week Twin Spin had suddenly dropped to the same 1/5 of WR per pound as Hack Spammer and Dead Or Deader.....

dunover said:

I can see why - Hack Spammer is notoriously hard to lose on given the near 97% RTP and gives all but the worst multiple x deposit bonuses an EV+ edge. You will now say "with a 3% loss on each pound and 35x or more WR will mean an average bust" which mathematically is correct but there are certain slots that seem to defy that and grind away for hours on low stakes and small deposits.

P.S. KK - if you watch my videos at all you'll notice how I redeemed several SUB bonuses from the Caddell group casinos with an evil 35x D+B WR by playing Twin Spin which is only 96%. Obviously they 'keep an eye out' here because when I took the last available SUB of theirs at Cyberclub casino last week Twin Spin had suddenly dropped to the same 1/5 of WR per pound as Hack Spammer and Dead Or Deader.....

Click to expand...

Really, always huge smile on my face when you post slot names

It makes some sense indeed. High praised Videoslots has actually updated their T&C in a similar way:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...m-terms-and-conditions-updates.68307/?t=68307

Still i don't think it's reasonable. Players get very confused. It's not like the T&C are complicated enough without this shenanigans.

You know casinos could make it so much easier if they just put it in the terms and conditions that they don't want you to win and therefore we will make it next to near impossible for you to make wagering on a bonus When it boils down to it with the amount of excluded games increasing and now these silly WR amounts based on RTP of a slot is saying that anyway

Unbelievable , I didn't know videoslots is also making this type of moves. I mean i dont think its good policy to restrict the games that can be played in this type of way the prospect hall and videoslots are doing. I think players playing with a bonus are confused enough when using only slots, with all types of max bet rules laying around, and now they are restricted even more, i dont think RTP should have any effect on what slots can be played, with how many x in wagering.

I don't think that 1% change in RTP on a slot makes any difference on if the bonus is profitable for the casino or for the player, but the selection of slots a player can play is lower.

Im so dazed and confused, but maybe its just the time im reading this, so forgive me .

Was just waiting for casinos to come up with this kind of wagering differentiation.

Obviously, slots with higher RTP will give players in the long run a better chance on making the WR and cashing out. The smartheads at some places finally figured it out

I would be OK with those rules if they would allow all slots for WR. Then the rules suddenly become very simple as you can play any slot you like and (if they make the effort) a little bar on the side of the slot gives you the details on how much it contributes and how much you have already wagered aka Bet-AT.

SuperSIMPLE!!!! And hence, no more confiscated winnings for playing prohibited slots.

No thats really not the case. 1-5% rtp difference has nothing to do with how the bonus is profitable towards the player or not. I was simply making it known that they are hurting themselves, making players not to be able to play their favourite games=less traffic for the casino. Atleast thats the way i see it.

If they don't wish players to use their bonus they should not offer one at all.