A Call For Greater Accuracy in RTP's

[TheLastCylon]

All casinos should publish their T-RTP's along with fully adumbrated certification of those T-RTP's by some outside firm. I prefer a firm that does true statistical analysis, like Certified Fair Gambling, as opposed to a simple end-term financial analysis. Anything is better than nothing, though.

One of the most salient RTP issues is that many casinos that post their T-RTP's will post ranges, such as IGT, as opposed to the actual T-RTP at which the game operates. For a slot machine, this tells you nothing. This problem has been discussed by me and many others. But another issue is one that I don't think has been brought up yet, but is just as important.

Many games -craps, baccarat, roulette- have natural ranges based on the types of bets placed. In this situation, a range actually makes sense, and they don't post the ranges!

For example, in Baccarat, you can make three types of bets in standard Baccarat: Player, Banker, and Tie. All three of those have different T-RTP's, and based on the paytable, the T-RTP's can be very different. And yet, most casinos still only publish a single T-RTP number.

This has far-reaching implications for the other T-RTP numbers posted. For example, Virgin Casino lists the highest available T-RTP on all of their slots... but they also list the highest available T-RTP of the possible bets in Baccarat. Are they doing the same thing with their slots, where they just post whatever the highest number is regardless of the truth? What are the actual T-RTP's of their slots? Frankly, I don't think that we know.

This uncertainty, combined with Chopley's recent post about Kerching customer service openly admitting to changing the T-RTP of their slots on a daily basis, all but destroys my confidence in the numbers of not just Virgin, but any casino where there is inconsistency in their data.

To continue beating up on Virgin, they list their Baccarat has having a T-RTP of 98.99%. I can guarantee that is not the actual overall T-RTP of the game... because I did the calculations. For an experimental control, I took three other casinos, my two favorites, Net Entertainment and Galewind, and one of Casinomeister members' favorites, 3Dice.

I used an online Baccarat calculator available via a Google search.

Net Entertainment

• 8 decks
• 5% commission
• Tie pays 9-to-1

T-RTP results

• Banker: 98.94%
• Player: 98.76%
• Tie: 95.16%

---

Galewind

• 6 decks
• 4% Commission
• Tie pays 9-to-1

T-RTP results

• Banker: 99.40%
• Player: 98.76%
• Tie: 95.07%

---

3Dice

• 8 decks
• 5% commission
• Tie pays 9-to-1

T-RTP results

• Banker: 98.94%
• Player: 98.76%
• Tie: 95.16%

Of the three, Galewind is the only one that makes this information easily available in their masterpiece of an RTP document. The other two make the raw data available, though, which is doubly puzzling. The T-RTP data are something that they could easily add to the information pages and thus avoid forcing the customer to do the footwork to determine the numbers. Still, they at least make the data available, which is more than many casinos.

Returning to Virgin/IGT, they sort of tell me what the data are, enough so that I feel confident enough to use the numbers in my calculation. "New decks are shuffled for each round of play; one deck is used for each hand." I take that to mean a one-deck shoe, with a new shoe for every game. The one-deck shoe is odd, so this might be incorrect. If it is incorrect, more decks in the shoe increase the Tie RTP and decrease the Banker and Player RTP's.

Virgin/IGT

• 1 Deck
• 5% Commission
• Tie Pays 8-to-1

T-RTP results

• Banker: 98.99%
• Player: 98.71%
• Tie: 84.25%

Yes, indeed, there it is: the 98.99% that Virgin lists. But don't you think that the 84.25% number would be a worthwhile number to mention? The Tie T-RTP is determined primarily by the pay ratio, so anyone betting would know that 8-to-1 sucks, and 9-to-1 is what you want, but it really puts the reality of the bets front-and-center when you see the actual T-RTP numbers.

I would say that they are not listing the T-RTP numbers so as to hide the lower number, but if that's the case, there would be no reason for 3Dice or Net Entertainment to hide the numbers. Their 9-to-1 payout is excellent. They should be advertising that number. Virgin/IGT may indeed be hiding the number, though, because it sucks.

What this does is further illustrate the importance of ABSOLUTE transparency. Is Virgin/IGT being sneaky, or do they just not think that this is important? We don't know. The numbers are available. You can't hide them. Just post the damned numbers.

This Baccarat case shows how easy it would be for casinos to be more transparent. The numbers I got for this post were calculated from data freely available from the casino sites. Again, just post the damned numbers! As it is, the "price" of the game is available, but instead of simply posting the price, they have provided a convoluted math puzzle that we have to solve. And in Virgin's case, the solution to the math puzzle casts doubt on all of their posted T-RTP's. Not a good thing.

 

[Nifty29]

I won't bother commenting on most of your post, as you've pretty much said it all before in several threads (which obviously weren't getting enough attention so you decided to start a new one). I already made a thread about this very topic, and you know that because you posted there.

Anyway, you're saying the RTPs should be posted for all.possible results. So, should the casinos be posting RTPs for video poker based on how it is played? The figure provided is based on perfect play, but if you don't play perfect your RTP will be different. So how do they do that?

Your baccarat example is a bit pointless, as the average person doesn't play it, and the ones that do know the game inside out and know the odds before they play.....and if they don't, then you know what they say about fools and their money.

I actually agree with you when it comes to RTP transparency, but that drum has been beaten for years and its a fact that some will provide what you want and some won't. The sad part is, that only a small % of players actually know what RTP really is and what it means to their bankroll, and the rest don't really care....they just gamble. So, the casinos aren't going to spend time and money on certification and development just to appease relatively few players. If the vast majority say they won't play until they come to the party it will be a different story, but until then all you can do is vote with your feet.

I know you're on some kind of crusade against the casinos (except g@lewind oddly), and not entirely without cause, but you should realize by the small number of members who actually participate in these quasi-intellectual discussions of yours that the average player just.....well they just want to play, and don't care that much about what specific number or information is printed in the help files, largely because they dont read them.

 

[ThePOGG]

Hey Cylon - the difference between slots games and card games is that a slots game will - in general - provide the same RTP to the customer regardless of what they do. Card games and some other provide the player with different choices which alters the RTP from session to session and even hand to hand. If i decide that i'm not hitting 16 vs 10 today i'm going to alter what the RTP is.

From what i can see, what you're actually looking for is the average RTP. So while Virgin are listing the optimum RTP - which i still think should be listed - you'd like to see the average RTP for the game across all customers. Obviously as Nifty pointed out, in strategy based games listing every possible RTP isn't feesable and listing lowest and highest doesn't really make sense either - with the baccarat example the tie bet is rarely played and certainly never to the exclusion of the player/banker bet, so listing the 84% as the low end of the RTP while technically accurate wouldn't be particularly valuable to either player or casino. I do think there is a fair case to be made for games like baccarat and blackjack for the average RTP to be listed alongside the optimum and i'll mention this to my Virgin rep.

 

[P.V.]

Not trying to stir up a hornets' nest but honestly what licensed authority is actually posting I Gaming RTP results, monitoring them on a regular basis vs. it coming from player calculations, or independent sources? It must be regulated, correct?

Shouldn't the RTP data be backed up from whom issue's the gambling license? I've searched some licensed authorities and don't see RTP results, correct me if I've overlooked them and their updates.

Seems like RTP = Real time promotion within all the threads instead of actual return to player results, JMO.

I just don't see enough RTP results coming from a players experience, or third party providers unless the licensed authority stands behind it's outcome on a regular basis.

 

[binary128]

What I gathered from TheLastCylons' post:

I did not see any reference to card games (plural), or to any games requiring any form of optimal strategy, or to any game RTPs associated with Element of Risk, or anything like that.

What I did see was an extensive reference to a single game, Baccarat, which happens to involve the use of cards, but does not involve any knowledge of, or application of, optimal strategy. In a sense, Baccarat is a slot with three different RTP settings, one for the Bet on Banker, one for the Bet on Player, and one for the Bet on Tie.

(@Nifty29: Baccarat as it turns out is a very popular game in our Casino, consistently coming in among the top 5 game counts each month.)

So, here we have a game at Virgin Casino with three known RTPs:

- Bet on Banker = 98.99%

- Bet on Player = 98.71%

- Bet on Tie = 84.25%

and just as with a slot these RTPs cannot be affected by any Player actions. Virgin has documented that the RTP for this game is 98.99%. In other words, when presented with three possible values, TheLastCylon noted that Virgin documents only the highest.

TheLastCylon then extended this logic into speculation concerning Virgin's reported Slot RTPs.

We have seen that IGT as well as some IGT Casinos report some of their slot RTPs as ranges. We have learned from IGT that those ranges are not just 2 possible RTP settings. That is, there might be 1 or 2 additional RTP settings that fall between these reported lows and highs.

Therefore, I inferred that TheLastCylon extended Virgin's Baccarat RTP logic (report only the highest number) to their Slot RTPs (report only the highest number).

And finally, TheLastCylon then called into question whether these single slot RTP values are indeed the actual values of the Virgin slots, or simply the highest of a possible range.

Chris

 

[binary128]

@P.V.

You've seen our various publications. You followed a link in my "Slot Statistics Critiques Requested" thread.

Our current deployment is AGCC-certified. Our company is currently an applicant for an AGCC-certified Core Service Provider.

What more, specifically, do you feel that it is necessary for us to do?

Chris

 

[Nifty29]

What I gathered from TheLastCylons' post:

I did not see any reference to card games (plural), or to any games requiring any form of optimal strategy, or to any game RTPs associated with Element of Risk, or anything like that.

What I did see was an extensive reference to a single game, Baccarat, which happens to involve the use of cards, but does not involve any knowledge of, or application of, optimal strategy. In a sense, Baccarat is a slot with three different RTP settings, one for the Bet on Banker, one for the Bet on Player, and one for the Bet on Tie.

(@Nifty29: Baccarat as it turns out is a very popular game in our Casino, consistently coming in among the top 5 game counts each month.)

So, here we have a game at Virgin Casino with three known RTPs:

- Bet on Banker = 98.99%

- Bet on Player = 98.71%

- Bet on Tie = 84.25%

and just as with a slot these RTPs cannot be affected by any Player actions. Virgin has documented that the RTP for this game is 98.99%. In other words, when presented with three possible values, TheLastCylon noted that Virgin documents only the highest.

TheLastCylon then extended this logic into speculation concerning Virgin's reported Slot RTPs.

We have seen that IGT as well as some IGT Casinos report some of their slot RTPs as ranges. We have learned from IGT that those ranges are not just 2 possible RTP settings. That is, there might be 1 or 2 additional RTP settings that fall between these reported lows and highs.

Therefore, I inferred that TheLastCylon extended Virgin's Baccarat RTP logic (report only the highest number) to their Slot RTPs (report only the highest number).

And finally, he then called into question whether these single slot RTP values are indeed the actual values of the Virgin slots, or simply the highest of a possible range.

Chris

He didn't mention video poker or card games. I didn't say he did. I asked, by extension, if the RTPs provided for video poker are actually fair and whether, by his reasoning, misleading. After all, it depends on how you play.

My point about baccarat players is that those who play it understand it, and if they look at the 98% RTP figure and think it's for the tie bet then they deserve to lose. I also wouldn't call 5th the most popular game, behind slots, BJ, VP, Roulette which are more popular by far. You'll also probably find the higher amount of baccarat play is related to your bonus system and your RTP.

Anyway, as I said, he's wasting his time pretty much as it's all been done before. Starting a new thread about it when there are already several current ones just looks like grandstanding. Good PR though.

 

[binary128]

@Nifty29:

You misread - I did not call Baccarat the most popular game, but rather a very popular game.

Also, when I said that it consistently ranked in the top 5 based on game count, I meant the top 5 out of the 34 separate games available at our current deployment.

All of that aside, I believe that the OP's point dealt with my inferences contained within the last 2 sentences of my previous post.

Chris

 

[chuchu59]

I won't bother commenting on most of your post, as you've pretty much said it all before in several threads (which obviously weren't getting enough attention so you decided to start a new one). I already made a thread about this very topic, and you know that because you posted there.

Anyway, you're saying the RTPs should be posted for all.possible results. So, should the casinos be posting RTPs for video poker based on how it is played? The figure provided is based on perfect play, but if you don't play perfect your RTP will be different. So how do they do that?

Your baccarat example is a bit pointless, as the average person doesn't play it, and the ones that do know the game inside out and know the odds before they play.....and if they don't, then you know what they say about fools and their money.

I actually agree with you when it comes to RTP transparency, but that drum has been beaten for years and its a fact that some will provide what you want and some won't. The sad part is, that only a small % of players actually know what RTP really is and what it means to their bankroll, and the rest don't really care....they just gamble. So, the casinos aren't going to spend time and money on certification and development just to appease relatively few players. If the vast majority say they won't play until they come to the party it will be a different story, but until then all you can do is vote with your feet.

I know you're on some kind of crusade against the casinos (except g@lewind oddly), and not entirely without cause, but you should realize by the small number of members who actually participate in these quasi-intellectual discussions of yours that the average player just.....well they just want to play, and don't care that much about what specific number or information is printed in the help files, largely because they dont read them.

Nifty,

It really depends on where you are. This is the biggest money-raker for most casinos in Macau and has a large following in live dealer casinos. Virtually no one plays slots in the casinos in Macau. I believe Baccarat is gaining a stronger foothold in Australian casinos too as it has the lowest house edge and attracts a lot of high rollers.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I actually agree with you when it comes to RTP transparency, but that drum has been beaten for years and its a fact that some will provide what you want and some won't. The sad part is, that only a small % of players actually know what RTP really is and what it means to their bankroll, and the rest don't really care....they just gamble. So, the casinos aren't going to spend time and money on certification and development just to appease relatively few players. If the vast majority say they won't play until they come to the party it will be a different story, but until then all you can do is vote with your feet.

This is about it I'm afraid, the casinos who don't want to change their ways won't do so - even here at CM those of us who really understand and want to talk about RTPs and variance and all that stuff are in the minority, so how do you think it pans out in the general gambling community?

It's a shame, but it's true.

The good news however is that those of us who DO care about all that stuff, DO have good choices of where to play at - so it's not all bad.

 

[P.V.]

@P.V.

Our current deployment is AGCC-certified. Our company is currently an applicant for an AGCC-certified Core Service Provider.

I was speaking generally but thanks for the knowledge. Just curious, does AGCC have an in house lab for testing or does a lab doing the testing apply for a license with AGCC too, along with the software developer?

Trying to compare how AGCC approves a core service provider vs. what Nevada is doing.

 

[binary128]

This is about it I'm afraid, the casinos who don't want to change their ways won't do so - even here at CM those of us who really understand and want to talk about RTPs and variance and all that stuff are in the minority, so how do you think it pans out in the general gambling community?

It's a shame, but it's true.

The good news however is that those of us who DO care about all that stuff, DO have good choices of where to play at - so it's not all bad.

I don't know, Chopley my good man, I don't know. BUT, I do know that Casinomeister has a lot of "punch" in the industry.

Someone told me the other day about a "90/9/1" rule regarding forums.

- 90% of the site's visitors are "lurkers" who simply read the content.

- 9% of the site's visitors enroll in the forum.

- 1% of those visitors actually post.

I have no idea if this is true. As I said, someone simply told me this.

But, if true, that means that 99% of the people reading Casinomeister forum posts are "invisible", yet are affected (to whatever extent) by what they read.

So, the CM "RTP and Variance" community may be much larger than we think.

Chris

 

[maxd]

Someone told me the other day about a "90/9/1" rule regarding forums.

I'd say that's pretty optimistic. IMHO it's probably more like 98/2/0.1.

 

[binary128]

I was speaking generally but thanks for the knowledge. Just curious, does AGCC have an in house lab for testing or does a lab doing the testing apply for a license with AGCC too, along with the software developer?

Trying to compare how AGCC approves a core service provider vs. what Nevada is doing.

The AGCC has a list of "Approved Testing Labs", which I think is available on their web site under Links in their navigation menu. I don't know the details of the Testing Lab approval process, but TST, whom you have mentioned in a previous post, is in that list.

For Galewind's approval as a Core Service Provider, there were 3 major steps.

- RNG Certification. We had already done this several times through iTech Labs, which happens to be one of the AGCC Approved Testing Labs, so that was well in hand from the start.

- Casino Software Certification. This was done by SQS Group, another AGCC-approved Testing Lab. It took approximately 6 weeks for both a detailed inspection and testing of each game in the Casino as well as going through all of the back-end Administration and Reporting systems.

- Company Certification. This was an on-site visit by an AGCC employee/auditor to one of Galewind's offices. It included a financial review of the company (going back to when we started in 2007), a financial review of the company's principals, background checks on all of the key personnel, and like that. We are neither a large nor a complex corporation, so this only took 1 day. (However, I know that it took several more days of the auditor's time to do what needed doing there.)

When you lump it all together, it was a pretty rigorous and comprehensive process to become an AGCC Core Service Provider. And we're not there yet - we have not received any final approval notice from the AGCC, so we may yet be turned down for some reason or another. (Our current deployment is AGCC-approved - Galewind Software as an independent company is not.)

Chris

 

[Jufo]

About the OPs topic of displaying the RTP for every possible bet, I am satisfied if at least the RTP of the best bet (lowest house edge) is listed. It's my own responsibility to make sure that I only play the lowest HE bets and, where applicaple, find out the correct strategy to reach this optimal RTP (especially in Blackjack and table Poker games). But I also then expect to reach this optimal RTP and not be cheated. I once had a large play sample of suspicous results, running around 5% below theoretical return in Blackjack for the duration of 1 ½ years at a particular casino and the software provider replied that my result is "not that much below expectation" if I consider the average player return of 97.8% in Blackjack. But I notified him that since I always play optimally, this reference value of "average player" is not something that my results should be compared to.

As for Baccarat, Betfair has their "zero Baccarat" which they promote as a zero house edge game. But the zero house edge applies only to Banker bets, all other bets (Player and Tie) are still subject to the normal house edge. I wonder if all players playing there are aware that zero house edge applies to Banker bet only, or are they under false assumption that every bet in that game is 0% HE.

 

[binary128]

Jufo,

First of all, this is going to be one of my "Oh no, not another such post from Chris" posts.


Regarding your statement:

It's my own responsibility to make sure that I only play the lowest HE bets and, where applicaple, find out the correct strategy to reach this optimal RTP (especially in Blackjack and table Poker games).

We used to just list the RTPs for our slot games, and left it to the Player to use whatever resources they might find to determine the RTPs for all of our other games. That also included game strategy - we had nothing in our Help system, so the Players were completely on their own there as well.

As you know, about a year ago we decided to change all that. There were issues that arose from this decision with which we truly struggled. What data do we present, what words do we use, etc.

The result, after a lot of work (a lot of work), was 2 web pages in our Help system - the first with words, and the second without (well, mostly without) words.

In them we provide the RTP for all of the bets in all of our games (with all due acknowledgement to optimal strategy, Element of Risk, and so forth). We also provide links to sources for optimal strategy (WizardOfOdds.com and BeatingBonuses.com). And all of this is never more than 2 clicks away from the Player.


I'll bring up another piece of the past - the word "trust". One of the things that you and I (and others) discussed about this word was "If leaps of faith are unavoidable, then to achieve trust we need to make that leap as short as possible."

In other words - "How far do I have to jump? As little as possible."

We're completely content with the House Edge for profit. If someone doesn't know the details of the game, especially as it relates to House Edge, then we're happy to tell them. The same applies to optimal game strategy. As I said to another CM member - "We want you to lose; we just don't want you to lose very much."

So, yes, I agree, it is the Player's responsibility to play any casino game wisely. We just try to make this as easy as possible to accomplish. In short, we try hard to actually help the Player.

And the thing is, this is not bullshit. You, and others, know that our level of documentation here is huge. This took a lot of time, money and commitment to implement. And we are a very small company in all of this, a very small company indeed.



You mentioned the "zero Baccarat" game at Betfair, and the fact that the zero House Edge only applies to the Banker bet. My first response to that was "No shit!". That means that this is not a "zero House Edge" game at all. I mean, can you imagine doing nothing but playing the Banker bet in every single game of Baccarat? What's the point? Baccarat is a game of hunch bets, for crying out loud. OK, rant completed.

My second response is that in our Help system the fact that the Player and Tie bets are not zero House Edge would, again, be only 2 clicks away.

Other examples:

- In our European Roulette, we have an "imprisoned" rule on all even money bets that results in a House Edge for these bets of 1.35%. For all other bets in the game the House Edge is 2.7%. Thus, to say that the House Edge of our European Roulette game is 1.35% would simply be wrong.

- In 9-6 Jacks or Better Video Poker, the 5-coin House Edge is 0.46%, while the 1 to 4 coin House Edge is 1.63%. That is a pretty significant difference - almost a 4X difference. We felt that to not provide this information to the Player would, again, be wrong.


(BTW - Our lifetime Blackjack RTP, which is based on hundreds of millions of rounds, is about 98.6%.)


At any length, for me I inferred that the OP's post was more focused on what I captured in the following 2 sentences:

Therefore, I inferred that TheLastCylon extended Virgin's Baccarat RTP logic (report only the highest number) to their Slot RTPs (report only the highest number).

And finally, TheLastCylon then called into question whether these single slot RTP values are indeed the actual values of the Virgin slots, or simply the highest of a possible range.

Chris

 

[Nifty29]

Thanks Chris.

It's always great to hear about all the wonderful things your company is doing.

Again.

 

[TheLastCylon]

From what i can see, what you're actually looking for is the average RTP.

In the Baccarat example, I'm interested in seeing all three T-RTP's listed. It's very easy. There is no reason to not do it. If this was a case of 100 different possible T-RTP's, then a mean may be useful, but my issue as regards this post is with a game where listing the three possible T-RTP's would take very little time and effort.

The second point deals with my dislike of casinos that list ranges on their slots. Namely, they are listing ranges where there shouldn't be one (slots), and not listing ranges where there should be one (baccarat). This point applies to other games though, as well. Craps and roulette, for example, have natural ranges which would make sense to list.

The good news however is that those of us who DO care about all that stuff, DO have good choices of where to play at - so it's not all bad.

Exactly. And my reasons for beating this drum are because I want more choices.

About the OPs topic of displaying the RTP for every possible bet, I am satisfied if at least the RTP of the best bet (lowest house edge) is listed. It's my own responsibility to make sure that I only play the lowest HE bets and, where applicaple, find out the correct strategy to reach this optimal RTP (especially in Blackjack and table Poker games)...

As for Baccarat, Betfair has their "zero Baccarat" which they promote as a zero house edge game. But the zero house edge applies only to Banker bets, all other bets (Player and Tie) are still subject to the normal house edge. I wonder if all players playing there are aware that zero house edge applies to Banker bet only, or are they under false assumption that every bet in that game is 0% HE.

I, too, am satisfied in the sense that I feel safe playing at a casino that at least lists its T-RTP's. I understand the concepts and know where to go to calculate the RTP's and how to play with good strategy, so I know that I'm good in that regard. I am not satisfied in the sense that what I want has as much to do with useful information as it does with good business practice. Casino gambling is a numbers game, basically, and I want to know the numbers, completely, fully, and I want to patronize casinos that willingly give me those numbers.

I would imagine that many players have taken that Betfair number to mean the game on the whole. I wouldn't go so far as to call that false advertising, but it's not exactly true.

They must have a very odd commission on their game to get that 100% T-RTP: 2.7%, specifically. That's assuming eight decks in the shoe. That game must be very popular for them. That's a really good T-RTP.

...And yep, I just checked their site. A commission of 2.75%. They also have the 8-to-1 Tie, meaning the RTP for that is nasty. Still, 100% RTP is pretty badass. Moreover, they make this information available in plain language in their game info page, so while calling it Zero Baccarat might not be perfectly accurate, I don't think that they're doing anything wrong.

And kudos to Betfair! I just checked their info pages and they offer (xhttp://gamesportal.betfair.com/en/components/casino_help/index.html?BaccaratRules) fully adumbrated T-RTP for both of their baccarat games!

Interestingly, Betfair seems to list the wrong T-RTP for their Tie bet in their standard baccarat. They list it as 85.56%. That would require a Tie of 8-to-1. Their standard baccarat has a 9-to-1 pay which would have a T-RTP of 95.07%.

They also offer the T-RTP's on their video pokers, differentiating between types of bets, on table pokers, and a few other games. They don't list the T-RTP's for ALL of their games, with slots being a notable exception, and a (xhttp://casino2.pinnaclesports.com/casino/help/games_rtp.htm) unified page like Galewind would be ideal, but I don't want to take away from the fact that they are offering much of the data that I wanted. Betfair just moved up in my book.

 

[binary128]

Thanks Chris.

It's always great to hear about all the wonderful things your company is doing.

Again.

You are very much welcome.

Chris

 

[Nifty29]

Cylon.

I don't disagree with your basic arguments. I started a thread about this very topic months ago which seems to have generated several others, so I also believe in RTP transparency.

The popular option in that poll was to have the T-RTP and Actual RTP (over a set period). I believe this is quite reasonable and allows players to see the realities of the games they play and make better informed choices. The RTPs should be listed for each game and its variant, but I don't think it is necessary to go to the next level and list them for all outcomes. I think this is where the player needs to take over and learn about the games.....listing numbers is no substitute for knowing the game intimately.

The example of baccarat.....I would wager that the vast majority of baccarat players know the game intimately, and therefore know how to find out what deal their getting. It's not like slots or VP where you just pretty much sit down and press buttons. The baccarat players I know aren't slots fans and seldom play them, largely because they know about casino games and know they should be avoided if you want a genuine chance of winning regularly.....in other words, they don't NEED all the extra info because they already know.

Listing seperate RTPs would be more useful in VP where player decisions directly affect RTP, and where there are probably a fair amount of players who don't know about optimal strategy. I'm sure you can imagine the number of permutations there are when it comes to VP, so it would probably be more confusing than anything else. If a casino provides an optimal RTP figure, and access to information about optimal play, I think they are doing enough.....not for you perhaps, but for the gen pop.

The stark reality is that you can post as many arm-length posts as you like, but you will change nothing. Even most members don't seem that interested. Chris gave the 2% post example, which is generous, but the point is that if almost nobody from that 2% is participating, then its probably a fair representation of the attitudes of players in general. Remember, this site is all about gambling, so if you can't get a following here then you never will anywhere.

The only way to influence casinos is to vote with your wallet. Just play where you're comfortable. Post after post rehashing the same stuff isn't going to achieve a thing. You're preaching to the converted in regards to Chris. All you're really doing is giving more opportunities for a non-accredited casino/provider to constantly promote themselves, which is against the mantra of the forums, if not the rules.

 

[jetset]

I'd say that's pretty optimistic. IMHO it's probably more like 98/2/0.1.

If I remember correctly, the Nottingham Trent university conducted a survey of some 11,000 online gamblers across the planet around five or six years ago which included (among many other aspects of the industry) the use of message boards.

At that time the conventional wisdom was that a maximum of only around 5 percent of the enormous number of online gamblers actually read forums, and many of the dodgy operators were wont to discount the value of players interacting with one another on the basis of that assumption.

The survey results on this large respondent sample (it was the biggest industry sampling ever at the time) surprised many - it indicated that up to 40 percent of the massive numbers of internet gamblers used forums regularly to inform themselves on everything from the current political and legal situation and the mathematics of gambling odds to dispute publicity, responsible gambling, business news, bonuses and game preferences.

In addition, the study found that most operators wanting to keep up to date with player trends also visit site forums where players gather.

I'm not sure whether that survey has since been superceded by another, but to me around 40 percent of internet casino players is a powerful and potentially very influential number, even if only 1 percent actively post and most of them just read as is suggested in this thread.

 

[Nifty29]

If I remember correctly, the Nottingham Trent university conducted a survey of some 11,000 online gamblers across the planet around five or six years ago which included (among many other aspects of the industry) the use of message boards.

At that time the conventional wisdom was that a maximum of only around 5 percent of the enormous number of online gamblers actually read forums, and many of the dodgy operators were wont to discount the value of players interacting with one another on the basis of that assumption.

The survey results on this large respondent sample (it was the biggest industry sampling ever at the time) surprised many - it indicated that up to 40 percent of the massive numbers of internet gamblers used forums regularly to inform themselves on everything from the current political and legal situation and the mathematics of gambling odds to dispute publicity, responsible gambling, business news, bonuses and game preferences.

In addition, the study found that most operators wanting to keep up to date with player trends also visit site forums where players gather.

I'm not sure whether that survey has since been superceded by another, but to me around 40 percent of internet casino players is a powerful and potentially very influential number, even if only 1 percent actively post and most of them just read as is suggested in this thread.

Interesting.

Is 11,000 really a big enough sample? Where did they find these respondents? Via portals and forums? I think that would be important information.

I would also be interested in what they classify as "used regularly". I know from experience as a user and behind the scenes in gambling forums that the busiest sections by far are the bonus announcements and freebies/contests. The actual discussion and information sections are either almost dead, or just involve the same few people all the time. I would add that CM is not like that, but it is in a very small group of sites that aren't about affiliate links and bonus hunting. If we were to exclude those who visit purely to get freebies etc, I think the percentages would be closer to the 5%.

 

[KasinoKing]

I actually agree with you when it comes to RTP transparency, but that drum has been beaten for years and its a fact that some will provide what you want and some won't. The sad part is, that only a small % of players actually know what RTP really is and what it means to their bankroll, and the rest don't really care....they just gamble. So, the casinos aren't going to spend time and money on certification and development just to appease relatively few players. If the vast majority say they won't play until they come to the party it will be a different story, but until then all you can do is vote with your feet.

Nail on the head!
The bottom line is (IMHO) the vast majority of players will just play the games and the casinos they enjoy or feel lucky on, and not play the ones where they don't get that feeling. The don't care much about the exact RTP.

KK

 

[Jufo]

They must have a very odd commission on their game to get that 100% T-RTP: 2.7%, specifically. That's assuming eight decks in the shoe. That game must be very popular for them. That's a really good T-RTP.

...And yep, I just checked their site. A commission of 2.75%. They also have the 8-to-1 Tie, meaning the RTP for that is nasty. Still, 100% RTP is pretty badass. Moreover, they make this information available in plain language in their game info page, so while calling it Zero Baccarat might not be perfectly accurate, I don't think that they're doing anything wrong.

To be completely precise, even the Banker bet at zero lounge has 0.03% HE, so the RTP is 99.97%. But my opinion is that if the return is within 0.1% to zero house edge (that is, 99.9% or more) then it's fair to advertise it as such.

Interestingly, Betfair seems to list the wrong T-RTP for their Tie bet in their standard baccarat. They list it as 85.56%. That would require a Tie of 8-to-1. Their standard baccarat has a 9-to-1 pay which would have a T-RTP of 95.07%.

Hehe, you just fell into the same trap I fell once. They list the Tie bet paying 9-for-1, not 9-to-1, in other words it pays 8-to-1. I actually once played the Tie bet there, thinking it's a relatively good bet, until after a few hours of playing it, I realized, oh crap... In my defense I was still rookie to gambling then.

 

[Jufo]

Jufo,

First of all, this is going to be one of my "Oh no, not another such post from Chris" posts.

No, it wasn't. I was actually able to read it through without a toilet break

I agree with what you wrote about making the info as accessible as possible to the player. Personally I don't need this hand holding because I always find out the relevant information on my own and even sometimes do a great deal of work to "crack" the optimal strategy if it's not published yet. But I understand that I am an exception, and not everyone has the same knowledge, mathematical capabilities or the patience to do these things and I fully support that the software provider holds the player's hand as much as possible.

Most recreational players don't have the slightest idea of what the house edge is. I once played Oasis Poker at B&M casino the whole night and when the casino closed a rookie player next to me told me that he about broke even for the evening. I asked him: "What do you think the RTP is of the game we just played", and he replied: "I dunno, about 90% I think". I said to him "Mate, if the RTP was 90% neither of us would have any money left, let alone breaking even". So recreational players often vastly underestimate the RTP of better games. Therefore IMO it's beneficial for the casino to post the information rather than hide it.

BTW, Microgaming recently disabled the optimal play adviser in most of their video poker games. Before, when you played video poker at Microgaming you could enable a function which told you what the optimal cards to hold are, and how much it would cost you in EV to hold different cards. But now they removed this helpful function. It says that, using words of Chris, they don't like you to lose only a little.

 

[TheLastCylon]

To be completely precise, even the Banker bet at zero lounge has 0.03% HE, so the RTP is 99.97%. But my opinion is that if the return is within 0.1% to zero house edge (that is, 99.9% or more) then it's fair to advertise it as such.

Hehe, you just fell into the same trap I fell once. They list the Tie bet paying 9-for-1, not 9-to-1, in other words it pays 8-to-1. I actually once played the Tie bet there, thinking it's a relatively good bet, until after a few hours of playing it, I realized, oh crap... In my defense I was still rookie to gambling then.

Grrrr.

Yeah. I just worked through the page and I'm not as happy with it as I previously was. There's a great deal of confusing language. I never even bothered scrutinizing the left half of the chart. In my defense, it was something like 2am.

Their description of X for X: "If you bet on a position that pays 2 for 1, then this means that when you win, the casino will pay you an amount that is twice your bet, but your initial bet is not returned. For example, if you place 5 chips as a bet and win on a position that pays 2 for 1, then you receive 10 chips from the casino."

That's not very straightforward. I don't feel too bad for having been caught by the language. Galewind's help page literally apologizes for any possible confusion.

"The values for the winning hands that you see displayed in these Pay Tables represent a "Return Amount", not a "Win Amount". The difference between a Return Amount and a Win Amount is that the Return Amount includes your original bet. (Specifically, these Pay Tables show an "X For Y" return, NOT an "X To Y" return.)... We apologize for this potential confusion. It exists because this is the Pay Table system that is in use throughout the industry."

Similarly, since this morning, I've found about a dozen pages with one Google search talking about the distinction and keeping an eye out for it. So if anything, my mess-up further confirms the need for greater transparency, and also better written transparency.

I did notice one thing though, and I feel pretty confident that it's an error. Betfair appears to have reversed the player and banker bet RTP's. The banker is the one with the 98.94% RTP, not the player. It's not a terribly big deal, but it does appear to be an error.

Also, and this is pretty huge, I forgot that Betfair is the casino/sportsbook operation that blew up in grand fashion late last year, getting rogued in the process. So yeah. Betfair has moved back down in my book and I agree with MaxD: avoid them at all costs.

Also, back to Virgin's Casino for a second, the Wizard of Odds has a page on Baccarat. I didn't realize that a one-deck game is pretty common. I've never played one, before. So Virgin's game isn't out of the ordinary.

And @ MaxD: Sorry. I didn't realize that all off-site links are prohibited. Mea culpa.

 

[Nifty29]

@Cylon

Is there any reason you are not addressing my arguments?

I assume your silence indicates you either agree, or can't dispute them (or you're only interested in the those that agree with you).

 

[binary128]

@Jufo,

Yeah, that's what I was trying to address. The perspective - "If you don't already know everything there is to know about this game, then you shouldn't be playing this game." - strikes me as just amazingly harsh. That perspective throws the word "recreational" right out the window.

One is also left to wonder - where is the Player supposed to get this knowledge? DNA?

As to "auto-play" or "auto-hold" in Video Poker - I'm sorry. I will provide the Player with as much help as I can, but I am not going to actually play the game for them. That transforms Video Poker into a Slot. The only difference is in having to make 2 clicks (Deal/Draw) instead of 1 (Spin).

(I would be open to implementing that in our Play for Fun product though, as a teaching aid. We already have this in place for our Pai Gow Poker game - we just never implemented it.)

Besides, something which I have seen in a lot of different places is that these Video Poker "auto-play" systems are not always correct. The Player is advised to double-check the settings with another source of information for optimal strategy to make sure. Now that is crazy.



@TheLastCylon,

The quote you extracted from our Help files is for our Video Poker games. I'm OK with an "X for Y" payout with machine games (Slots, Video Pokers, Keno), because when you drop your bet into the machine it is gone. You need to "pull the handle" to get it back. However, I felt it necessary to provide this explanation - and apology - to people that might be transitioning into Video Poker from Table Poker.

For table games, your bet is right in front of you. It has not gone anywhere. If you have a standard 1 to 1 win on a $5 Player bet in Baccarat, then the Dealer plops a $5 chip down in front of you. Baccarat is not, and should not be described as, an X for Y payout.

A good example is contained with your quoted BetFair description of X for Y:

"If you bet on a position that pays 2 for 1, then this means that when you win, the casino will pay you an amount that is twice your bet, but your initial bet is not returned."

What does that mean, my initial Baccarat bet is not returned? It was never taken. It is sitting right there on the table in front of me.



@jetset,

Just to highlight, thanks for that post. There is nothing better than hard data in the face of conventional wisdom.


Chris

 

[chuchu59]

@Cylon

Is there any reason you are not addressing my arguments?

I assume your silence indicates you either agree, or can't dispute them (or you're only interested in the those that agree with you).

Nifty,

Being silent doesnt mean anything. Instead, it could mean less bickering as both you and Cyclon are rather explosive in nature.

Or maybe Cylon has developed into a cyclone and cyclones are very busy this time of the year.

 

[TheLastCylon]

BTW, Microgaming recently disabled the optimal play adviser in most of their video poker games. Before, when you played video poker at Microgaming you could enable a function which told you what the optimal cards to hold are, and how much it would cost you in EV to hold different cards. But now they removed this helpful function. It says that, using words of Chris, they don't like you to lose only a little.

That may be it. I'm not a card-carrying member of the tin foil hat brigade because I have always assumed, and still assume to a degree, that there is no need to be crooked or futz with the games. I guess having the numbers fundamentally in their favor just isn't enough for some operations. I mean, what do I do with that? Get angry? Shrug?

I'm not sure whether that survey has since been superceded by another, but to me around 40 percent of internet casino players is a powerful and potentially very influential number, even if only 1 percent actively post and most of them just read as is suggested in this thread.

Wow. I went to NTU's website, they have an entire department dedicated to the study of gambling and gambling behavior. This was a pretty heavy duty study. For anyone interested, their website also has links to a lot of their studies on problem gambling behavior, which is associated with online gaming.

In my mind, this study raises the importance of places like Casinomeister significantly. I think it's obvious that people do care about the particulars of online gaming and are interested enough to do some footwork to research it all.

It reminds me of a similar study done in the early 2000's about the automotive industry. They found that a truly massive percentage of people (over 80%) used the still-kinda'-new Internet to research cars before buying them.

A retrospective on this study done a few years later highlighted this as a reason for the sudden and precipitous decline of the American automotive industry, since everyone who researched them found out that American cars were awful, and their loyal fan-base evaporated after only a single generation of cars.

I think that online casino companies should think about that before treating their customers poorly.

 

[jetset]

Interesting.

Is 11,000 really a big enough sample? Where did they find these respondents? Via portals and forums? I think that would be important information.

I would also be interested in what they classify as "used regularly". I know from experience as a user and behind the scenes in gambling forums that the busiest sections by far are the bonus announcements and freebies/contests. The actual discussion and information sections are either almost dead, or just involve the same few people all the time. I would add that CM is not like that, but it is in a very small group of sites that aren't about affiliate links and bonus hunting. If we were to exclude those who visit purely to get freebies etc, I think the percentages would be closer to the 5%.

I guess you believe what you want to believe, Nifty but the numbers don't lie, and btw 11,000 is regarded in research circles as a significant sample - recent surveys on other issues have boasted that a third of that is a significant enough number for research companies to draw conclusions.

I suggest you get the answers to your other questions on this detailed study, which was conducted to professional standards if I recall correctly and was presented in various scientific papers, by researching the research yourself - that's perhaps better than attacking the numbers based on your own gut feel, imo.

 

[jetset]

Nail on the head!
The bottom line is (IMHO) the vast majority of players will just play the games and the casinos they enjoy or feel lucky on, and not play the ones where they don't get that feeling. The don't care much about the exact RTP.

KK

Whilst I agree with you that these rather technical exchanges on RTP are possibly not top of the average players' 'must read' list, I will reiterate what I posted on Nifty's assumptions above - check out the methodology in the Nottingham Trent study for yourself.

 

[Nifty29]

I guess you believe what you want to believe, Nifty but the numbers don't lie, and btw 11,000 is regarded in research circles as a significant sample - recent surveys on other issues have boasted that a third of that is a significant enough number for research companies to draw conclusions.

I suggest you get the answers to your other questions on this detailed study, which was conducted to professional standards if I recall correctly and was presented in various scientific papers, by researching the research yourself - that's perhaps better than attacking the numbers based on your own gut feel, imo.

I wasn't "attacking" the numbers, Jetset. Sometimes numbers DO lie, and there has seldom been a scientific study that hasn't been open to different interpretations.

What this study doesn't seem to consider is the type and content of the gambling forums/sites they say that players visit. As I said, a lot of them are just bonus sites with information only provided to promote the casinos that the owners affiliate with.....whereas sites like CM are quite different.

I questioned (not attacked) the numbers on that basis. I don't know what got up your nose about it....its not like you conducted the study. Unnecessary aggression IMO....something you have pulled me up on in the past.

 

[binary128]

Whilst I agree with you that these rather technical exchanges on RTP are possibly not top of the average players' 'must read' list, I will reiterate what I posted on Nifty's assumptions above - check out the methodology in the Nottingham Trent study for yourself.

Jetset,

I'd have to agree that a lot of the material presented in these "high density" technical discussions of game RTP is probably not of great interest to the "recreational gambler". BUT, in addition to being "high density", and I am totally biased in saying so, I also think that they are high quality.

I am already on record as describing most (Simmo! - note most) online Casino material as "pablum". Either the author doesn't really know anything about the subject, or they have proceeded under the assumption that their audience is a great deal less intelligent than I believe they are. They have "talked down" to that audience so far that they have removed all content of any functional value.

What your referenced study indicates is that a very large number of people (a staggering number really) are at least referring to a variety of online resources. The mere existence of this high quality content increases the probability that they will be exposed to it.

I believe that a large part of this audience is smart enough to eventually separate the "wheat" from the "chafe" (or the steak from the pablum).

And I also believe that even the casual reader does take away something from these quality discussions.

- An awareness of, and eventually an increased knowledge of, this thing called "RTP".

- The fact that different games have different RTPs.

- The fact that different casinos have different RTPs for the same game.

- What it all means in terms of "money into or out of my pocket".

(To refer to the example provided by TheLastCylon, replace "RTP" above with "MPG" and you have the automobile market of the 1980s and on. And we all know what happened there.)

Yes, RTP is not all there is to having an enjoyable Casino session. But it is certainly an important part. And your referenced report indicates that there is the potential for a whole lot of people, a whole lot of people, to be learning from, and making decisions based on, all of this stuff.

Chris

 

[Jasminebed]

I am a recreational gambler. But RTP and T-RTP do interest me. I have to give a big thumbs up to any casino that recommends visiting Wizard of Odds. I was using them to learn to play Video Poker long before I was gambling online.

Slots are my drug of choice, and online offers so much higher RTPs than our land-based casinos here in Ontario. While RTP is not my only consideration in my choice of slots, it is something I want to know whenever I can.

Regarding slot ranges, it possible some may have a range if you include playing less than max lines. RTG real series slots have a max payout based on line bet, and for games where a very high number of freespins can occur (Rain Dance for example), with retrigs possible, the maximum payout is paid out fairly frequently. The other ones I can think of are ones like Count Chocula and Realm of Riches which can have a lot of expanded wilds.

I don't play IGT online as it's restricted for my country, but I do know that if you read the help file for Cleopatra at my land-based casinos, you will find there is a maximum number of freespins that can be awarded. While I have never seen anyone reach it myself, it is theorhetically possible. I've seen similar on other games as well.

MG offers classic slots like the Wheel of Wealth games that only give the bonus wheel with max coins bet, and slots like Sonic Boom or Couch Potato that offer higher jackpots with max coins bet.

 

[dionysus]

I don't play IGT online as it's restricted for my country, but I do know that if you read the help file for Cleopatra at my land-based casinos, you will find there is a maximum number of freespins that can be awarded. While I have never seen anyone reach it myself, it is theorhetically possible. I've seen similar on other games as well.

lol jas, I don't know why, but we can play the IGT Cleopatra at BetVictor

 

[Jasminebed]

lol jas, I don't know why, but we can play the IGT Cleopatra at BetVictor

That's very interesting. I wish you hadn't told me, I don't have enough money to play all the casinos I already enjoy.

 

[dionysus]

LOL, I play it landbased and seen many JPs go as it's quite popular so I was stoked when I found we can play it there,and oddly,nowhere else.

 

[binary128]

When you lump it all together, it was a pretty rigorous and comprehensive process to become an AGCC Core Service Provider. And we're not there yet - we have not received any final approval notice from the AGCC, so we may yet be turned down for some reason or another. (Our current deployment is AGCC-approved - Galewind Software as an independent company is not.)

@P.V.

A loose end snipped - we just received our AGCC certification.

Chris

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Congrats Chris .

 

[TheLastCylon]

Slots are my drug of choice, and online offers so much higher RTPs than our land-based casinos here in Ontario.

Same for Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in New England. They both have an average T-RTP of something obscene, like 91%. Las Vegas is pretty good, though. Casinos there have T-RTP's in the 96-97% range. I'd imagine that the difference is because of the strength of competition in Vegas. Which actually illustrates the importance of having all casinos release their T-RTP's online, because then free market forces will force casinos to compete with higher T-RTP's. They might not want that, but I do.


The big point that I want to finish the thread with is the, very important I think, one about Virgin. In fact, looking over my initial post, I think that the IGT/Virgin issue is the key issue and I don't feel I sufficiently focused on it. While I agree with Jufo, at least regarding baccarat, Virgin's case, and truly the case of any casino with a similar issue, is different.

Virgin lists the highest T-RTP for all of their slots, but they also list the highest T-RTP for their baccarat, which we know full well is only a partial truth. I have significant doubts as to whether Virgin is actually setting their machines at those higher T-RTP's because of this. If they so happily list only the highest T-RTP for one game, it seems likely that they are doing it with others.

And while I'm picking on Virgin here, as I said, this problem applies to any casino that is using IGT and posts the highest T-RTP's from IGT's ranges (casinos that post IGT's ranges straight from the PDF documents are a wholly different problem). This has bearing on the need for verified, third party analysis of game results, and also just on IGT needing to provide a greater degree of top-down control and order to their clients.

The baccarat irregularity is annoying at other casinos, but at casinos like Virgin, it's a significant knock against them.