A Call For Greater Accuracy in RTP's

[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.