TheLastCylon
Banned User - violation of rule 1.19
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
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
Galewind
3Dice
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
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.
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
- Banker: 98.94%
- Player: 98.76%
- Tie: 95.16%
Galewind
- 6 decks
- 4% Commission
- Tie pays 9-to-1
- Banker: 99.40%
- Player: 98.76%
- Tie: 95.07%
3Dice
- 8 decks
- 5% commission
- Tie pays 9-to-1
- 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
- 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.