Accredit Betvoyager Already.

[spiderman]

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

 

[Nifty29]

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

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

 

[Marie2473]

isn´t it up to them to "apply"??

 

[maxd]

isn´t it up to them to "apply"??

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

 

[Glunn11]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GrandMaster]

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

Well, you are mistaken.

 

[Glunn11]

Well, you are mistaken.

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

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

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

Thanks

 

[Jufo]

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

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

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

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

 

[Glunn11]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jufo]

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

 

[Jufo]

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

I just ran a basic simulation on no-edge roulette. $100 deposit, $5 at a time, 20x playthrough, and ended up with a mean final value of $96.1097. The per-spin edge on that is pretty damn close to 0.

Did you already incorporate the withdrawal and commission to the simulation? With zero house edge the mean after wagering any amount would be $100 (but of course it varies from one simulation to next).

You could try simulating something like this: Deposit $100 and make spins on no-zero roulette (you can choose what to bet on). Withdraw the whole balance if you reach $400 balance, and thus you pay $30 commission from net winnings. Divide this $30 commission across total amount wagered so far.
This simulation would give an rough estimate of the house edge for this particular betting strategy.

 

[jelsmith]

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

Because like Max said they would have responsibility to adhere to the accreditation policies. Bryan doesnt approve casinos whilly nilly.

 

[Nifty29]

Who is Whilly Nilly?

Did he delete his post or something?

I must have missed it ...unless jel is talking to her invisible friends again ...

 

[Glunn11]

Did you already incorporate the withdrawal and commission to the simulation? With zero house edge the mean after wagering any amount would be $100 (but of course it varies from one simulation to next).

You could try simulating something like this: Deposit $100 and make spins on no-zero roulette (you can choose what to bet on). Withdraw the whole balance if you reach $400 balance, and thus you pay $30 commission from net winnings. Divide this $30 commission across total amount wagered so far.
This simulation would give an rough estimate of the house edge for this particular betting strategy.

Yes, I neglected to mention that I did include the commission on that [the figure for final value was starting value + (end value - starting value) * .9]. I am using the Mersenne Twister RNG and have gotten pretty accurate figures on other casino games, so I'm not too worried about it being too off in that regard.

Running that simulation, I got an average amount wagered per cycle of $2993.85. Wins occurred 1/4 of the time, so the RNG appears to be in order.

-30 / 2993.85 = -0.0100205421

You'd divide this by 4 though, right, since commission is only taken out 1/4 of the time? My program's Expected Value per Cycle and the return formula:

(1/4) * 270 + (3/4) * -100 = -7.5
seem to agree with that notion.

-7.5 / 2993.85 = -0.00250513553

This was done with $10 bets. $25 bets have an average total wagered of around $1200, and $50 bets have an average total wagered of about $600. I can't seem to figure out what exactly that means. Regardless of the bet size, though, the EV per cycle (according to the program) always stays at -$7.50, and the odds of winning stay at 25%.
-----------------------------------------------
To add to the OP, I don't have any experience with BetVoyager, but I think the casino needs to demonstrate that it's interested in dealing with player issues through this forum directly before it should be accredited. I think its transparent approach to online gaming should be commended, but they need to make the effort to reach out to the players first imo.

 

[jelsmith]

Who is Whilly Nilly?

Did he delete his post or something?

I must have missed it ...unless jel is talking to her invisible friends again ...

oh Nifty that was a reference to where GDAY resides

 

[Jufo]

Yes, I neglected to mention that I did include the commission on that [the figure for final value was starting value + (end value - starting value) * .9]. I am using the Mersenne Twister RNG and have gotten pretty accurate figures on other casino games, so I'm not too worried about it being too off in that regard.

Running that simulation, I got an average amount wagered per cycle of $2993.85. Wins occurred 1/4 of the time, so the RNG appears to be in order.

-30 / 2993.85 = -0.0100205421

You'd divide this by 4 though, right, since commission is only taken out 1/4 of the time? My program's Expected Value per Cycle and the return formula:

(1/4) * 270 + (3/4) * -100 = -7.5
seem to agree with that notion.

-7.5 / 2993.85 = -0.00250513553

This was done with $10 bets. $25 bets have an average total wagered of around $1200, and $50 bets have an average total wagered of about $600. I can't seem to figure out what exactly that means. Regardless of the bet size, though, the EV per cycle (according to the program) always stays at -$7.50, and the odds of winning stay at 25%.

Yes I agree with your maths above and those calculations backed up the point I was trying to make with 10% commission being more favourable to the player in the long term than a constant house edge. The chances to make $100 -> $400 in roulette against 2.70% house edge would be considerable less than 25% over a sequence of bets.

Larger bets (in your simulation $25 and $50) have less average wagering because you either bust or quadruble bankroll much faster. This, of course, increases house edge as you pay same amount of commission for less wagered but your chances to quadruble are still always 25% independent of bet size.

Another benefit of the Betvoyager system is that you always know the 'price' or 'rake' of your gambling activity. Like you calculated the EV is always -$7.50 in this example, so this is the fixed price you pay for the action and for the chance to win a predefined amount. With regular casino games that carry house edge the price of gambling goes up the more you play (as you accumulates more and more house edge) which penalizes you the longer your play. This is the main reason why the system used at Betvoyager is more beneficial for regular gamblers I think.

 

[Glunn11]

Thanks Jufo! That's really handy stuff to know.

Also, I'd genuinely like to commend these guys on their Terms and Conditions page. You know how many terms there are? Eight. There are eight terms. Not eight pages like other casinos.

 

[TopAff]

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

I would never play there.. I think you are working for them. This casino should not be advertised by CM.

 

[Diane]

I would never play there.. I think you are working for them. This casino should not be advertised by CM.

I would go back to Max's statement that this is up to Bryan, Bryan's standards and how he decides the process should work.

We trust his accreditation process that has served us well. It's not for us to say unless he asks for our opinions. Which I really don't expect him to do.

If I ran across a site that I felt was worth of being accredited by him, I would send Bryan a PM and let him know my opinion. It's not a popularity contest, its a matter of if they fit the profile and expectations established by CM to be on the accredited list. Objective not subjective.

IMO

Diane

 

[maxd]

If they simply deserve to be accredited as such I don't see why they would need to contact CM first?

As has been mentioned, see my previous post:

There are a number of expectations and responsibilities for Accred casinos so they have to be interested and willing to go that extra distance.

It's not just a matter of "thumbs up, great casino!" They need to agree to adhere to the Accred guidelines, they need to assign a rep and agree to respond in a timely fashion to issues, etc etc.

In other words it's a relationship not a rubber stamp. There are lots of fine casinos out there but not all of them are looking to enter into that kind of ongoing commitment. If they are they know where to find us.

It's not a popularity contest, its a matter of if they fit the profile and expectations established by CM to be on the accredited list.

True, but it's important to remember the ongoing commitment and responsibilities part of it. Many casinos aren't ready for that kind of close relationship, they often prefer to go it alone. And if that's working for them then who's to say otherwise.

 

[Nifty29]

I would never play there.. I think you are working for them. This casino should not be advertised by CM.

Do you have facts to support that statement?

I don't think it's fair to fire off a shot at the OP and the casino without any explanation at all.

 

[petro]

Casinomeister is a well known forum across the internet.
I think if Betvoyager wanted to be accredited they would have been a long time ago.

Can safely assume that they are not interested.

 

[SlotMonster]

Well, BetVoyager always been "out of standards"
They do not offer Welcome bonuses, except of 10 euro for poker, BUT they have unique games and promotions (like 7.3% daily interest). And they have RANDOMNESS CONTROL. I truly believe that only for this feature it should be accredited here.

 

[spiderman]

I would never play there.. I think you are working for them. This casino should not be advertised by CM.

That's funny.

 

[spiderman]

I'll ask them. I don't see no reason to take the time to contact you guys or any other accreditation sites. I think all casinos should follow suit and implement the Checksum random generator control, this should be universal standard! Just imagine how many cheating (RTG, Playtech, etc.,) RNG's would either close shop or conform. It would be a good "house" cleaning that's for sure!!!