Any RTP news/surprises revealed by UK disclosure requirements?

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
Has there been any interesting disclosures of the RTPs of games now that UK licenced firms are required to publish the RTP?

Any higher/lower than previously thought? Any where the same brand of game has different RTPs at different sites or has this requirement either not been implemented yet or just not led to new information for players that was not available before?
 
I just checked a couple of download casinos.

Neither were disclosing the RTP of the slot games anywhere that I could see. Sigh.
 
I just checked a couple of download casinos.

Neither were disclosing the RTP of the slot games anywhere that I could see. Sigh.

Well they should be telling us the RTP.

RTS 3 – Rules, game descriptions and the likelihood of winning
Gaming (including bingo), lotteries and betting on virtual events
RTS aim 3
To enable customers to make informed decisions about whether to gamble based on their chances of winning, the way the game, lottery or event works, the prizes or payouts on offer and the current state of multi-state games or events.
RTS requirement 3A
An explanation of the applicable rules must be easily available to the customer before they commit to gamble. The content including artwork and text must be accurate, and sufficient to explain all of the applicable rules and how to participate. All reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the content is understandable.
RTS implementation guidance 3A
a. Explanatory content includes information in artwork and text displayed within the virtual event, in ‘help’ or ‘how to play’ pages, or other supporting material.
b. Links to the information should be prominently placed, for example on home pages for gaming sections, game selection pages or menus, or within individual games, so that customers can easily locate them.
c. As a minimum, restricted display devices should provide explanatory content via a menu item or other link.
d. The following items provide guidelines on the type of explanatory content that may be relevant and should be considered for inclusion:
i. the name of the game, lottery or virtual event
ii. the applicable rules, including clear descriptions of what constitutes a winning outcome
iii. restrictions on play or betting, such as any play duration limits, maximum wins, etc
iv. the number of decks or frequency of shuffles in virtual card games
v. whether there are contributions to jackpots (progressives) and the way in which the jackpot operates, for example, whether the jackpot is won by achieving a particular outcome
vi. instructions on how to interact with the game
vii. rules pertaining to metamorphosis of games, for example, the number and type of tokens that need to be collected in order to qualify for a feature or bonus round and the rules and behaviour of the bonus round
viii. the rules for entering a single lottery draw or a series of lottery draws and the frequency of the draws.
RTS requirement 3B
Where relevant, as the game or event progresses, information that may reasonably be expected to enable the customer to understand the current state must be displayed.
RTS implementation guidance 3B
The following items provide guidelines on the type of information that may be relevant.
a. Where a game builds up a collection of tokens (symbols etc), the current number collected.
b. An indication of which rules are currently relevant, such as displaying ‘bonus round’ or other feature labels.
c. This requirement does not apply to lotteries.
RTS requirement 3C
For each virtual event, game (including bingo), or lottery, information that may reasonably be expected to enable the customer to make an informed decision about his or her chances of winning must be easily available before the customer commits to gamble. Information must include:
i. a description of the way the game works and the way in which winners are determined and prizes allocated;
ii. house edge (or margin);
iii. the return to player (RTP) percentage; or
iv. the probability (likelihood) of winning events occurring.

RTS implementation guidance 3C
a. The following items provide further guidance on acceptable types of information about the likelihood of winning:
i. for types of peer-to-peer games where the likelihood of winning may depend on skill and/or the actions of other participants, a description of the way the game works and how winners are determined will be sufficient;
ii. for bingo, and some types of lottery or other games where it is not possible to determine the likelihood of winning because it depends on the eventual number of participants, a description of the way in which prizes are allocated will be sufficient.
iii. the average theoretical return to player percentage. Where an event (other than peer-to-peer) involves an element of skill, return to player percentage should be calculated using either the auto-play strategy or a standard/published strategy;
iv. the house edge, margin or over-round, for example for a virtual race;
v. the probability of each winning event occurring, or such information as may reasonably be expected to allow the customer to calculate the probability that the event will occur. The nature of some games may mean that the game itself provides sufficient information, for example, the likelihood of rolling a six on a six-sided die would not require further explanation.
 
Here are the RTPs of quite a few games at Videoslots - which include a number of MGS games if anyone is interested.
Outdated URL (Invalid)

I've never understood the obsession with RTPs - the house is going to win in the long run. And you're going to have to play quite a few hands before you're going to get an accurate RTP anyway :D
 
Well they should be telling us the RTP.

Yep, but they are not, and imo this is one of the best things about the new UK laws for the players.

However frankly every casino that didn't do this before getting a UK licence seems to be blatantly ignoring this rule now.

I have checked a download MG and a download Playtech both at highly reputable accredited casinos, both are ignoring this new rule.
 
Here are the RTPs of quite a few games at Videoslots - which include a number of MGS games if anyone is interested.
Outdated URL (Invalid)

I've never understood the obsession with RTPs - the house is going to win in the long run. And you're going to have to play quite a few hands before you're going to get an accurate RTP anyway :D

I half agree. RTP is less important than knowing if and when the RTP changes or what the optimal play is (or at least principles to work it out) and if that optimal play changes.

It is a principle thing in terms of openness for me.
 
Yep, but they are not, and imo this is one of the best things about the new UK laws for the players.

However frankly every casino that didn't do this before getting a UK licence seems to be blatantly ignoring this rule now.

I have checked a download MG and a download Playtech both at highly reputable accredited casinos, both are ignoring this new rule.

I'm thinking of writing in to the UKGC about this.

What are the biggest games from each of the main software suppliers that are failing to meet the standard? Say 4 big games across4 big sites from diferent software suppliers. I'd want the complaint to be specific but cover each of the big newly licenced B2Bs with a specific examle that we are sure is non compliant. I'm more a poker and BJ guy so less familiar with the slot world and how to pick the biggest games that cover the major providers best.
 
Here are the RTPs of quite a few games at Videoslots - which include a number of MGS games if anyone is interested.
Outdated URL (Invalid)

I've never understood the obsession with RTPs - the house is going to win in the long run. And you're going to have to play quite a few hands before you're going to get an accurate RTP anyway :D

It's about transparency, rather than knowing the RTP itself. When it was revealed that RTG slots could have one of three settings, it dented trust in the industry's fairness that a game was "set in stone" once released. Much like price comparison websites here in the UK, competition is enhanced by forcing full disclosure of prices. The TRTP of a game is a measure of the cost per spin at a given stake. Whilst the house wins in the end, the cost per spin is a measure of how much entertainment one gets per unit price.

A further benefit is that the requirement to list TRTP is a strong deterrent to the practice of lowering RTP in order to mislead players into thinking that a promotion at Casino A is better value than one at casino B. Whilst many players don't really care, a few will dig deep and look for variations. If there is nothing to hide, nothing untoward will be found no matter how much digging is done. If it turns out that the games from one specific supplier list the same RTP across the board, it will increase trust in that brand. MGS games are of particular interest as the RTP is supposed to be set in stone, and whenever someone claims that a particular MGS casino has lowered it's RTP, they are told that it's impossible for any operator to access the server to effect such a change.

Some casinos have already begun listing TRTP of their games, including MGS, and so far it seems that MGS are delivering on what was promised, a fair game at 95% or more RTP, and no variation between operators. Of more interest would be Playtech, supposedly also set in stone like MGS, but with one hell of a lot of shady operators with Playtech turning a blind eye to scams far worse than tweaking the RTP of some games.

Given that some MGS and Playtech casinos are staying in the UK, it can only be a matter of time before authoritative TRTP data emerges about all their games. Hopefully, nothing unsavoury will be found, and players will have a greater understanding of how variance, rather than RTP, is the key driver of good and bad sessions.
 
It seeks no one has figures of RTP for MGS slots?

I was just surfing google to see if there was any new info on RTP's, and this came up from Nedplay

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


I tried to find how to get to this link from the Nedplay and 32red websites but could find nothing. I assume it might be 'historical' as it does not have a figure for Jurassic Park.

What it does show is an RTP for all games. As the figures for casino and video poker games are 'actual' long term RTP figures, I assume the slot figures must be as well ?
 
It seeks no one has figures of RTP for MGS slots?

I was just surfing google to see if there was any new info on RTP's, and this came up from Nedplay

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


I tried to find how to get to this link from the Nedplay and 32red websites but could find nothing. I assume it might be 'historical' as it does not have a figure for Jurassic Park.

What it does show is an RTP for all games. As the figures for casino and video poker games are 'actual' long term RTP figures, I assume the slot figures must be as well ?


I had a tip off from on high. It's available as per regulations, but it's not published where you think it would be.;)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


It may well be published in a similar manner at other casinos, so try looking under it's "responsible gaming" pages.

These 32Red figures would of course apply to Microgaming in general, and are probably sourced from Microgaming as these figures would need to be accurate so as to not fall foul of the UK rules.

They are NOT what you will necessarily experience though, as this is TRTP. Much of what the player experiences in good and bad sessions is the variance, which on some games can be very high. A high variance game could still give a player an actual RTP well below the TRTP, even through prolonged play over several sessions. It's the rare big wins that contain the "missing" RTP, and if you don't hit any your actual RTP will be lower.

Next step is to look for the figures for Playtech, as if Microgaming have caved and published the figures now that they have been forced to, it's the turn of Playtech to publish on it's UK facing sites. William Hill is an obvious candidate.
 
I had a tip off from on high. It's available as per regulations, but it's not published where you think it would be.;)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


It may well be published in a similar manner at other casinos, so try looking under it's "responsible gaming" pages.

These 32Red figures would of course apply to Microgaming in general, and are probably sourced from Microgaming as these figures would need to be accurate so as to not fall foul of the UK rules.

They are NOT what you will necessarily experience though, as this is TRTP. Much of what the player experiences in good and bad sessions is the variance, which on some games can be very high. A high variance game could still give a player an actual RTP well below the TRTP, even through prolonged play over several sessions. It's the rare big wins that contain the "missing" RTP, and if you don't hit any your actual RTP will be lower.

Next step is to look for the figures for Playtech, as if Microgaming have caved and published the figures now that they have been forced to, it's the turn of Playtech to publish on it's UK facing sites. William Hill is an obvious candidate.

I'm curious to know how they came up with 99.89 % for BlackJack. BlackJack has a .28% house edge if played perfectly and black jacks paying 3-2. That's about the best I've ever seen anyway.
 
I'm curious to know how they came up with 99.89 % for BlackJack. BlackJack has a .28% house edge if played perfectly and black jacks paying 3-2. That's about the best I've ever seen anyway.

Good point. Unlike the slots, the Microgaming Blackjack RTP can be calculated from the set of rules and number of decks. This was done years ago and is published on the Wizard of Odds website. Either Microgaming got it wrong, or Michael Shackleford did.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


I would tend to believe the figures from Microgaming are adrift, or that the rules for the game are not as stated and used by Michael Shackleford.

99.89% is actually BETTER than the TRTP calculated by Michael Shackleford, and if true, it's no wonder so many Microgaming casinos fell victim in the past from offering bonuses with Blackjack allowed.

Maybe this is the first of our surprises upon seeing the "official figures" from Microgaming.
 
the one that caught my attention the most from that list was the The Dark Knight 88.06%,

I was expecting the rtp to be fairly bad since you are funding the jackpot through the missing rtp (i.e similar slots but with no jackpot would be at 95-96%), but was a little surprised its that bad,

thankfully i tend to avoid all jackpot slots anyway because of the above reasons, but seeing the figures ouch,
 
the one that caught my attention the most from that list was the The Dark Knight 88.06%,

I was expecting the rtp to be fairly bad since you are funding the jackpot through the missing rtp (i.e similar slots but with no jackpot would be at 95-96%), but was a little surprised its that bad,

thankfully i tend to avoid all jackpot slots anyway because of the above reasons, but seeing the figures ouch,

This could be misleading as TRTP really SHOULD include the progressive payouts as well. The 88.06% looks like the figure for the base game only. Given that these figures are a regulatory matter, rather than mere "marketing", they need to be calculated to a given set of rules set by the UKGC. It's possible that the UKGC have decided that the base game TRTP should be given, rather than the full TRTP to include the deductions for the progressive. It makes sense if you think of it as a responsible gambling measure as most players will only ever see the RTP from the base game, only the lucky few will see one of the top two progressives that will boost their own personal RTP much higher.

Having made the ruling, it's a chance to see whether the figures presented are properly understood by players, and presented in a consistent manner across the whole UK facing industry.
 
I'm curious to know how they came up with 99.89 % for BlackJack. BlackJack has a .28% house edge if played perfectly and black jacks paying 3-2. That's about the best I've ever seen anyway.

There is no game actually just titled "Blackjack" at an MG casino is there?

Classic Blackjack which is what I play is listed correctly...

Classic Blackjack 99.91%
 
I had a tip off from on high. It's available as per regulations, but it's not published where you think it would be.;)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


It may well be published in a similar manner at other casinos, so try looking under it's "responsible gaming" pages.

These 32Red figures would of course apply to Microgaming in general, and are probably sourced from Microgaming as these figures would need to be accurate so as to not fall foul of the UK rules.

They are NOT what you will necessarily experience though, as this is TRTP. Much of what the player experiences in good and bad sessions is the variance, which on some games can be very high. A high variance game could still give a player an actual RTP well below the TRTP, even through prolonged play over several sessions. It's the rare big wins that contain the "missing" RTP, and if you don't hit any your actual RTP will be lower.

Next step is to look for the figures for Playtech, as if Microgaming have caved and published the figures now that they have been forced to, it's the turn of Playtech to publish on it's UK facing sites. William Hill is an obvious candidate.

Interesting :thumbsup:
 
Really surprised by the low RTP on Mega Moolah, TDK etc - 88% (as previously mentioned)

Immortal Romance much better at 96.8%, although many sessions I end up in the 25-27% range :oops:
 
Interesting :thumbsup:

It is interesting...has anyone got any news from Playtech?

I am about to contact the UKGC about this, I really don't like the list approach, it should be in game and much easier to find, it would also be useful if they offered an explanation of RTP and how they get these figures.

IMHO even this list approach is non compliant, or should be non compliant. Yesterday sites got some guidance about clarifying their player fund protection levels with a rather strange deadline of 31 Dec for them to sort it (the rules have been live since May!) Old / Expired Link

This is the relevant rule, from the Remote Technical Standard document - NB the requirement is binding, the guidance not, it is guidance not the rule.

RTS requirement 3C
For each virtual event, game (including bingo), or lottery, information that may reasonably be expected to enable the customer to make an informed decision about his or her chances of winning must be easily available before the customer commits to gamble. Information must include:

i. a description of the way the game works and the way in which winners are determined and prizes allocated;
ii. house edge (or margin);
iii. the return to player (RTP) percentage; or
iv. the probability (likelihood) of winning events occurring.

RTS implementation guidance 3C
a. The following items provide further guidance on acceptable types of information about the likelihood of winning:
i. for types of peer-to-peer games where the likelihood of winning may depend on skill and/or the actions of other participants, a description of the way the game works and how winners are determined will be sufficient;
ii. for bingo, and some types of lottery or other games where it is not possible to determine the likelihood of winning because it depends on the eventual number of participants, a description of the way in which prizes are allocated will be sufficient.
iii. the average theoretical return to player percentage. Where an event (other than peer-to-peer) involves an element of skill, return to player percentage should be calculated using either the auto-play strategy or a standard/published strategy;
iv. the house edge, margin or over-round, for example for a virtual race;
v. the probability of each winning event occurring, or such information as may reasonably be expected to allow the customer to calculate the probability that the event will occur. The nature of some games may mean that the game itself provides sufficient information, for example, the likelihood of rolling a six on a six-sided die would not require further explanation.
b. Information may be included in artwork and text displayed within the virtual game or event, in ‘help’ or ‘how to play’ pages, or other supporting material.
c. Information should be easily accessible, for example by placing links on home pages for gaming or virtual event sections, game selection pages or menus, or within individual games.

It seems that many are still not publishing at all and that others are doing what can only be a bare minimum - IMHO buried in "Responsible Gambling" fails to meet the rules. If I use 32Red as an example for MGS in my letter who should I use for Playtech? Which other site should I highlight to the UKGC as non compliant?

The truly obsessive may be interested in these clearer/tougher requirements in the technical standards document for B2 machines (this covers bookie machines that have two modes a B3 max £2 stake £500 prize and B2 with £100 max stake £500 max prize)

8.1 Information to be displayed
A gaming machine or relevant device shall display, on the machine itself or on screen, information
to enable players to keep track of their gambling. As a minimum, the following information must
be available to the player at all times the machine is available for play:
a. the player’s current bank balance (where relevant);
b. number of plays available or current credit balance (monetary value);
c. the current stake;
d. all possible winning outcomes, or a link to where this information may be viewed e.g. on a
help menu;
e. win amounts or odds given for each possible winning outcome, or a link to where this
information may be viewed for example on a help menu. The win amount may be
displayed as a multiple of the bet or may be shown indirectly by describing the method by
which wins are awarded;
f. the amount won for the last completed game; and
g. the player options selected (e.g. total stake, lines played) for the last completed game
(until the next game starts or a new selection is made).

Mystery wins are permissible provided it is transparent to the play as to how such a prize may be
achieved.

It is not permissible to state or imply that a prize greater than the statutory maximum for a single
game may be won by means of the machine nor to indicate that the machine is in a state which
could be beneficial to the player (such as by way of a Cash Full Lamp).

8.2 Multi-line games
a. Each individual line to be played shall be clearly indicated by the gaming machine or
device so that the player is in no doubt as to which lines are being staked upon.
b. The winning play line(s) shall be clearly discernable to the player. (e.g., on a video game it
may be accomplished by drawing a line over the symbols on the play line(s) and/or the
flashing of winning symbols and line selection box. Where there are wins on multiple lines,
each winning play line may be indicated in turn. This would not apply to reel based
games).

8.3 Display notice requirements
a. If any display in respect of a game offered by a gaming machine (including reels) is
capable of being taken to indicate odds which do not reflect the true odds in the game the
following statement must be included on the face of the machine or at the time the game is
selected where more than one game is offered to the player, clearly visible to the player:
THE OUTCOME OF ANY GAME OR FEATURE IS NOT NECESSARILY THAT
SHOWN BY THE ODDS DISPLAYED
b. The following statement must be displayed on the face of the machine or at the time the
game is selected where more than one game is offered to the player, clearly visible to the
player:
NO PRIZE GREATER IN VALUE THAN [JACKPOT] POUNDS CAN BE
WON FROM THIS MACHINE IN ANY ONE GAME
19
c. The theoretical target percentage return to player (for betting products this equates to 1
less the calculated hold) must be clearly displayed to the player on the machine in the
appropriate alternative format below:
i) in cases in which the percentage return to player does not depend upon the
strategy used by the player
THIS MACHINE HAS AN AVERAGE PERCENTAGE PAYOUT OF AT LEAST (VALUE) %
Where there is a range (a lower and upper percentage return to player available within the
same game) it must be the lower value that is displayed.
ii) in cases in which the percentage return to player can vary depending upon the strategy
used by the player
THE RETURN TO PLAYER BASED ON BEST STRATEGY IS (VALUE) %
In either case the percentage return to player should be calculated in the following
manner:
Percentage return to player equals the value of total wins awarded divided by total value of
play shown as a percentage
 
The simplest method would be to display the RTP on the "machine" itself, so that it's immediately visible to the player when they open the game. This is pretty much how it works offline. An explanation of how the figure is arrived at, and the probability of making a winning spin (which is related to the variance), could be displayed by the player hovering the mouse pointer over the RTP figure. This is no different to how the "rules" tab on a table game works, it expands to show the rules if the mouse is hovered over it.

The list is still useful though, as it allows an interested player to quickly get a list of the RTP of all games offered without having to open each one.

This should make it easy to spot casinos that run "different versions" of well known games, especially versions with a lower RTP. It may even wipe out the facility to adjust RTP on an operator by operator basis as UK players will "blow the whistle" on any software that allows it, and even in the rest of the world where the RTP can still be kept secret, players will know whether or not operators can drop the RTP to inflate profits whilst pretending nothing has changed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top