Cumulative WR versus zeroing out - pros and cons (rep friendly)

[binary128]

And here I was, concerned with Players understanding the help file equation for RTP = ((B +/- R) / B) * 100.

I think that you'd want to hide that equation, expose that "little meter", and only give them the details on request.

There's something to be said for the "no brainer 0.3% want-it-or-not" rebate, but it doesn't provide any "target" or any "build 'em up" comp points, or anything like that. So, even though it is a "no brainer" for all parties, it doesn't accomplish your objective.

Chris

 

[clees42]

Additionally, because the site's in Bitcoin, deposits and withdrawals tend to be a lot more frequent than on other sites. Players cash out as a way of managing their bankroll. Often times it will take 1-2 hours for the withdrawal to be approved, and in that time they'll deposit again and lose that deposit, then try to claim a cashback on the loss while the other withdrawal's still pending. What this means is that my code would have to spider through the player's entire transaction history and try to figure out which withdrawals matched which deposits. And most of the time, it's not a 1 to 1 relationship.

In that case maybe it should be considered if cashback could be implemented so that player is eligible if he still has balance left and has pending withdraws.

in case of your simplified cashback:
lets say i deposit 1000 euro, win 10000 euro and withdraw 10000.
I then deposit 1000 and lose with 10000 playtrough. I get 100 cashback.

This case would be equivalent to this:
I deposit 1000 euro and win 10000. 10000 is marked as my highest point and my playtrough is resetted(playtrough is counted from the point when bankroll was highest)
I then continue playing and my bankroll drops to 9000 and ive made 10000 playtrough since i was at the highest point of bankroll.
By pushing claim cashback button in cashier i am rewarded 100 cashback, 9100 euro is marked as the highest point and playtrough is zeroed.

Continuing from the previous case i could withdraw 8000 euro and the highest balance would again be resetted to my current balance of 1000 euro and playtrough zeroed. I then proceed to lose the last 1000 euro with 5000 playtrough and i am rewarded 5% cashback of 50 euro.

I think your system would also prevent people who already have a history of being net winners in the casino from ever claiming a cashback, if I understand it correctly...? And I'm not sure I want to do that.

In most cases player would keep reasonable cashback even if he was net winner(in case of weighted system). The biggest defining factor would be how many % of deposits are winning deposits, and not the actual win amounts.

In your first example, it's true, in the system where withdrawing clears the history, the player would forfeit the cashback just by withdrawing anything. But this is OK because I really only want the cashback to be if the player zeroes out the initial deposit without a withdrawal.

Pending withdraws, people redepositing before they hit 0, etc. might result in some pople being netlosers and never get cashback.

 

[jstrike]

I think the thing is - I really don't want any cashbacks to happen unless the account is zeroed out by losing the whole deposit. Otherwise one-day losses on large accounts will just keep claiming cashbacks every time they go down in a session, and it becomes more like a rake-back, and at this point my RTP is too high and the margin is too low to do that in all cases. Even if the playthrough is modified to be lower after they claim it, it's not really my intent to keep adding money to accounts that have money in them. I want to give people some extra play time in case they lose the whole deposit, but I don't really want to give a continuous rake-back all the time...

 

[clees42]

I think the thing is - I really don't want any cashbacks to happen unless the account is zeroed out by losing the whole deposit. Otherwise one-day losses on large accounts will just keep claiming cashbacks every time they go down in a session, and it becomes more like a rake-back, and at this point my RTP is too high and the margin is too low to do that in all cases. Even if the playthrough is modified to be lower after they claim it, it's not really my intent to keep adding money to accounts that have money in them. I want to give people some extra play time in case they lose the whole deposit, but I don't really want to give a continuous rake-back all the time...

I can understand what you are saying.
But however i think that you should not dismiss the rakeback type of system so easily.
lets say that you are running machine with rtp 99% and you have x number of active player wagering y amount everyday average.
You would be looking at 0,01*x*y profits in 1 day.

Lets say you would give out 0,5% rakeback to all players, which would result in rtp 99,5.
Now it would be jumping in to conclusions to assume that your profits would drop to 0,005*x*y in a day.
I am pretty sure that 99,5 rtp would be very enticing and invite many new players and even the old players might be inclined to make more deposits.
The result could be for example 2x players wagering 1,5 y amount each day average.
In this case the profits would be 0,005*2x*1,5y=0,015*x*y, which is 1,5 times the previous amount.

 

[jstrike]

That's definitely possible... I mean maybe it would be worth it for the increased traffic and player returns...

I have to think about it. I'm not in a market where having the absolute most razor-sharp RTP is a make or break question, and that's partly because I'm running my own software so there's no other operator where people can play certain games, especially for Bitcoins. And also in light of the other freebies like deposit bonuses and freerolls that already push up the RTP... as it is right now I've been running games for over a year that have more than 100% RTP, and this is another reason I'm barely breaking even. But surprisingly the biggest players -- and I mean, to my place, anyone who bets more than $200 in a night is a "whale" -- don't seem to really care about having an extra point or two against the house. I don't know if this is just my experience or if other casino reps would agree, but for example, while there are some games that have averaged 103% RTP since opening, hardly anybody plays them. The most popular game is Blackjack, and the second most popular game is still Roulette, and my site only has American Roulette because I need the extra edge because we're small. The third most popular is Jacks or Better, and I only offer 6-9. Both of those are slated for upgrades to higher RTP once there's more money in Bitcoin and more traffic to even out the swings. But ironically, even though I spend time making videos trying to show people how to play the original higher-RTP games, the most active players seem happier just playing good old lower-RTP ones.

I'm not saying I don't want to raise the RTP overall to attract more players, but I've noticed I get myself in the most trouble when I start giving players gifts they aren't asking for. Right now there's still an expectation of a certain 10% cashback that I've been offering, only on zeroing out, so I'm looking for a way to make that more attractive to more loyal players, and less attractive to less loyal ones...regardless of whether they win or lose overall. I guess that's really the heart of it...