Question How relevant is an RTP?

[skiny]

No...it's not guaranteed, but it is...as Jufo pointed out.... extremely rare. You can even tell excactly HOW rare, if you have all the data, and provided the data is accurate (Which I suspect is not the case here, to be honest). Let's do the gravity again....it COULD happen, if you do decide to jump off a cliff to prove your point, that a really strong wind will catch you, and put you safely on the ground....I personally still wouldn't try.
I really think you know all of this, and that you keep going, just for the sake of argument.

Gravity isn't a random event.

 

[Nifty29]

Gravity isn't a random event.

Never imagined myself saying this but......

What LaHutti said.

You're just resorting to one liners now. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

[KasinoKing]

Disclaimer - I haven't read ALL the posts in this thread.

Chopley, Nifty and anyone else who says that T-RTP is critically important for slot players:
Do any of you ever play MicroGaming slots?
If so, how do you know what the T-RTP of each one is?

KK

 

[Jufo]

Disclaimer - I haven't read ALL the posts in this thread.

Chopley, Nifty and anyone else who says that T-RTP is critically important for slot players:
Do any of you ever play MicroGaming slots?
If so, how do you know what the T-RTP of each one is?

KK

Some operators have published The T-RTP of most MG slots. You can view the list of published T-RTPs from example at

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

.

In addition the reel layouts (which you have posted in your own Slotbeaters website) can be used to determine the T-RTP. Using this method I have determined the T-RTP of several
MG slots that are not published anywhere else such as the T-RTP of Break Da Bank Again.

 

[binary128]

I have to say that your results actually look pretty bad. In 370 000 spins the RTP range for 1 standard deviation is around 1% for typical medium-variance Microgaming slots. This means that 95% of time your results should be within 2% of T-RTP after 370,000 spins. Typical Microgaming slots have a T-RTP around 95% - 96.6%, which means that your overall long-time RTP (and 370,000 spins is already long-term) is about 4% lower than T-RTP. This equals a difference in RTPs of 4 standard deviations, which equals about 1 in 30,000 chance so your result seems extremely unlikely. However, this calculation is only a rough estimate about the order of magnitude of your result.

What Unit SD did you use for the expression "typical medium-variance Microgaming slots"? 6?

Remember the max lines requirement.

Chris

 

[Jufo]

What Unit SD did you use for the expression "typical medium-variance Microgaming slots"? 6?

Remember the max lines requirement.

Chris

Yes I used value 6 as the slot's SD. Those Microgaming slots that I have analyzed with my slot simulator (the same way I analyzed your Hot Pepper slot) all had SD values between 4.3 and 6.5, except for one higher variance slot.

So using SD = 6, the 1 SD range after 370,000 spins is:

1_SD = 6/SQRT(370000) = 0.0099 = 0.99%

Thus a difference of 4% between actual RTP and T-RTP would mean the result is 4 standard deviations under (= 1:30 000 event).

However, without knowing in more detail how the poster played (the choice of slots, the number of lines etc etc.) this is only a very very crude approximation at this point. I am waiting for him to send me a detailed breakdown of his game play history to look into this closer.

 

[binary128]

Yes I used value 6 as the slot's SD, because the 1 SD range in 370,000 spins is:

1_SD = 6/SQRT(370000) = 0.0099 = 0.99%

Thus a difference of 4% between actual RTP and T-RTP would mean it is 4 standard deviations under (= 1:30 000 event).

However, without knowing in more detail how the poster played (the choice of slots, the number of lines etc etc.) this is only a very very crude approximation at this point. I am waiting for him to send me a detailed breakdown of his game play history to look into this closer.

Hurrah

You are the first person to go on record as saying that a Unit SD of 6 means a medium-variance slot!

 

[Jufo]

Hurrah

You are the first person to go on record as saying that a Unit SD of 6 means a medium-variance slot!

Well of course this is just my own interpretation based on the SD values I have seen, but since the slot's SD typically varies between 4 to 10, then I think it's safe to say 6 is "in the middle", right?

 

[binary128]

Well of course this is just my own interpretation based on the SD values I have seen, but since the slot's SD typically varies between 4 to 10, then I think it's safe to say 6 is "in the middle", right?

I agree, I agree. I was only pulling your leg a bit. I'm still not sure what words to apply to what numbers for SD/Variance.

But the hunt continues.

< 5.0 = Low
5.0 to 8.0 = Medium
> 8.0 = High

 

[Jufo]

I agree, I agree. I was only pulling your leg a bit. I'm still not sure what words to apply to what numbers for SD/Variance.

But the hunt continues.

< 5.0 = Low
5.0 to 8.0 = Medium
> 8.0 = High

Heh I seem to always miss when you are not being entirely serious Since there is no "right" answer to this question I guess any answer is as good as another. Your suggestion looks good but SD = 7 starts be in the higher-variance category IMO. BTW, I have seen players describing some MG games as very high variance here, yet my simulation has revealed that they have SD less than 7, so go figure...

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Disclaimer - I haven't read ALL the posts in this thread.

Chopley, Nifty and anyone else who says that T-RTP is critically important for slot players:
Do any of you ever play MicroGaming slots?
If so, how do you know what the T-RTP of each one is?

KK

I uninstalled all MG casinos off every PC in the house a few weeks ago.

For several reasons, but the lack of T-RTP information is certainly one of them.

 

[binary128]

Heh I seem to always miss when you are not being entirely serious Since there is no "right" answer to this question I guess any answer is as good as another. Your suggestion looks good but SD = 7 starts be in the higher-variance category IMO. BTW, I have seen players describing some MG games as very high variance here, yet my simulation has revealed that they have SD less than 7, so go figure...

Re: pulling your leg. I know - I have to be selective in my words. You have that subdued Finnish sense of humor, and I have that aggressive North American sense of humor.

Well, if we apply the precise numbers above (we have one game with an SD of 8.0), then our set has 4 low-variance, 5 medium-variance and 2 high-variance slots.

Based on historical game play data at my current deployment, it appears that most of the game activity (the vast majority actually, much greater than the 9:2 slot count ratio) occurs in the low and medium variance ranges.

The average bet per game in many of these slots is high. I can't give precise values as I consider that proprietary information. I believe it is safe to say, however, that the average game bet is a great deal higher than min coin count/coin amount with max lines.

From this I infer that most of the players enter the game with a starting balance that is more than sufficient to handle the loss statistically expected to occur in order to get that "big hit" from a higher-variance slot.

And from this I infer that the choice of the low to medium variance slots does not have to do with the player's initial starting balance. I think the numbers indicate that the vast majority of players simply prefer to play low to medium variance slots.

Of course, all of this applies only to our admittedly limited and, according to many, only marginally entertaining assortment of slots.

[In re-reading this post, I concluded that it is a bit of a derail from the OP. However, in 12 pages from an earlier thread we never managed to get this close to the translation of math to game play as we have done right here.]

Chris

 

[skiny]

Never imagined myself saying this but......

What LaHutti said.

You're just resorting to one liners now. I thought you were smarter than that.

I use as many lines as it takes to answer. Consider me the anti-VWM.