I'm truly shocked

[Casinomeister]

Apology accepted Chopley - I'm sorry my actions/inaction caused your frustration - let's let it be water under the bridge.

As the days progress, I should be getting to the points you've been making. I hope you'll be able to make it to London next week. It would be great to sit down and share some thoughts over a pint or two.

 

[ThePOGG]

Hey CM - are the GRA showing any likelihood of giving a statement in the near future? If not their views carry no weight what-so-ever.

Saying that they ripped the previous thread to shreads is meaningless (directed at them not you) unless they are prepared to back it up with hard facts that would undermine the issues presented. Right now i simply don't see how they can do that. There are certain undisputable facts at play here that form the real issue.

1. Betfred openly stated that a game ran a 96% when the paytable would have produced a 100% RTP (the helpfile was an irrelevance)
2. Nordic Bet confirmed the issue with the game when they pulled all games from the software provider
3. Numerous other games were found to be operating differently in real/free play modes - confirmed by examination of code and videoed testing
4. Bet 365 confirmed this issue by pulling Aladdin's Treasure

The evidence that the OP submitted may be open to examination, but the above certainly appear beyond question at this stage. If the GRA really wants players to accept their version of events right now they need to present more than wooly hearsay and start trading in facts. The longer this goes on (5 weeks and counting) the more damage it does to the reputations of the casinos involved and the GRA.

I ask this as it's now starting to seem like the GRA have no intention of addressing this issue publically. Whether that's due to legal proceedings or simply not feeling obliged to answer to players, it leaves anyone actually trying to understand their side of the story totally in the dark. I for one would like to understand what exactly they'd contest in the previous thread and on what grounds, but will say unequivicably that simply saying they contest it is not going to be enough to sway the case.

I also would seriously question the GRA's decision to stop communicating with all parties involved in the discourse (me). I will openly state that i have been direct with them about the seriousness of the issues involved and the action i would hope to see them take (that being that these are serious breaches of license and punative measures need to be taken if the GRA is to retain credibility as a regulator), but if this is what has lead to their decision to exclude me from the conversation, it seems to me very much like they are attempting to choose their own jury. The correct path should have been to discuss what could and could not be publically stated at this point and provide all involved parties with the same information. The approach they've taken so far certainly does them no favours when they ask to be taken on faith that there's substantive evidence yet to be revealed.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The main problem is that at present the whole thing seems to have been classed as an issue with the wrong helpfile being attached, with the implication being, even though not explicitly stated, that the GRA have no problem with this game operating with the correct helpfile attached, which itself indicates that the other main factors (not the same in free and real play, and an adaptive outcome based on the bets placed), are a non-issue.

The fact that the OP turned out to be a fraudster is a completely different matter, and has to be dealt with separately. At worst, all his evidence and data should be removed from consideration and only data gathered independently of the OP be considered valid raw material for analysis. This has already happened as independent tests have shown that the concerns over how the game functions are valid.

By having this issue in limbo, we have a situation where some operators are continuing to think it is OK to offer these games to their players, and some players thinking that what they thought they knew about the fairness of online representations of physical game elements is all wrong, and that in general they cannot trust ANY game from ANY provider to necessarily offer a game with the odds as they appear to be from the game elements.

This means that those who are convinced that online Blackjack is somehow "compensated" now have a more credible argument to present this as a distinct possibilty, as opposed to the rantings of a sore loser.

 

[thelawnet]

By what date will this issue be resolved?

 

[Balthazar]

By what date will this issue be resolved?

I'd not hold my breath.

 

[thelawnet]

I'd not hold my breath.

I was looking for a commitment to a specific date, even if that date is not tomorrow, or next week or whatever.

 

[jetset]

I, too get the uncomfortable feeling that the regulator is being sidetracked by the help file and fraudulent OP issue in this, and that it is not really addressing the core of this issue as has been so eloquently outlined by thelawnet, thePOGG and others in both this new thread and the old.

I really hope that the regulator has sufficient knowledge, understanding and experience to see past these distractions and focus on the cheating and non-compliance issues at the heart of this matter.

I also hope that, given the wide and damaging exposure this deeply worrying issue has received, the GRA public report is both detailed and specific, and not a general assurance that they've looked at the thing and there's really nothing to worry about <grimace>

One thing that is really bugging me is the manner in which SpieloG2 appears to have quietly slipped off the radar screen. I hope that among the 'raisins' that Bryan picks in his discussions at ICE will be some explanation of that company's "re-coding" of the Realistic Gaming games in question here.

Sorry to harp on this, but it is also important to get some sort of firm answers on the reimbursement of players impacted by these questionable games. I would guess that the companies involved are waiting to see what the regulator's findings are before moving on that, but it remains a key element in the redressing mix imo and must not be overlooked.

 

[deucebag]

The main problem is that at present the whole thing seems to have been classed as an issue with the wrong helpfile being attached, with the implication being, even though not explicitly stated, that the GRA have no problem with this game operating with the correct helpfile attached, which itself indicates that the other main factors (not the same in free and real play, and an adaptive outcome based on the bets placed), are a non-issue.

It does seem like the GRA's stance is that it's OK to rig the game as long as it's explained in the help file that the game is rigged. (Of course, the help file would not use the word "rigged").

This basically makes rigging the games a no-lose proposition. There is no accountabilty, no consequence. Rig a game and no one finds out, the casino wins. Rig a game and someone finds out, blame it on a faulty help file, compensate the few players that complain, but the casino comes out ahead in the end anyway.

If they see this whole thing as a help file issue, the GRA has no idea of the concept of "fair play." It also shows that they don't care about enforcing their own written regulations/standards.

 

[Richas]

It does seem like the GRA's stance is that it's OK to rig the game as long as it's explained in the help file that the game is rigged. (Of course, the help file would not use the word "rigged").

This basically makes rigging the games a no-lose proposition. There is no accountabilty, no consequence. Rig a game and no one finds out, the casino wins. Rig a game and someone finds out, blame it on a faulty help file, compensate the few players that complain, but the casino comes out ahead in the end anyway.

If they see this whole thing as a help file issue, the GRA has no idea of the concept of "fair play." It also shows that they don't care about enforcing their own written regulations/standards.

Patience is a much under rated virtue, one that I often fail to have myself.

My understanding is that there are two current complaints with two different regulators.

The GRA are investigating both the site and the software supplier but have issued no update, something that is unsurprising for an ongoing investigation.
The UKGC have had a complaint about Finsoft/SpieloG2 which again they have offered no update on but have disowned regulatory responsibility for BetFred for the sensible reason that the GRA regulate them not the UKGC (though of course this is likely to change when the new legislation kicks in).

Meanwhile CM has had some communication with the GRA and BetFred that he cannot disclose at this point and he is meeting with BetFred early next week.

The lack of public comment from BetFred, Finsoft and the GRA is frustrating but it is also unsurprising given the seriousness of the allegations. My belief is that the GRA are taking this matter seriously even if the cynic would suggest that this is only because of the PR issues for them, the pragmatist that the GRA role is to provide confidence in the Gibraltar registered industry which this fiasco undermines.

In terms of progress about what Finsoft and BetFred are still doing...... Finsoft are still breaking the terms of their UKGC licence on their website. My understanding is the the initial Hi/Lo game of the infamous help file fame has been pulled but refunds for all players are unconfirmed as their pledge to do so has been somewhat overtaken by events. Two further Playtech games seem to have significantly different (and higher return) play games than their real money versions. I have lost track of whether they are still operating in either version or both.

Edit: BetFred have confirmed 2 Playtech free games were different rtp - blaming software update glitch. The play money games have been pulled, refund offer limited to those whose record suggest they were misled by the play game and only after individuals complain. GRA aware that this happened.

Ok progress does look slow but maybe there is more going on under the hood than we can see.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Patience is a much under rated virtue, one that I often fail to have myself.

My understanding is that there are two current complaints with two different regulators.

The GRA are investigating both the site and the software supplier but have issued no update, something that is unsurprising for an ongoing investigation.
The UKGC have had a complaint about Finsoft/SpieloG2 which again they have offered no update on but have disowned regulatory responsibility for BetFred for the sensible reason that the GRA regulate them not the UKGC (though of course this is likely to change when the new legislation kicks in).

Meanwhile CM has had some communication with the GRA and BetFred that he cannot disclose at this point and he is meeting with BetFred early next week.

The lack of public comment from BetFred, Finsoft and the GRA is frustrating but it is also unsurprising given the seriousness of the allegations. My belief is that the GRA are taking this matter seriously even if the cynic would suggest that this is only because of the PR issues for them, the pragmatist that the GRA role is to provide confidence in the Gibraltar registered industry which this fiasco undermines.

In terms of progress about what Finsoft and BetFred are still doing...... Finsoft are still breaking the terms of their UKGC licence on their website. My understanding is the the initial Hi/Lo game of the infamous help file fame has been pulled but refunds for all players are unconfirmed as their pledge to do so has been somewhat overtaken by events. Two further Playtech games seem to have significantly different (and higher return) play games than their real money versions. I have lost track of whether they are still operating in either version or both.

Ok progress does look slow but maybe there is more going on under the hood than we can see.

This is what may speed things up. Rather than an issue that has been contained for now, it seems people are now actively looking for further instances of this, and are finding them. This is Playtech, a big company that has been around for a while, not some small game developer that noone had heard of before the incident, even though it seems to have been alterations made by a former big software provider that caused the problems.

The Playtech excuse is a "missed update", but their attempt to explain away the issue has only dug the hole deeper (I have just seen it). In essence, Playtech seem to be saying that their games can be configured to run at different RTP settings, just like RTG, and that the RTP of the real money game was altered (lowered?) through one such update, but the free play one wasn't, so runs at the original (higher?) RTP.

They have not only dug the hole deeper, but suggested that if we look hard enough, we might find them another shovel

The issue is no longer contained to the Hi Lo game and Spielo G2, so there is a need for reassurance sooner than later that the GRA do understand the seriousness of this issue, and that they do not see it as merely one of a wrong helpfile.

 

[ThePOGG]

Two further Playtech games seem to have significantly different (and higher return) play games than their real money versions. I have lost track of whether they are still operating in either version or both.

Have i missed something here - i don't recall seeing anything involving Playtech games?

 

[Richas]

The Playtech excuse is a "missed update", but their attempt to explain away the issue has only dug the hole deeper (I have just seen it). In essence, Playtech seem to be saying that their games can be configured to run at different RTP settings, just like RTG, and that the RTP of the real money game was altered (lowered?) through one such update, but the free play one wasn't, so runs at the original (higher?) RTP.

This opens up a whole new area of potential deception. Not only are players not generally given a full description of how the game works and their likelihood of winning as required by the regulations - all they give us is a pay table of what the payout are - not only can play money games be used to create a false impression of the likely return the real money game can be used in the same way.

Launch a game, have a nice rtp and the initial impression is good. The games are reviewed and the player base bulds up - then without any notification, no change in the information provided about the game and how it works and the likelihood of winning they can (and have!) changed the way the game works and the likelihood of winning. This is totally and deliberately deceptive. The game is fundamentally altered but it is branded and marketed as the same game.

Honestly I am absolutely appalled that this is possible and we really need some clarity as to whether such changing at will and without notice of the RTP is legal under the regulations.

The GRA really needs to clarify this ASAP.

Edit: Additionally the ambiguity about how a game works means that players need to explore what is the optimal strategy. The fact that changes were made to the RTP and visual elements of the playtech game without any change to the game description introduces the possibility that changes to the game are being made to alter not just the rtp but also the optimal strategy. A game gets known, players play better, the real return falls for the site so without notification the game is changed - altering the optimal strategy and deceiving players who have developed that strategy over time (and at cost) and increasing the amount that is being made for the site in real play. This deception is potentially worse!

 

[Richas]

Have i missed something here - i don't recall seeing anything involving Playtech games?

This is the thread: post #58 is the new BetFred admission
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/playtech-rigged-slots.55080/

 

[Nifty29]

This is what may speed things up. Rather than an issue that has been contained for now, it seems people are now actively looking for further instances of this, and are finding them. This is Playtech, a big company that has been around for a while, not some small game developer that noone had heard of before the incident, even though it seems to have been alterations made by a former big software provider that caused the problems.

The Playtech excuse is a "missed update", but their attempt to explain away the issue has only dug the hole deeper (I have just seen it). In essence, Playtech seem to be saying that their games can be configured to run at different RTP settings, just like RTG, and that the RTP of the real money game was altered (lowered?) through one such update, but the free play one wasn't, so runs at the original (higher?) RTP.

They have not only dug the hole deeper, but suggested that if we look hard enough, we might find them another shovel

The issue is no longer contained to the Hi Lo game and Spielo G2, so there is a need for reassurance sooner than later that the GRA do understand the seriousness of this issue, and that they do not see it as merely one of a wrong helpfile.

It has never been stated that playtech games cannot have different configurations....only that individual operators cannot change them at will.....and nothing stated by Betfred indicates any different. In fact, the rep stated it was an update from PT themselves and would have affected other licensees.

You need to stop making stuff up. Its difficult enough with all the speculation going on from some based on incomplete information, let alone pretending to find a smoking gun where there isn't one.

I'm not disputing some other facts brought to light by some. I just didn't want to see what is a very serious situation clouded by opinions being passed off as fact, and diluting what has been excellent work by a few members.

 

[Simmo!]

In essence, Playtech seem to be saying that their games can be configured to run at different RTP settings, just like RTG, and that the RTP of the real money game was altered (lowered?) through one such update, but the free play one wasn't, so runs at the original (higher?) RTP.

No they don't "seem to be saying" that at all. Those are your words.

Honestly I am absolutely appalled that this is possible and we really need some clarity as to whether such changing at will and without notice of the RTP is legal under the regulations.

I don't believe it is. I have seen RTP documents issued to more than one Playtech casino (on different dates) where the RTP's for every game are identical. I've never seen anything to prove RTP's vary from casino to casino and bearing in mind they actually issue RTP documents to their licencees, I am sure we would have seen difefrences by now if they existed.

The only time I have seen Playtech alter the RTP of a game is when they created new and separate 50-line versions of some of their Marvel slots.

Its difficult enough with all the speculation going on from some based on incomplete information, let alone pretending to find a smoking gun where there isn't one.

I'm not disputing some other facts brought to light by some. I just didn't want to see what is a very serious situation clouded by opinions being passed off as fact.

Totally agreed. Speculation has it's place but should be clearly labelled to avoid misleading other forum users as this thread demonstrates.

So let's keep this thread on topic and stick to the facts in the process please.

 

[slotplayer]

never played the playtech with real money so its purely an observation.

When I was adding the free playtech slots and tested them, I won over $300K GBP in a short period of time. I forget which slot it was but it did make me wonder if the RTP was set higher on the free play.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It seems I was right after all. Betfred have clarified again what happened. Playtech rolled out a global update to the game that altered the RTP and visual elements. All operators should have received it, so it remains true that all operators run the games at the same RTP. It is PLAYTECH that sometimes decide they need to change the RTP for an existing game, and do so by rolling out a global update. The error was that free play versions, beiong self contained modules rather than server driven, were not updated alongslide the real play versions. The RTP change itself was NOT an error, but a "business decision" made by Playtech in the same way that operators of RTG casinos can make the "business decision" to use the "land kiosk" 91.5% setting instead of the normal 95% one used for online play. The difference between Playtech and RTG is that RTG allows operators to change the setting just for their own casino, whereas Playtech only make global updates to games.

Since Playtech only provide the software, one would presume that global RTP changes are something that has to be requested, and done only when there are a majority of operators wanting it done.

If Playtech published the RTP of individual games, these changes would get noticed when the information got updated. Since they don't in general, such changes are unlikely to get discovered unless they mess something up and it gets spotted, as in this case where the free play modules didn't get an update when the real play versions did.

It looks like this information had to be dragged piece by piece from Playtech, via Betfred, and only got released because they were in "damage control mode" over the discovery of the fact that the free play version was different to the real money game.

 

[Nifty29]

It seems I was right after all. Betfred have clarified again what happened. Playtech rolled out a global update to the game that altered the RTP and visual elements. All operators should have received it, so it remains true that all operators run the games at the same RTP. It is PLAYTECH that sometimes decide they need to change the RTP for an existing game, and do so by rolling out a global update. The error was that free play versions, beiong self contained modules rather than server driven, were not updated alongslide the real play versions. The RTP change itself was NOT an error, but a "business decision" made by Playtech in the same way that operators of RTG casinos can make the "business decision" to use the "land kiosk" 91.5% setting instead of the normal 95% one used for online play. The difference between Playtech and RTG is that RTG allows operators to change the setting just for their own casino, whereas Playtech only make global updates to games.

Since Playtech only provide the software, one would presume that global RTP changes are something that has to be requested, and done only when there are a majority of operators wanting it done.

If Playtech published the RTP of individual games, these changes would get noticed when the information got updated. Since they don't in general, such changes are unlikely to get discovered unless they mess something up and it gets spotted, as in this case where the free play modules didn't get an update when the real play versions did.

It looks like this information had to be dragged piece by piece from Playtech, via Betfred, and only got released because they were in "damage control mode" over the discovery of the fact that the free play version was different to the real money game.

Remind me....what were you "right" about again?

You're just rehashing old stuff again, and regurgitating what the rep said.

 

[dunover]

never played the playtech with real money so its purely an observation.

When I was adding the free playtech slots and tested them, I won over $300K GBP in a short period of time. I forget which slot it was but it did make me wonder if the RTP was set higher on the free play.

I remember playing Fantstic 4 in freeplay once, and got it to over 100k. Played it for real just the once, and it sucked my balance in 15 minutes with not one bonus round. Not conclusive by any means, but it does make me wonder.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Remind me....what were you "right" about again?

You're just rehashing old stuff again, and regurgitating what the rep said.

Right that the RTP of Playtech games are occasionally altered via updates. Previously, it was accepted that like MGS, the Playtech games were "set in stone" once developed and released. The only difference is that RTP changes by Playtech are global, not at the whim of individual operators as is the case with RTG and Rival. Only the screw ups reveal this. Had the free games been updated along with the real money ones, this would never have been discovered. All players would have seen is that certain patterns they remembered as being frequent no longer seemed to appear. This would have been dismissed as "variance", and it would never have come to light that the RTP had been changed. It was the same with RTG, the Fruit Frenzy cock-up that produced the double pear revealed that different operators were running on different RTP settings. It also confirmed as fact previous "conspiracy theories" about RTG slots being tighter than they were before at some operators, something that had also been dismissed as bad luck or variance.

It now seems that this practice is more widespread than we couild ever have thought, and that regulatory requirements were being breached with no policing being present to pick up on this.

The extent of this has yet to be revealed, but so far one game at a single casino has become 4 games from two suppliers at several casinos.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Right that the RTP of Playtech games are occasionally altered via updates. Previously, it was accepted that like MGS, the Playtech games were "set in stone" once developed and released. The only difference is that RTP changes by Playtech are global, not at the whim of individual operators as is the case with RTG and Rival. Only the screw ups reveal this. Had the free games been updated along with the real money ones, this would never have been discovered. All players would have seen is that certain patterns they remembered as being frequent no longer seemed to appear. This would have been dismissed as "variance", and it would never have come to light that the RTP had been changed. It was the same with RTG, the Fruit Frenzy cock-up that produced the double pear revealed that different operators were running on different RTP settings. It also confirmed as fact previous "conspiracy theories" about RTG slots being tighter than they were before at some operators, something that had also been dismissed as bad luck or variance.

It now seems that this practice is more widespread than we couild ever have thought, and that regulatory requirements were being breached with no policing being present to pick up on this.

The extent of this has yet to be revealed, but so far one game at a single casino has become 4 games from two suppliers at several casinos.

This is the problem with slots, without the benefit of a clearly defined pay table and 'known odds' (such as exists with table games), and with RTP being reached over hundreds of thousands if not millions of spins, it's basically impossible to prove that something has changed unless the software provider drops a clanger as Playtech did here, or RTG did with Fruit Frenzy.

Even where the RTP is shown on the pay table or help file, we have to trust that it's correct because there's no way to verify it. (Hi-Lo Gambler is an unusual case in that it didn't take a huge number of plays to prove that something was amiss, and of course it's not a slot.)

Microgaming say they don't change their slots after they've been released, but we know for a fact they changed the behaviour of the Mega Moolah slots and then changed them back again - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/thinking-somethings-changed-at-microgaming.26802/

There's nothing to stop them shaving 1% here and 2% there off the payouts of their slots, a virtually undetectable change that would net them a fortune as the weeks and months and years rolled by - and of course anyone who dares to say they think there's something amiss is immediately confined to the tin foil hat brigade dustbin.

I'm not picking on MG here, the above holds true for any software provider, and Playtech have certainly been caught in the act here. Whatever the details of how the free play versions of the slots ended up paying more than the real money versions (accident or deliberate), the fact is that Playtech were reducing the payouts of at least two of their games by stealth.

What both the Finsoft and now Playtech situations make abundantly clear is that online casinos are still pretty much just the Wild West of gambling, often with regulation that counts for the sum total of bugger all.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is the problem with slots, without the benefit of a clearly defined pay table and 'known odds' (such as exists with table games), and with RTP being reached over hundreds of thousands if not millions of spins, it's basically impossible to prove that something has changed unless the software provider drops a clanger as Playtech did here, or RTG did with Fruit Frenzy.

Even where the RTP is shown on the pay table or help file, we have to trust that it's correct because there's no way to verify it. (Hi-Lo Gambler is an unusual case in that it didn't take a huge number of plays to prove that something was amiss, and of course it's not a slot.)

Microgaming say they don't change their slots after they've been released, but we know for a fact they changed the behaviour of the Mega Moolah slots and then changed them back again - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/thinking-somethings-changed-at-microgaming.26802/

There's nothing to stop them shaving 1% here and 2% there off the payouts of their slots, a virtually undetectable change that would net them a fortune as the weeks and months and years rolled by - and of course anyone who dares to say they think there's something amiss is immediately confined to the tin foil hat brigade dustbin.

I'm not picking on MG here, the above holds true for any software provider, and Playtech have certainly been caught in the act here. Whatever the details of how the free play versions of the slots ended up paying more than the real money versions (accident or deliberate), the fact is that Playtech were reducing the payouts of at least two of their games by stealth.

What both the Finsoft and now Playtech situations make abundantly clear is that online casinos are still pretty much just the Wild West of gambling, often with regulation that counts for the sum total of bugger all.

I remember the Mega Moolah issue, it was hard evidence, but it lead to speculation about other games having changed after having been yanked for a couple of days. MGS remained tight lipped about this sudden change of behaviour of the lesser pair of jackpots, and we were supposed to accept this was merely a quirk of variance. My problem with this was that for a period of two solid weeks the mini regularly reached several hundred, and the minor regularly reached a few thousand, and then it all changed back to how it was before, with the mini mostly being under 20, and the minor rarely making it past 200. This was really odd behaviour, but it lacked a proper Eliot style statistical analysis of the trigger values over a period of time, and whether this was consistent with it merely being the product of an unusual swing in variance. It was analysis by Eliot that "outed" the recent Hi Lo game results as evidence of "rigging" rather than a natural product of variance.

I think that several months later we were told that the whole Mega Moolah thing was a "display issue", and that the jackpots had never actually been at these elevated values. The issue then died.

 

[SpinUk]

Right that the RTP of Playtech games are occasionally altered via updates. Previously, it was accepted that like MGS, the Playtech games were "set in stone" once developed and released. The only difference is that RTP changes by Playtech are global, not at the whim of individual operators as is the case with RTG and Rival. Only the screw ups reveal this. Had the free games been updated along with the real money ones, this would never have been discovered. All players would have seen is that certain patterns they remembered as being frequent no longer seemed to appear. This would have been dismissed as "variance", and it would never have come to light that the RTP had been changed. It was the same with RTG, the Fruit Frenzy cock-up that produced the double pear revealed that different operators were running on different RTP settings. It also confirmed as fact previous "conspiracy theories" about RTG slots being tighter than they were before at some operators, something that had also been dismissed as bad luck or variance.

It now seems that this practice is more widespread than we couild ever have thought, and that regulatory requirements were being breached with no policing being present to pick up on this.

The extent of this has yet to be revealed, but so far one game at a single casino has become 4 games from two suppliers at several casinos.

Yes - its as though a toothless regulator with a shady vested interest is pre-determined in keeping the status quo here.

Historically, where you have no auditing on a toothless regulator with no real legal incentive to "regulate", this is what happens. People get let off, issues get swept under the carpet. Its a closed shop community with a handful of business owners raking it in.

I would be very interested to see what action these so called regulators have EVER taken, (bar going after straight up credit card fraud), from online casinos.

The ones in the States, those are a different matter. But the malta GMA? Please....

 

[Simmo!]

It has never been stated that playtech games cannot have different configurations....only that individual operators cannot change them at will.

It seems I was right after all. Betfred have clarified again what happened. Playtech rolled out a global update to the game that altered the RTP and visual elements. All operators should have received it, so it remains true that all operators run the games at the same RTP.

I don't think that's ever been disputed has it? I've seen IGT and Novomatic games have their RTP shifted - or at least, their published RTP has changed - and I'm sure in land-based it happens all the time. I seem to remember someone knowledgable stating here that IGT have their games certified for a range (ie 90% - 98%) which pretty much clarifies that anyway.

As you and others state though, in Playtechs case, afaik we've seen no proof to confirm whether or not different operators have different RTPs. At the moment, all the docs seen suggest consistency which actually, I think is a shame. It would be a far more interesting market if you could research a bit to find a better RTP for your favourite game like you can with some IGT games.

... it's basically impossible to prove that something has changed unless the software provider drops a clanger as Playtech did here, or RTG did with Fruit Frenzy.

I agree. But I would add that for me personally, as long as RTP is over 90% it doesn't really bother me too much because I know that I'll never play the hundreds of millions of spins it takes to see that anyway. Obviously the higher RTP the better but over a few thousand spins luck is way more important in my opinion. And still way better odds than the lottery

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't think that's ever been disputed has it? I've seen IGT and Novomatic games have their RTP shifted - or at least, their published RTP has changed - and I'm sure in land-based it happens all the time. I seem to remember someone knowledgable stating here that IGT have their games certified for a range (ie 90% - 98%) which pretty much clarifies that anyway.

As you and others state though, in Playtechs case, afaik we've seen no proof to confirm whether or not different operators have different RTPs. At the moment, all the docs seen suggest consistency which actually, I think is a shame. It would be a far more interesting market if you could research a bit to find a better RTP for your favourite game like you can with some IGT games.



I agree. But I would add that for me personally, as long as RTP is over 90% it doesn't really bother me too much because I know that I'll never play the hundreds of millions of spins it takes to see that anyway. Obviously the higher RTP the better but over a few thousand spins luck is way more important in my opinion. And still way better odds than the lottery

So, why so many updates that appear to fix nothing, change nothing, and for existing games with no bugs in them; yet games that have VISIBLE, if minor, bugs do NOT get updated with a fix?

If these updates don't fix anything obvious, they must be fixing something "under the bonnet", and the most obvious candidate for this would be the game play, which would alter the RTP.

Support for this is the fact that noone will disclose to players the "version control" document that goes with the change, yet this is software on the players' machine. Other types of software update would have a version control document accessible by the end user. Casinos don't only not make the document available, they refuse to supply it when it is requested. It's use is in diagnostics where the changed software no longer works on the client machine, but works on the machines of the majority of users. It helps the user determine what best to look for when trying tom diagnose the problem.

Of course, if they ARE doing something unpalatable like lowering the RTP of a number of games, they would not want players to see this clearly laid out in a document. However, if the changes are "innocent", like changing something to do with video rendering, there should be no reason to keep this secret from players.

When RTG had their marketing sheets available that showed the RTP settings, I also found one of these version control documents for the latest lobby update at the time. They certainly produce this document, but don't want users to find out what changes have been made to software that they host on their machines. This is a real problem when an update stops the lobby from working, and the attitude from the casino is "something wrong with your machine, not our responsibilty to fix it". They may suggest the player take their machine to an IT specialist, but the lack of a version control document detailing the changes that broke the software is going to make the task much more expensive, even impossible.