Intercasino (Crypto) slots RTP?

[ThePOGG]

I agree with you. Regardless of who, or what organization, is providing the "Seal of Approval", if there are human beings involved then there's a weak link - the distance of the leap can't be zero.

...

I don't get to judge that competition. But I'd like to think that our "Here's the data, and here's the proof of that data." documentation represents a minimum distance in the "Leap of Faith" category.

For me the minimum jump would be proper regulation wherein the regulatory body could in no way financially benefit from the act of decision making on a regulatory bases. That would be my idea - it's far from perfect and as you say still leave that weak link of human interference, but in my mind at least offers the smallest possible leap of faith.

As we can't have that just now i tend towards discounting any certification - certainly they don't make up part of the reviewing criteria. That said, perhaps it's something i should look into for the 'Licensing' category.....

Anyway, you know our company at least enough to offer an informed opinion. I'd like to think that we represent an operational benchmark, TheLastCylon's "baseline", in certain areas.

I tend to judge the quality of a casino operation on a couple of things; the views and experiences of a group of long in the tooth players that i'm lucky enough to know and the reputation of the casino within the industry and playing communities. For the latter i look and referrence all available player resources. Pinnacle win on both counts, so as i've mentioned to you before even if you're not really pushing your casino you'll get placement on my site as soon as i can finish this behemothic redesign that has managed to consume the vast majority of the last 6 months of my life.

 

[ThePOGG]

ThePOGG,

I also want to thank you for doing the work, the shit work, necessary to get and publish information which can only be of value to the Players. You've stated several times - you're aware that this is just one step, the first step, in a multi-step journey. But, prior to this first step, you're just standing still.

Carry on, noble Percival.

Chris

It's the one thing that i really feel strongly about when it comes to affiliate work - there are FAR too many affiliates out their recommending casinos because they a) offer more money than other better venues or b) convert better for the affiliate. A review site that recommends venues based on either of these criteria has failed their readership in the one and only task they were asked to perform. If you come to a site looking for a recommendation for a casino to play with, you expect the top 10 list to be the best venues for you, not the best venues for the site.

I like making money - it pays the bills and stops me having all the natural worries that come with not having enough of the paper stuff. But if i have to be dishonest about the casinos i'm advertising to make that money, i'll stop doing it and go back to making money with day jobs as i've always done before. I genuinely hope that my site provides a useful service to players long into the future, but if the market tells me it doesn't i'm not prepared to undermine my own moral code just to make some cash.

So when a casino comes to me and says "what level of rev share/cpa/exclusive bonus will it take to get placement in the top 10", my answer is always the same - "i don't sell position, but if you'd like me to talk to you about how you can improve the service you're offering i'm more than happy to make the time".

Affiliate sites - like this one - that genuinely require casinos to live up to a healthy standard and improve the service that they offer their customers are a rarity and have unique leverage to change the way some aspects of the business operate and with that have a responsibility to do so for the betterment of their audience.

***Moral rant over lol***

 

[TheLastCylon]

POGG, I think that there is an inherent conflict in your perspective that needs to be aired, not just to defend my own endorsement of CFG, but also for the edification of everyone involved.

The root of the issue is found in your statement "As we can't have that just now i tend towards discounting any certification".

Basically, you are requesting a casino's T-RTP values, which could be simply made up by the casino. The only defense that we have, barring certification/auditing, is that the value of the casino's name would be reduced with the discovery of fabrication. Obviously, this has not stopped many casinos from being crooked. I think the sheer number of casinos is one of the reasons for this since a company can always just open another casino. The leap of faith is very large.

We have really only one way to confirm whether the T-RTP's are accurate: certification and auditing companies. The number of certification companies is much smaller, and as such, a reputation is significantly more valuable. Here, the leap of faith is smaller. But if I read you correctly, you are rejecting these but accepting the casinos' numbers as, for lack of a better word, valid. Or at least valid enough as to be part of your analysis.

You have your own set of criteria for determining the quality of a casino, which is in the exact same situation as the certification agencies: you are a for-profit entity that does its own analysis and trades on its reputation. You ask us to trust you but not the certification and auditing firms for reasons that apply equally well to you. The only way that this would work is if we assume that the T-RTP numbers are accurate, thus making quantifiable analysis needless, which is an assumption that is too large a leap of faith for me.

 

[ThePOGG]

There absolutely is a contradiction there and i'll try my best to address that.

Firstly, i don't feel that certification in this instance - due to its compromised nature - is of any particular value, and if we look at the like of eCorga i actually feel that instead of providing an extra safety net it simply provides a get out clause for casinos to say 'we only deal with this mediator' when the mediator is in fact directly funded by the casino and as such not impartial. My view in general is this is just another comfort blanket provided to make the player feel safe when in reality they do very little. I feel much the same way about licensing as all the regulatory authorities are in small jurisdictions that make large amounts of the GDP off of gambling products. Where i'm questioning my approach at the moment is that where i'm currently taking licensing into consideration with my rating criteria, i'm not taking certification. I'll have to think about that a little more before i'll change anything.

That's the reason i don't place value in certification, it does not however address the contradiction of my site, by rating casinos, essentially doing the same job. So here goes;

Both affiliate sites and certification sites make money by working with casinos. The primary difference would be that casinos directly make money off of affiliates where as at best they can be considered to indirectly make money off of certification. As a large affiliate site (which i one day hope to be), if i choose to stop promoting a casino brand and make it clear that i don't agree with actions they've taken this has two direct effects; firstly the traffic that they would have received from me - which can amount to a substantial volume - no longer flow hitting the casino directly in their pockets and secondly many other sites will follow the lead in an attempt to look more player focused than they are. The recent Rushmore roguing is a good example of this.

Essentially it boils down to the point where money could motivate a company to break the rules or turn a blind eye. Where with certification, if the casino does not want to undergo the strictures of certification they can just say no and end the contract (a more likely response than them letting their system be tested if they know they’re doing something they shouldn’t unless some 'agreement' can be reached) - resulting in a direct loss of profit for the certification company involved. If the casino stop engaging with an affiliate site most of that loss of profit can easily be mitigated by redirecting traffic to another venue. As an affiliate site has scope to engage in damage limitation when a casino gets pissed off with them where a certification group has to take it on the chin, for me it seems logical that the affiliate site is likely to have less incentive to turn a blind eye.

This doesn't entirely fix the problem though - i'm not sure there is a real fix for this issue as long as humans are involved.

I do take a few other steps to try to address this issue of reducing leap distance however. When compiling a review i don't play myself. It wouldn't take much effort to find out who i am and where i live and if a casino had that information at hand they could easily watch for me signing up and ensure i got preferential treatment in an attempt to bias the review. As such i ask someone i trust to do that for me and report back ensuring a mystery shopper type experience. Secondly, whenever reviewing a casino i look at a list of player and industry resources and reference any substantiated negative reports. That way if someone reads my review then finds a report elsewhere that i haven't pointed out they can question me on its exclusion (i.e. am i just ignoring that report to bias the review?).

As to slots RTPs - I agree that casinos can easily lie about these figures (although i would suggest that a couple of the documents i have been given would be more effort than they were worth to fake simply to improve the 'Slots RTP' figure of their review, stretching on to scores of pages and thousands of entries and in both cases providing both far more detail information than i requested and providing information on all games, not just slots), but with certification once again you have to trust that a company in the direct pay of the casino they're auditing are returning accurate figures. I don't see a company with such direct financial ties to the casino as impartial and as such for this reason don't trust their certificates any further than the casino claims. For this reason i try to emphasize that the figures really should be treated as a guideline and where ever possible i will cross reference figures from different sources. This doesn't entirely fix the problem either as in many cases the games are configurable, but it can help give a idea of the range of possible settings and where the operator claims that the games are not configurable - as Boyle's CM stated regarding Playtech recently - these figures can then be cross referenced against other casinos providing this information as i will be doing shortly with both Gala Casino and Betfred. If they all independently provide the same figures, you can be fairly confident they are accurate.

To give the short version, while i can see why you feel that certification reduces the leap distance as i don't really see these companies as independent, for me they don't affect the leap.

One last point though - i'm not asking anyone to do anything and certainly i'm not asking anyone not to trust certification companies. I simply provide a perspective and if the reader feels that my perspective is relevant they are welcome to take whatever advice they can gleen from my site. On the other hand, i by no means know everything and i can assure you that i'm a long way off always being right, so if readers find reason to question my opinions, my honesty or my integrity i certainly have no issue with that. As hard as i work to try and show that i am honest, i can see as well as any rational minded person all the reasons to ask questions....

 

[dionysus]

It's the one thing that i really feel strongly about when it comes to affiliate work - there are FAR too many affiliates out their recommending casinos because they a) offer more money than other better venues or b) convert better for the affiliate. A review site that recommends venues based on either of these criteria has failed their readership in the one and only task they were asked to perform. If you come to a site looking for a recommendation for a casino to play with, you expect the top 10 list to be the best venues for you, not the best venues for the site.

I like making money - it pays the bills and stops me having all the natural worries that come with not having enough of the paper stuff. But if i have to be dishonest about the casinos i'm advertising to make that money, i'll stop doing it and go back to making money with day jobs as i've always done before. I genuinely hope that my site provides a useful service to players long into the future, but if the market tells me it doesn't i'm not prepared to undermine my own moral code just to make some cash.

So when a casino comes to me and says "what level of rev share/cpa/exclusive bonus will it take to get placement in the top 10", my answer is always the same - "i don't sell position, but if you'd like me to talk to you about how you can improve the service you're offering i'm more than happy to make the time".

Affiliate sites - like this one - that genuinely require casinos to live up to a healthy standard and improve the service that they offer their customers are a rarity and have unique leverage to change the way some aspects of the business operate and with that have a responsibility to do so for the betterment of their audience.

***Moral rant over lol***

Well, to be fair, most forums are businesses, and if they have affiliate accounts, truly, what's wrong with promoting the less than stellar casinos? I mean, they're going to push the ones that generate them income. The Burger King manager is going to tow the company line. Even if he really prefers a Big Mac at home, he isn't going to tell customers to eat at McDonald's. If you want to worry about whether a casino's Top 10 is always based SOLELY on factors outside of income, go somewhere or start a site that doesn't have affiliations. When you want to read a movie review, you go to a critic who doesn't have stock in the film; you wouldn't ask the director.

 

[binary128]

ThePogg,

Well, I've read what you've written a couple of times.

1. I think anyone would have a tough time coming up with an argument concerning the generally poor history of this industry. both past and recent. We've seen examples of incompetence, mismanagement, chaos, confusion, corruption, ignorance, and indifference. We've also seen examples of poor software, corrupt software, poor training, poor documentation, poor communication. And I don't think that all of the words that I've used here covers the full spectrum, or its magnitude. (That is, gross incompetence and gross mismanagement are words that seem to go together nicely.)

2. Everything that I've mentioned in #1 is disheartening, to say the least. At times one is left to wonder whether it could get any worse and still be called a functional system.

However, I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I can't speak of any other Casinos or Software Providers, but I can speak of Galewind and Pinnacle Sports.

You have no personal experience with iTech Labs. I do. I can attest to their quality of service and their integrity of results. You can trust me or not, but the bottom line is that you have no experience with iTech Labs and I do.

You also have no experience with Certified Fair Gambling. I do. Again I can attest to their quality of service and their integrity of results. As above, you can trust me or not, but again you have no experience with CFG and I do.

Both of these are "paid for services", and thus suspect in your mind, and I am certain in the minds of many others. There is no doubt in my mind, so again trust me or not. To me, an iTech Labs RNG certificate and a monthly CFG audit are minimum requirements, baseline starting points. Published T-RTPs mean nothing to me without both of these certificates behind them.

So, I'd say that I disagree with your approach to just trash it all and go with your own personal criteria.

However, I also say that I continue to sincerely applaud your efforts at obtaining the data which you have been working on. Again, carry on noble Percival.

Chris

 

[Jufo]

ThePOGG,

Another one of my patent pending, more-words-than-you-want-to-read posts that bears on the issue of monthly certifications, specifically as it relates to Certified Fair Gambling.

I've worked with Certified Fair Gambling (CFG) for over 3 years. I chose CFG over TST or eCOGRA specifically because, in addition to the financial RTP Percent calculation, CFG also runs an assortment of statistical tests on the game logs which I send them every month. (I, and others, have referenced this in several threads over the years.)

If you read a TST Monthly Game Payout Certification, you'll clearly see that Financial RTP Percent is all that is being certified. The same applies to an eCOGRA monthly report.

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

:

Old / Expired Link:

From our Help files:



I included this quote to exemplify exactly how simple a Financial RTP Percent calculation is - these monthly reports ain't rocket surgery.



Certified Fair Gambling (CFG), in addition to performing the Financial RTP Percent calculation above, also performs a number (a large number) of tests for the determination of statistical "fairness". (Again, I and others have referenced this in several threads over the years.)

You can clearly see this by comparing the Monthly Certification documents of CFG, TST and eCOGRA. The CFG document includes the extremely significant statement



Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) :

This one sentence makes the world of difference, and represents the reason that I chose CFG over TST and eCOGRA back in early 2009.

In additional to being a financial value, RTP is also a significant statistical value, of importance in a monthly report. However, though important, it is a relatively small part of the total CFG monthly audit, both in size and in impact.

An excellent example - a simple RTP analysis might possibly have missed the now infamous double-down Video Poker mess at English Harbour. (That is, if the double-down game count were not high enough to cause a 3-sigma drift in the game's total RTP, it would have simply slipped through the cracks.) However, just one of CFG's statistical tests would have captured the problem immediately, and without any doubt or question.

eCOGRA's 6-month RNG Certificates are simply Chi-squared analysis of the game output. Chi-squared analysis is also included in the monthly CFG analysis, but is again only a small part of the total testing. (It is also performed monthly, not twice a year, and is used against more than the 3 games which eCOGRA has chosen.) CFG also includes skip tests, run tests, streak tests, and a variety of others that are of importance to players and are based on CFG's extensive experience in statistical analysis as it relates to online gaming.

What you describe above is exactly the short of shit I always encounter when trying to get more specific information about the randomness / fairness of results at different casinos. For example Ladbokes wrote to me: "No matter how you play Blackjack you will get a 97.8% return because that is what the number eCogra has published for our games." To which I then replied: "Since I always play perfect strategy, the TRTP should be between 99.4% - 99.91% depending on the game choice", to which they replied: "Since eCogra publishes 97.8% RTP for blackjack games that's what you will get and the eCogra certification proves that the games are fair so we will not have to send you your play logs for analysis either."

This same conversation has occured at very many casinos when I have asked for more detailed certificates of the results such as audit reports for which my requests have systematically been declined.

I have to ask: Would you feel safe at playing those casinos based on those responses given?

 

[binary128]

What you describe above is exactly the short of shit I always encounter when trying to get more specific information about the randomness / fairness of results at different casinos. For example Ladbokes wrote to me: "No matter how you play Blackjack you will get a 97.8% return because that is what the number eCogra has published for our games." To which I then replied: "Since I always play perfect strategy, the TRTP should be between 99.4% - 99.91% depending on the game choice", to which they replied: "Since eCogra publishes 97.8% RTP for blackjack games that's what you will get and the eCogra certification proves that the games are fair so we will not have to send you your play logs for analysis either."

This same conversation has occured at very many casinos when I have asked for more detailed certificates of the results such as audit reports for which my requests have systematically been declined.

I have to ask: Would you feel safe at playing those casinos based on those responses given?

Jufo,

You've mentioned that 97.8% Blackjack RTP in several posts now, across several threads. That is just a surprisingly low RTP.

I mentioned this before, and just double-checked - the historical RTP for Pinnacle's Blackjack, going back 8 years and including hundreds of millions of games, is 98.615. (The standard BJ has an RTP of 98.61, and the High-Stakes BJ has an RTP of 98.62.)

I don't say this as a promotion of Pinnacle's BJ. I say this because it is my understanding that this 98.6 number is much closer to the online Casino norm than this 97.8 number. So, either the players at the Casino you're referencing are on the whole not very good at BJ, the players at Pinnacle are much better at BJ, or something else is amiss.

Chris

 

[Jufo]

Jufo,

You've mentioned that 97.8% Blackjack RTP in several posts now, across several threads. That is just a surprisingly low RTP.

I mentioned this before, and just double-checked - the historical RTP for Pinnacle's Blackjack, going back 8 years and including hundreds of millions of games, is 98.615. (The standard BJ has an RTP of 98.61, and the High-Stakes BJ has an RTP of 98.62.)

I don't say this as a promotion of Pinnacle's BJ. I say this because it is my understanding that this 98.6 number is much closer to the online Casino norm than this 97.8 number. So, either the players at the Casino you're referencing are on the whole not very good at BJ, the players at Pinnacle are much better at BJ, or something else is amiss.

Chris

I mentioned 97.8% because that's about the value audit reports and online casino reports often state for Blackjack. Chris, thanks very much for the information about long-term BJ RTP at Pinnacle. That 98.6% value actually matches very well

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

which showed the average player error rate in Blackjack to be around 0.8%. (Optimal TRTP = 99.6% minus 0.8% error rate = 98.6% = Your value). The article mentions an older study from 1987 which found the error rate to be 1.41% but in the newer study the error rate was found to be between 0.77% - 0.89%, and this result matches Pinnacle's BJ data very well.

So if we assume that on-line BJ players are on average equally skilled as B&M casino BJ players (one could reason that online players should actually be better than B&M casino players because of the easy availability of BJ strategy charts online), then a published RTP of 97.8% indicates something really is a miss. Do some casinos cheat extra 1% in Blackjack or are the players really this much worse players at these particular casinos? The problem is that more superficial audits than CFG - like TST or eCogra probably don't address this error rate at all and I am left wondering would it possible for a casino who cheats that extra 1% pass their audits?

A mere 1% difference of return in Blackjack makes an enormous difference to the player's bankroll by the way.

 

[dunover]

I closed my Intercasino account a while ago - they pay fast but I found the slots flat and unexciting, only made one w/d in 6 deposits, and that was 10 pence less than my deposit because after the soporific of playing there for 2 hours I had to go to sleep....

Very dated casino IMO

 

[binary128]

I mentioned 97.8% because that's about the value audit reports and online casino reports often state for Blackjack. Chris, thanks very much for the information about long-term BJ RTP at Pinnacle. That 98.6% value actually matches very well

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

which showed the average player error rate in Blackjack to be around 0.8%. (Optimal TRTP = 99.6% minus 0.8% error rate = 98.6% = Your value). The article mentions an older study from 1987 which found the error rate to be 1.41% but in the newer study the error rate was found to be between 0.77% - 0.89%, and this result matches Pinnacle's BJ data very well.

So if we assume that on-line BJ players are on average equally skilled as B&M casino BJ players (one could reason that online players should actually be better than B&M casino players because of the easy availability of BJ strategy charts online), then a published RTP of 97.8% indicates something really is a miss. Do some casinos cheat extra 1% in Blackjack or are the players really this much worse players at these particular casinos? The problem is that more superficial audits than CFG - like TST or eCogra probably don't address this error rate at all and I am left wondering would it possible for a casino who cheats that extra 1% pass their audits?

A mere 1% difference of return in Blackjack makes an enormous difference to the player's bankroll by the way.

Jufo,

That was an interesting report. I thought about a couple of things there.

One was that there is no difference between Pinnacle's "Low-Stakes" BJ and their "High-Stakes" BJ, but they note a significant difference in the report. But they didn't offer any dollar size difference between the two versions.

Pinnacle's "Low-Stakes" version goes as high as a $500 ante, and I can say there are a lot of those that are played. Their "High-Stakes" version goes as high as a $10,000 ante (and I can say that there are fewer of those played ).

Another was that online players should see a higher RTP because they can have a basic strategy card open in another browser window. I'd write off a lot of the difference not to excursions from basic strategy but to "hunch bets". I'll sometimes take Insurance, or take Even Money, or hit when I shouldn't, because of "hunches".

Sportsbook players may indeed be better at Blackjack then non-Sportsbook players?

I wonder whether eCOGRA or TST have "guidelines" for when an RTP is amiss. All they are doing is a financial RTP, so a financial RTP is all they have to go off from. If the RTP for a month's worth of Blackjack or Jacks or Better (given a reasonable sample size) was 82.4%, would they do anything other than just report 82.4%?

And you're right - a 1% difference in RTP for a popular game in the Casino can make a noticeable impact on the Casino's bottom line.

Chris

 

[Jufo]

Jufo,

That was an interesting report. I thought about a couple of things there.

One was that there is no difference between Pinnacle's "Low-Stakes" BJ and their "High-Stakes" BJ, but they note a significant difference in the report. But they didn't offer any dollar size difference between the two versions.

Pinnacle's "Low-Stakes" version goes as high as a $500 ante, and I can say there are a lot of those that are played. Their "High-Stakes" version goes as high as a $10,000 ante (and I can say that there are fewer of those played ).

I made a slight miscalculation in my previous post. That is, if Optimal BJ TRTP is 99.6% then an expected 0.8% player error rate would yield an actual RTP of 98.8%. This is 0.2% higher than what you reported what the long-term results from Pinnacle were, but anyway it's reasonably close.

Another was that online players should see a higher RTP because they can have a basic strategy card open in another browser window. I'd write off a lot of the difference not to excursions from basic strategy but to "hunch bets". I'll sometimes take Insurance, or take Even Money, or hit when I shouldn't, because of "hunches".

Sportsbook players may indeed be better at Blackjack then non-Sportsbook players?

I guess that's possible and makes sense, but remember that I was also told that Ladbrokes BJ pays 97.8% long term and Ladbrokes is a big sportsbook.

Even with all the mugs out there making "hunch" bets it's hard for me to believe that the error rate online would be double as much as it is in a B&M casino environment (where there are plenty of mugs as well). Strategy errors also increase HE less than what people generally think. I had a conversation with one casino about by Blackjack long-term RTP and they told me that my lower RTP was because I had made playing errors in Blackjack. Well I took the hand histories from all of my gameplay and used the

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

over at Wizard of Odds to calculate how much each of the strategy errors I made cost me in RTP. I was able to show that the strategy errors I made only increased the HE by 0.10%, in other words I played well enough to be within 0.10% of Optimal TRTP and obviously the casinos argument that the low RTP was due to my strategy errors was flawed. It was just their lame excuse so that they wouldn't have to address the real problem of a potentially compromised game.

I wonder whether eCOGRA or TST have "guidelines" for when an RTP is amiss. All they are doing is a financial RTP, so a financial RTP is all they have to go off from. If the RTP for a month's worth of Blackjack or Jacks or Better (given a reasonable sample size) was 82.4%, would they do anything other than just report 82.4%?

And you're right - a 1% difference in RTP for a popular game in the Casino can make a noticeable impact on the Casino's bottom line.

I am not sure what would happen in this case. But for me the biggest problem is that the auditors (eCogra etc.) seem to be simply satisfied with a ~97% payout figure for BJ and don't seem to give any kind of evidence to optimal strategy players that actually will reach the expected nearly 100% payout.

 

[binary128]

I made a slight miscalculation in my previous post. That is, if Optimal BJ TRTP is 99.6% then an expected 0.8% player error rate would yield an actual RTP of 98.8%. This is 0.2% higher than what you reported what the long-term results from Pinnacle were, but anyway it's reasonably close.

At first I was confused by your use of 99.6%, then I realized that you were using the 99.59% Element of Risk value.

I guess that's possible and makes sense, but remember that I was also told that Ladbrokes BJ pays 97.8% long term and Ladbrokes is a big sportsbook.

I was curious, so I ran some queries in my current deployment's database. I chose to analyze the RTP of only those people who had played more than 5,000 games, for no other reason than that 5,000 games struck me as a very large sample size for Blackjack. (That is, in 5,000 games I figure that you are going to have the opportunity to follow a lot of "hunches", make a lot of excursions from basic strategy, drink a lot of beer, etc.)

Of all of the Blackjack Players in the database, 23.4% played more than 5,000 games. (I can't use absolute numbers because I consider that information proprietary, but I can tell you that 23.4% represents a significant number of Players.)

Of those people who played more than 5,000 games:

- 11.2% had an RTP >= 100%
- 17.8% had an RTP >= 99.59%
- 42.9% had an RTP >= 98.62% (Mean)
- 50.0% had an RTP >= 98.40% (Median)

- 28.2% had an RTP <= 97.8%

(I'd like to include average bet size for these 5000-game players, but again I consider that proprietary information.)

So, about 10% of these players are winners, 20% are seeing at or more than the Theoretical Maximum RTP (Element of Risk), and 50% are seeing greater than a 1.2% deviation from T-RTP over 5,000 games.

28% of these Players are seeing your 97.8% return over 5000 games of play.

Make of these numbers what you will.

I am not sure what would happen in this case. But for me the biggest problem is that the auditors (eCogra etc.) seem to be simply satisfied with a ~97% payout figure for BJ and don't seem to give any kind of evidence to optimal strategy players that actually will reach the expected nearly 100% payout.

I would expect that eCOGRA or TST returns the numbers to the client, and leaves the evaluation (and subsequent investigation if any) to the client.

Chris

 

[Nifty29]

Is it not a fact that auditors such as those mentioned in this thread can only use whatever data is provided to them by the operator?

Would it not be possible for an unscrupulous operator to provide fudged or false figures to obtain the "certified" RTPs that they desire?

I have no doubt that EJ and co are totally above board, but until there is a system where auditors can tap into streaming raw data at will to get a snapshot without any possibility of interference, it will still come down to how much a player trusts an operator.....and this trust has to be earned and entails time and a lot more than just a "certified" RTP figure.

Put it this way. If a new operator appeared touting 98% RTP slots, my first reaction would be "Hmmmm....". I wouldn't care who checked their figures, I would want to see how honestly and ethically they operate and how they treat their players so that I can decide if I trust them. When 32Red states their RTPs, I believe them without question based on the fact that I trust everything else about them. When W1npalace or T0p Game state their RTPs, I take it with a grain of salt, because based on their past behaviour in other areas, I wouldn't put it past them to provide dodgy data.

I trust that EJ and co will do a thorough and professional job every time. The legitimacy of the data provided to them is another matter.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

When 32Red states their RTPs, I believe them without question based on the fact that I trust everything else about them.

Where do you get RTPs for 32Red's slots Nifty?

Yes I know we can see the monthly audited report, but as far as I can tell that only ever delivers a blanket 'slots percentage' and it never gets any more granular than that.

 

[Nifty29]

Where do you get RTPs for 32Red's slots Nifty?

Yes I know we can see the monthly audited report, but as far as I can tell that only ever delivers a blanket 'slots percentage' and it never gets any more granular than that.

Well it might not be the full kerbang, but I believe it......which is really my point. Your point has merit, but its a seperate discussion to the trust one.

Given MGS slots are set and not adjustable, it probably wasn't the best example given T-RTP is the same. Perhaps substitute Inetbet for 32Red. I don't know if inetbet do publish RTP data, but my point is if they DID I would believe them based on a host of other areas in which I trust them.

Do you get my drift about the data not being tamper proof before the auditors see it? My trust argument is about trusting those who PROVIDE the data, rather than those who AUDIT it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well it might not be the full kerbang, but I believe it......which is really my point. Your point has merit, but its a seperate discussion to the trust one.

Given MGS slots are set and not adjustable, it probably wasn't the best example given T-RTP is the same. Perhaps substitute Inetbet for 32Red. I don't know if inetbet do publish RTP data, but my point is if they DID I would believe them based on a host of other areas in which I trust them.

Do you get my drift about the data not being tamper proof before the auditors see it? My trust argument is about trusting those who PROVIDE the data, rather than those who AUDIT it.

I do take your point Nifty, when it comes to online casinos the sorry truth is that to a large extent we have to decide for ourselves what we can and can't trust when it comes to the numbers provided, and who we can and can't trust when it comes to software providers and/or casinos.

I guess you could ask a hundred people what their own standards for 'trust' were and get a hundred different answers.

Personally speaking I take all RTP data with a pinch of salt, the solitary exception to that is Galewind, because they have passed my 'personal' trust test, and I believe that Chris (Galewind CEO) has engaged with the CM community here on the basis of absolute honesty and transparency about how his software works, and for that I respect him and the software his company provides.

I have no such trust and/or respect for MG, and by extension, 32Red. (And let me be clear about this, I think 32Red are an absolutely magnificent online casino who conduct themselves perfectly, but IMO they're always going to be limited by the software they run.)

I just don't like software providers who won't talk to their customers.

 

[Jufo]

Where do you get RTPs for 32Red's slots Nifty?

Yes I know we can see the monthly audited report, but as far as I can tell that only ever delivers a blanket 'slots percentage' and it never gets any more granular than that.

One source is

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

website who lists the HE % figures for most Microgaming slots. These should be the same across all Microgaming casinos. For double verification, I have also made some computer simulations based on the known reel strips for Microgaming slots and the simulator ends up with pretty much the same HE % values as listed by The Pogg.

I have to say that Microgaming slot selection is subpar when compared to other softwares. Unlike other softwares they don't have a single slot paying 97% or more. Unfortunately this shows the line of thinking that slot players are always with any RTP and there is no need to compete to offer them better RTPs.

 

[binary128]

In this thread, I'm only thinking of the trust/transparency issues associated with published T-RTPs, a certified RNG, and the details of the audit which confirm that the published T-RTP values weren't just made up.

(I've also found myself in a bit of a position of defending the critical importance of quality RNG Certifying Labs and quality RTP Certifying Labs, which, as a Software Representative in a Player's forum, is somewhat odd if you think about it.)

I think that part of the mechanics of what I'm referring to can be found in this post, in which I made the following statement:

To be accurate, I would be scared to screw around with this data, and that I think is exactly the way that it should be. CFG is doing their job; they are keeping us on our toes.

I'm not aware of any other Casinos that publish all of their T-RTPs, have a published RNG Certificate, and also publish the results of a certified RTP audit each month. I would sincerely welcome any corrections to that statement.


As to the more global issue of trusting a Casino operator, I made a post in Bryan's thread "Revamping the Accredited Section" which included the following list:

- Purchasing systems
- Withdrawal systems
- Customer Service systems
- Accreditations & Certifications
- Promotions
- Games - Download system
- Games - No-download system
- Transparency
- Business History
- Terms & Conditions

I suggested using a 5-star rating system for each of these ten categories, with a lot of the ratings data coming in from the various areas of the forum.

I think that many of these items are important factors in the determination of whether a Player should trust a Casino. Published T-RTPs, Certified RNGs and monthly audits are only a part of this list, albeit in my opinion a very important part. That is, they not only speak to trust, but also to the determination of whether or not I want to play there.

- Casino #1 has a 5-star rating across the board, I like their games, and they have a T-RTP of 92%.

- Casino #2 has a 5-star rating across the board, I like their games, and they have a T-RTP of 97%.

Hmmm .....

I have to say that Microgaming slot selection is subpar when compared to other softwares. Unlike other softwares they don't have a single slot paying 97% or more. Unfortunately this shows the line of thinking that slot players are always with any RTP and there is no need to compete to offer them better RTPs.

For some reason that is now lost to my memory, I decided that all of our slots would have a 97.5% T-RTP. (I think that it had something to do with European Roulette.) Our oldest slots (Diamonds Wild at 97.59%, The Red White & Blue at 97.57%, and Crazy 8 Line at 97.47% are all at least 7 years old) reflect this. I also transferred this spec to Keno, which has an average T-RTP across all 10 picks of 97.48%.

I can't count the number of times that people have suggested to me (or requested of me) to drop the T-RTP by 1%. "The Players will never notice the difference, and you'll make a lot more money." For some reason that is also lost to my memory I just didn't go down that path.

Chris

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Another one of my patent pending, more-words-than-you-want-to-read posts that bears on the issue of monthly certifications, specifically as it relates to Certified Fair Gambling.

Chris, thanks for your kind post. In my mind the difference is similar to Home-Depot vs. your local hardware store. I know my clients personally, deal with their software and log files every month, and respond directly and quickly to patron complaints. But, I can't provide all the services that TST and eCogra offer. I audit online casinos for game fairness. They audit everything. Here is some of what I do for my clients that I don't think eCogra or TST do.

Occasionally I will work with an individual who has a complaint against a casino I don't audit as part of CFG. In three cases over the past year I have directly investigated casino software for rogue behavior that was brought to my attention. Often I find out about potential candidates through a thread on this (or another) forum. In two out of three of those cases in the last year, I found the software to be rogue. One was addressed publicly (BLR Tech), the other was a confidential matter. Once in a while a casino software provider will contact me to audit a program they think may have a bug. I helped debug an existing online program in the last year that overpaid craps by over $200,000 and helped them recover their losses. I have created PAR sheets for slot machines for online casinos (get the android app "Slot City" -- that's my game), and many other games as well, so I know the inside scoop. I have been hired by online casino software providers to do the mathematical analysis for scores of games they offer. In short, I feel as though there is no part of the software, from it's mathematical analysis to its programming to its auditing that I don't have direct experience with. I am certain that no one at eCogra or TST has this level of expertise.

Bryan, excuse the self-promotion.

Kind regards,

Eliot

 

[Nifty29]

Chris, thanks for your kind post. In my mind the difference is similar to Home-Depot vs. your local hardware store. I know my clients personally, deal with their software and log files every month, and respond directly and quickly to patron complaints. But, I can't provide all the services that TST and eCogra offer. I audit online casinos for game fairness. They audit everything. Here is some of what I do for my clients that I don't think eCogra or TST do.

Occasionally I will work with an individual who has a complaint against a casino I don't audit as part of CFG. In three cases over the past year I have directly investigated casino software for rogue behavior that was brought to my attention. Often I find out about potential candidates through a thread on this (or another) forum. In two out of three of those cases in the last year, I found the software to be rogue. One was addressed publicly (BLR Tech), the other was a confidential matter. Once in a while a casino software provider will contact me to audit a program they think may have a bug. I helped debug an existing online program in the last year that overpaid craps by over $200,000 and helped them recover their losses. I have created PAR sheets for slot machines for online casinos (get the android app "Slot City" -- that's my game), and many other games as well, so I know the inside scoop. I have been hired by online casino software providers to do the mathematical analysis for scores of games they offer. In short, I feel as though there is no part of the software, from it's mathematical analysis to its programming to its auditing that I don't have direct experience with. I am certain that no one at eCogra or TST has this level of expertise.

Bryan, excuse the self-promotion.

Kind regards,

Eliot

Thanks Eliot.

Is it true though that auditors such as yourself can only deal with the data which the operators provides? If the data is dodgy/fudged, then players will be misled, even though your work will be 100% accurate.

If there is something about the whole process that I'm missing, then I would be interested to hear how it works. Learning is living!

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Is it true though that auditors such as yourself can only deal with the data which the operators provides? If the data is dodgy/fudged, then players will be misled, even though your work will be 100% accurate.

I am not sure how you could fudge the data. Here is an example. Write out a sequency of 1000 0's and 1's and send it to me. I can tell you with near certainty if it was generated by a coin-flip, or if you did it trying to look random. Humans don't know how to create random looking data. They just don't.

That said, I have requested and have received explicit computer code. In two cases, it was damning.

 

[Jufo]

Elliot you make a very good point about how hard it is to fake random data. So if a casino sent tampered logs, there would exist at least one statistical test of randomness which the data would fail. Of couse it all depends on finding the correct statistical test depending on how cleverly the data has been manipulated.

I helped debug an existing online program in the last year that overpaid craps by over $200,000 and helped them recover their losses.

I became interested in this statement. Surely if a casino overpays a casino game and the players have already cashed out their winnings (with sometimes not even being aware that the game that they just played paid to much) there is no legal way for the casino to recover the losses anymore. At least I wouldn't return them any money if they contacted me and wanted their money back. It's their responsibility that their games are working correctly, not mine. So what did this "helped them recover their losses" actually mean here?

 

[TheLastCylon]

This may not initially seem to follow, but go with me on this.

The direction that this thread has taken made me think about an earlier rant I made about IGT and their posting of ranges and casinos that should have stellar reputations, but these reps are made questionable with even a cursory analysis of their posted numbers.

For example, Virgin Casino. IGT posts ranges for their T-RTP's for many of their slots, and Virgin appears to be doing very well, with all of their IGT games posted showing the highest possible T-RTP for the games according to the provided ranges.

But Virgin also lists the T-RTP in baccarat for only the banker, which is always the highest T-RTP. This isn't a case of the RTP being more-or-less determined by how the player plays like blackjack, where a player could theoretically get a 0% RTP by busting on every hand (That's an interesting question. What is the RTP of blackjack if a player just keeps hitting?). Baccarat is essentially three slot machines in one game, all with distinct and unchanging T-RTP's. By posting only the highest T-RTP's of their slots, including the highest T-RTP of a game that we know for a fact isn't quite true, the veracity of Virgin's numbers are in doubt.

Is it on purpose? Is it nefarious? We don't know. It may just be a mistake, but without verification, we can't know. That's why even for casinos with stellar reputations, I still want the verification. Because really nice people may still make mistakes.

Elliot,

When you say damning, how so? For example, was anyone whacked as a result of your analysis? Which would be awesome. I mean awful... and awesome. And are you referring to the debacle with BLR?

I'm also curious as to whether you've ever gone vigilante on anyone. As in, when either you were not hired, or a company refused to give you certain data, did you ever take your own money into the casino and run through a few thousand games just to see?

 

[Scooter7]

I can't count the number of times that people have suggested to me (or requested of me) to drop the T-RTP by 1%. "The Players will never notice the difference, and you'll make a lot more money." For some reason that is also lost to my memory I just didn't go down that path.

Chris

I worked for a software provider that insisted that I reduce the RTP on several slots in order to make more money.
I argued (unsuccessfully) that in the long run, it would reduce revenue.
Three years after that, I compared a reduced-RTP game with one of similar ilk (non-branded, same # of lines, similar features).
The reduced game (only a 1-2% reduction) showed short-term gains in revenue, but a long-term drop-off in wagering and revenue that was far steeper than the game we hadn't reduced.
I theorized that both games should have dropped off given their age and newer, branded content, etc. but the reduced RTP game's wagering and revenue dropped off a cliff.

Increased RTP=increased wagering=satisfied, entertained customers=more revenue in the long-run.