issue: 10x max cashout slots

[rudy2005]

I am starting this thread to discuss a restriction that has been appearing lately in some casinos, both accredited and non-accredited, and that is the maximum withdrawal for slots bonuses. I believe this is a fun-killing, unfair, and predatory term because it eliminates big wins and because of the dramatic effect it has on the return-to-player (RTP), without many players even realizing it. I have seen many threads here discussing RTP and how casinos should be open about the RTP of their slots games and how horrible it is when the settings are in the low 90s or worse. However, I have not seen anything about the correlation between maximum cashout and effective RTP.

The very nature of slot machines is the opportunity to win big. I look forward to checking the thread on “winner screenshots, 1000x bet minimum.” That is what we play for when we play slots, the thrill of hitting a jackpot, etc. Well, the max cashout on bonuses all but eliminates such payouts, and along with it severely reduces the RTP to a predatory scale by truncating all the big slot hits. On a $50 deposit, all random jackpots will be truncated down from many thousands to just $500. A max hit at RTG of 50,000 x bet per line, at 10c per line will be reduced from $5000 to just $500. The effect of such a rule on RTP is astronomical. If all results for a deposit of $50 that end in a balance over $500 are truncated down to $500, what does that do to the effective RTP of such a play? I postulate that max cashout rules can reduce the effective RTP to well below 90%, if not even down into the 50 or 60% range.

This is just not a fun way to play slots. The idea of slots is try to hit big and when the cashouts are cutoff, it’s very upsetting and just not fun; having jackpots truncated just ruins it completely.

I’d like other opinions here, but I call on the casinomeister to make as a requirement for accreditation that a casino not have slots bonuses with maximum cashouts and that the casinomeister community try their best to “out” the casinos that participate in this predatory and unfair practice. Maybe together we can put an end to this practice.

 

[tooodoggs]

Its best not to take a bonus if you do not want to have any rules on the cashout. I do not agree at all that it is predatory as the rules are right there and before you use the coupon you know the rules. I am grateful for the bonus if i choose to take it i accept the rules.
I really do not see the problem?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am starting this thread to discuss a restriction that has been appearing lately in some casinos, both accredited and non-accredited, and that is the maximum withdrawal for slots bonuses. I believe this is a fun-killing, unfair, and predatory term because it eliminates big wins and because of the dramatic effect it has on the return-to-player (RTP), without many players even realizing it. I have seen many threads here discussing RTP and how casinos should be open about the RTP of their slots games and how horrible it is when the settings are in the low 90s or worse. However, I have not seen anything about the correlation between maximum cashout and effective RTP.

The very nature of slot machines is the opportunity to win big. I look forward to checking the thread on “winner screenshots, 1000x bet minimum.” That is what we play for when we play slots, the thrill of hitting a jackpot, etc. Well, the max cashout on bonuses all but eliminates such payouts, and along with it severely reduces the RTP to a predatory scale by truncating all the big slot hits. On a $50 deposit, all random jackpots will be truncated down from many thousands to just $500. A max hit at RTG of 50,000 x bet per line, at 10c per line will be reduced from $5000 to just $500. The effect of such a rule on RTP is astronomical. If all results for a deposit of $50 that end in a balance over $500 are truncated down to $500, what does that do to the effective RTP of such a play? I postulate that max cashout rules can reduce the effective RTP to well below 90%, if not even down into the 50 or 60% range.

This is just not a fun way to play slots. The idea of slots is try to hit big and when the cashouts are cutoff, it’s very upsetting and just not fun; having jackpots truncated just ruins it completely.

I’d like other opinions here, but I call on the casinomeister to make as a requirement for accreditation that a casino not have slots bonuses with maximum cashouts and that the casinomeister community try their best to “out” the casinos that participate in this predatory and unfair practice. Maybe together we can put an end to this practice.

This has been discussed many times, and we have been told that the effect on RTP is "negligible". In order to prove otherwise, we need to do some pretty complex calculations, and find information that RTG would like to keep well hidden, such as the reelstrips and RTP settings, not to mention the probability tables behind "pick x of y" features. It might be possible to do the calculation on a simpler slot that has a standard fixed set of free spins and multipler based on a fixed trigger (such as 3 scatters = x free spins at y multiplier). With the reelstrips, all possible payout combinations could be calculated, and thus the RTP. It could then be done again, but shaving off those payouts that would be confiscated under the two restrictions, the 50,000x line bet cap, and the max cashout. This would give us a new RTP, and allow us to see how much is lost due to these restrictions.

The casinos may not like to see these figures come out, so don't expect them to help in providing the data.

Unfortunately for US players, the softwares that don't tend to come with such restrictions are not available. The suspicion is that by implementing these restrictions, a casino can operate with less reserve funding as they will not be hit by having to pay a very large payout in full. You also find weekly withdrawal limits as a further restriction, making even a truncated big win split and paid out over several weeks or months.

 

[SlotsLover]

another factor

It's very difficult to calculate the exact effect on RTP, as it also depends a lot on the amount wagered and the deposit amount. If one deposits $20 and wagers $2 per spin, the 10x max cashout will be a lot more restrictive than one who deposits 100 and wagers $2 per spin.

However, I think it is safe to say that the effect of the 10x max cashout is humungous. Looking at the winner screenshots thread, how many of those would reduced drastically? And, as the original poster pointed out, what about the random jackpots?

It's true that a player gets to choose their bonus and play accordingly, but bonuses have become a way of life (just like comps in a live casino) and many people play with them. The point is that the unsophisticated player is playing an impossible game with 10x maximum cashouts on slots. The slots bonuses have long playthroughs and I believe it's been pointed out in these forums many times that these bonuses are not profitable for players due to the long rollovers but there is a huge difference between gouging the players with unfair rules and having them simply play at a disadvantage but using the bonuses for extra play and fun (and a chance to hit big).

 

[vinylweatherman]

It's very difficult to calculate the exact effect on RTP, as it also depends a lot on the amount wagered and the deposit amount. If one deposits $20 and wagers $2 per spin, the 10x max cashout will be a lot more restrictive than one who deposits 100 and wagers $2 per spin.

However, I think it is safe to say that the effect of the 10x max cashout is humungous. Looking at the winner screenshots thread, how many of those would reduced drastically? And, as the original poster pointed out, what about the random jackpots?

It's true that a player gets to choose their bonus and play accordingly, but bonuses have become a way of life (just like comps in a live casino) and many people play with them. The point is that the unsophisticated player is playing an impossible game with 10x maximum cashouts on slots. The slots bonuses have long playthroughs and I believe it's been pointed out in these forums many times that these bonuses are not profitable for players due to the long rollovers but there is a huge difference between gouging the players with unfair rules and having them simply play at a disadvantage but using the bonuses for extra play and fun (and a chance to hit big).

They may get extra fun, but if they do hit big, they will never get to see it.

The 50,000x line bet restriction applies even if you DON'T take a bonus, so it is not so that if you want to be free of such restrictions you just need to not take bonuses. The effect has been shown in some winner screenshots where the 50,000 restriction has kicked in, sliced way more than half the win from that one spin alone, and stopped a feature well before it is over. Losing $10,000 plus whatever else you might have got from the remaining spins is hardly "negligible" if you are the one affected, and have already lost $30,000 before getting that hit.

The 10x max cashout is even harsher, and I very much doubt the effect is "negligible". Max cashouts more or less guarantee that a random jackpot (funded by players from a levy of around 1.5% on the RTP of the game) gets a pretty big slice taken off the top. There is little clarity as to what happens to the part of the RJ (remember, funded by players) that is forefeit to a max cashout rule. It seems casinos can choose whether to keep it for themselves, or find a means to place it back in the pool.

In RTG, the RJ is a fixed sum that can be won at any stake, thus the RTP for a small time depositor is lower than that for a big depositor. If the 10x max is calculated on $1000, you will get all of an $8000 RJ, but had you deposited $100, you would see $7000 of the $8000 forefeit to the casino under this rule.


If the effect on RTP really is negligible as claimed, why are casinos hanging on to this set of restrictions like their lives depended on it? Many already have weekly or monthly limits to cushion the effects of large withdrawals on cashflow, so it would be fairer to pay all the win over several weeks rather than just pay out 1 weeks worth and take the rest as forefeit.

The clever player would be less affected, as they would look at the value of the RJ and make a deposit big enough to neuter the effect of the 10x restriction should he hit an RJ that session. If he saw an $8000 RJ, he would deposit over $800 to ensure he kept the lot should it hit. It is certainly what I have done in the past when there has been a max cashout, and for free chips, it was strictly classic slots with no RJs to win and be deprived of, at least it was till RTG pulled all those classic slots, and FORCED players to play RJ loaded slots when subject to a max cashout.

Many RTG casinos now pool the RJs to make them huge, and they must know this makes it even more likely that most of such bloated pools can be confiscated under the max cashout rules. Don't tell me they didn't think of this when they ditched individual RJs in favour of pools that grow well into the tens of thousands of dollars.

The worst offender of all was Rushmore. Players wondered how the hell their RJs were always 10x or more larger than at any other RTG casino, yet they weren't pooled any more than the others, and it was the same games operating under the same pooling and triggering rules for the RJs. Whatever RTG say, I believe it proves the existence of some significant levels of customisation for these RJs that goes well beyond the narrow criteria they have admitted, and it has lent some credibilty to conspiracy theories that the RJs are not necessarily random at all, but can be granted to specific players by the pit boss as part of a strategy to manipulate them into being more profitable to the casino in the long term. One theory was that if the pit boss thought a long spell of bad luck was likely to cause a profitable player to leave, they would be chucked a bone in the form of a few decent hits to encourage them to believe their luck had changed.

Non tin foil hat wearers consider this a load of bollocks, but the operators do themselves no favours by getting caught out, rather than admitting to, significant features and settings that they use in the software.

Even when we found out that RTG casinos could use three distinct RTP settings, it was "spun" to us that the tightest 91.5% one would "never be applied online". Just when the mainstream believed this, the tin foil hat brigade got a boost from the embarrassing "two pears" cock up that made RTP tweaking easy to prove. The eventual revelation that this was the 91.5% setting appearing online, and not in a kiosk, put the boot in. The official line from RTG then changed to "some operators may use the lowest setting online, this is purely a business decision that they are free to make".

So, what other "impossible" or "non existent" features are really "business decisions that operators may choose to make".

With all this, a 10x max cashout and 50,000x line bet cap are not the only things players need to worry about. Even if abolished, I bet they will have something else up their sleeve to achieve the same effect.

We are supposed to believe the effect on RTP is negligible because RTG have told us that it is. It isn't going to happen, and this topic is never going away.

 

[Jasminebed]

I really don't mind seeing a cap on free chips, since the alternative might be no free chips. It helps the casino manage their promotional cost format much better. I'm prepared to accept my first RJ on a free chip, although I know I'll have an OH MAN moment or two.

But I will not take deposit bonuses that cap my winnings. Or if there are limits, make them more reasonable like 1000x your deposit. The casino will appear much more generous without it probably not having too many players achieve that, and that will probably see some players that hit the 10x mark carry on trying for more.

I think that overall, the 50,000x line bet problem is minimal, but more than minimal on the games it happens most frequently on.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I really don't mind seeing a cap on free chips, since the alternative might be no free chips. It helps the casino manage their promotional cost format much better. I'm prepared to accept my first RJ on a free chip, although I know I'll have an OH MAN moment or two.

But I will not take deposit bonuses that cap my winnings. Or if there are limits, make them more reasonable like 1000x your deposit. The casino will appear much more generous without it probably not having too many players achieve that, and that will probably see some players that hit the 10x mark carry on trying for more.

I think that overall, the 50,000x line bet problem is minimal, but more than minimal on the games it happens most frequently on.

The wording is deceptive. Think 2000x bet and it looks worse, but this is the true picture for a 25 line slot.

The problem with the cap on free chips is that they give out loads of small ones. It wouldn't be so bad if players could choose to save them up until they have enough allowance such that 10x is worth having, and unlikely to cause loss of winnings.

A $5 chip would have a max of $50, yet even minimum stake can trigger the RJ, leaving almost all of it in the pockets of the casino, and it is not just confiscated from the player that won it, but from all the players who contributed in the expectation it would eventually be paid out as part of the overall RTP to players. Given that the free chip is often earned through deposits that have been made and lost, it is not really a "free chip", but a "loyalty chip".

Other operators restrict such caps to players who have never deposited, but just play all the free chips. Since such players have never risked their own funds, it is easy to justify capping what can be won by "freeloading".

There are even a few casinos that cap the amount that can be withdrawn when NOT taking a bonus, but they are all in the rogue pit.