Kerching! Slots RTP

[ThePOGG]

Hey everyone - i know a few people here have commented before on the fact that Kerching! casino only provide the range of possible RTP figures for their slots games. Well i had a chat with their AM last week and they've now agreed to provide the exact RTP figures via their customer support. For those that are interested this is now stated in their FAQs. I haven't had a chance to check this out yet, but if anyone here fancies giving it a go, feedback would be appreciated!

 

[rainmaker]

.

That is a good thing!

As we already know, casinos with games from IGT can choose their own TRTP level. Players can not really know which level the casino has set for a certain game unless the casino reveals this information themselves.

I tested this out by going to Kerching's live chat:

*****: Hi, my name is *****. How may I help you?

ME: Hi I am just wondering if you could tell me the theoretical return to player percentage on your game "ELVIS the king"? Thanks!

*****: im just checking it

ME: Great

*****: sorry about this the system is running a bit slow at the moment

ME: No problem

*****: Unfortunately I do not currently have that information. I can find out and get back to you. But it will be on Monday

ME: Ok. Well at least you tried Yes, please contact me on Monday with this information. Thanks for your help.

 

[ThePOGG]

Well that's good to know - i'll hold off on increasing their rating till i get confirmation that they can do this at the time of request. As this is a group that i believe has stated that they do at times change the RTPs day to day, having to wait several days to get the figure really isn't much use as they could already have been changed again. However as this is a change that they've just made today, i suspect perhaps this is just a teething problem.

 

[ThePOGG]

Hey Rainmaker - did Kerching! get back to you about this?

 

[rainmaker]

.

Sorry. Forgot to update this thread. But no, I have not heard anything from Kerching.

I tried to contact live chat now with the same question (this is not the whole chat):

"Hi there I was just wondering if you could tell me the theoretical return to player percentage for the game ELVIS the king?"

This is what I was told:

For this game the theoretically expected payback is from 93.02% to 96.03%

I asked them if they could tell me what level they had set their game at and this is what he replied:

We do not release that information. The payout percentages listed above are for player information

 

[ThePOGG]

Thanks again Rainmaker - i'll take this back to them and see what they have to say.

 

[ThePOGG]

I've just had a responce from Kerching! and they've assured me that this was a mistake on the CS reps part. Basically the info didn't travel down the pyramid quick enough. I'll be retesting this myself over the next few days, but if anyone else would like to give feedback i'd be glad to hear it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

My feedback is I don't trust them, basically.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/new-igt-slot-diamond-queen-rtp.50577/

It's impossible to tell if a slot is paying out at 92% or 96% without chucking tens if not hundreds of thousands of spins at it.

Yes you could open a chat window with CS and yes they'll tell you what the slot is supposed to be running at, but where something as fundamental as RTP is controllable by the casino, I have no faith whatsoever in being told the truth. (And in the thread I linked to above, they happily admitted they changed it every time the wind changes direction.)

I stopped playing IGT slots online months ago, because I will not tolerate a situation whereby something as absolutely fundamental as the RTP of the game I am playing is vague. (See also, Microgaming.)

 

[ThePOGG]

My feedback is I don't trust them, basically.

I understand your point Chopley, and that being the case any and all of the information posted on my site in relation to RTP is of no use to you. Without extensive testing of each game which would require far more extensive resources than i have available it simply isn't possible to produce results that you would trust.

But beyond that, simply because the casino, or software provider, tell you that the casino cannot adjust the RTPs doesn't mean that's the case. This argument when taken to its logical conclusion means that really, you just shouldn't play any slots games at all as even if they have been tested by yourself or someone you trust there's no reason to believe the settings haven't been changed since then.

Personally i'm less cynical than you - although as i said i understand your cynicism - and feel that big name casinos simply risk too much in damage to their reputation if they play unscrupulous games in this area that could be caused simply by a disgruntled former employee for them to chase an extra 2%, but that my opinion. That's why i try to present the information in my list with sources so you can decide if you trust the sources or not. Again personally, some of the sources i don't trust - some due to what i believe to be typos/mistakes and some that i simply don't trust due to other more reliable figures contradicting them, but all the information i can find is included with sources so the reader can make their own decision.

 

[ThePOGG]

I've also just been informed that Kerching! have instituted a policy where when a range of possible RTPs is possible they always use the highest. Whether this is a change from when Chopley spoke to them, or whether this has always been the policy and they simply didn't want to confirm as they *could* change the figures i can't confirm, but that's the information i'm getting from Kerching. I understand this sort of statement would not make any difference to you Chop, but it's provided for anyone who may find it useful.

 

[Redbet-Andy]

I can't understand why games providers do this, there is no upside in the long term, for anyone.
Just set the RTP before you ship the game then nobody can get mugged and all your casinos are equal.
Good initiative though if the casino sets everything at top rate and publicises that.

I stopped playing IGT slots online months ago, because I will not tolerate a situation whereby something as absolutely fundamental as the RTP of the game I am playing is vague. (See also, Microgaming.)

 

[ThePOGG]

I can't understand why games providers do this, there is no upside in the long term, for anyone.
Just set the RTP before you ship the game then nobody can get mugged and all your casinos are equal.
Good initiative though if the casino sets everything at top rate and publicises that.

Couldn't agree more. Any preceived security advantage gained in by either non-disclosure of this information or configurationis lost in player trust when they see a casino being cagey about discussing this subject. That said i'm very much of the mind that if i was running a casino the first thing i'd do is cherry pick a collection of slots games all of which would have an RTP of 97% or greater, which knowing what i know is far from the standard view for the industry. When a player's money lasts them longer they get more entertainment for their buck and walk away feeling happier about the whole experience. Happier customers = customers that are more likely to come back and the biggest challenge within the casino sector is customer retention.

It's actually one of the reason i really like Net Ent - their games always look great, have unique features and great game play and offer RTPs that are fairly consistently above industry average.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

New IGT Star Trek slot live at Kerching.

Had a decent run at it with free money and it's a pretty good slot, but look at the RTPs!

The lowest setting is 92.51% (!) and the highest setting is a pathetic 95.00%.

The RTPs of IGTs slots are on a long descent downwards, and as much as I like their slots in lots of ways, when Netent are still kicking slots out at 96-97% RTP, with higher than that still on the books (Bloodsuckers at 98.00% RTP for example), I'm not inclined to deposit at Kerching.

Even if they're using the 95.00% maths model, it's still not a good payout for what looks like a pretty high variance slot to me.

 

[Balthazar]

Couldn't agree more. Any preceived security advantage gained in by either non-disclosure of this information or configurationis lost in player trust when they see a casino being cagey about discussing this subject. That said i'm very much of the mind that if i was running a casino the first thing i'd do is cherry pick a collection of slots games all of which would have an RTP of 97% or greater, which knowing what i know is far from the standard view for the industry. When a player's money lasts them longer they get more entertainment for their buck and walk away feeling happier about the whole experience. Happier customers = customers that are more likely to come back and the biggest challenge within the casino sector is customer retention.

It's actually one of the reason i really like Net Ent - their games always look great, have unique features and great game play and offer RTPs that are fairly consistently above industry average.

But casinos know that many players don't know what a RTP is or simply don't care about it. I'm talking about a very large majority of players here. The popularity of the MG software is a good proof of that. Even me, I care about it, and I still play MG the most. My favorite slot is TDK even though the RTP must be fairly low considering the progressives.

That said, I agree with that. I think all gaming commissions should force casinos to put their RTP on the front page while having the RTP's checked monthly by a 3rd party. Either that or having a fixed, publicly available, RTP for each software. I don't see it happening anytime soon, though.

 

[Simmo!]

Even if they're using the 95.00% maths model, it's still not a good payout for what looks like a pretty high variance slot to me.

It's actually a lowish variance game but even if it were high variance, 95% is still pretty typical for online games. Personally I only get sceptical when a slot is under 90% (which is incredibly rare for an online slot at any of the big providers) ...anything over that and you'll only really notice any difference over millions of spins.

I'm a big fan of publishing RTP but I wouldn't worry too much about it at this level to be honest. Variance is far more of an issue to a slots player.

Please don't take this as a personal attack but it's this mindset that puts off providers publishing the RTP when it doesn't really matter much to an individual player if a slot is 93% or 96% in the short-term: it is however more important to the casino where a collective of players might do 10millions spins. It's probably a bit like creaming off 1cent in every $10 spent

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Please don't take this as a personal attack but it's this mindset that puts off providers publishing the RTP when it doesn't really matter much to an individual player if a slot is 93% or 96% in the short-term: it is however more important to the casino where a collective of players might do 10millions spins. It's probably a bit like creaming off 1cent in every $10 spent

To my mind it's not a question of looking at it in the short term as an 'individual player on an individual session', but me as a player thinking of my entire online gambling career as a single extended session, played out over millions of spins - and those are the kinds of numbers over which differences in RTP will make themselves felt.

If Casino A's slots pay out at 90%, Casino B's at 95% and Casino C's at 98%, over enough time and spins, individual players will gravitate towards the RTP of the casino they're playing at. Yes variance and random numbers may give someone big wins at Casino A and a losing streak at Casino C, but over time the base RTP will be the figure at which they'll arrive.

I honestly don't understand how you can assert that RTP 'doesn't really matter to an individual player'.

 

[Tirilej]

I would actually go crazy if I thougt I would be gambling for the rest of my life.
Gambling is suppose to be fun a recreation. I play as each session is the first and by doing that I don't need to wonder about one single % in each casino on each game.
I don't need to count my losses or my wins. I can look at it for each month or each year, but if I chose to play I will certainly not feel bad about it after.
I will certainly lose anyway but I want to have a fun time doing it.
Chasing statistic for me isn't fun, and since the games are random I can't do a thing to effect them either.

I also still are convinced that since I play such an enormous different games in so many casinos I might not even reach what you believe I'm going to reach in my lifetime. I could die tomorrow so why worry

 

[Simmo!]

I honestly don't understand how you can assert that RTP 'doesn't really matter to an individual player'.

I didn't - you've misquoted me I said "[it] doesn't really matter much..." because the variance of the game and even more importantly, knowing when to quit, are way ahead in terms of determining whether you win or lose on a slot.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I didn't - you've misquoted me I said "[it] doesn't really matter much..." because the variance of the game and even more importantly, knowing when to quit, are way ahead in terms of determining whether you win or lose on a slot.

Ahhhh yes sorry Simmo I didn't properly note the 'much' modifier in your statement, but I still respectfully disagree

Long term, over the average 'gambling career' if you will, I'd say RTP and variance are the two single most important factors for any single player.

Variance is more of a short term consideration and as such will make itself 'felt' more, but in the long term, RTP is everything IMO.

When it comes to random games which have no memory and no ability to plan ahead, and as a player who will most likely churn through hundreds of thousands and indeed millions of spins, then RTP matters to me very much - because ultimately, it's that RTP figure that will win out in the end.

 

[ThePOGG]

I just see RTP as a price. A game at 90% RTP is costing me £5 more per £100 than a game at 95% RTP. And yes a could lose more playing the 95% game, but over the lifetime of my gaming, the more often i choose to play games with lower RTPs the less money i'm likely to have available to continue playing. To flat it all out, the lower the RTP over my lifespan the less entertainment i'm likely to get for my gambling buck.

Tirilej - i wouldn't recommend spending too much time on it, but i think it's always wise to check see how much you are paying for your entertainment when you're selecting a game to play. That's part of the reason i put my slots review resource together.

 

[Tirilej]

Tirilej - i wouldn't recommend spending too much time on it, but i think it's always wise to check see how much you are paying for your entertainment when you're selecting a game to play. That's part of the reason i put my slots review resource together.

If a game is having an RTP of 99% but I don't like the game, then I don't play it.
I'm playing games I like, and of course I chose to play those I have won big on a little more often then others I like. I'm not totally stupid
The thing is that I am up this year. I play mostly at 32Red's casinos and Nordicbet and a little RTG, and so far so good.

If I didn't win I wouldn't play, but to chose because of the RTP? No way. I never have and will never do.

I think it's also a difference between men and women. I don't think, I know it is, when it comes to how we gamble. Men do always need to believe they can in some way use their intelligence to play, to win. A little of skills and a little of luck is a perfect combination.
Women don't care so much. We want to win of course, but we believe more in faith and luck when we are playing
I could describe this perfect in my own language, but I hope you get what I mean anyway.

 

[ThePOGG]

If a game is having an RTP of 99% but I don't like the game, then I don't play it.
I'm playing games I like, and of course I chose to play those I have won big on a little more often then others I like. I'm not totally stupid
The thing is that I am up this year. I play mostly at 32Red's casinos and Nordicbet and a little RTG, and so far so good.

If I didn't win I wouldn't play, but to chose because of the RTP? No way. I never have and will never do.

I think it's also a difference between men and women. I don't think, I know it is, when it comes to how we gamble. Men do always need to believe they can in some way use their intelligence to play, to win. A little of skills and a little of luck is a perfect combination.
Women don't care so much. We want to win of course, but we believe more in faith and luck when we are playing
I could describe this perfect in my own language, but I hope you get what I mean anyway.

I see where you're coming from but i don't necessarily agree.

Just because a game has a high RTP doesn't automatically mean it's going to be boring. In fact some of the best games in my mind have relatively high RTPs - take Leanders recent release Megadeth at an RTP of 97%, Microgaming's Immortal Romance at 96.86% or Net Entertainments Scarface at 96.8% - all fantastic games with great features and at very competitive prices. And conversely some of the most boring games i've played have had the worst RTPs offering 3 reels, no features, no wilds and RTPs often sinking close to 90%. And there are some game, although they are unusual, that offer great features and are good fun, but are a little expensive - Ash Gaming's Nags to Riches is a good example.

My point is not to turn a recreational activity into a chore, but simply to shop around a little and find a game that's good fun alongside not being a total rip off.

 

[rainmaker]

I've also just been informed that Kerching! have instituted a policy where when a range of possible RTPs is possible they always use the highest. Whether this is a change from when Chopley spoke to them, or whether this has always been the policy and they simply didn't want to confirm as they *could* change the figures i can't confirm, but that's the information i'm getting from Kerching. I understand this sort of statement would not make any difference to you Chop, but it's provided for anyone who may find it useful.

Yo

I tried to ask live chat again and they basically told me the same as before. If they now are always using the highest possible TRTP, is it not a bit strange that they still only give me the standard TRTP range when asking live chat?

VP: Hi, my name is VP. How may I help you?
ME: Hey I was just wondering if you could tell me the theoretical return to player percentage for your game Elvis the King? Thanks
VP: the payout ratio is 93.02% - 96.02%

 

[ThePOGG]

Yo

I tried to ask live chat again and they basically told me the same as before. If they now are always using the highest possible TRTP, is it not a bit strange that they still only give me the standard TRTP range when asking live chat?

VP: Hi, my name is VP. How may I help you?
ME: Hey I was just wondering if you could tell me the theoretical return to player percentage for your game Elvis the King? Thanks
VP: the payout ratio is 93.02% - 96.02%

Yeh i tested this myself recently and got the same responce. Not sure what the deal is - my AM at Income Access has taken this back to them but that was a few weeks back already. Until i hear back from him i really can't give any more information, but i will keep pushing and let you know, even if it is just to say they've changed their minds.

I do agree though - if they really are only using the highest RTP settings then the information's already out there and more importantly they should be advertising it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Another two weeks have passed, have Kerching clarified this situation yet?

Some of these new IGT slots look like pretty good fun but I really want to know what RTP I'm playing at before I commit any real cash to the cause!

Interestingly, for the 'Elvis The King' slot, Virgin state a payout of 94.5% which would suggest they've chosen the medium maths model as the paytable on the slot states a payout range of 93% to 96%.

Sky Vegas just publish the range in their help file, which is disappointing.

 

[ThePOGG]

Personally I would count this issue as done for the time being.

I get the impression that somewhere in the ether the details of what would actually be required of them - i.e. releasing the exact figures they are using - is getting lost as the feedback i keep getting is that 'this should be happening' yet the results when i test is that they simply give out the range which is no different to before.

I'll keep pushing them and if anything changes i'll let everyone know so that they can test for themselves.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Personally I would count this issue as done for the time being.

I get the impression that somewhere in the ether the details of what would actually be required of them - i.e. releasing the exact figures they are using - is getting lost as the feedback i keep getting is that 'this should be happening' yet the results when i test is that they simply give out the range which is no different to before.

I'll keep pushing them and if anything changes i'll let everyone know so that they can test for themselves.

Thanks for the update POGG

I have to say that it's this sort of thing that really does give me 'WTF' moments, how hard can this stuff be for what's supposed to be a reputable business?

 

[ThePOGG]

I know what you mean, thing like this seem self-evident from the outside. That said, you'd be amazed how often when i'm test email support and ask a question about RTP i get the responce - 'could you clarify what you mean by RTP'. I've had it from both CS reps and Affiliate Managers. The truth is that for many casinos, it's not about hiding the figures so much as it being a hassle to release them. It's time consuming to get the lists made up on the casino site and the alternative is to train CS to deal with giving them out which in many ways it's more fuss. On top of this the group of players that care about this issue tends to be small and vocal rather than large and profitable, so it's a job that's easy to shift to the back burner. I don't say that because i agree with that approach - i don't, all casinos should be transparent in this respect - it's just the impression i've gotten from trying to press this issue over the last year.