you keep on repeating that answer in just about every topic and while i respect that it does make you wonder... how come there are no losing slots? How come we havent seen any slot developers studios close down, or even properly run casinos when its entirely possible (is it?) to have slot that will have 900% yearly rtp and depending on stakes, just that one slot would be enough to force smaller/fresh casino into bankruptcy.
There are many losing slots - there are slots out there that have probably never made a profit at some casinos. These tend to be the least popular games,
where someone (maybe a big bets player, but it doesn't have to be) has had a big win and never gone back on to that game. In terms of game providers, there are definitely some that have disappeared due to lack of decent quality content, and therefore people haven't played them and they make no money. Remember, the game providers get paid a porportion of money the game makes - if it makes no money, they don't get paid.
With regards to your point about going bankrupt - this is one of the reasons that, to get licenced, casinos must prove to the regulator that they have enough funds held to pay out winnings of a reasonable size - and this is also why most casinos have withdrawal limits, win capping (for example William Hill has a £250k win cap) and other T's & C's in there. If a player had a win the casino could not afford to pay out, then the casino can enter in to a payment agreement - but this is rare to have happen.
If its not arbitrary RNG and if its "totally random within the 95% rtp or whatever" how come there are no slots that have -140% rtp over the course of several months/years and yet there are dozens that are 96% or so that have 70% - 90% rtp?
This is simply a case of statistics... because big wins are rare, but the game needs this to happen to hit it's RTP, then a game is much more likely to site under it's RTP and come up to it over time than the other way around. It is, however, certainly not impossible to have a game which is running over RTP for some considerable time - especially if a game is popular with the big bet players. But this is why casinos rarely look at the RTP of the overall game, and tend to look at it by stake. The simple rule of thumb is the more stakes you have people playing at (i.e the wider the range), the longer the overall RTP will take to settle - hence looking at RTP by stake, and not overall.
Also, regardless of your repeated response i dont buy how stakes dont affect RTP and how someone betting $400 per spin and winning 4.000.000 wouldnt affect other players rtp, because if thats true and said player quits while he is 4 millions ahead, that slot would have negative rtp (publishers wise) for the rest of its life and im sure slots devs have protected them against such a thing happening.
To add to my point, if slot keeps on its "factory" RTP of 96% then it would take years for that slot to recover from 4 millions $ hit if players keep on playing regular sized bets.
For exactly the reasons above - you have to remember this... a casino doesn't really care whether one slot is over and another under. If someone goes on to game A and bets at 400 quid a spin, wins £120k on the second spin, and never goes back to that game, then yes that game may be massively in arrears - but as far as the casino is concerned, as long as that player then plays some other game, it makes no difference. This is why casinos have a large choice of games - they don't care which ones you play as long as they eventually make their money from you. The only people who really care what game you play are the games providers who make the money - so in this example, game A would make the provider no money on this site, and may NEVER make that provider any money on this site. But of course, chances are if someone has had a win that big after 2 spins on a game, they would try it again at some point. Human nature would dictate they are likely too.
The whole industry is based on the law of averages - but of course, as a player you only look at your game. But a casino has hundreds. They know that in one day, if £1m is staked, they will retain probably around 4% of that. Yes, some days they may not make anything and pay out a lot, but on other days they will get more than that and pay out very little. When you have x number of people playing y number of slots staking z amount of money, what one individual game is doing becomes almost irrelevant. Hence the whole idea of compensation, or money banks, or rigged, or whatever makes very little sense. You're just a number to them - they don't care if you win £1000 and someone else loses £1050. They have made £50. Cheers!
I know its all speculation but we can only blame slot devs for it because they are ignoring everything else other than saying RTP is 99,9% and thats about it. Most dont say how is that RTP distributed, or more important how does one get to that rtp to begin with. This industry needs more transparency and thats rather obvious now.
Unless legally forced to, that's never going to happen. The maths that goes in to a game takes months to create, and a lot of trail and error and testing and playing and experience goes in to it. The maths IS the companies IP, and it's the only part of the game that is of value. There is no way any company would willfully give away their IP. And the way the RTP is distributed is what makes the game the game, it's the personality of the game. As much as i understand why you might want that information, you're never going to get it unless the UKGC forces us to, and i very very much doubt that will happen. And that's not because there is anything dodgy we are hiding, it's because it make zero commercial sense to do so.
I honestly dont think slots have strayed that far away from old coins machines and its still based on amount of money that enters the slot, but its done in much less obvious way.
It would be illegal, utterly pointless, and very difficult to do this - a casino, as described above, knows that for every £x staked, they get approx 4%
of it. There's no incentive (for decent companies anyway!) to rig something that is ALREADY mathematically in your favour.
Lets say its based on $1.000.000 batches, so 1m enters the slot this month and $900.000 is paid out. That means over the course of that single batch slot had 90% RTP, which can be distributed further through next batch(es) so next batch could theoreticaly have rtp of 98% while still keeping its 96% factory rtp. Now as i said its done in much less obvious matter so next $1 million batch could have rtp of 80% ($800.000 out 1.000.000 in) leaving the slot in over $300.000 under factory RTP which for all we know could be distributed in just 2 single spins of $150.000.
The way i see it would be much easier to "control" slots while still keeping decent amount of randomness involved, and yet no casino/developers can lose in this situation.
I can understand why you might think that, but it would be pointless, extremely difficult to implement, and have no beneficial impact. I know you might want to believe it's done that way, but it just simply isn't...
Saying slots dont care if your bet is $0,10 or $1000 is kinda contradictory when you keep on saying how slots have lifetime, factory RTP of 96%.
How on earth does slot know how to get to 96% rtp if it doesnt include stakes placed ? If we go that way, saying how stakes dont matter in that case slots could still have 96% RTP while being $1,428,991.299 in minus and as i said im yet to hear about developers/casinos retiring a slot because it wasnt profitable (and with stakes not included in RTP calculation, there defeinitely should be some slots that are not profitable).
They don't care - for the reasons given above. You're misunderstanding the very nature of how these games work... Stake is irrelevant because the pays are linear - if you bet 10, the top award might be 100. If you bet 1000, the top award will still be 10x your bet, so 10000. Therefore, stake is totally irrelevant because all awards are factor of your line bet or total stake. Bear in mind, when we test our games, we test on individual stakes (i.e not changing stakes) to make sure each stake hits the desired RTP. Well, actually, we just do some of the stakes not all of them, because the paytable is just a factor of your total bet / line bet, so there is no point doing all of them.
When the game goes out on site, then of course many people are playing at many different stakes - so the blended RTP can take a LOT longer to settle than a single stake RTP. This is, as mentioned above, why it is imperative that casinos look not just at the overall RTP, which can be hugely swayed by big bet players, but also at the individual stake RTP's.
But again, the casinos are just playing the laws of averaging - the more games, and more players they have, the less volatile the overall site is, and the less exposure to the huge wins they have in terms of whether they can afford to pay them or not.
