LV Bet RTP Changes

[brianmon]

Well, it took longer than I expected. But VideoSlots have now also downgraded the RTP for MicroGaming slots.
Obviously, there's no message for customers.

 

[LV BET]

@LV BET
Why have the helpfiles for MG games disappeared?
That's the '?' in the top left-hand corner of the game, which declares the RTP of each game?
Don't the UKGC regulations state that the RTP for each game should be available to view?

Your message to customers also says...
"Please note that the newly adjusted RTP can be viewed within the game’s menu,
as the game's description will also be adjusted accordingly."

Hi @brianmon,

I've just checked this out and agree, it's not visible. I've escalated this to our Casino Team straight away to figure out what the issue is and get it sorted.

No use having a message to our customer's say to check the game's description if it's not there.

Kind Regards
Tyler
LV BET

 

[LV BET]

Just a quick update for everyone,

We're investigating this with Microgaming as it seems to only be occurring for our UK Customer base and not with the MGA side of things.

I'll drop an update once we hear back.

KR,
Tyler

 

[LV BET]

Excuse the triple bump guys,

Microgaming help files have now been restored for our UK Customers. Apologies for any issues caused and thank you once again @brianmon for letting us know.

Kind Regards,
Tyler

 

[brianmon]

Even more RTP changes - including DOA



And obviously, VideoSlots have followed..

 

[Cocochanel]

Even more RTP changes - including DOA

View attachment 145996

And obviously, VideoSlots have followed..

View attachment 145997

Unibet is 96,82% for Dead or Alive

 

[ritae]

Surely not much noticeable difference in gameplay from 94% and 96%?

 

[bamberfishcake]

Unibet is 96,82% for Dead or Alive

Theres also Novibet, 21 Casino (all of their games are max) and many more.

Surely not much noticeable difference in gameplay from 94% and 96%?

Of course not. You wont be able to notice a difference except over the long term to your wallet maybe.

Fact is lower paying versions pay less. The casino make more money.

And if you play them your encouraging the drop and lowering your chances of winning.

Why would you play a lower version when there are some fantastic casinos offering the highest paying version? Not saying dont play at LV Bet, theres lots of reasons to, but just dont play DOA.

 

[brianmon]

Surely not much noticeable difference in gameplay from 94% and 96%?

If you flattened the variance completely, to simulate a 'long-term' period

96.82% RTP
starting with £100, playing £1 spins at 96.82% you would lose 3.18p per spin, giving you 3116 spins for your £100

94.03% RTP
starting with £100, playing £1 spins at 94.03% you would lose 5.97p per spin, giving you 1660 spins for your £100

As far as game-play goes. It all depends on where they've taken that (almost) 3% from.
Is it from the base-game wins?
Is the feature less frequent?
Does the feature pay less (on average)?
Is there less chance of a huge win in the feature?

 

[EkJR]

If you flattened the variance completely, to simulate a 'long-term' period

96.82% RTP
starting with £100, playing £1 spins at 96.82% you would lose 3.18p per spin, giving you 3116 spins for your £100

94.03% RTP
starting with £100, playing £1 spins at 94.03% you would lose 5.97p per spin, giving you 1660 spins for your £100

As far as game-play goes. It all depends on where they've taken that (almost) 3% from.
Is it from the base-game wins?
Is the feature less frequent?
Does the feature pay less (on average)?
Is there less chance of a huge win in the feature?

Throw in Aspires 91.25% versions...

 

[pinnit2014]

Casumo had DOA down this morning so thought they too were getting the bargain basement version but still (for now) the highest.

I presume the request for these lower RTP's is being driven by the casino's? - surely the software providers didn't just wake up one morning and go 'we need to diddle the players even more than before' and randomly fire an email off to the development team - reason i ask is because one casino told me, shorthand, this was something the providers were doing as if they had no input into it

 

[brianmon]

Obviously, the providers will be making more money as well as the casinos, since they take a cut of the house edge to pay for providing the games.

 

[EkJR]

"It costs us too much money to run in the UK with all the new measures to actually make people gamble responsibly so we are lowering the RTP on slots". That's the basics that I can see. The biggest organisations continue with the highest versions apart from the thieves within Coral/Ladbrokes.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Surely not much noticeable difference in gameplay from 94% and 96%?

I've covered this more than once on my channel (I'll try to find a video link for you), and I see someone has already provided the maths, the key thing to remember is that 96% to 94% is an increase in the house edge of 50%.

Don't think of it as, 'Ahhhh it's just 2% less I'll never notice that', the house edge has changed from 4% to 6%, i.e. an increase of 50%.

Sure you're not going to feel it over a single session, but the way to think of online slots is that every single spin you ever do is, in a way, part of one single extended session that runs to thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of spins (I've done over one million real money game rounds at 3Dice alone) - so to make all that cost 2% more is actually going to run you a large chunk of money, even if you normally bet pretty small.

Unless the casino you're playing at has crazy good rewards/bonuses/perks etc, you're properly shooting yourself in the wallet to voluntarily play lower RTP versions of games that exist at the full fat RTP elsewhere.

(EDIT - I stopped playing at Videoslots once they started with all this nerfing payouts business, I was on the way from Level 20 to Level 21 as well for the legendary Level 21 wheel, but I ain't playing gimped RTP slots.)

 

[Slottery]

Unless the casino you're playing at has crazy good rewards/bonuses/perks etc, you're properly shooting yourself in the wallet to voluntarily play lower RTP versions of games that exist at the full fat RTP elsewhere.

That's how it is. Playing slots with any RTP under 100% is shoot in the wallet and one pretty sure way to end up with less money than if you ever have made one single deposit to play slots. If start to think it moneywise, you would stay far away from slots where before first spin your excepted ROI is negative, looking forward after few years to start to see rich slot players who only played with higher RTP games and made fortunes from them

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Yes and I've never said otherwise

Ultimately we all know that outside of playing progressives with jackpots big enough for us to quit work if we win them, online slots are basically just a way to spend money over a period of time, the house edge will always get you in the end.

However, it doesn't then follow to say, 'Oh well, I'm going to lose anyway, so I don't care what the RTP is'. The numbers are pretty stark when it comes to how much difference a switch from 96% to 94% can make, session time is reduced, chances of making a withdrawal are reduced, chances of hitting satisfying wins are reduced etc. When the house edge is increased is by 50%, that can only come out of one place, the player's pocket.

Full credit to LVBET for being upfront and honest about the changes they're making (which is more than can be said for places like VS), but 94% is not an acceptable RTP for a random game IMO, and I personally will not play them. Others can make their choices as they see fit

 

[EkJR]

Have you seen Aspire? Running slots at 91.25%...absolutely shameful. The same group who still have some casinos charging to make a deposit, same as the other scumbags at BGO.

 

[mack341]

The lower the rtp the less fun, and so in a way you're relying more on the hardcore addicts who'll take a punt at 94% and below, rather than the more sensible gamblers.

Then on lower rtp people lose quicker and get more frustrated. I felt like I was being stitched up playing the low rtp versions of pimped and royal masquerade compared to the 96% versions, hardly any wins and much harder to bonus [took longer].

And what is going on with this 3 second rules for spins, the games at william hill were unplayable the other day, extremely laggy, they weren't like that before for me, the slot makers or integrators have done a really bad job if will hill's slots are anything to go by. Again it will probably only be the hardcore gambler who will put up with that much bad functioning of the physical graphics in a game, I'm not quite in that category, but even so you end up not caring what happens with each spin, so unenjoyable and dysfunctional it was.

 

[bamberfishcake]

The lower the rtp the less fun, and so in a way you're relying more on the hardcore addicts who'll take a punt at 94% and below, rather than the more sensible gamblers.

Then on lower rtp people lose quicker and get more frustrated. I felt like I was being stitched up playing the low rtp versions of pimped and royal masquerade compared to the 96% versions, hardly any wins and much harder to bonus [took longer].

And what is going on with this 3 second rules for spins, the games at william hill were unplayable the other day, extremely laggy, they weren't like that before for me, the slot makers or integrators have done a really bad job if will hill's slots are anything to go by. Again it will probably only be the hardcore gambler who will put up with that much bad functioning of the physical graphics in a game, I'm not quite in that category, but even so you end up not caring what happens with each spin, so unenjoyable and dysfunctional it was.

Lets not forget the numerous uninformed virgins to slots lured in by the bright lights and big wins. They also play a large part in the success of PNG and Pragmatic at lower RTP's. Those providers tend to be pushed on the front page of each and every casino. Tournaments aplenty on those providers also.

When i started i played PnG and Netent because those were the slots on the front pages. The thought that one Reactoonz could be a lower paying version to another never even crossed my innocent mind.

In a way though i think they're shooting themselves in the foot a bit. If slots had been as crap as they are now and burnt money as they do on lower rtp's I probably wouldnt have stuck at it.

I wonder how PlaynGo are viewed now in comparison to before the big drops. I wonder if they are laughing and sitting pretty or starting to wonder if letting their slots become 'cheap' was a good idea.

 

[EkJR]

Lets not forget the numerous uninformed virgins to slots lured in by the bright lights and big wins. They also play a large part in the success of PNG and Pragmatic at lower RTP's. Those providers tend to be pushed on the front page of each and every casino. Tournaments aplenty on those providers also.

When i started i played PnG and Netent because those were the slots on the front pages. The thought that one Reactoonz could be a lower paying version to another never even crossed my innocent mind.

In a way though i think they're shooting themselves in the foot a bit. If slots had been as crap as they are now and burnt money as they do on lower rtp's I probably wouldnt have stuck at it.

I wonder how PlaynGo are viewed now in comparison to before the big drops. I wonder if they are laughing and sitting pretty or starting to wonder if letting their slots become 'cheap' was a good idea.

What's worse is that it's very unclear for the uninitiated. It should be pasted all over the load up screens with a link to explain what RTP is...not hidden away in some help file in with some other innocuous item.

 

[Slottery]

Some regulators see it bit complicated issue if it's ok to promote higher RTP:s for some reason or their reasoning is that some people would get picture that they have decent chance of winning and would deposit because it looks like some special chance/offer, even your chance to win is still negative (your theoretic chance of winning increase so tiny bit that promoting it is bit questionable but some could think their chance increase a lot). Showing it and mentioning it of course is ok, but sending newsletters etc.. about higher RTP:s to make people deposit might be not ok for some regulators but nobody yet haven't been really clear about it.

Lottery games in many places can't be promoted with better chance of winning even it would be true like you only have to pick 7 right number from 59 instead of 60 (somebody can make a math but chance of winning with same amount of correct numbers got much bigger and will again if you get another number away).

Not sure if it would be very catchy to phrase "lose bit slower, play with us"

 

[EkJR]

Some regulators see it bit complicated issue if it's ok to promote higher RTP:s for some reason or their reasoning is that some people would get picture that they have decent chance of winning and would deposit because it looks like some special chance/offer, even your chance to win is still negative (your theoretic chance of winning increase so tiny bit that promoting it is bit questionable but some could think their chance increase a lot). Showing it and mentioning it of course is ok, but sending newsletters etc.. about higher RTP:s to make people deposit might be not ok for some regulators but nobody yet haven't been really clear about it.

Lottery games in many places can't be promoted with better chance of winning even it would be true like you only have to pick 7 right number from 59 instead of 60 (somebody can make a math but chance of winning with same amount of correct numbers got much bigger and will again if you get another number away).

Not sure if it would be very catchy to phrase "lose bit slower, play with us"

I dont think anyone is asking for newsletters mate. All we are asking is that the "Theoretical return is XX%" is clearly displayed to players when they open a game. It's not rocket science to make this happen and Blueprint already do so. It should be compulsory. Your average new player could sign up to someone like Aspire who promote all these 91.25% games on their main page naturally...the player could then assume it's the same game as the version on Bet365....they will probably be in for a shock and not understand why their balance is bleeding. It's just not fair mate!

 

[Slottery]

I dont think anyone is asking for newsletters mate. All we are asking is that the "Theoretical return is XX%" is clearly displayed to players when they open a game. It's not rocket science to make this happen and Blueprint already do so. It should be compulsory. Your average new player could sign up to someone like Aspire who promote all these 91.25% games on their main page naturally...the player could then assume it's the same game as the version on Bet365....they will probably be in for a shock and not understand why their balance is bleeding. It's just not fair mate!

Sure, didn't mean anyone meant about newsletter, just mentioned that some regulator have been giving thoughts if it's ok for casinos to promote higher RTP:s or is it not cool for RG pov.

Of course it would be good to demand operators to show it once game is loading (like some casinos do).

 

[EkJR]

Sure, didn't mean anyone meant about newsletter, just mentioned that some regulator have been giving thoughts if it's ok for casinos to promote higher RTP:s or is it not cool for RG pov.

Of course it would be good to demand operators to show it once game is loading (like some casinos do).

Yeah I think we understand and agree here. Actually cannot believe the likes of PlayNGo can hide RTP behind help files that only maybe 1 out of 50 players will access. It's actually getting to a point of misinforming players

 

[Slottery]

Yeah I think we understand and agree here. Actually cannot believe the likes of PlayNGo can hide RTP behind help files that only maybe 1 out of 50 players will access. It's actually getting to a point of misinforming players

Didn't disagree a moment, just poor writing

My thinking was just what especially one regulator was thinking that would it be acceptable to promote that we have higher RTP settings than many other casinos. After you start to load game, nobody can't find anything wrong in that. I could even set that mandatory that you have to accept game rules and RTP every time you load game (or if been playing on same casino before and haven't changed, no need to do it everytime if see player done it before), so tick box and accept rules with link to games full help file.