Microgaming RTP percentages

Redbet-Andy

Dormant account - New account: AndyB-MrGreen
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Location
Malta
Hi

A lot of people have been asking about these recently.
We've been asking Microgaming if we could publish them for a while and they gave us permission yesterday.

We've only published the RTPs that Microgaming sent us for the games we have.


Here you go:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.




All the best
Andy
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
We've only published the RTPs that Microgaming sent us for the games we have.

Thanks a lot Andy.
Alaxe in Zombieland's RTP is pretty high.

I'm curious about TDK. Why is it so high while the other Mega Moolah slots that share the same progressives are so low? (ie: Isis Mega Moolah is 88% and TDK is 97%). Wonder if they included the progressives RTP in TDK but with Isis and the original Mega Moolah the % is just for the base game?

Either way, I'm glad to see that my favorite MG games are all above 96%.
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
Im gonna guess the stacked wilds and additional features v the mere free spins in the moolah

If Mega Moolah is 88% including the progressive RTP % then it's God awful because that would mean that the base game is 85% or less. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time to see that TDK could be 97% for the base game + the progressive RTP %. That would put that game at 100% or above.

Looks like it's included in one game and not in the other. It's still a bit scary though. Could the progressive RTP be that high? (In the 8%-9% range?)
 

Redbet-Andy

Dormant account - New account: AndyB-MrGreen
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Location
Malta
Some of the progressive RTPs in this sheet differ from the original RTPs Microgaming supplied on game release.

Could be that they were TRTPs or that they have been revised based on a time period/number of rounds.
Could even be that the RTP they provided on the progressives is for base game only...

Dunno why they differ to be honest, will see what we can find out...
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The value for Thunderstruck is curious. This is one slot that had it's RTP calculated in great detail from the reelstrips, paytable, etc, and at the time came out around 95%. Now it seems MGS have it 1% higher. This is a simple free spins slot, so there were no estimated variables, only exact values.

Either the mathematical methodology was wrong, or MGS have given us a figure other than the TRTP value.

It shows they shouldn't have anything to hide, as 96% seems to be the average, slightly higher than players' expectation of 95%.

They may as well publish the values for all their slots, and on their own MGS site. This too would create a level playing field for operators, and if any do claim they offer a higher RTP than others on MGS games, it will be obvious they are not referring to the TRTP values, but their past months' payouts.
 

Jufo

Dormant Account
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Location
Finland
The value for Thunderstruck is curious. This is one slot that had it's RTP calculated in great detail from the reelstrips, paytable, etc, and at the time came out around 95%. Now it seems MGS have it 1% higher. This is a simple free spins slot, so there were no estimated variables, only exact values.

Either the mathematical methodology was wrong, or MGS have given us a figure other than the TRTP value.

It shows they shouldn't have anything to hide, as 96% seems to be the average, slightly higher than players' expectation of 95%.

I recently analyzed Thunderstruck slot by computer simulation (FYI I have created a Slot Simulator tool to accurately analyze the TRTP and the variance of a large variety of MGS slots) and I noticed that the 95.05% RTP that Zoozie had obtained from Old / Expired Link was based on Two Hammers paying 2 units. However looking at TS paytable it seems that Two hammers pays 3 units now. This change increases the RTP by 1.02% from 95.05% to 96.07%, closely matching the published TRTP of 96.10%. So the results from my own computer simulations and the published RTP value match to within 0.03% which is close enough to satisfy me (I guess the published 96.10% value is just rounded value from the precise 96.07% value).

I am not sure whether MGS has increased the payout of Two hammers from 2 to 3 at some point. Perhaps someone can verify what Two hammers used to pay in the past. The other alternative is that when Zoozie analysed Thunderstruck back in 2007 he made an oversight and forgot to set the payout for two hammers correctly, which led to the incorrect 95.05% TRTP value being announced.
 

ThePOGG

Dormant Account
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
After pressing Keith about this very issue for the last couple of weeks, i'm a little disappointed to be hearing about the release indirectly :confused:

Nah not really, i'm just glad you got the thumbs up! Means i don't have to change your rankings :D

Actually Andy, do you have someone at Microgaming you could put me in contact with? There's a couple of things i'd like discuss with them if possible.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I recently analyzed Thunderstruck slot by computer simulation (FYI I have created a Slot Simulator tool to accurately analyze the TRTP and the variance of a large variety of MGS slots) and I noticed that the 95.05% RTP that Zoozie had obtained from Old / Expired Link was based on Two Hammers paying 2 units. However looking at TS paytable it seems that Two hammers pays 3 units now. This change increases the RTP by 1.02% from 95.05% to 96.07%, closely matching the published TRTP of 96.10%. So the results from my own computer simulations and the published RTP value match to within 0.03% which is close enough to satisfy me (I guess the published 96.10% value is just rounded value from the precise 96.07% value).

I am not sure whether MGS has increased the payout of Two hammers from 2 to 3 at some point. Perhaps someone can verify what Two hammers used to pay in the past. The other alternative is that when Zoozie analysed Thunderstruck back in 2007 he made an oversight and forgot to set the payout for two hammers correctly, which led to the incorrect 95.05% TRTP value being announced.

This explains the discrepancy mathematically. It would be hard, if not impossible, to determine whether this was an oversight, or MGS increased the payout. I always thought it was THREE scatters that paid 3 units, as well as triggering the free spins. I don't think the matter of 2 units vs 3 is top priority when the playing of 15 free spins x 3 awaits.
 

Jufo

Dormant Account
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Location
Finland
This explains the discrepancy mathematically. It would be hard, if not impossible, to determine whether this was an oversight, or MGS increased the payout. I always thought it was THREE scatters that paid 3 units, as well as triggering the free spins. I don't think the matter of 2 units vs 3 is top priority when the playing of 15 free spins x 3 awaits.

Hmm, I am not sure why you brought up scatters - I simply meant two hammers as a line win, not as scatter win, paying 3x line bet. So with 9 lines on a 0.90 bet (0.10 per line) it would pay out 0.30 if you got two hammers on one of the paylines and nothing else - rather than 0.20.

One might be able to find out if MGS has changed the payout by looking for some old Thunderstruck screenshot, for example from the Winner Screenshots thread. If the screenshot happens to include two hammers you can calculate from the total payout whether it paid 2x line bet or 3x line bet.

If two hammers has paid 3x line bet all along, I am surprised no one spotted this oversight back then, and just took the 95% RTP value as a fact.

I have also cross-checked the RTPs of some other MG slots (based on the reel strips) and compared them to these kind of RTP lists that Redbet Andy provided. For example, in my own simulations I arrived at 95.46% RTP for Break Da Bank Again before any RTP value for this game was ever published, and now I see that it is listed as 95.43% (the difference can be simply attributed to the inherent inaccuracy involved with the simulation). So it does look like MGS slots are random and the published TRTP values match those that one obtains by calculating the TRTP from knowing the reel layouts.
 

Jufo

Dormant Account
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Location
Finland
It would be hard, if not impossible, to determine whether this was an oversight, or MGS increased the payout.

No, it isn't hard to determine. In fact I just did it. I just went through some pages in Winner screenshots thread dating back in 2007 and found this Thunderstruck screenshot:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/winner-screenshots.4193/
There are only two winning paylines in the screenshot. Line #8 with 5 hammers plus Wild pays 1500x Line bet (0.50) = 750. Line two (two hammers) therefore paid 1.50 as the total win was 751.50. Since the line bet was 0.50, this is 3x line bet.

So two hammers has paid 3x line bet all along, and there was an error with calculating the RTP for Thunderstruck from the reel strips - by setting the payout for two hammers incorrectly. 96.07% has been the correct RTP for TS all along. Mystery solved :thumbsup:
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
Hi

A lot of people have been asking about these recently.
We've been asking Microgaming if we could publish them for a while and they gave us permission yesterday.

We've only published the RTPs that Microgaming sent us for the games we have.


Here you go:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.




All the best
Andy

This is great to see, but I'm still absolutely bemused why there is this overall cloak and dagger stuff with MG and their RTPs.

If it's OK for one casino to publish them (and Virgin do as well for their MG slots), why not another? Why don't MG just put the RTP on the damn paytables?

Also, Virgin list the RTP of Mega Moolah as 94.12%, which would suggest Redbet are displaying the RTP minus the progressive contribution, which appears to be 6% (!).

As for The Dark Knight, shows as 96.3% at Virgin, which would suggest the 97% figure at RedBet includes the progressive contribution. If we assume the same 6% contribution (which would seem reasonable considering it shares the same progressives as Mega Moolah), that puts the base game at 90.3% :eek2:

I've eyeballed a few games on Redbet's list and compared them with Virgin's stated RTP - they all match up exactly, certainly the ones I've checked.

mega.jpg

dark.jpg
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
Alaxe in Zombieland does not match. Redbet = 98.86%, Virgin = 96.55%

Interesting!

Either:

1) Someone has got it wrong

or

2) They both have the 'right' figure for what they were given, but MG have changed the RTP somewhere along the line

I can't think of a third possibility, unless MG gave out different numbers to each casino?
 

Cryptic

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Location
UK
Interesting!

Either:

1) Someone has got it wrong

or

2) They both have the 'right' figure for what they were given, but MG have changed the RTP somewhere along the line

I can't think of a third possibility, unless MG gave out different numbers to each casino?

or

3) MG Slots are configurable
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
or

3) MG Slots are configurable

Well I didn't include that option because that would go against everything we've ever been told about them, ever.

(I'm not saying it definitely isn't the case, but I'd be amazed if it was.)
 

Cryptic

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Location
UK
Well I didn't include that option because that would go against everything we've ever been told about them, ever.

(I'm not saying it definitely isn't the case, but I'd be amazed if it was.)

Maybe Redbet-Andy can give his opinion?
 

Brooklyn

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Location
On the Hot Mess Express
I wanna play MG.:mad:

Thanks Redbet-Andy for posting this. :thumbsup:

I was also wondering why MG is so quiet about their RTP settings. Is there a MG rep on this forum, perhaps?
 

rainmaker

I'm not a penguin
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Location
-
I've eyeballed a few games on Redbet's list and compared them with Virgin's stated RTP - they all match up exactly, certainly the ones I've checked.


As pointed out by Sk0t in this thread, Betway.dk does also publish TRTP% for Microgaming games since it is required by Spillemyndigheden (The Danish Gambling Authority)

Can be found here:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Many of the RTP% from Betway and Redbet do match, but some differences. For example:

Immortal Romance 96.01% (Redbet 96.86%)
Gold Factory 96.39% (Redbet 96.54%)
Kathmandu 96.79% (Redbet 96.29%)

Went through the list very quickly, so I am sure there are other examples as well.
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
Immortal Romance 96.01% (Redbet 96.86%)
Gold Factory 96.39% (Redbet 96.54%)
Kathmandu 96.79% (Redbet 96.29%)

Close enough. Maybe these are the numbers for each specific casinos and what they have paid on these particular games. If so, it's normal that they don't match exactly even though they have the same TRTP.

The big thing that we learned is that the RTP % locked for the Mega Moolah/TDK progressives is massive, but that had to be expected I guess. We're talking about a 5M+ jackpot now, and many many 10k+ jackpots have been won in the past months. Considering that these games are mostly played at low stakes (I assume), it takes a lot of spins to reach this kind of numbers.
 
Top