Microgaming RTP percentages

[Redbet-Andy]

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]

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%.

 

[dionysus]

Im gonna guess the stacked wilds and additional features v the mere free spins in the moolah

 

[Balthazar]

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]

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...

 

[Pulver]

Great post Andy and kudos to Redbet for being open and transparent!

 

[vinylweatherman]

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]

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.

 

[rainmaker]

Great post Andy and kudos to Redbet for being open and transparent!

Agreed. Much kudos to Andy and Redbet for posting this. Great

 

[ThePOGG]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ChopleyIOM]

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%

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.

 

[Cryptic]

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.

Alaxe in Zombieland does not match. Redbet = 98.86%, Virgin = 96.55%

 

[ChopleyIOM]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[xxshepxx]

Jeez I'll stay away from mega moolah isis 88% is shocking

 

[dionysus]

If you have a large enough bankroll to lose, multi isis can be fantastic
Ive done terribly in ALL the mega series

 

[Brooklyn]

I wanna play MG.

Thanks Redbet-Andy for posting this.

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

 

[rainmaker]

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]

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.

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Maybe Redbet-Andy can give his opinion?

Yep, Microgaming slots are absolutely not configurable by operators.
Nor are Net Ent of course.


Andy

 

[Nifty29]

I could be wrong, unlike certain meteorological soothsayers, but is it possible that some of these casinos are publishing the ACTUAL RTP over x period rather than the TRTP?

It might explain the alaxe in wonderland discrepancy.

Just thinking out loud, but it is the only reason I can think.of considering the fact that MGS games are not user-controllable.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It looks like MGS have shot themselves in the foot. Rather than openly publish the definitive figures along with the methodology, they are being allowed to trickle out via various sources, along with little explanation of the methodology used. This has given us different figures for what appears to be TRTP quoted to 2 decimal places. If the games can't be configured, this is impossible, and MGS need to ensure that where quoted, the correct figure is given across the board.

Now we have to choose which figure we believe is the most reliable, and this would appear to be where the figures are published on the orders of the Danish regulator.

As for meteorological soothsaying, there is going to be a nasty cold spell next month for the UK, indeed much of Europe. This only applies for the Northern hemisphere of course, those "down under" will be spending Christmas as usual, at the beach and in front of the barbeque.

As well as the country, the cold spell is likely to be so severe that it freezes many of the Christmas slots, so steer clear. I will do my best to keep the fruities nice and warm

 

[Nifty29]

It looks like MGS have shot themselves in the foot. Rather than openly publish the definitive figures along with the methodology, they are being allowed to trickle out via various sources, along with little explanation of the methodology used. This has given us different figures for what appears to be TRTP quoted to 2 decimal places. If the games can't be configured, this is impossible, and MGS need to ensure that where quoted, the correct figure is given across the board.

Now we have to choose which figure we believe is the most reliable, and this would appear to be where the figures are published on the orders of the Danish regulator.

As for meteorological soothsaying, there is going to be a nasty cold spell next month for the UK, indeed much of Europe. This only applies for the Northern hemisphere of course, those "down under" will be spending Christmas as usual, at the beach and in front of the barbeque.

As well as the country, the cold spell is likely to be so severe that it freezes many of the Christmas slots, so steer clear. I will do my best to keep the fruities nice and warm

Ummm.....doesn't "fruitie" mean something else in the UK? I hope you're not going to be "keeping them warm"....if so, it is TMI.

Just a tip for ya Ye Sayer of Sooth...

HERE'S HOW YA DO IT :

 

[vinylweatherman]

Ummm.....doesn't "fruitie" mean something else in the UK? I hope you're not going to be "keeping them warm"....if so, it is TMI.

Just a tip for ya Ye Sayer of Sooth...

HERE'S HOW YA DO IT :

I've just tried it, but it doesn't show up the same as in your screenshot.


Maybe I'll remove it and have another go in 2014