Nektan's new bonus will disadvantage some players

[spintee]

I'm not saying anything about the general practice - this is an academic discussion about whether or not the bonus in this case is beneficial to the player. The crux of the issue here is the aggressively low win cap - where other operators are offering similar structures with less aggressive terms is irrelevant to the specifics of this situation. Of course if you raise the win cap this becomes better for the player. That doesn't necessarily immediately lead to the conclusion that this bonus is better than playing without a bonus.

TP

I do not think no one is debating that the cap etc is BS, But as per slotgrinders post #70 it is what I was trying to explain in post #42 that something is better than nothing,

I am pretty sure if you just lost 100 on a site and they sent you an email saying here you go here is another 100 but max cap is 200, Please tell me you would turn it down?

Thats basically what there bonus is, I no its not a custom to what most of us are used to but things are changing, Yes if you go into all the mathematical equations than there maybe alot better bonus about, But like I said all this bonus rubbish is changing big time, Beat at changed the wager only counts when you hit bonus a while ago, DrVegas has now wager on deposit and bonus again withdraw without touch bonus, VeraJon just had an overhaul, Redbet just updated there bonus structer, You cannot log onto a site now without more update agreement, I bet thats to do with bonus,

 

[quber]

I see it like Slotgrinder does, it is a bit extra if needed at the end of a losing session.

Lets say I put in £100 and do not take a bonus, I play away and eventually lose it all, I then think to myself 'I could do with a bit more play I'l ask the CSR for a bonus' so I get on chat and they offer me this same offer, I agree to the terms then play away happy, I don't see how I am at a disadvantage by taking a crappy offer when it is extra to what i would have had.

I never take bonuses though so I wouldn't have this.

If the Max win on my original deposit is capped by having the bonus first then i agree that the bonus is wrong and should never be taken, if it's only the bonus winnings that are capped then the bonus is a bit extra.

 

[spintee]

I'm not saying anything about the general practice - this is an academic discussion about whether or not the bonus in this case is beneficial to the player. The crux of the issue here is the aggressively low win cap - where other operators are offering similar structures with less aggressive terms is irrelevant to the specifics of this situation. Of course if you raise the win cap this becomes better for the player. That doesn't necessarily immediately lead to the conclusion that this bonus is better than playing without a bonus.

TP

Duplicate

 

[ThePOGG]

I do not think no one is debating that the cap etc is BS, But as per slotgrinders post #70 it is what I was trying to explain in post #42 that something is better than nothing,

I am pretty sure if you just lost 100 on a site and they sent you an email saying here you go here is another 100 but max cap is 200, Please tell me you would turn it down?

Thats basically what there bonus is, I no its not a custom to what most of us are used to but things are changing, Yes if you go into all the mathematical equations than there maybe alot better bonus about, But like I said all this bonus rubbish is changing big time, Beat at changed the wager only counts when you hit bonus a while ago, DrVegas has now wager on deposit and bonus again withdraw without touch bonus, VeraJon just had an overhaul, Redbet just updated there bonus structer, You cannot log onto a site now without more update agreement, I bet thats to do with bonus,

Whether or not the average player perceives an advantage is irrelevant. If I run a shop and a can of beans cost 43p and I slap up a 'Special Offer' sign saying by 2 for 90p, some people are not going to think about it and buy the special offer that's actually worse for them. We have rules to prevent retailers doing that. If the 'bonus' is fundamentally going to cost players collectively more than playing without a bonus then it's not a 'bonus' at all as it doesn't provide any advantage. It in fact disadvantages the collective group of players. Yes some will still win, but overall the result is an increase in the expected loss.

TP

 

[SlotGrinder]

Because they have to play additional wagers at an -ve EV game. Before the bonus is even activated the player has to play with their own funds - these are wagers made at an expected loss over and above the wagering requirement and the player can only trigger the bonus once they've locked in a loss. Unlike the upfront bonus, despite the bonus being present in your account it's a phantom that doesn't actually exist for winning players. The amount of extra wagering that players complete on average before the phantom bonus becomes real is likely to define whether or not this benefits players as a whole. The best possible situation for the player is to set a win target and play very high risk to either lose their entire deposit or hit that target in the minimal possible wagering. If a player bets low - which is the better option with the bonus - they're likely to have to play a significant amount of extra wagering at a disadvantage. My educated guess would be that this cashback style bonus is likely less beneficial to the average player than simply receiving the bonus up front when tied into the restrictions the cashback comes with.

As stated above, I have asked for a second opinion and will look to provide sims to support if possible.

TP

You can't count having to play slots with real money as a negative component of a bonus that's the same as saying we shouldn't play slots fullstop because they are -EV (we all know this but this is the basis we work from anyway). You're free to withdraw your real money balance at any time. If you're coming up with a strategy of how to play your real money in this case then that must mean that the bonus is ADDING something otherwise why would you change your strategy from normal real money play ? If you're betting big to try and hit or if not then you have the bonus as backup then that means the bonus is an addition not a hindrance . And the argument that wagering a lot before initiating the bonus is detrimental is untrue unless you believe that past events affect the present i.e the gambler's fallacy . Once you start the bonus it is £X balance with £Y wagering on a slot with Z% RTP . Nothing pre bonus can change those variables
If a player is playing on real money then he doesn't have to complete any amount of wagering . He can wager £100 on a £100 balance and hit big and cashout . Or he can lose quickly on that £100 and trigger the bonus . Or he might wager for a long time before triggering the bonus . But wagering on real money is wagering on real money - it has nothing to do with any bonus ?

In regard to your last point about this style of bonus being less beneficial than the upfront bonus well that may be true.. but as far as I can see this style of bonus is at least a "bonus" and not a "tax"

 

[ThePOGG]

You can't count having to play slots with real money as a negative component of a bonus that's the same as saying we shouldn't play slots fullstop because they are -EV . You're free to withdraw your real money balance at any time. If you're coming up with a strategy of how to play your real money in this case then that must mean that the bonus is ADDING something otherwise why would you change your strategy from normal real money play ? If you're betting big to try and hit or if not then you have the bonus as backup then that means the bonus is an addition not a hindrance . And the argument that wagering a lot before initiating the bonus is detrimental is untrue unless you believe that past events affect the present i.e the gambler's fallacy . Once you start the bonus it is £X balance with £Y wagering on a slot with Z% RTP . Nothing pre bonus can change those variables
If a player is playing on real money then he doesn't have to complete any amount of wagering . He can wager £100 on a £100 balance and hit big and cashout . Or he can lose quickly on that £100 and trigger the bonus . Or he might wager for a long time before triggering the bonus . But wagering on real money is wagering on real money - it has nothing to do with any bonus ?

Actually mathematically you can and HAVE to take account of the wagering before use of the bonus in order to establish the value of the bonus. If you have 2 player that accept this bonus, both play to a target of winning £500 with the same bet size on the same game, the first wagers £1k before they hit that target and the second wagers £300 before dropping into the bonus, to assess the wagering requirement you would have to add £1k, £300 and the wagering for 1 bonus (as the first player hits the target without touching the bonus and as such isn't subject to the WR). You would then establish what the average wagering requirement is by dividing that figure by 2. This is grossly over simplified, but the actual wagering requirement would be something derived by sim over a large sample of repetitions of the bonus.

The change in strategy doesn't define that something has been added. It defines that these are the restrictions in place and we look to create the best possible situation within those restrictions. That does NOT extend to the conclusion that you're better having the restrictions than not having the restrictions.

Gamblers fallacy - this is incorrect. You are right that past events do not impact the future. However that does not change the fact that within defined criteria there will be an average amount of wagering that will be completed before either a) the target is hit or b) the bonus is activated. That wagering DOES have a negative impact and DOES cost the player money. To establish the value of the bonus you have to take into consideration both those situations where you win without touching the bonus and those where you use the bonus.

I appreciate that this is all delving into the realms of the non-intuitive, which is why I've sought to get a second opinion. But one assertion I can make with absolute confidence is that you do have to take account of the wagering before the bonus is triggered.

TP

 

[Jasminebed]

If you can withdraw real money at any time you have not dipped into the bonus, how on earth can you be worse off?

The bonus is really a "second chance" to win back your deposit after busting out.

While it may not be the best offer out there, in no way shape or form are you worse off than if you play without that bonus and lose. And you have the same chance to win with your real money, bonus or not.

The very first time I played at Mr. Green, I didn't understand that this was how their bonuses worked, and played a lot after a decent start trying to clear the wagering requirements, not understanding that real money wagers did not contribute to clearing the bonus WR. But this was my poor understanding of the bonus structure, not because it was a bad bonus.

The Pogg, you have definitely provided some insight into playing bonuses, but the whole thing is based on an incorrect premise that real funds are tied to bonus funds, based on the experiences of players that have played with Netkan, and I recall a recent thread with a member who's not contributed to this thread as well.

Rather than affiliates dropping them, I think they should be pushing for the casino to make the terms clearer.

I'm about 99% certain they don't take Canadians for Novomatic, or I'd be checking it out for myself.

 

[spintee]

Whether or not the average player perceives an advantage is irrelevant. If I run a shop and a can of beans cost 43p and I slap up a 'Special Offer' sign saying by 2 for 90p, some people are not going to think about it and buy the special offer that's actually worse for them. We have rules to prevent retailers doing that. If the 'bonus' is fundamentally going to cost players collectively more than playing without a bonus then it's not a 'bonus' at all as it doesn't provide any advantage. It in fact disadvantages the collective group of players. Yes some will still win, but overall the result is an increase in the expected loss.

TP

Splitting hairs here over a tin of beans

If on the way back from the shop you droped them beans and explode and go back and they say 43p please, But you can have half a tin for free, Your got an options here, Buy another can for 43p, take half a can for free, take the free one and buy another 43p tin, Now you have bought 2 and a half tins for the price of two, or one and half tins for price of one

Now you can go to another shop that do no offers? what shop would you prefrer

 

[SlotGrinder]

But if we are comparing a £500 real money deposit to a £500 real money deposit plus bonus then there is no difference in the EV of the wagering from that £500 whether there is a bonus afterwards or not so it's irrelevant . You can't evaluate this bonus against not playing slots at all. You have to evaluate it against real money play with no bonus added
Yes to work out the actual value of the bonus I'm sure it is involved as you say but ultimately you seem to be saying the value of the bonus is <0 which can't be true

So you wager £15000 from a £500 deposit and eventually bust . On a slot with 96% RTP you "should" have lost £600

So now you either trigger a bonus or redeposit . Does the fact that you should have lost £100 more in your last session affect how your results will now be ? No , you either redeposit or play with bonus funds and the slots are the same as they've always been . Now these bonus funds have wagering requirement etc but you have not deposited any money . If you manage to get 0.1p back on average from these bonuses then the bonus still has some value . Or you play with your deposit and the slots are the same as they have always been . But with the bonus you can't possibly lose any money because you never deposited any money so the value has to be >0 . With the real money deposit your expected value is <0 because slots are -EV

I think the truth is that although the bonus might be advertised as 100% deposit match with 25xWR , in reality it is far far less because often times the bonus will be forfeited so this fits in with how you evaluate the bonus - "phantom bonus" as you say . But many sites do this now like Betat , Redbet , LeoVegas and more . I think players like it for the very reason that it's so obviously a "bonus" once they've lost their real money they get a 2nd chance . If you think these are -EV for the player as a whole then it's interesting . I wouldn't rule it out but I don't really see how something < nothing ?

 

[ThePOGG]

This is going to come down to how much wagering the player does before withdrawing/triggering the bonus. I've come up with a way of simulating these restrictions over 2 parts. The first part is to determine what the average expected loss would be to either hit a target or bust out. This represents the play with deposited funds only. The second part is to determine the average expected gain from completing the bonus with the wagering requirements and restrictions. Summing the two should allow for an accurate assessment of the overall value of the bonus.

I've started running sims now, but it's probably going to take a couple of days to complete. I'll come back to everyone once I've done this.

TP

 

[dunover]

Their bonuses work like Bet-at's (used to? or still do?) where it's front-loaded but not tied and forms a separate balance. Of course Bet-at's is/was far superior in that your second chance never came with conversion limits so kept whatever cash you had when WR was completed.

I say again that the premise for this thread is a misunderstanding, exacerbated by the casino's thin explanation.

I assure you as did Slotgrinder that yes, your conversion-to-cash balance gets skimmed as soon as WR is met i.e you end up with say 2x your deposit upon meeting WR if you had more, or if less balance was less than 2xD when your WR was complete.

It's poor compared to Bet-at's but an advantage nevertheless as I found by rescuing and indeed improving by 2x my initial deposit when I lost it and hit the bonus.

Does the math here take into account that once you convert the bonus to 2xD or 4xB or whatever you can continue playing as a cash player with no max restrictions on cashing out?

I can see that it affects the real RTP as should the player (like I did!) hit a decent win before meeting WR it gets skimmed so effectively my RTP (in terms of winning a profit to cash-out) was reduced from what it had been to a far less sum. But without the bonus I wouldn't have cashed my small profit out.

The key word I say again is 'conversion to cash' rather than 'max cash-out'.

 

[spintee]

Betat's changed to wager only kicks in when you touch bonus,

Drvegas still counts from the off but it is now deposit and bonus wager, and bonus is sticky but if you get a good run than complete wager but out of funds than kick into bonus, and get a good hit straight away than bonus will be done already,

I am unsure if it is sticky bonus now after they change the wager

 

[hedgehok]

Is it right that Nektan's bonuses are like betat/MrGreen etc. where you can withdraw any winnings on the cash part of your balance without limit and only fall under the cap when you win on the bonus part?

 

[spintee]

Is it right that Nektan's bonuses are like betat/MrGreen etc. where you can withdraw any winnings on the cash part of your balance without limit and only fall under the cap when you win on the bonus part?

Thats correct but terms do need upgrading

As the way they are they could say that its not the case, say you get a mega hit, the terms are open for debate but that is how the bonus works

 

[dunover]

Is it right that Nektan's bonuses are like betat/MrGreen etc. where you can withdraw any winnings on the cash part of your balance without limit and only fall under the cap when you win on the bonus part?

Yes, correct. The problem being as Spintee said, if not specific enough the terms leave Nektan a potential bit of wriggle-room which we don't like, although to my knowledge they've never enacted that...

 

[Naok777]

Their bonuses work like Bet-at's (used to? or still do?) where it's front-loaded but not tied and forms a separate balance. Of course Bet-at's is/was far superior in that your second chance never came with conversion limits so kept whatever cash you had when WR was completed.

Bet-at does have a limit on bonus, but the cap is high:

11.15 The amount payable in terms of bonus amounts turned into real funds will be capped up to a maximum payment value of €25,000 euros. Any amount surpassing the cap will be paid out solely at discretion of BETAT Casino.

 

[spintee]

What did I say about all theses bonus rules changing, A new one today from spingenie



WAGERING REQUIREMENT CHANGES
Hi Terry,

As of Tuesday 24 January, there will be changes to the way Wagering Requirements work at spingenie.com. At present, both your cash and bonus balances contribute to meeting wagering requirements; from 24 January onwards, only wagering from your bonus balance will contribute towards meeting these requirements.

Any contribution made towards the wagering requirements of existing bonuses in your account before the above date will be unaffected, but contributions from then on will be made by wagering bonus funds only.

 

[ThePOGG]

A quick couple of notes:

- The current Nektan terms are written in such a way that they state that only the wagering from the bonus funds contributes towards the wagering requirement. As others have noted, they do not stipulate in any fashion that other restrictions are not enforced until you use the bonus. As such I'm taking on word from members that this isn't happening at the present time, though I can clearly see the potential for the operator to have a change of heart if a significant win occurred pre-bonus use. For obvious reasons this needs clarification.

- They also carry a term limiting the payout of any game to £250k. That's a problem in of itself as any player that places a wager that could potentially take them over this figure (doesn't have to be in a single round) is being mislead as to their odds of success but they also do not exclude progressive jackpots and have 3-4 in the IGT MegaMillions range that's currently sitting at £500k. For that reason alone they'll remain at Not Recommended status with us.

- While I can confirm that I have developed an approach that can effectively simulate this bonus structure, it does require far larger amounts of wagering depending on the parameters set which consequently increases the length of time the sims take. As such the secondary report is likely to take till the end of the week. The short summary is that the new bonus structure creates some interesting dynamics (if you're a maths geek like me), where it benefits from larger bets. It requires more play than simply completing the wagering requirement meaning that it ultimately costs more than simply playing the WR without a bonus. However it consequently generates more hours of play, resulting in an hourly cost that is less than play without a bonus. That being the case I would retract the statement that it doesn't provide any advantage to the player as it does create a cheaper hourly rate. I'll publish a full secondary article for you all once the sims are complete.

TP

 

[dunover]

A quick couple of notes:

- The current Nektan terms are written in such a way that they state that only the wagering from the bonus funds contributes towards the wagering requirement. As others have noted, they do not stipulate in any fashion that other restrictions are not enforced until you use the bonus. As such I'm taking on word from members that this isn't happening at the present time, though I can clearly see the potential for the operator to have a change of heart if a significant win occurred pre-bonus use. For obvious reasons this needs clarification.

- They also carry a term limiting the payout of any game to £250k. That's a problem in of itself as any player that places a wager that could potentially take them over this figure (doesn't have to be in a single round) is being mislead as to their odds of success but they also do not exclude progressive jackpots and have 3-4 in the IGT MegaMillions range that's currently sitting at £500k. For that reason alone they'll remain at Not Recommended status with us.

- While I can confirm that I have developed an approach that can effectively simulate this bonus structure, it does require far larger amounts of wagering depending on the parameters set which consequently increases the length of time the sims take. As such the secondary report is likely to take till the end of the week. The short summary is that the new bonus structure creates some interesting dynamics (if you're a maths geek like me), where it benefits from larger bets. It requires more play than simply completing the wagering requirement meaning that it ultimately costs more than simply playing the WR without a bonus. However it consequently generates more hours of play, resulting in an hourly cost that is less than play without a bonus. That being the case I would retract the statement that it doesn't provide any advantage to the player as it does create a cheaper hourly rate. I'll publish a full secondary article for you all once the sims are complete.

TP

Yes, fair enough. That's all we were saying - the mechanics of it (albeit Nektan could explain it better with numerical examples in their terms) DO give the player some advantage as a couple of us found to our benefit. I won't however reinstate them until they explain it better..

 

[ThePOGG]

Yes, fair enough. That's all we were saying - the mechanics of it (albeit Nektan could explain it better with numerical examples in their terms) DO give the player some advantage as a couple of us found to our benefit. I won't however reinstate them until they explain it better..

Whether or not your receiving an 'advantage' is somewhat subjective under this system where it wasn't under the previous system. Because the WR is essentially non-constant and varies based on individual results, or more significantly the withdrawal target set, the size of bonus and size of bet chosen, this can vary the impact the value of the bonus significantly. In other words you're no longer comparing apples with apples. What we can say is that to achieve the lower hourly rate you do have to engage in more play. This ultimately creates a greater cost to the player. And that's where the subjective part comes in - whether or not you see the lower hourly cost or the higher overall cost as more significant.

I'll try and break this all down in a way that the average reader can access once the sims are complete.

TP

 

[SlotGrinder]

I like the sims but do they really reflect how people play with these bonuses ? Because generally people don't see the bonus as an upfront addition they see it as a 2nd chance if they lose their real money balance quickly . This idea of enforced wagering doesn't ring true for me . If anything there is generally less wagering involved in a bonus system where players know they can just stop and cashout real money balance . Of course that means the bonus doesn't actually get taken which I suspect is why a lot of casinos are moving over to this system and obviously this lowers the value of the bonus overall when a considerable % of time it never even comes into play


The value of the bonus is inversely proportional to a player's balance basically and this deters players from continuing wagering . For example , Player deposits £100 with a 50% bonus . If he loses 75% of his real money well obviously he won't now cashout because that £50 bonus is valuable compared to his £25 real money balance . However if he increases his real money balance to £250 now that £50 bonus is not of much value since he needs to lose both his profit and deposit in order to trigger it . So in this case I feel he is pretty likely to cashout when he wants and not be polarised between a cashout target or zero(bonus triggering) . So this reduces the wagering completed considerably in reality

 

[ThePOGG]

I like the sims but do they really reflect how people play with these bonuses ? Because generally people don't see the bonus as an upfront addition they see it as a 2nd chance if they lose their real money balance quickly . This idea of enforced wagering doesn't ring true for me . If anything there is generally less wagering involved in a bonus system where players know they can just stop and cashout real money balance . Of course that means the bonus doesn't actually get taken which I suspect is why a lot of casinos are moving over to this system and obviously this lowers the value of the bonus overall when a considerable % of time it never even comes into play


The value of the bonus is inversely proportional to a player's balance basically and this deters players from continuing wagering . For example , Player deposits £100 with a 50% bonus . If he loses 75% of his real money well obviously he won't now cashout because that £50 bonus is valuable compared to his £25 real money balance . However if he increases his real money balance to £250 now that £50 bonus is not of much value since he needs to lose both his profit and deposit in order to trigger it . So in this case I feel he is pretty likely to cashout when he wants and not be polarised between a cashout target or zero(bonus triggering) . So this reduces the wagering completed considerably in reality

The sims will account for this. As you point out different people will have different withdrawal criteria. As such I've looked to compile a range of sims for each bonus scenario based on what the players natural targets would be. At the present time I've used 2.5x, 5x, 10x and 20x deposit before cashing out, where the sim looks at the impact of playing to that level or to the point where the bonus is triggered. This looks to provide a reasonable range of options for players with different preferences, so you can see how this impacts your own style of play. I'll also be providing an 'optimum' strategy, but imo this is not something that any player would naturally gravitate towards without having seen the simulations so can be discounted as an assessment of how the everyday player would act.

TP

 

[dunover]

Like any bonus the timing of any spike in RTP is vital. Hit it on the cash portion before bonus kicks in, happy days. Go into the bonus and hit a whopper like me, and I got 400 quid skimmed from my balance on meeting WR. Then again it enabled me to cash-out double my deposit. I think we are over-complicating something that to the player is a straightforward issue.

 

[ThePOGG]

RTP spikes are irrelevant. The whole point in sims is that over the long run the spikes are cancelled out by the troughs. That's why you can't base an assessment of any type of gambling game or promotional situation on small sample sizes. You need large numbers of repetitions to provide an accurate picture that takes account of both the spikes and troughs. If you're the one who hits the jackpot on the lottery are you representative of the experience of all players? How about the players that play their whole life and never win anything? Taking either extreme does not give an accurate reflection of the overall picture. And if we ignore the bigger picture and base our assessment on what player's feel about a bonus system it allows unscrupulous operators to slip through the cracks and present "bonuses" that are fundamentally costing the playing community money as a positive.

In short, looking at anything to do with gambling with a short term view of what RTP could do when is like trying to guess what number will come up next when you roll the dice. It's just luck if you get it right.

TP

 

[Playford7]

I've signed up to 5 Nektan sites and every time I asked CS if it's ok and every time they said it's fine and that you can have as many accounts / welcome bonuses as you want.. not that I trust CS 100% though but it seems to be fine

Believe me you can't. I was a member of 5 nektan sister sites,and I got any bonus's available to me frozen for no reason at all. I wasn't bonus abusing or multiple accounts..I'd stay well clear of this bunch of jokers