New Rival casinos - lost the bonus plot?

[KasinoKing]

At least 3 new Rival casinos will go live in September (two already have), but I my fear that they will follow the other recent new ones with totally unrealistic sign-up bonuses is being realised...

In my opinion the "industry standard" should be what Microgaing have;
30 times the bonus amount, and fully cashable.
This still makes the bonus +EV for the casino, but at least it gives the players a realistic chance of completing the WR without losing their whole deposit.
If Microgaming casino can do this, why can't Rival casinos????

A good example was new Ruby Royal who launched last month with a ridiculous WR of Bonus x 50 and to make it 10 x worse it was Phantom!
They did reduce this to Bonus x 30 when I pointed out how ludicrous it was, but it still remains phantom.

The first new Rival this month has gone with Bonus x 60 - only TWICE what MG casinos offer...

The second new Rival this month has gone with this:-

Old Attachment (Invalid)
(Note: The word "reversal" is the worst spelling of the word "deposit" that I have ever seen!)

I am almost speechless about this one. Surely this is the WORST sign-up bonus anywhere on the internet!
For slots you have to wager Bonus x 160...
For the allowed card games it's Bonus x 320...
If that's not ludicrous enough - it's PHANTOM!!!

It you took the maximum bonus & played slots you would have to wager $64,000 and get a return of 100% or more on games with an average RTP of 96% in order to be able to cash out anything...
Do you feel lucky, punk? ... Well, do you?


As an affiliate and as a player these bonuses are totally useless to me - I certainly wouldn't take a bonus with such a crazy WR, and I wouldn't expect many other players would either.
I'm still listing ALL the Rivals on my site because despite their insane welcome bonuses I still trust them to treat their players fairly, and some people are happy to try new places without taking bonuses. Not for me, but that's their prerogative!


So what do YOU think - have most new Rival casinos lost the plot over bonuses?
Or do you think they are just trying to encourage people to play without bonuses?

KK

 

[zebedy]

The bonuses have deffinately been creeping up over the last 5/6/7/8/9 rivals that have been brought out,
Hence ive never deposited a dime with them,and probably never will,
there has to be a reason why there W/R is so high ?
i think some people/opperators have seen how popular rival have become and are trying to jump on the badwagon,maybe without a decent startup bankroll and are putting incredibly ludicrous restrictions on W/Rs as not to get hit big,
as we all know a $1 bet can win you $1000 on some of there slots and if the W/R are only 15x you would expect to cash out something,but with a W/R of 60x plus the chance is probably zero,

I blame the smart bonus hunters like yourself casino's are catching on to it

 

[3Dice]

In my opinion the "industry standard" should be what Microgaing have;
30 times the bonus amount, and fully cashable.
This still makes the bonus +EV for the casino, but at least it gives the players a realistic chance of completing the WR without losing their whole deposit.

Hi KK,

30 times bonus, fully casheable is very much -EV for the casino.

I know the formula you and others here at CM use all the time that
arrives you at that conclusion - but that formula is fundamentally
flawed. (in short - those that lose don't generate enough playthrough,
but the bonus money went in the machine - and will come out.)

Instead of trying to understand it starting from that flawed formula,
lets do it the other way around. I'll simplify the game setup in this
sample so its easier to follow.

As game we will use a simplified slot machine. A high variance one
since that's easier to think about. Our simple slot machine has three
reels with 10 symbols each. There's 9 loser and 1 win symbol on each
reel. There's only one center winline so we can immeadiately see that
the winning combination occurs 1 in 1000 times on average. It's a 95%
machine so the win combination pays out 950 times betsize.

Now, a thousand people signup to play this slot at KK's casino. (good
name btw). They all take advantage of the bonus offer where the WR
is 30 times the bonus amount, and they all deposit 5 to do a single spin.
Lets look at the maths ..

1000 people deposit $5 = $5.000
100% bonus from KK casino = $5.000

999 people lose their spin : $9990 in total stake, house edge on this stake : 499.5

1 person hits and wins $9500 - stake there is $10, house edge on that is .5

This person now has $140 left in wagering ($5*30-$10) .. assuming those 14 spins are
all losers (he could hit again - chance of that is ~1.4%) he generates another
$140 in stake with an extra house edge of 7.

So KK casino spends $5000 in bonuses and makes back 507 - a net loss for the
casino of 4493. Now as the machines become less variant that number goes down,
but for the bonus to become a no-loss deal for the casino, the total stake
must be $100.000 which would represent a machine so low variant its highest
win would be more in the range of 2 times betsize..

In short, 30 times B and fully casheable is very much player EV+. If you
only play under those conditions and you play high variance slots, then
you are sure to end up ahead.

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[KasinoKing]

So KK casino spends $5000 in bonuses and makes back 507 - a net loss for the casino of 4493...

Riiiiiiiight....
Well I don't know mate, but I reckon one of us is barking mad!

I'm not going to pretend I understand your example at all, but this is the maths I use:-

Player deposits $100 and get $100 bonus.
WR Bx30 = $3,000
Player wagers $3,000 on a 95% slot; return = $3,000 x 95% = $2,850
$3,000 - $2,850 = player loss of $150.
He started with $200 but $100 was bonus chips, therefore he has lost $50 of his deposit.
The casino has made +$50.

I'm sorry, but I can't see any way you can argue against that...

KK

PS: If what you're saying is true, how come all the 80+ MG casinos who offer Bx30 bonus haven't gone bust yet?

PPS: I don't know what you're smoking today... but Robwin wants some of it!

 

[Nifty29]

Well I received a ND welcome chip of $50 a Vegas Days Casino.

The terms were:

100xB WR
Max cashout = $50
Bonus non-withdrawable

Tough to beat that one!

Oh, and some of the emails I received with follow-up offers said "Get 200% bonus at Rockbet!". Well lets hope they didnt want the connection kept secret.

I may be adding something VERY interesting to this discussion in the next 7 days which will make your hair curl, but I am doing the right thing for the moment and letting some processes take their course.

 

[3Dice]

Riiiiiiiight....
Well I don't know mate, but I reckon one of us is barking mad!

I'm not going to pretend I understand your example at all, but this is the maths I use:-

Player deposits $100 and get $100 bonus.
WR Bx30 = $3,000
Player wagers $3,000 on a 95% slot; return = $3,000 x 95% = $2,850
$3,000 - $2,850 = player loss of $150.
He started with $200 but $100 was bonus chips, therefore he has lost $50 of his deposit.
The casino has made +$50.

I'm sorry, but I can't see any way you can argue against that...

To see the error in your thinking just repeat it 100 times at high risk bets.

so you loose 99 times in one big 200 bet .. after 99 times there's how much in the machine ? 99*$200 = 19800. When you win, on average it will be 95% of that so 95% of 20k = 19k. And then you got 3000 WR to clear ..

KK

PS: If what you're saying is true, how come all the 80+ MG casinos who offer Bx30 bonus haven't gone bust yet?

Because they dont offer it on each deposit.

PPS: I don't know what you're smoking today... but Robwin wants some of it!

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[KasinoKing]

Oh, and some of the emails I received with follow-up offers said "Get 200% bonus at Rockbet!". Well lets hope they didnt want the connection kept secret.

I don't think that's ever been a secret - Vegas Days is a sister casino to Rockbet.
What I'm slightly confused about is "Rockbet John" who was supposed to have left This is Vegas to manage Rockbet - but there are still so many similarities & ties between these two (now three) casinos that I can't believe he no longer has any involvement with TiV...

I may be adding something VERY interesting to this discussion in the next 7 days which will make your hair curl...

Sorry, that's impossible.
All my hair fell out when I read the terms of that new Rival casino today...

KK

 

[silcnlayc]

Bonuses are gifts with attachments, not a players right. If you do not like the attachment to the gift, refuse the gift. Simple. JMO...

.

 

[anniemac]

While you are correct about bonuses being a gift with attachments, I think the point of this thread is why give a "gift" and then make it impossible to enjoy.

If I get a bonus offer, either ND or deposit, the very first thing I look at is the wagering requirements. Why in the world would I take a 100% deposit bonus with 80x wagering requirements non cashable when I can get a 100% deposit bonus with a 30x wagering requirement that is fully cashable.

Bonuses like the ones with the huge wagering requirements remind me of Cirrus etal.

I'm not a bonus wh**re either. I play as much with as without but I won't spend my money on a bonus that I believe I will never be able to meet.

 

[silcnlayc]

Why in the world would I take a 100% deposit bonus with 80x wagering requirements non cashable when I can get a 100% deposit bonus with a 30x wagering requirement that is fully cashable.

Exactly my point...a lousy gift is still just a lousy gift...JMO

.

 

[WonderingSpirit]

Hi KK,


1000 people deposit $5 = $5.000
100% bonus from KK casino = $5.000

999 people lose their spin : $9990 in total stake, house edge on this stake : 499.5

1 person hits and wins $9500 - stake there is $10, house edge on that is .5



Enzo

And the player that deposits 5$, makes a spin and wins will get his account closed because to the casino thats irregular betting pattern

 

[chuchu59]

Stop arguing guys I am playing at Vanguard casino, a new Rival right now. There is a freebie of $20 with 25 WRs. The SUB is a 100% match bonus which is cashable and carries a 25x WR. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[bb28]

I may be adding something VERY interesting to this discussion in the next 7 days which will make your hair curl, but I am doing the right thing for the moment and letting some processes take their course.

My hair is already curly but I can't wait to have more curls.
Should I pop some popcorn?

 

[casinojack]

Keep in mind when doing this calculations, at least wit RTG, is really based on 1,000,000 spins = 95% edge,( in this example you chose 95% Im staying with it)

One other note, most WR is 30 times bonus plus deposit. So wouldn't you see a $6,000 WR in the example?

 

[oldtrvlagt]

Just to add to the drama....the Vegas Days transcript of my chat I had with them said it came from "this is vegas"......IMHO they are ALL kissing cousins. And, of course, they still DO NOT like me (except for Mayan Fortune and Sloto)

 

[KasinoKing]

One other note, most WR is 30 times bonus plus deposit. So wouldn't you see a $6,000 WR in the example?

No. I was referring to the most popular casino software on the internet, Microgaming.
The vast majority of their casinos have cashable bonuses with WR of Bonus Only x 30.

Despite Enzo's rather strange explanation, I assure you this is still very much in favor of the casino winning and the player losing.
No MG casinos I know (except one) give players the edge with their bonuses.

KK

 

[casinojack]

No. I was referring to the most popular casino software on the internet, Microgaming.
The vast majority of their casinos have cashable bonuses with WR of Bonus Only x 30.

Despite Enzo's rather strange explanation, I assure you this is still very much in favor of the casino winning and the player losing.
No MG casinos I know (except one) give players the edge with their bonuses.

KK

Ahh ok, I was looking at the example that you had pasted in the first post...Sorry!!

 

[thelawnet]

Riiiiiiiight....
Well I don't know mate, but I reckon one of us is barking mad!

I'm not going to pretend I understand your example at all, but this is the maths I use:-

Player deposits $100 and get $100 bonus.
WR Bx30 = $3,000
Player wagers $3,000 on a 95% slot; return = $3,000 x 95% = $2,850
$3,000 - $2,850 = player loss of $150.
He started with $200 but $100 was bonus chips, therefore he has lost $50 of his deposit.
The casino has made +$50.

I'm sorry, but I can't see any way you can argue against that...

KK

Unusually, it seems the casino rep knows what he is talking about.

The only player who plays $3000 is the one that cashes out.

If you go in and play $100 spins (for example), most of the time you would lose both spins.

So let's say 60% of the time you lose both your $100 spins, this means you bet $200, and 40% you win and complete the WR (this is grossly simplified of course).

The amount wagered is not $3000, but

60% of $200
+ 40% of $3000

which is
$120 + $1200 = $1320.

The casino doesn't get, on average, 5% of $3000 = $150. It actually gets 5% of $1320 = $66.

Which is less than the bonus amount, so the casino makes a loss.

The determining factor of whether the casino makes a profit is whether the average player wager is more than $100 /5% = $2000.

My guess would be that it is not, the average player does not bet that much, because they will bust before they have bet $2000.

Basically there are a number of stages of evolution of casino bonuses:

Stage 1: Casinos offers bonuses that has a playthrough that will cost, on average, less than the bonus amount, played on the right game. The casino can still make a profit if the player bets on games with higher house edge, but a player playing correct strategy can expect to win, on average, even playing 1 cent bets.

Stage 2: Casino changes bonus so that the playthrough will cost more than the bonus amount. The player gets around this by reducing the amount of playthrough he does. How? By increasing bet size, or by playing higher risk bets. An example of this is players playing single numbers on roulette with their bonus. 36 times out of 37 the player will lose (of course the player could play 2 numbers, 3 numbers, whatever, but the theory is the same). If he does lose the roulette bet, the casino has only effectively seen 1* playthrough, and no bonus is profitable at that level.

Stage 3: Casino tries to ensure player completes all or most of the playthrough, thereby guaranteeing a profit from the playthrough that exceeds the bonus amount. This is done by:

* banning high variance games like roulette which allow the player to bypass the wagering
* implementing low bet sizes (I believe 3dice does this). If you got a $1000 bonus and can only bet $1 max on roulette, you're not going to be able to follow the strategy above
* banning large bets with complicated clauses designed to ensure that the casino wins - if the player loses he loses, and if he wins he loses because he bet too high a % of his balance (popular with Microgaming casinos)
* requiring the player to do the wagering BEFORE he gets the bonus. This is done by Wagerworks and Chartwell and is the only way to guarantee that the player completes the WR, thereby giving the house its expected gain as determined by the stated WR.

PS: If what you're saying is true, how come all the 80+ MG casinos who offer Bx30 bonus haven't gone bust yet?

In some cases they have complicated terms designed to ensure they make a profit, see above. In others, they view customer acquisition as an expense, and they lose money on the signup. In fact all casinos operate this way - that's why they're paying you affiliate commissions. The only issue with paying some of that customer acquisition money to the player is that it encourages bonus hunting.

Different casinos will have different ways of doing business - some will get more follow-up revenue from customer than others, and what works for one casino might not work for another.

A casino that offers bonuses like the ones described in your OP will not lose money from that bonus, but they could still end up losing money because:

* they don't attract enough customers because the market is highly competitive and players can be tempted away to another casino with better bonuses, so they do not cover overheads (even though every single player has a positive gross profit expectation)
* because they have to pay affiliate commissions and the like

Casinos need to get new players, and they need to get them playing again, otherwise they will go bust. For the time being there are so many casinos offering player incentives that the online market is IMO a difficult one to enter unless you have the megabucks to attract a mass of players.

There are lots of ways to handle player retention: for players generating high playthrough or making big deposits, the casino should look at their play and aim to offer a proportion of it back in bonuses or free gifts. This should be player-specific, because some players will play in a way that is much more profitable for the casino than others (and this shouldn't determined by how much they cash out (which is heavily luck-dependent), but rather the casino's theoretical win)

Lower level players can be tempted with wagering contests, prize draws and tournaments (which are generally less attractive to players simply looking for a bonus, and more appealing to players who want to 'try their luck'), as well as by offering good customer service.

 

[3Dice]

KasinoKing,

Please take a few mins to figure this out. You have 5 years of records to prove I'm right and the formula you use isn't. (you don't really believe you had 5 years of good luck ?). You formula is essentially only valid for a machine with 0 variance. (every $1 bet pays back $0.95). For every other machine its completely useless - and wrong.

I know its been an accepted thing on this forum for years - and I had to bite my lip so many times waiting for a good context to explain it

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[chuchu59]

However, hundreds of thousands of players have proved that KK could be right. He is only one of a handful of those who have proved otherwise.
Shame on you KK by winning and contradicting your theory.

 

[Nifty29]

I have a proposition:

Chu, KK, Enzo and I meet back here at the CM Forums on the 12th September 2049 and compare our records.

I reckon that should settle it either way...

 

[KasinoKing]

However, hundreds of thousands of players have proved that KK could be right. He is only one of a handful of those who have proved otherwise.
Shame on you KK by winning and contradicting your theory.

I have to confess I still don't get it...
I found thelawnet's explanation easier to understand than Enzo's and at one point I thought I'd nearly got it, but still can't get my head round the final equation. I'm pretty good at maths usually, but this has got me stumped.
To me, if the slot is 95% - you wager $2000 - you lose $100. After that, the casino wins.
If you bust out before you wager $2000 - you've lost $200 (assuming a 100% bonus) and the casino has won.
I'm going on holiday next week, so I'll print out both explanations & see if I can get my braincells around this conundrum during the flight!

If these guys are right (which seems probable) then at least I would know at last how I have managed to defy the odds I thought were against me & make profit continuously playing slots for 5 years...!

KK

 

[3Dice]

...

If you bust out before you wager $2000 - you've lost $200 (assuming a 100% bonus) and the casino has won.

Thats the mistake. The casino hasn't won. the money went into the game .. the casino only wins if you have staked more than $2000 .. else that money will just be won by another player. He wins your bonus .. but not your remaining WR...

If these guys are right (which seems probable) then at least I would know at last how I have managed to defy the odds I thought were against me & make profit continuously playing slots for 5 years...!

KK

That's the funny part you are the living proof - play bonuses like this consequently and you are a guaranteed winner.

Cheers,

Enzo


p.s. The 'mental image' needed to understand this KK is playing at the same machine - and you're the only player. Then keep track of the total in and total out of that imaginary machine. The situation also is easier to grasp if you use high risk bets (all the depo and bonus in one bet is easiest to understand). Then just run a few imaginary deposits through and see what happens. A piece of paper and about 15 minutes for an 'aha' erlebnis


TheLanwnet

Allow me to add an extra stage 4 : The forum hasn't really caught up with this and seems to think its not such a big deal but recently we've seen bonuses where casino's impose a maxpay and simply clip off the excess balance (either immediately or at withdraw) - hereby effectively converting the excess withdraw to house edge. (as if it were played through 20 times).

 

[big_mac]

Thats the mistake. The casino hasn't won. the money went into the game .. the casino only wins if you have staked more than $2000 .. else that money will just be won by another player. He wins your bonus .. but not your remaining WR...

I'm not sure that's a very helpful description. The casino has actually 'won', and another player doesn't actually win your bonus. I do understand what you mean, but I think that's a little too abstract, if you can't follow it already.


I would maybe try and (hopefully) simplify your first example...

Here is my attempt:-

You pay $50, get a 50$ bonus.

It has a 30*WR (so you have to play $1500), and there is a slot game that pays 95%.
If you play all of it on this slot game, you would 'expect' to lose $75 - and so isn't worth playing.....

But, one of the games you are allowed to play is a 'dice' game, with just one die
If you pick the right number, you get 5* your bet, otherwise you lose.
That game has a very large house edge (over 15%) , but....

If you have 5 friends - you all play $100 on the first go,
1 of you gets $500, 5 of you lose.

Now, between you, you have still got $500 of the $600 you started with - but now only one of you has to complete the WR. So, if he plays the rest on slots and he loses $70, then he finishes with $430. You split this between you, and you all get $70 each and have made a profit!

.....

ok, so you can't really play games with friends like that to guarantee that one of you wins - but if you average it out over lots and lots of casinos (or lots of players) then it works out to be the same.

E.g. If you played the 'dice' game like this at 600 casinos - you would, on average, win at about 100 of them. That way you would only have 100 lots of wagering to complete, and would expect to make a nice profit.

So, it isn't as simple as just looking at the house edge and EV.

 

[thelawnet]

Thats the mistake. The casino hasn't won. the money went into the game .. the casino only wins if you have staked more than $2000 .. else that money will just be won by another player. He wins your bonus .. but not your remaining WR...

Money doesn't go 'into' the game.

It is actually irrelevant who wins or loses.

The casinos expected win is quite simply their edge multiplied by the amount that is wagered.

If you consider the $200 lost by the player as a coin flip that pays out $180 (plus your bet) if you win, and costs you $200 if you lose (thus 95% return - a 100% game would pay $200/$200), then it's clearer.

The casino has not won $200 - it has won 5% of $200, that is $10: because for every $200 loss there will be a $180 win. KK is not seeing that because he is just thinking 'I lost $200', without realising that the other half the time (on average, of course slots can vary a lot in payout) he would be saying 'I lost $180'

The point is that by taking this $200/$180 bet, you are only going to go on and do the rest of the $2800 wagering half of the time.

Another way to look at this would be if we agreed to play a coin flipping game:

200 per flip, we play 15 times
If I win, you pay me 200
If you win, you pay me 180

How much profit to I expect to make? 15 flips * 10 per flips = 150

But what would happen if, in the event that you lost spin 1, you said 'Screw this, I've lost enough, I'm going'. You would only do 8 flips on average.

That's what happens at a casino. When you lose your deposit + bonus, you are free to leave. In the example above, in fact you'd probably say 'I'm going' ANY time you were down. So even if you won spin 1 and 2, but then lost 3, 4 and 5, you'd have no money left, and would go.

The casino wins more if you bet more. Of course the nature of gambling is such that sometimes you'll win repeatedly, and other times you'll lose very quickly, but on average you will lose more the more you bet.

That's the funny part you are the living proof - play bonuses like this consequently and you are a guaranteed winner.

Well maybe. KK is a bit of a lowroller, which means that the average amount he bets relative to the wagering requirement. OTOH, the variance of slot machines is in a way his friend - because even at $1/spin you can lose $100 in the space of $500 wagered. A 94.74% slots game is very much better for the player than betting 'even' on an American roulette game (which has the same payback - 94.74%)

One thing that might work in KK's favour is that with such low stakes he's probably not going to go over the WR that much. If you're betting big and are lucky enough to win, you could easily do double the WR or more. The players that do this are, on average, playing back their win.

Allow me to add an extra stage 4 : The forum hasn't really caught up with this and seems to think its not such a big deal but recently we've seen bonuses where casino's impose a maxpay and simply clip off the excess balance (either immediately or at withdraw) - hereby effectively converting the excess withdraw to house edge. (as if it were played through 20 times).

These have been around for a long time at RTGs - I don't pay much regard to the world of RTG I'm afraid, but they really kill the value of the bonus.

It is misleading to say that the excess withdraw is converted to house edge, because 'house edge' (the casinos expected profit on a single bet) does not accurately express this concept. In fact the excess balance is a manifestation of variance, specifically the right-hand tail of the normal curve.

As a simple example, take a $500/$500 bonus, playable on 0.5% HA blackjack, with a $50,000 WR. The player expectation would be $250 if the bonus was awarded after wagering, assuming they play perfect strategy. If the bonus is upfront, then by playing for instance $100 bets, the player expectation increases to ~$375 - this is because he busts out, on average, after completing only half of the WR.

However, if you enforce a maximum cashout of $2000, then those $100 bets are going to be a killer.

Basically what happens is that with bigger bets is that you will get bigger swings, which means that you will bust out often (at $100 bets you could see your balance rise thousands before plummeting to zero), but you will also experience very big wins. On average you will end up with somewhat less than the $1000 you started with, but this 'average' will be made up of many bust-outs, and some $1000, $3,000 $8000, etc. wins.

What happens with the max cashout of $2000 is all those big $10,000 wins get turned into $2000. The effect of this can be to take FAR more than the $250 that the casino would make using a post-wager bonus.

At $100 bet, that 2* max cashout 100% bonus is actually profitable for the casino. The player is much better off betting $10/hand, which means he will probably complete the $50,000 wagering, thereby handing, on average, $250 to the casino, rather than risking the max cashout.

The thing about a max cashout clause, is that depending on your play, the expected casino profit can be almost the whole of bonus + deposit.

The max cashout situation is even worse with slots, which typically have 4* greater swings than blackjack for a given bet size. This is how those RTGs can offer 1000% bonuses - because they have a 2x max cashout.

For casinos with a fixed max cashout (e.g., $2000) it's probably better to take a small bonus, say $50, to avoid the max cashout cut-off, than to go for a bigger bonus, and risk it.

A 30xbonus wagering requirement, where you bet 1/10 of the bonus value each time, equals 300 bets, which has a standard deviation of about 2b for blackjack, probably 7b for video poker, and 8b for slots. A minimum distance of your start balance from the max cashout, should be twice the standard deviation, and 3 would be better, so for instance for a $100/$100 bj bonus at 30xb betting $10/hand, a $200+600 = $800 max cashout would be a non-issue. Increasing the WR by n has the effect of increasing the WR by sqrt(n), as does increasing the bet size by the same, so betting $40/hand, you'd want a $1600 max cashout minimum, likewise for $2.50 slots bets.

 

[felicie]

Royal Apollo

Whats the deal with Apollo and no USA? Anyone been there yet? Thank you

 

[casinojack]

I think some of the theories here are fun to read

But RTP, is based on a number of spins (in the case of slots) usually 1,000,000 so if you play 500 - 1000 spins means nothing. And yes I get the point of low and high variance...

In most cases, I would use 4.5% of wagered amount to figure out what a casino makes...(some are higher but we speaking conservative)

I am going to do some of my own number crunching this weekend...

 

[thelawnet]

I think some of the theories here are fun to read

But RTP, is based on a number of spins (in the case of slots) usually 1,000,000 so if you play 500 - 1000 spins means nothing. And yes I get the point of low and high variance...

This is not accurate. The RTP is not based on any number of spins. It is based on the exact theoretical return for a slot.

Example: a 5 reel slot with 30 symbols on each reel has 2.43 million combinations (30*30*30*30*30). If you cycle through each of those 2.43 million combinations and figure out what they pay to the player, add them up, and then divide by 2.43 million, that will be the return to player.

Or alternatively you can look at the number of symbols on each reel of each kind, multiply them together, and then derive it that way.

Example, if you have a slot with a 'Cherry' symbol, and 3 cherries pays 2, 4 cherries 10, and 5 cherries 100, then with 30 symbols on each reel, and on reel 1 - 10 cherries, reel 2 6 cherries, reel 3 - 6 cherries, reel 4 2 cherries, reel 5 -2 cherries, then the return from 5 cherries would be

10*6*6*2*2 (10 symbols on reel 1, 6 on reel 2, 6 on reel 3, 2 on reel 4, and then 2 on reel 5, will allow you to form 5 cherries) / 2.43 million * 100 = 5.93%

from 4 cherries: 10*6*6*2*28 (this is the same as 5 cherries, but we need the 28 NON-cherry symbols on reel 5, otherwise we would have not 4 cherries but 5)/ 2.43 million * 10 = 8.30%

and finally from 3 cherries
10*6*6*28*30/2.43million*2 = 24.89%

Add this up and you'll find that the cherry pays payout 39.22% (which is higher than a real slot, but this is just an example - a real slot would have many different kinds of symbol). Perform this same exercise for the other types of pays, add them up and you have the RTP.

In both cases is an EXACT figure. There is no need to use any other figure (and in fact 1 million spins would not be enough to get the RTP to a sufficient degree of accuracy for casino purposes - you'd only be in a margin of +-1% or so) - a slot machine should be designed using a spreadsheet to model the effect of changing the number of symbols or the payout for each one - the slot machine designer would have the probability of a given pay, the actual payout in coins, the return contributed by that pay, and the variance contributed.

If the designer wants a game that makes the player's money last longer, he will look to reduce the variance of pays with high variance (this will be high payout events that occur frequently (for reference, 5 wilds or the like, is usually very rare, and as such a 10,000 coin wild jackpot is not indicative of high variance, because there are usually few wilds on the reel, because they boost all pays, and as such the chance of getting five of them is generally minuscule)).


From the casino perspective, 500 spins on a game paying 95%, means the casino can expect to make 25 spins profit. The player might win, or might lose - it shouldn't matter to the casino, because the casino is the house and the winning and losing players will average out to that 95% RTP.

In most cases, I would use 4.5% of wagered amount to figure out what a casino makes...(some are higher but we speaking conservative)

'A casino' is a bit vague.

If you look at Old / Expired Link

they were making typically 2.5% - less for BJ, more for VP and slots (in both cases, the casino makes more than the theoretical RTP, because players do not play optimally in all cases)

Fast forward to 2008 Old / Expired Link

and the casino was making about 4.5%. The BJ had stayed the same, the VP had improved, but they realised that players wouldn't really notice the difference between 95% slots and 92-93%, so switched to the lower rate but with glossy licenses like Spiderman, and also their giant progressives - paying only 90%.

PS. There is sometimes cause to use inexact RTP figures - but for table games, not slots. For games involving complex decisions of strategy, the number of combinations can reach trillions - far more complex than any slot, even if the variance is much lower.

 

[chuchu59]

I have a proposition:

Chu, KK, Enzo and I meet back here at the CM Forums on the 12th September 2049 and compare our records.

I reckon that should settle it either way...

Sure Nifty,

I will save these records for my son. Even if I am still here, I doubt whether my eyes will still function.

 

[zebedy]

heres a good one from a new rival, royal apollo

 

[chuchu59]

Yep, they made this one up for people living in the moon.

 

[Nifty29]

Looks like the UK is now high risk

1.11. For Players from United Kingdom, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, Romania, Hungary, Thailand, Malaysia, Latvia, Slovak Republic, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Costa Rica the minimum requirements before making a Withdrawal request is to play their Deposit and Play Bonus amount totaling four (4) times the regular minimum requirements for each Play Bonus.

Seems a bit silly to me really.

 

[zebedy]

Yep, they made this one up for people living in the moon.

it sounds like they are coming from Uranus

 

[vinylweatherman]

Looks like the UK is now high risk



Seems a bit silly to me really.

They really do NOT want customers from these countries, but their GREED means they just cannot bring themselves to outright BAN them, because there is money to be made.

These kinds of rules are unjustified. No matter WHERE a player comes from, they get the SAME overall RTP expectation from the game.

One or two reps have indicated these kinds of terms are due to the increased FRAUD risk, which means they receive more "chargebacks" than usual from these countries, or lose money by paying fraudulent players, and need to balance the books. It is NOT RIGHT though, that the HONEST players are made to subsidise the fraudsters. They should instead improve their anti-fraud measures, and perhaps have rules that require players from high risk countries to pass security checks BEFORE they become eligible for the bonuses, but once they have proved themselves as being genuine players, should receive the bonuses on the SAME terms as the rest.
It is also immoral that the term requiring these players to wager 4x the "normal" amount is split off to form part of "general" terms, rather than being explicitly stated in the SAME PLACE as the information on WR for the bonus. This only leads to players finding out TOO LATE that they are deemed "high risk", and it is only fair that players are presented with this information BEFORE they deposit.

I would like to know WTF is up with MY G8 and "first world" country being lumped in with a list of countries that are suffering from a degree of internal political instability, chiefly ex Soviet bloc states, and some "third world" countries where criminal networks have taken advantage of a laxity in law enforcement. I bet if the US was in that list, there would be quite a stir!

I have a policy of NOT playing in a casino that has ANY "special restrictions" for my country - I would be at a disadvantage before I started, and beyond the obvious policy on bonuses, there is the risk that behind the scenes I would be constantly under enhanced scrutiny, and continually suffering "document checks" and "account audits" even if I played without any of the offers.

 

[4 of a kind]

Reading this thread reminds me why I hate bonuses. I couldn't imagine taking all of this crap into consideration before making a deposit. And that's exactly what I mean 95% of the time, a deposit.

I also have a question here for the casino reps. that reply. Do casinos make more money from people taking ridiculous play through bonuses, or from straight up depositors? Also which type of depositor deposit more money?

 

[NicolasJohnson]

Reading this thread reminds me why I hate bonuses. I couldn't imagine taking all of this crap into consideration before making a deposit. And that's exactly what I mean 95% of the time, a deposit.

I also have a question here for the casino reps. that reply. Do casinos make more money from people taking ridiculous play through bonuses, or from straight up depositors? Also which type of depositor deposit more money?

You are taking it from a players point of view, which is understandable, but if you want a reply from an operator, I'll have to explain our view, and see if that helps.

We honestly, don't care if a player makes a high bonus/high restriction deposit, or a low bonus/low restriction deposit, or a standard no bonus/no restrictions deposit. We make higher bonuses have higher restrictions so as to maintain a certain hold. Lower bonuses have lower restrictions to have about the same certain hold. And if a player plays without a bonus we will also have a certain hold. As a business we need to make sure that is the case.

To us at Vegas Regal Casino it all boils down to Customer Satisfaction. We try to offer all 3 options to keep customers satisfied no matter what their preference. About who deposits more and who is more profitable, I can't really comment on those specifics; but I will tell you that those numbers will vary greatly depending on the casino, the promotions, and the audiences the different casinos attract. I hope that helps.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

 

[vinylweatherman]

You are taking it from a players point of view, which is understandable, but if you want a reply from an operator, I'll have to explain our view, and see if that helps.

We honestly, don't care if a player makes a high bonus/high restriction deposit, or a low bonus/low restriction deposit, or a standard no bonus/no restrictions deposit. We make higher bonuses have higher restrictions so as to maintain a certain hold. Lower bonuses have lower restrictions to have about the same certain hold. And if a player plays without a bonus we will also have a certain hold. As a business we need to make sure that is the case.

To us at Vegas Regal Casino it all boils down to Customer Satisfaction. We try to offer all 3 options to keep customers satisfied no matter what their preference. About who deposits more and who is more profitable, I can't really comment on those specifics; but I will tell you that those numbers will vary greatly depending on the casino, the promotions, and the audiences the different casinos attract. I hope that helps.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

What is it though, that makes us UK players FOUR times "better at slots" that the majority. Surely the bonus is designed, as you say, to offer a st "hold" for the casino. It surely does not matter what country a deposit comes from, this "hold" expectation remains the same.

By increasing the WR for a group of players, you are INCREASING the "hold" from these players, who in effect are subsidising the OTHER players who are given offers with the original expected "hold". Arguments from operators based on, say, "UK players play the slots better than those from the US....." are total BULLSHIT. This is the INTERNET, and players from ANYWHERE have access to information that might give them an "edge" on a particular game type, or even a particular promotion concept.

The UK government has PIONEERED the acceptance of "remote gambling" by other EU states, yet us UK citizens are increasingly being "driven out of town" when it comes to our participation online. Playtech, for example, has the UK in a group all of it's own, as "superfrauds", yet does not mind many of the other countries normally associated with player fraud playing on "normal terms". We (the UK) let Playtech in (stockmarket listing, regulatory framework giving them the chance to advertise legally throughout the EU), yet they bite our hand off

It is surely fairer to give ALL players (once verified of course) the chance of beating the SAME "hold", since no one group of LEGITIMATE players is going to be better at playing a RANDOM game than any other.

Whilst there may be more FRAUD coming from certain regions compared to others, this has NOTHING TO DO with WR on a bonus. A FRAUDULENT player is NOT PAID, rather than being permitted to commit fraud provided he plays 4x the usual WR.

Players who play without bonuses do NOT receive any kind of replacement benefits either, which is why the issue becomes so contentious. IF players could, say, play slots at 95% with a bonus, but could have them at 98% without, then this would replace the enhanced chance of winning, AND extended playtime, that is normally achieved through offering a bonus. They could also receive enhanced comp points, which at present are awarded at PITIFUL levels on play, yet could be a viable alternative to the traditional deposit bonus if awarded at a decent rate.

 

[NicolasJohnson]

What is it though, that makes us UK players FOUR times "better at slots" that the majority. Surely the bonus is designed, as you say, to offer a st "hold" for the casino. It surely does not matter what country a deposit comes from, this "hold" expectation remains the same.

By increasing the WR for a group of players, you are INCREASING the "hold" from these players, who in effect are subsidising the OTHER players who are given offers with the original expected "hold". Arguments from operators based on, say, "UK players play the slots better than those from the US....." are total BULLSHIT. This is the INTERNET, and players from ANYWHERE have access to information that might give them an "edge" on a particular game type, or even a particular promotion concept.

The UK government has PIONEERED the acceptance of "remote gambling" by other EU states, yet us UK citizens are increasingly being "driven out of town" when it comes to our participation online. Playtech, for example, has the UK in a group all of it's own, as "superfrauds", yet does not mind many of the other countries normally associated with player fraud playing on "normal terms". We (the UK) let Playtech in (stockmarket listing, regulatory framework giving them the chance to advertise legally throughout the EU), yet they bite our hand off

It is surely fairer to give ALL players (once verified of course) the chance of beating the SAME "hold", since no one group of LEGITIMATE players is going to be better at playing a RANDOM game than any other.

Whilst there may be more FRAUD coming from certain regions compared to others, this has NOTHING TO DO with WR on a bonus. A FRAUDULENT player is NOT PAID, rather than being permitted to commit fraud provided he plays 4x the usual WR.

Players who play without bonuses do NOT receive any kind of replacement benefits either, which is why the issue becomes so contentious. IF players could, say, play slots at 95% with a bonus, but could have them at 98% without, then this would replace the enhanced chance of winning, AND extended playtime, that is normally achieved through offering a bonus. They could also receive enhanced comp points, which at present are awarded at PITIFUL levels on play, yet could be a viable alternative to the traditional deposit bonus if awarded at a decent rate.

There are two parts to my reply:

1- Some players from some countries are smarter gamblers. I can tell you that I've seen statistics from large samples of players being up to 83% more likely to cashout after meeting playthrough over players from some other countries. And I must admit some bonuses do have positive expectation for the player, even though they are few. So for some casinos this rule can even be a necessity (given the bonuses they want to give out, of course they could change their bonuses and then that rule wouldn't be a necessity). You can consider the fact that they put you on that list as a homage to how smart UK players play.

2- We at Vegas Regal Casino DO NOT BELIEVE in applying playthrough multipliers for players of different countries. When this casino was formed, and when I came on board, we put some rules about what we believe is fair and honest. And country specific playthrough multipliers is something we deemed as the type of rules we wanted to stay clear of. That is why we don't apply this, and all players from around the world that can take bonuses, have the same playthrough. :notworthy

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

 

[vinylweatherman]

There are two parts to my reply:

1- Some players from some countries are smarter gamblers. I can tell you that I've seen statistics from large samples of players being up to 83% more likely to cashout after meeting playthrough over players from some other countries. And I must admit some bonuses do have positive expectation for the player, even though they are few. So for some casinos this rule can even be a necessity (given the bonuses they want to give out, of course they could change their bonuses and then that rule wouldn't be a necessity). You can consider the fact that they put you on that list as a homage to how smart UK players play.

2- We at Vegas Regal Casino DO NOT BELIEVE in applying playthrough multipliers for players of different countries. When this casino was formed, and when I came on board, we put some rules about what we believe is fair and honest. And country specific playthrough multipliers is something we deemed as the type of rules we wanted to stay clear of. That is why we don't apply this, and all players from around the world that can take bonuses, have the same playthrough. :notworthy

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

Well, 1) just means they have their WR set too low if smart players can beat them. Why not make it higher for ALL players, it would at least LOOK fair. Smart players would have to wager more, and the other players wouldn't care anyway, because they "always" wager more than required anyway.
This, of course, was only SOME players, yet the rule is for ALL players. Surely, once a player has been with a casino a while, the management can tell which category they fit into, yet the rules do NOT allow for this. This means that the non-smart players are getting ripped-off by these casinos simply because, unknown to them, there are a few smart players around.
Smart players know to stay away from such casinos, it is the non-smart ones that suffer the consequences of rules that were designed for the smart player.

Sadly, much of this has been exposed as "bollocks" by the EU (in general terms). Businesses have long preyed on the UK consumer because we have been "mild mannered" and far less likely to complain about bad service and being "ripped-off" than, say, Americans. American's are astonished that we tolerate long queues in shops whilst there are loads of unmanned tills, and we just grin an bear it. Internal memos have revealed that many businesses view the UK as "Treasure Ireland", because our market will bear higher prices and poorer service than others. We, in effect, cross subsidise other markets.

It is far cheaper to buy DVD and CD offerings in the US than here. There was even the case that Apple lost over iTunes where it overpriced the product for UK users, and at the same time blocked them from going to the French site and buying the product there.

The knowledgeable UK consumer IS now getting smarter, but this means we now realise the abuse we have suffered at the hands of big business for decades. This earlier "abuse" was NOTHING to do with us being "smarter" than consumers in other markets, it was because the businesses were GREEDY, and realised they were actually getting away with it.

It is very hard now for any business to convince the UK consumer there is ANY JUSTIFICATION for differential pricing on grounds of "smartness", or indeed any other grounds other than it REALLY costing more to supply the goods or services than elsewhere.

There is another name for UK consumers cashing in earlier than others, RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING. This "responsible gambling" is a government initiative that has come with the further liberation of our gambling laws. THIS is why the UK player might be more inclined to "quit whilst ahead" rather than lose the lot back. In countries like the US, the government is AT WAR with online casinos, and thus players are hardly going to listen to THEIR government when it comes to pronouncements on online casinos (such as "they fund terrorism and organised crime").

The BIGGEST problem I have is that many of these casinos that impose extra WR on UK players hide the fact like a dirty secret in a load of "general terms", rather than have it as part of the individual promotional material, which only quotes the "normal" WR. The are keen not to deter the UK player, so are not prepared to be fully "up front", lest they decide BEFORE playing that they don't think the UK specific deal is for them.

Most bonuses are now "slots only" anyway, so the scope for SKILL has gone, there is nothing to do other than select a bet size, and spin. EVERYTHING can therefore be covered in a set of requirements for all. (WR, and max bet allowed).

Casinos that apply extra WR for UK players on SLOTS ONLY bonuses are fuelling the feelings that online slots are NON-RANDOM, and that "smart" players can "press spin more cleverly". The speculation is then that these "smart" players can tell which slots to play from observation of previous events, such as moving from a "dead" slot. All methods that have been suggested as a "smart" way to play them. The non-smart players then begin to believe they are getting ripped-off by slots that suck their money, yet UK players are so smart at beating them that they have to have extra WR on any bonuses.

 

[george_ro]

Well I received a ND welcome chip of $50 a Vegas Days Casino.

The terms were:

100xB WR
Max cashout = $50
Bonus non-withdrawable

Tough to beat that one!

I have managed to meet the requierements ... I wagered 5000E ... now I have 1000E , but as they say I can only cashout 50E ..right ?

 

[NicolasJohnson]

Well, 1) just means they have their WR set too low if smart players can beat them. Why not make it higher for ALL players, it would at least LOOK fair. Smart players would have to wager more, and the other players wouldn't care anyway, because they "always" wager more than required anyway.
This, of course, was only SOME players, yet the rule is for ALL players. Surely, once a player has been with a casino a while, the management can tell which category they fit into, yet the rules do NOT allow for this. This means that the non-smart players are getting ripped-off by these casinos simply because, unknown to them, there are a few smart players around.
Smart players know to stay away from such casinos, it is the non-smart ones that suffer the consequences of rules that were designed for the smart player.

Sadly, much of this has been exposed as "bollocks" by the EU (in general terms). Businesses have long preyed on the UK consumer because we have been "mild mannered" and far less likely to complain about bad service and being "ripped-off" than, say, Americans. American's are astonished that we tolerate long queues in shops whilst there are loads of unmanned tills, and we just grin an bear it. Internal memos have revealed that many businesses view the UK as "Treasure Ireland", because our market will bear higher prices and poorer service than others. We, in effect, cross subsidise other markets.

It is far cheaper to buy DVD and CD offerings in the US than here. There was even the case that Apple lost over iTunes where it overpriced the product for UK users, and at the same time blocked them from going to the French site and buying the product there.

The knowledgeable UK consumer IS now getting smarter, but this means we now realise the abuse we have suffered at the hands of big business for decades. This earlier "abuse" was NOTHING to do with us being "smarter" than consumers in other markets, it was because the businesses were GREEDY, and realised they were actually getting away with it.

It is very hard now for any business to convince the UK consumer there is ANY JUSTIFICATION for differential pricing on grounds of "smartness", or indeed any other grounds other than it REALLY costing more to supply the goods or services than elsewhere.

There is another name for UK consumers cashing in earlier than others, RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING. This "responsible gambling" is a government initiative that has come with the further liberation of our gambling laws. THIS is why the UK player might be more inclined to "quit whilst ahead" rather than lose the lot back. In countries like the US, the government is AT WAR with online casinos, and thus players are hardly going to listen to THEIR government when it comes to pronouncements on online casinos (such as "they fund terrorism and organised crime").

The BIGGEST problem I have is that many of these casinos that impose extra WR on UK players hide the fact like a dirty secret in a load of "general terms", rather than have it as part of the individual promotional material, which only quotes the "normal" WR. The are keen not to deter the UK player, so are not prepared to be fully "up front", lest they decide BEFORE playing that they don't think the UK specific deal is for them.

Most bonuses are now "slots only" anyway, so the scope for SKILL has gone, there is nothing to do other than select a bet size, and spin. EVERYTHING can therefore be covered in a set of requirements for all. (WR, and max bet allowed).

Casinos that apply extra WR for UK players on SLOTS ONLY bonuses are fuelling the feelings that online slots are NON-RANDOM, and that "smart" players can "press spin more cleverly". The speculation is then that these "smart" players can tell which slots to play from observation of previous events, such as moving from a "dead" slot. All methods that have been suggested as a "smart" way to play them. The non-smart players then begin to believe they are getting ripped-off by slots that suck their money, yet UK players are so smart at beating them that they have to have extra WR on any bonuses.

This is why our wagering requirements are the same for all people around the globe.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Regal Affiliates Manager

 

[felicie]

Thank you Nicholas and here is simple from simple minded - Taking the bonus gives you a bigger wad of cash to play with and with Rivals, the only way I can win is to start with a big wad so I can move up quickly to max bet. Then when it gets going and it often does, it is no problem making the WR. However, I never accept a bonus with over over 30X. Intentionally anyway.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thank you Nicholas and here is simple from simple minded - Taking the bonus gives you a bigger wad of cash to play with and with Rivals, the only way I can win is to start with a big wad so I can move up quickly to max bet. Then when it gets going and it often does, it is no problem making the WR. However, I never accept a bonus with over over 30X. Intentionally anyway.

Here is another thing. If it THIS kind of thing they consider "smart", then RESTRICT the maximum bet possible with a bonus, and "smart" players are "outsmarted", and AGAIN, the rest won't care because they don't do this, and it will LOOK fair, won't get players from the UK, Oz, etc all fired up with indignation, and they might then play at the casino, even though the software is restricting them from betting higher into a winning streak.

In any case, "playing into a streak" with rising bets is NOT going to give an advantage, is it, games being RANDOM & all that. Subsequent wins are NOT going to be somehow more frequent and better because PAST performance has been a "streak" of good results. It is a bit like the Roulette conundrum. After 10 consecutive Blacks, the chance of the NEXT result being Black (or Red) is unchanged regardless of the fact that 10 consecutive blacks have preceded it.

What do the OTHER Rivals have to say to this.

 

[zap987]

It's not about a streak or anything. The reason to bet big with a bonus is to give less playthrough when losing and win big enough when hitting to easily meet the wagering requirements. Pretty much any bonus can be 'beaten' in the long run this way unless max bets are extremely low or there is a max cashout. Wagering requirements don't really matter either unless they are extremely high although the higher they are the more bankroll is needed.

 

[nisosbar]

In any case, "playing into a streak" with rising bets is NOT going to give an advantage, is it, games being RANDOM & all that. Subsequent wins are NOT going to be somehow more frequent and better because PAST performance has been a "streak" of good results. It is a bit like the Roulette conundrum. After 10 consecutive Blacks, the chance of the NEXT result being Black (or Red) is unchanged regardless of the fact that 10 consecutive blacks have preceded it.

Slots and roulette are totally different animals. The likely outcome of a roulette spin, like a hand of video poker, can not be affected by the casino (in theory). But conversely, slots can be tightened and loosened.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It's not about a streak or anything. The reason to bet big with a bonus is to give less playthrough when losing and win big enough when hitting to easily meet the wagering requirements. Pretty much any bonus can be 'beaten' in the long run this way unless max bets are extremely low or there is a max cashout. Wagering requirements don't really matter either unless they are extremely high although the higher they are the more bankroll is needed.

This is why the fairest way is to restrict max bet when a bonus is in play, rather than the current system of restricting WHOLE COUNTRIES, which is a "sledgehammer to crack a nut", the "nut" being the few players who use this method (which requires multiple boni, and a considerable bankroll). The "sledgehammer" approach breaks not only the "nut" of smart players, but does considerable "collateral damage" to all the non-smart players.

Microgaming software now supports max bet limitation with a bonus on the account, so there is NO EXCUSE for MGS casinos needing to void winnings because very large bets have been used to beat a bonus. Other softwares probably support this, and those that don't should develop it.

The time will soon come when bonuses will be so unattractive, and so many countries "banned" or "restricted" that a new method will be needed to attract players, and keep existing players loyal.

The art of a good bonus is to make players THINK it can be beaten, yet have it set so that mathematically it cannot in the long term. Players who do beat such a bonus may then mistake their luck for skill on their part, and will keep coming back for more, and this is how the casino wins in the long term.

This thread demonstrates how making a bonus so restrictive that it is OBVIOUS players have no real chance of pitting their wits against it with any degree of success ruins it's chances of attracting enhanced deposits.