Question Normalising Volatility

[pinkytoe]

Hello all,

One thing I have be trying to understand is if there is a normalised way of categorising slot game volatility? I tend to look for high volatility slots, and when researching games, I regurarly see games reviewed as low, medium or high.

However, I am am not sure what qualifies each game as medium volatility, and at what point it would be considered low or high?

I ask as it may open up new games for me to try!

 

[goatwack]

They're just very broad strokes by which games are categorized.

There are sub-sets within each group too, such as 'Medium-high', or 'the Higher end of Low-Variance', but these are mostly subjective and therefore almost impossible to give a simple ascription to.

Only way to attribute and distinguish these differences is through extended play, preferably in Fun Play to get a feel for the flow.

A typical Medium- Variance slot would tend to offer up bonus rounds every couple of hundred spins, have mediocre bonus rounds and a fairly nondescript base game, yet not savage your balance in the process.

If bonuses are harder to come by yet tend to produce the odd blockbuster, then that would lean perhaps more towards higher variance.

Yet if a Medium Variance game tends to dish out bonuses frequently but with less spectacular results, and keeps everything ticking over without incurring any real losses, that would likely fall into being more 'Low-Medium-Variance', or even 'High- Low Variance'.

And it's at this point I've even confused myself!

Not sure there are terribly many Medium games knocking about anymore, which is half the problem

 

[Reelsoffun]

Also just to add a game rated as high on one provider might only be rated as medium by another, so it’s a very subjective description to be honest, until the UKGC get their finger out and actually tackle something that would be actually useful to helping the player being informed on what game to play by making a standard volatility scale for games that would use a set universal formula, as you can take volatility ratings with a pinch of salt really.

Yes it helps a bit knowing what the provider has marked it as for a ballpark but still varies too much from one to the other in my opinion.

In the old days it was probably much easier to use 3 categories low, medium and high, these days I think a scale of 1-10 would be better suited, to cater for the extreme differences even in the high variance category.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Hello all,

One thing I have be trying to understand is if there is a normalised way of categorising slot game volatility? I tend to look for high volatility slots, and when researching games, I regurarly see games reviewed as low, medium or high.

However, I am am not sure what qualifies each game as medium volatility, and at what point it would be considered low or high?

I ask as it may open up new games for me to try!

Yesterday's high volatility rating is today's medium.

As already mentioned, there is no universal standard of measurement. Quite misleading. You have to get to know your providers for an idea of how volatile they are.

Some games are labelled as Extreme or Very-High, and most of what's released today is highly volatile, especially when compared to slots several years ago.

Get to know your old-school slots. I find they are mostly better than the new ones. And don't forget to play max RTP versions

 

[jasonuk]

Yesterday's high volatility rating is today's medium.

Pretty much this... as more and more tiers have been added at the top, some people have decided to skip "very high" and "extreme" variance and squash the scale, so something like Immortal Romance which was high back in the day, would now be considered medium-high. Likewise, some start the scale at low (normally reserved for traditional table games) which confuses things further.

People focus way too much on the maximum multiplier ("the potential", as the monopoly money shills would say) - which only really applies to traditional design slots. For scratchcard slots (scripted) - of which there are now plenty - it tells you close to nothing.

• If I have a slot that pays 100,000x once in a billion spins, but otherwise acts like a 500x game - that's probably still medium or medium-high variance despite the monster pay (which is 0.01% RTP).
• If I have a slot that pushes 90% of the RTP into 500x wins - that's high or possibly very high variance despite the low maximum multiplier.

Personally, I tend to think in 100/250/500 spin blocks - and I also stick to the older scale because I've been around too long:

• A low would be a table game - blackjack, baccarat, up to say traditional roulette.
• A medium would give regular bonuses (maybe 50-100 spins), and you'd feel hard done by if you lost more than say 30% in an extended session. You'll probably get a couple of meaningful wins (say 25x) but not necessarily anything bigger - you get entertainment without too much upside or downside.
• A high would give less frequent bonuses (maybe 150-250 spins), but can give you more of a kicking (e.g. 50% RTP over a session)
• A very-high or extreme variance slot can give blocks (10, 20, even 50) of dead spins or micro-wins and your balance can go vertical in both directions... you know you're playing for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow rather than an entertaining session. In some cases, watching paint dry may be a more interesting activity - particularly if you are 20% RTP after an hour / 1000 spins and haven't seen a bonus!