Online RTP settings??

[Papa-ya]

I look forward to reading your follow up information and thank you for the detailed explaination so far, makes a lot of sense to me and helps to understand the mechanics a bit better.

 

[nisosbar]

In simple terms, I think it basically works like this:

if the RTP is 95%, that means that the game is set to statistically return $0.95 of each $1.00 spin, but when I say statistically, that means the average return per ... whatever, 50 Gazillion spins. So that if you had an unlimited bankroll, and spun the slot 50 Gazillion times, and you averaged your returns - total over the 50 Gazillion - you would find that your wins would be 95% of your total bets, or playthrough.

Does that help?

 

[KasinoKing]

If you are playing fewer lines on a multiline slot, how does this affect the RTP, I know the answer is it lowers it, this is not what I want to know, by how much is it lowered, if this is the case. Is it based on docking an RTP point for every line discarded?

That is not true.
Changing the number of win-lines has no effect on RTP at all.
What is does change is the Variance, which is increased with the fewer lines you play.

KK

 

[darkfire]

Well as I understand it how RTP works (well for card games anyway, I assume slots are similar), it's pretty much like this:

Let's say we play a game whereby you pay me $1 to toss a (fair) coin. If you called it correctly, I'll pay you $1.90 otherwise you get nothing.
This means that 50% of the time I'm going to make $1 and 50% of the time I'm going to lose $0.90. Agreed?

So if I was to work out how much I'd make I'd say (50% x $1) + (50% x -$0.90) = $0.05
That means that on average I'm paying out $0.95 for every $1 you give me, which is 95%.

You could take any coin and toss it and you'll see it goes through winning and losing streaks.

 

[Papa-ya]

That is not true.
Changing the number of win-lines has no effect on RTP at all.
What is does change is the Variance, which is increased with the fewer lines you play.

KK

Then might I ask, what is the difference between RTP and Variance? To me the player, it would seem the payouts become fewer and farther inbetween, playing less lines, the higher symbols rarely appear in a winning combination, even on lines not being wagered on, so how does playing less lines change the Variance?
I have asked a couple of times what my RTP was on this particular slot, once it was reported to me as being in the 70's% and then in the 90.10%, but seriously playing less lines, feels like the % is in the dead zone, except when you get the very rare decent win.

So isn't RTP and Variance the same thing?

 

[nisosbar]

So isn't RTP and Variance the same thing?

Wow, you're no novice, I would have thought you would have known the difference, no offense.

RTP is, essentially, what the casino decides it wants for a house edge - whether that's 1%, 2%, 5%, whatever. There are different ways this can be achieved, but one way of which I'm aware is, like, if they want a bigger house edge/profit, they could insert an extra low-paying icon on a reel, in order to expand the amount of 'dead', low-paying space on the reel (as opposed to, say, a wild symbol, which would LOWER the house edge).

Variance is like, if you charted each spin on a graph, some wins/datapoints would be very, very high, and the majority would be low or zero. Those big wins are affected by how big your bet is per line. So if you played all 20 available lines on Big Shot, and your bankroll was $100, and you bet no more than 1/100th of your starting bankroll in practice, then you would be betting $0.05 per line (multiplied by 20 lines, and you get $1.00). So, for example, if you got five sports car icons on line 14, and it pays 500x the line bet, you'd win $25 ($0.05 x 500 = $25.00). If, on the other hand, you decided to play only 5 lines, then you would be able to raise your line bet to $0.20 per line, in order to keep within your total bet parameter of $1.00 ($0.20 x 5 = $1.00). If you then get five sports cars on line 14, you win nothing. If those five icons appear on line 4, you win $100 ($0.20 x 500 = $100.00). So you heightened your variance in that you lost the win on line 14, but won it when it appeared on line 4. The objective for the player being, let's hope the POSITIVE variance of the variance cycle happens in the FIRST few games - because then I can cash out ahead and move on.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[4 of a kind]

Below is that article I said I would post on RNG's

 

[4 of a kind]

Below is another article on random. Although the article is keyed in on video poker, the random explanation is the same.

 

[Nifty29]

Below is another article on random. Although the article is keyed in on video poker, the random explanation is the same.

Excellent article.

Would this still apply if the games are rigged though? Like RTG etc??



I'm also amazed that, after so many threads and explanations over the years, that people who have been around a long time still ask what variance and RTP are? It certainly explains why some of them complain so much - they don't understand what they're risking their money on.

 

[4 of a kind]

Excellent article.

Would this still apply if the games are rigged though? Like RTG etc??



I'm also amazed that, after so many threads and explanations over the years, that people who have been around a long time still ask what variance and RTP are? It certainly explains why some of them complain so much - they don't understand what they're risking their money on.

NO, it would still not apply if the game is rigged. The information in those articles are being based on actual fact from land based regulated casinos. I’m not sure what options online gaming have or could pull off.

What I could tell you is about my personal experiences with online video poker.

Most members here that know about my past posts know that I was predominantly an online video poker buff. The only time I usually played slots was when I got fatigued playing video poker and knew I started making mistakes on decisions and realized I had to take a break. When I played video poker my action was always max bet with perfect strategy (unless a mistake was made) and no doubt being played at the max speed possible. One time I flushed all five cards and a royal popped up. I clicked so fast to the next hand I never actually saw it, and only knew I hit it for sure because of my balance. (Hard to miss a 20K increase)

I played for seven years endlessly and consistently the same. I was happy with the games overall outcomes during this time year after year and the endless entertainment. I felt the action I was getting was a good bang for my buck. Bad sessions sometimes seemed endless, but by the end of every year it all seemed to balance out close to the same, give or take a few.

Then suddenly their seemed to be a serious negative run that never seemed to correct itself not even a little for a whole year ending with a 6 digit lose for the first time playing online. Although with the natural distrust that comes with gaming online, I still attributed the terrible lose to nothing more then bad luck.

After another seven or eight months with the outcomes in fact getting worse with the same action and time just like the past, now eight years, is when I really started to become suspicious. Royals and four of a kind’s seemed to vanish. This is when I slowed down my action and really started digging into online gaming.

Several times I could have sworn one of the cards I discarded reappeared, but at the speed I was playing I couldn’t be sure, nor did I bother to contact support since I felt if they were rigged they would certainly have the ability to cover up any exposure. My outcomes were the opposite of that article on randomness, since the longer I was playing, instead of getting closer to expectations, I was getting further away. Again don't forget, we're not talking about a couple of 10 minute bad sessions, we're talking endless hours and hours upon days, then months, then years.

Although I knew there had to be some type of regulations in place, and after exhausting research and efforts, I couldn’t uncover a single gaming regulation or communicate with one single regulatory agency. I even went as far as wasting another few grand playing only five dollar hands trying to prove that real play and fun play were operating differently. Although I posted those results, we all know the size of the samples were not confirming anything.

Then I stumbled into the screen shots from a bitter RTG owner. With the explanations that came with the screen shots, I was convinced online gaming was rigged. Since every screen shot I got was a still, anyone theoretically could no doubt interpret them to whatever one wants to believe. I was sold on the explanations I got from the owner, but after posting only one of them here I was awarded the Tin Hat asshole of the year award. Which I would like to add that the counter response and explanation to that screen shot was not from a regulator, but from an alleged trusted acquaintance of Bryans from RTG.

I choose to no longer gamble online now for over a year, but I certainly can’t wait for it to return regulated; as you should be able to tell from my still present activity here. I also enjoy participating in threads with my views concerning the need for regulation and online gaming, along with staying current on current events that involve online gaming. I too very much enjoyed the different options online gaming offers when compared to live play.

 

[Nifty29]

NO, it would still not apply if the game is rigged. The information in those articles are being based on actual fact from land based regulated casinos. I’m not sure what options online gaming have or could pull off.

What I could tell you is about my personal experiences with online video poker.

Most members here that know about my past posts know that I was predominantly an online video poker buff. The only time I usually played slots was when I got fatigued playing video poker and knew I started making mistakes on decisions and realized I had to take a break. When I played video poker my action was always max bet with perfect strategy (unless a mistake was made) and no doubt being played at the max speed possible. One time I flushed all five cards and a royal popped up. I clicked so fast to the next hand I never actually saw it, and only knew I hit it for sure because of my balance. (Hard to miss a 20K increase)

I played for seven years endlessly and consistently the same. I was happy with the games overall outcomes during this time year after year and the endless entertainment. I felt the action I was getting was a good bang for my buck. Bad sessions sometimes seemed endless, but by the end of every year it all seemed to balance out close to the same, give or take a few.

Then suddenly their seemed to be a serious negative run that never seemed to correct itself not even a little for a whole year ending with a 6 digit lose for the first time playing online. Although with the natural distrust that comes with gaming online, I still attributed the terrible lose to nothing more then bad luck.

After another seven or eight months with the outcomes in fact getting worse with the same action and time just like the past, now eight years, is when I really started to become suspicious. Royals and four of a kind’s seemed to vanish. This is when I slowed down my action and really started digging into online gaming.

Several times I could have sworn one of the cards I discarded reappeared, but at the speed I was playing I couldn’t be sure, nor did I bother to contact support since I felt if they were rigged they would certainly have the ability to cover up any exposure. My outcomes were the opposite of that article on randomness, since the longer I was playing, instead of getting closer to expectations, I was getting further away. Again don't forget, we're not talking about a couple of 10 minute bad sessions, we're talking endless hours and hours upon days, then months, then years.

Although I knew there had to be some type of regulations in place, and after exhausting research and efforts, I couldn’t uncover a single gaming regulation or communicate with one single regulatory agency. I even went as far as wasting another few grand playing only five dollar hands trying to prove that real play and fun play were operating differently. Although I posted those results, we all know the size of the samples were not confirming anything.

Then I stumbled into the screen shots from a bitter RTG owner. With the explanations that came with the screen shots, I was convinced online gaming was rigged. Since every screen shot I got was a still, anyone theoretically could no doubt interpret them to whatever one wants to believe. I was sold on the explanations I got from the owner, but after posting only one of them here I was awarded the Tin Hat asshole of the year award. Which I would like to add that the counter response and explanation to that screen shot was not from a regulator, but from an alleged trusted acquaintance of Bryans from RTG.

I choose to no longer gamble online now for over a year, but I certainly can’t wait for it to return regulated; as you should be able to tell from my still present activity here. I also enjoy participating in threads with my views concerning the need for regulation and online gaming, along with staying current on current events that involve online gaming. I too very much enjoyed the different options online gaming offers when compared to live play.

Problem is, regulation costs money and its the players who will foot the bill via lower RTPs and higher charges to deposit and withdraw (which casinos mostly absorb at present).

It isn't going to be the magic bullet that everyone thinks. I choose online over land based every time as my results are way better. I have never been shown anything to make me think that reputable operators lie about rtp figures, and since I only frequent reputable operators, I don't have an issue.

My prediction is that within a year of US online gambling being regulated, everyone will want it back the way it was.

Be careful what you wish for.

FWIW I.don't remember anyone calling you an asshole.

 

[Papa-ya]

My asking about Variance and RTP and such is not because I don't have a clue, I do, just thought it was good information to refresh everyones thoughts on how the games play. This is a good thread and was just helping the subject along.

But members can't vent, be a little negative, not be on the band wagon and now can't even ask things you know and keep it in good terms without being slightly demeaned just for wanting to participate in a good subject that has been cordial in most aspects. Is there nothing that some of us can say that isn't going to be dissected, looking for a fault in the poster, instead of just exchanging information? Guess not.

 

[Nifty29]

My asking about Variance and RTP and such is not because I don't have a clue, I do, just thought it was good information to refresh everyones thoughts on how the games play. This is a good thread and was just helping the subject along.

But members can't vent, be a little negative, not be on the band wagon and now can't even ask things you know and keep it in good terms without being slightly demeaned just for wanting to participate in a good subject that has been cordial in most aspects. Is there nothing that some of us can say that isn't going to be dissected, looking for a fault in the poster, instead of just exchanging information? Guess not.

OK, but if you already knew it all, why didn't you explain it yourself instead of asking someone else? Doesn't make sense.

Enzo and others wrote some great posts on the subject which could easily have been found via search.

Anyway, I don't think anyone was being "demeaned" here....some of us were just surprised at the question. No harm in that, and was all expressed quite cordially.

You've lost me with the venting/negative/bandwagon comment I'm afraid. Would you care to explain that one?

 

[P.V.]

Game Fairness in Two Universes

Here's an interesting article that might help a few followers of the thread. The article talks about:

Fairness for an Internet casino game is often understood by the notion that the game operates in the Internet casino in a manner that is indistinguishable from the same game as offered in a brick and mortar (B&M) casino. In principle this is a reasonable guidepost. In practice, there are some fundamental problems with this definition. The problems that arise from this definition are best explained by example.

Link: Old / Expired Link

Enjoy, it's a good read!

 

[maxd]

Is there nothing that some of us can say that isn't going to be dissected, looking for a fault in the poster, instead of just exchanging information? Guess not.

No offense, but tighten up your panties a little. If you're constantly kvetching about every little comment on the forums then you're as much or more a part of a problem as anyone else. AFAICT there was nothing there that any reasonable person should take offense at.

Furthermore, if you've got complaints of this nature then Report 'em. If that doesn't suit you then keep it to yourself. This "can I get special attention here? Guess not" stuff is basically just another form of trollish behaviour. You can definitely keep that to yourself.

 

[4 of a kind]

That article written by Eliot Jacobson that P.V. linked us to is of course a good read. In fact for members that didn't know or remember, Eliot once was a frequent poster here.

Eliot is a well known respected technician in the industry. I certainly couldn't speak on his behalf or beliefs, but I would bet dollars to donuts that he is in favor of serious regulation and serious monitoring by regulator enforcement. Since he is presently involved in this field I also would assume he has to be careful what he says and how he says it.

Below I pulled some of his text and highlighted some of what he said which I think strikes the doubt nerve of most online gamers.


The gist of the problem of Internet casino game fairness is summarized by four weaknesses:

1. Fairness is defined in a way that makes it impossible to fully test. The best an audit can accomplish is to determine that a game is fair “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2. Some of those who are doing fairness testing make statements that are vague, incomplete or misleading.
3. Players are not satisfied with fairness test results in the face of their own knowledge and experience.
4. The industry has a history of crooked casinos and auditing companies.

At the very least, game fairness consists of a casino software company who creates fair games to the best of their ability, a licensee who provides well built software in good faith and immediately reports any potential fairness problems up the line, and an independent and trusted auditing company who stakes their reputation on their fairness certification protocols.

“In truth, the specifics of an individual audit do not matter too much to the public. Much more important is the fact of the audit, and whether the auditors (or the association or standard-setting entity) is respected, known and trusted, and whether it continues to work with or associate with the company subject to the audit. Eventually the dishonest or incompetent companies will exit the industry through the garbage chute.”


The industry having a history of crooked casinos and auditors is not a comforting statement for players. Let's also not forget that this history is based only on the ones that were already caught, usually a result of just being careless and obvious. Who is making sure that the ones never caught are in fact honest? Maybe their just smarter crooks then the stupid crooks that got caught.

Maybe when the software is issued to casinos the games are fair, but who is confirming that once the software after being in the hands of a casino owner isn't being tampered with? I was told from that bitter RTG owner who very well may be full of shit, that only 4 or 5 RTG casino owners who all actually came from the RTG software company itself, are the only ones that have that Super User Account access. Who is making sure that the person who said this is in fact full of shit? An anonymous third party acquaintance doesn't confirm anything for me.

Then his closing quote stating "Eventually the dishonest or incompetent companies will exit the industry through the garbage chute" doesn't hold much water either after reviewing the past decade (actually longer) of events. Virtual brand comes to mind quickly just to name one. Who is making sure that comment is in fact being enforced? Bryan and Max?

I know most of the casinos listed in casinomeisters rogue pit (just one pit of many others out there,) are not a result of rigged software, but still confirmed crooks in one shape or form. What good is winning with honest software if you can't collect it? Review these rogue lists and see who still is operating under the same names or have just re-branded to another name not caught yet. Personally I think the garbage chute got clogged.

On a personal note I stand pact on my decision to quit online gaming just based on my personal experiences, and am convinced that regulation with enforcement regardless what the cost is or how much that cost will cut into RTP's is worth every penny of it. I certainly can't find any forums complaining about players getting screwed endlessly involving regulated land based casinos. I only could find sites like the "Wizard Of Odds" teaching players how to gain their best chances of a win, being based on known confirmed regulated facts.

 

[nisosbar]

My asking about Variance and RTP and such is not because I don't have a clue, I do, just thought it was good information to refresh everyones thoughts on how the games play. This is a good thread and was just helping the subject along.

But members can't vent, be a little negative, not be on the band wagon and now can't even ask things you know and keep it in good terms without being slightly demeaned just for wanting to participate in a good subject that has been cordial in most aspects. Is there nothing that some of us can say that isn't going to be dissected, looking for a fault in the poster, instead of just exchanging information? Guess not.

I apologize if you took offense, really. I did not mean it that way at all.

 

[felicie]

No offense, but tighten up your panties a little. If you're constantly kvetching about every little comment on the forums then you're as much or more a part of a problem as anyone else. AFAICT there was nothing there that any reasonable person should take offense at.

Furthermore, if you've got complaints of this nature then Report 'em. If that doesn't suit you then keep it to yourself. This "can I get special attention here? Guess not" stuff is basically just another form of trollish behaviour. You can definitely keep that to yourself.

Sorry maxd but give me a f--king break. trolling? yeah that's sarcasm alright. from me to you.

 

[jod5413]

Closing my eyes and am gonna keep on walking, walking, walking. Didn't see or hear a thing, no siree, nothing.

 

[Nifty29]

Sorry maxd but give me a f--king break. trolling? yeah that's sarcasm alright. from me to you.

I really hope you're joking.

IMO there are some who just bitch about everything, and more often than not when they are proven wrong or lose an argument. We can't fart in bed without someone whining about it here.

If people aren't prepared to cop some criticism, then they shouldn't post in a public forum. If they want to say what they like without being challenged, let them start a blog.

It's almost as poor form as returning to a forum under a different alias so that one can distance themselves from their past behaviour.

I'm sure max spoke for more than a few others when he said what he did.

 

[felicie]

Closing my eyes and am gonna keep on walking, walking, walking. Didn't see or hear a thing, no siree, nothing.

Tell me something jod do you ever contribute anything to this forum aside from your opinions about everyone else?

 

[felicie]

I really hope you're joking.

IMO there are some who just bitch about everything, and more often than not when they are proven wrong or lose an argument. We can't fart in bed without someone whining about it here.

If people aren't prepared to cop some criticism, then they shouldn't post in a public forum. If they want to say what they like without being challenged, let them start a blog.

It's almost as poor form as returning to a forum under a different alias so that one can distance themselves from their past behaviour.

I'm sure max spoke for more than a few others when he said what he did.

No I'm not joking Nifty it's just more of the usual and I'm just fed up with it I guess. No fight with you or anyone really. Just had enough. Have a good one.

 

[jod5413]

Tell me something jod do you ever contribute anything to this forum aside from your opinions about everyone else?

Wow, that's a tough question, Felicie. I would have thought that some of my posts here had value. Otherwise you would look fairly stupid, since you have, in fact, thanked me a time or two.

Why don't you set up a poll and we'll have to see what others think!

 

[maxd]

Sorry maxd but give me a f--king break. trolling?

Yes, when someone -- anyone, not necessarily the person identified above -- wanders around the forum dropping snarky little comments like "is this <something they apparently disapprove of and have gone to some lengths to identify as being particularly odious> allowed here? Guess so" then yes, they are being a troll because:

a troll is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages ... with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to disrupt normal on-topic discussion ...

The point is that those "guess so" type of comments are not constructive in any way. They don't contribute to the discussion, they don't offer any insight or make a useful observation. They're just miffy little whinges basically intended to damage the reputation of the place and tell other forum readers that they think the forums are crap, without (of course) coming right out and making a coherent criticism. That's being a troll, in spades.

Take this for example:

... do you ever contribute anything to this forum aside from your opinions about everyone else?

How does that contribute to the discussion at hand, or even the forums in general? From what I see it does not. It's you complaining out loud about someone who's posts you apparently don't like. And what exactly does that add to the discussion? What is such a thing even supposed to accomplish? Not much, right? It's basically just "I don't like your posts". And how is this an appropriate place to make such a statement or that an appropriate way to do so? In fact it isn't appropriate, on either count. It's basically just a off-topic personal attack for the sake of making a personal attack and (supposedly) pressuring the person in question to limit or stop their posting. Hmmm, sounds like flaming -- "messages that harass, insult, belittle, or threaten" -- and trollish to boot.

If you have any doubt about how that kind of behaviour is seen have a boo at the Forum Rules, items 1.1 and 1.14.

And you might want to look to your own attitude a little: "give me a f--king break" is hardly a suitable public response to anyone's post, never mind a forum Moderator. If you've got a complaint of this nature -- basically an objection to how a Moderator is doing his job -- then either "Report" it or PM Bryan about it. Either way he'll see it soon and deal with it as he sees fit. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[jetset]

<sigh> An interesting (if repetitive) conversation derailed again by personal squabbling, discourtesy and "ganging up" perceptions.

Can we get back to the topic - I know this has been turned over again and again, but it's an important subject and new views and information usually refresh the debate.