Providers moving the goal posts

[trancemonkey]

Do you happen to know what those boundaries are and the variables applied to those calculations i.e. stake, number of spins etc. As far as I can tell they are not publicly available.

Each game is different. It's based on what we call standard deviation (with a 95% confidence interval). So for example, after 5m games, how far away from the RTP would you expect the game to be. If it falls outside these boundaries then the provider would be asked to investigate and pull logs. If there was no obvious natural reason then it would be investigated further.

 

[slotter999]

Can I ask you please, how often are games tested to check they are operating within stated RTP?
Is there a public register of all games that have been tested, with dates? Clearly some games have changed over the past few years, Montezuma, DoA, RR, IR etc, how do the public know they have been retested and if the RTP is the same?

I've been having a private conversation about this very subject. The UKGC keep a record of all of these changes which are tracked through versioning. As far as I can tell it does RTP changes but not volatility (std deviation). The document I saw from around 2015 showed that all netents got bumped when they changed their RNG implementation which is common and shared across their platform. FOI into the UKGC to get them to reveal?

 

[trancemonkey]

I've been having a private conversation about this very subject. The UKGC keep a record of all of these changes which are tracked through versioning. As far as I can tell it does RTP changes but not volatility (std deviation). The document I saw from around 2015 showed that all netents got bumped when they changed their RNG implementation which is common and shared across their platform. FOI into the UKGC to get them to reveal?

Why does it bother you that much that providers alter maths sometimes?

 

[SpinUk]

I've been having a private conversation about this very subject. The UKGC keep a record of all of these changes which are tracked through versioning. As far as I can tell it does RTP changes but not volatility (std deviation). The document I saw from around 2015 showed that all netents got bumped when they changed their RNG implementation which is common and shared across their platform. FOI into the UKGC to get them to reveal?

Thats very interesting - case in point the html Dead or Alive re-work where everyone was saying the volatility had changed for the wildline yet the Netent rep swore blind “none of the maths had changed”

 

[Halvor]

I understand that it is every time you alter a game in any way it has to be tested. Even if that is changing a single graphic, because the game package checksum will have changed.

Also, all games must have RTP monitoring permanently to make sure they are operating within the correct boundaries. And operating under the lower boundaries must be reported to the regulator.

To the best of my knowledge this is correct. any change and the new version of the game will be retested.

As for the game checks. I have never seen a operator share full customer data with a provider. In most instances in the back offices things like name, deposit, any segmentation etc will simply be blank as its not shared with the provider.

Country, UserID(for the providers back office) on the other hand will obviously be stated. Just because theirs a check for certain values do not necessarily mean that these values are needed nor provided.

 

[slotter999]

Why does it bother you that much that providers alter maths sometimes?

It doesn't particularly bother me but I believe customers should have the right to be informed or be able to get that information from a publicly available source.

Imagine if you've been playing starburst for five years and suddenly it goes from its normal stddev to DOA2 stddev but remains on the same rtp - it's fundamentally a different product in my opinion.

The UKGC mandate that they are informed of this change. My suggestion is this should be extended to customers. I can't think of a good reason why that information should be withheld.

 

[Kroffe]

It doesn't particularly bother me but I believe customers should have the right to be informed or be able to get that information from a publicly available source.

Imagine if you've been playing starburst for five years and suddenly it goes from its normal stddev to DOA2 stddev but remains on the same rtp - it's fundamentally a different product in my opinion.

The UKGC mandate that they are informed of this change. My suggestion is this should be extended to customers. I can't think of a good reason why that information should be withheld.

Imagine your suprise when you hit a 100 000x win on Starburst tho.

 

[slotter999]

Imagine your suprise when you hit a 100 000x win on Starburst tho.

Probably still more likely that the mythical 500 x win

 

[Mr_Slot5]

It doesn't particularly bother me but I believe customers should have the right to be informed or be able to get that information from a publicly available source.

Imagine if you've been playing starburst for five years and suddenly it goes from its normal stddev to DOA2 stddev but remains on the same rtp - it's fundamentally a different product in my opinion.

The UKGC mandate that they are informed of this change. My suggestion is this should be extended to customers. I can't think of a good reason why that information should be withheld.

Agree. RTP is just one part of a game and Trance will know this more than anyone. I pick my slots based on volatility and game play, RTP is a secondary consideration.

To highlight the point, imagine a game that has 99% RTP....brilliant you think...until you realise that every £1 spin you play gives you 99p back.

 

[Bloatgoat]

RTP means nothing. I can play at a landbased on a 85% RTP machine and still hit big. It just depends on your luck at that moment.

But for online everyone seems to make claims that are taken from the sky. A online casino is just as expensive as a landbased one. Perhaps more knowing 50% of the budget usually goes to marketing. And that aint cheap online.

 

[Kroffe]

RTP means nothing. I can play at a landbased on a 85% RTP machine and still hit big. It just depends on your luck at that moment.

But for online everyone seems to make claims that are taken from the sky. A online casino is just as expensive as a landbased one. Perhaps more knowing 50% of the budget usually goes to marketing. And that aint cheap online.

Exactly.
The % chance you have of winning does not mean anything.
Thats why i can win the euro-lottery as easy as i win on a scratchie, just depends on my luck at the moment.

 

[johnnybagel]

I know that RTP means nothing in the way that you are talking about, it doesn't mean much literally, but it's still a decent indicator no? It's statistically accurate even if it won't be true for your session of however long you play.
Like, playing a game with an RTP of 99% over one that has an RTP of 90% will still mean you have more chance of winning spins in theory. Even if your luck on the day is a steaming pile of poo.

 

[goatwack]

RTP percentages obviously only matter over the long-term, playing the same favourite titles, as players tend to do. Provided the game in question can be trusted to have a good paytable. I could get a good hit on the first or 2000th spin.

I regard RTP as an indicator to how long I get to 'try' and get those good hits, it's simply a war off attrition with some slots. I wouldn't select a game purely on high RTP % though, only to see my balance fade steadily over 4 hours. Some slots are purely for the likes of wagering etc

But at the same time I see little point in seeing already- proven and 'established' games get butchered and nerfed into oblivion. Imagine playing Immortal Romance at 90% RTP, it'd be unrecognizable

 

[Jono777]

I hope I'm still here and able to post when the lid finally gets blown on this bunch of crooks

 

[snorky510238]

I hope I'm still here and able to post when the lid finally gets blown on this bunch of crooks

Can’t come quick enough mate. Makes me wonder if there is something in the pipeline we don’t know about and they are thinking let’s make hay before it’s over because something has changed dramatically of late.

 

[goatwack]

I hope I'm still here and able to post when the lid finally gets blown on this bunch of crooks

Hey, you were fine a couple of months ago. You didn't even say 'Rigged' once

oh sh*t I've said it

 

[slotter999]

Each game is different. It's based on what we call standard deviation (with a 95% confidence interval). So for example, after 5m games, how far away from the RTP would you expect the game to be. If it falls outside these boundaries then the provider would be asked to investigate and pull logs. If there was no obvious natural reason then it would be investigated further.

My bad - the UKGC do make some recommendations in regards to RTP monitoring although it is left to the licensee to ultimately implement based on their own requirements. Absolutely no chance of anything going wrong there then

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I wonder how many incidents have been reported since the monitoring requirement was introduced? I'm guessing there would be quite a few entities with a vested interest in keeping that quiet.

 

[Bloatgoat]

Everybody here is claiming the UK comission and stuff, but the world is larger then just UK comission or providers in general.

RTP is just a theoretical number. If i inject 200 and i win 2000 then it means my RTP was far beyond any normal session. And this often happens if your patience enough in the right casino or slot. To my experience, online slotting just holds you on tight to that little straw up to the point your being bombarded with near hits misses and all that shit, and still if you have like 8 out of 10 time a loss they would say oh yeah but our RTP is tested and fully fair blablabla.

Dont forget guys this all is crafted in very neath algorithms to cusson you while you lose. It's made in such way to make you hit tilt way more faster then any of you proberly experienced in a landbased casino. The only positive thing about a online casino is that it is zero to none effort to login and play. If your going to a landbased your usually looking on a small trip and so on.

To me streamers made a very bad impression on gambling in general. Win after win after win, everybody could fucking win is their message. Well it's not so easy, and the majority of gamblers will have a hard loss. Only a few will win something but thats usually not for long if that habbit is still being done. It's funny. I won 8k at a new casino i signed myself up to. I won nothing afterwards, waited weeks in between and varied my deposits.

Thats how they get you dude.

 

[Slottery]

They need to be able to provide all information about their monitoring process and results when audited like any other processes

 

[Mr_Slot5]

To me streamers made a very bad impression on gambling in general. Win after win after win, everybody could fucking win is their message. Well it's not so easy, and the majority of gamblers will have a hard loss. Only a few will win something but thats usually not for long if that habbit is still being done. It's funny. I won 8k at a new casino i signed myself up to. I won nothing afterwards, waited weeks in between and varied my deposits.

I know quite a few streamers who I can vouch for being 100% legit and some of these folded, ALL of them told me that it's virtually impossible to play every day due to losses and how far up the shitter they would end up. That's just on 60p to £2 bets.

 

[sufferinsilence]

I know quite a few streamers who I can vouch for being 100% legit and some of these folded, ALL of them told me that it's virtually impossible to play every day due to losses and how far up the shitter they would end up. That's just on 60p to £2 bets.

Except Billy

 

[Guntis]

My bad - the UKGC do make some recommendations in regards to RTP monitoring although it is left to the licensee to ultimately implement based on their own requirements. Absolutely no chance of anything going wrong there then

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I wonder how many incidents have been reported since the monitoring requirement was introduced? I'm guessing there would be quite a few entities with a vested interest in keeping that quiet.

The introductory part on their site says: "As of 1 September 2016 remote operators are required to monitor the performance of the games they offer. The core focus of this monitoring is to ensure random number generator (RNG) driven products are fair and achieving the designed return to player (RTP)".

Alright, but how does the UKGC know if they monitor them or not? I don't think anyone from the UKGC is playing Bonanza or whatever gets 1.5x bonus win and then says: hey guys listen, we got to check that X online casino out as it seems like one of their slots is not running in accordance with the designed RTP...

I think the more important thing for us players is to know – how often does a gaming provider put its games under the retesting process!

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Except Billy

He sure deserves the luck he gets on slots though. Great guy, great stream

 

[Bloatgoat]

I know quite a few streamers who I can vouch for being 100% legit and some of these folded, ALL of them told me that it's virtually impossible to play every day due to losses and how far up the shitter they would end up. That's just on 60p to £2 bets.

We know that there are prepared streamer accounts with slight better odds then the rest of the casual players. We know that some streamers get like 300 to even 500% bonus on top of their deposit. There's alot of dirty things going on with the streamers and one thing they do have in common (the majority, not the legitimate ones obviously) is to present a never ending winning world with gambling while the harsh reality is that 95% simply loses. And some even lose their family, wives, housings and all that because of a ongoing gambling addiction.

 

[slotter999]

The introductory part on their site says: "As of 1 September 2016 remote operators are required to monitor the performance of the games they offer. The core focus of this monitoring is to ensure random number generator (RNG) driven products are fair and achieving the designed return to player (RTP)".

Alright, but how does the UKGC know if they monitor them or not? I don't think anyone from the UKGC is playing Bonanza or whatever gets 1.5x bonus win and then says: hey guys listen, we got to check that X online casino out as it seems like one of their slots is not running in accordance with the designed RTP...

I think the more important thing for us players is to know – how often does a gaming provider put its games under the retesting process!

If by retesting you mean recertification then once a game is certified it remains certified unless they make a change which has the potential to alter the game. So changing the rng would require a change - updating the help file would not. They relaxed the rules slightly to accommodate minor changes which don't change anything regarding the maths of the game.

But the RTP monitoring requirement is something the licensee should be doing for the entirety of the game lifecycle.

How often casinos are audited is something I think only the UKGC could answer. There must be some risk mitigation due to the fact that a game which has performed correctly on one casino should perform correctly on another casino as the casino themselves do not host the game.

But how often they audit the servers hosting the games I do not know. They use simple checksums to determine if the game binaries match the recorded calculated during the testing phase. But given the hosting of these games is both decentralised and often software defined i.e. virtualisation it's very difficult to have a completely robust system to monitor changes to those types of systems. But I imagine a provider would be more incentivised than a regulator to have very strong controls in place because unauthorised tampering of those systems could have devastating effects - think replacing your favourite 96% game with a 2296% version. At which point you can also circle back to the topic of RTP monitoring - its meant to work both ways - under performing and over performing. A robust process should serve both.