Question for the industry guys (RTP)

andym

Experienced Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Location
germany
Hi guys,
i have one question for you and would be happy if someone can answer that.
Lets assume there is only one online casino out there. This online casino licensed only one slot. This one slot has a theoretical RTP of 96%.
In that online casino only two players are playing the whole time.

Player1 made a really good win on the slot and get an RTP of 104%. Then Player1 stopped immeadiately playing.
Now whats the most likely real-RTP-outcome for Player2 who still continues playing with a very lot or unlimited spins:

1. Player2 will end up at 96% RTP
2. Player2 will end up at 88% RTP

Thanks
Andy
 
Last edited:
Solution
You are talking about the concept of compensation if you're thinking Scenario 2 is the answer, online slots are random and are not compensated. therefore Player 1's results and Player 2's results are entirely independent of each other.

Eventually Player 1 and Player 2 will, given a sufficient number of spins, reach the T-RTP of the slot, but their results along the way do not influence the other at all.

LittleFu

Newbie member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Location
Germany
The vip manager has no idea what is going, if you ask me.
It's a typical manager explanation.
"If you don't win, the other one win. Next time (maybe tomorrow) you might be the winner.
So don't be sad. It is just luck! "

The realistic point is:
There are slots giving very low rtp for a whole month maybe more...
So t-RTP might be 94,5% or whatever and everyone who is playing
this slot on this casino in this month just get 91% in average back.

You often can check this on videoslots homepage

btw.: The really high rtp's for a month are always no-name slots.
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
So, in the testing stage, who decides how many spins should be done? Surely to get a true RTP there should be a set number otherwise it can be manipulated?
For example, Netent say it took 11 trillion spins.
What if they started thinking, ok, we will do 5 trillion, at the end the game shows 70% RTP, they think, shit, do another trillion see if we can get it up a bit, then another, then another, then another until they hit the 96% they need.

They could even have a stop limit, something like if number spins>1 Trillion and RTP = 96.2% then stop. If number of spins >1 Trillion and RTP <96.2% continue. Then eventually they will hit the RTP they require and stop, even though another trillion could see it drop to say 80%

Surely all slots should be tested over the same amount of test spins, otherwise the RTP means nothing?
No, all slots don't need to be tested over the same number of spins. It depends on many many factors, but the main one is the standard deviation. You need to run enough spins in order to be confident in the RTP, and this will vary down to many factors.

And yes, the VIP manager is NOT a games designer or provider, so their knowledge of how games work may well be very limited, and judging by what they have said, their knowledge IS very limited. And to be honest, is exactly what I would expect someone to say who doesn't understand how slot games work.
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
yes, but thats why the model based only on two players in that topic.
The only question i wanted to point out is: if a rtp of one player effects the rtp for another player in the same casino on the same slot.
In my opinion it shouldnt, but referring to a comment of a vip manager it does (see my posts above).

And thats just an additional point why i in the meantime have huge doubts about that whole industry...
Just out of interest, why do you believe your VIP manager but not me. Or @The Reel Story or @Halvfor example.

if you have huge doubts about the industry, honestly you should stop playing.

But categorically I can tell you that what happens with one player has no impact whatsoever on another player.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
No, all slots don't need to be tested over the same number of spins. It depends on many many factors, but the main one is the standard deviation. You need to run enough spins in order to be confident in the RTP, and this will vary down to many factors.

And yes, the VIP manager is NOT a games designer or provider, so their knowledge of how games work may well be very limited, and judging by what they have said, their knowledge IS very limited. And to be honest, is exactly what I would expect someone to say who doesn't understand how slot games work.
You said it was ok to run different math models for different betsizes, and that gives quite a bit of control over exposure etc if you want to use it like that (which i assume casinos would want to do)
Is it also allowed to have more than one math model for the same betsize, or can i be sure that i always play using the same math model as long as i stay on the same betsize?
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
You said it was ok to run different math models for different betsizes, and that gives quite a bit of control over exposure etc if you want to use it like that (which i assume casinos would want to do)
Is it also allowed to have more than one math model for the same betsize, or can i be sure that i always play using the same math model as long as i stay on the same betsize?
I said its possible. I didn't say its probable. But having different maths at the same bet size would not be allowed.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
I said its possible. I didn't say its probable. But having different maths at the same bet size would not be allowed.
For me, the fact that its possible, and that its allowed no less, makes me believe its something that happens.
What would the downside be? (for casinos i mean, the downside for players is obvious)
Limiting big hits on big stakes would reduce the risk for casinos, and since its all above board for some weird reason, why wouldnt they?
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
For me, the fact that its possible, and that its allowed no less, makes me believe its something that happens.
What would the downside be? (for casinos i mean, the downside for players is obvious)
Limiting big hits on big stakes would reduce the risk for casinos, and since its all above board for some weird reason, why wouldnt they?
There would be more testing required, more cost (each bet would have to be certified separately, and this is not cheap) and there is little point. We tell the casinos what the max liability is as part of the par sheets (maths documentation), and most casinos have a maximum payout limit anyway which would negate the need to reduce max liability on higher bets
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
There would be more testing required, more cost (each bet would have to be certified separately, and this is not cheap) and there is little point. We tell the casinos what the max liability is as part of the par sheets (maths documentation), and most casinos have a maximum payout limit anyway which would negate the need to reduce max liability on higher bets
Do you mean that some sites limit how quick they have to pay out a big win, or are there sites that limit the size of wins aswell?

Im not saying there is a need to reduce max liability, i think there is a greed to reduce max liability.
;)
 

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
Do you mean that some sites limit how quick they have to pay out a big win, or are there sites that limit the size of wins aswell?

Im not saying there is a need to reduce max liability, i think there is a greed to reduce max liability.
;)
I think all sites limit the maximum win, as some (many) games have infinite potential (although its highly improbable).

The platform I ran could configure min stake, max stake, default stake, stake selections and maximum win (as a monetary value) all easily in the back end.

Games these days seem to limit on an X value (5000x for example) which is probably a more sensible method than we used.

But Yeh, all casinos will put a cap on their liability (and some will have terms and conditions about how fast they pay out big wins, like 5k per month or something), so always read the terms.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
I think all sites limit the maximum win, as some (many) games have infinite potential (although its highly improbable).

The platform I ran could configure min stake, max stake, default stake, stake selections and maximum win (as a monetary value) all easily in the back end.

Games these days seem to limit on an X value (5000x for example) which is probably a more sensible method than we used.

But Yeh, all casinos will put a cap on their liability (and some will have terms and conditions about how fast they pay out big wins, like 5k per month or something), so always read the terms.
I still dont think that 'negates' the upside of reducing liability with gimped math models on the biggest betsizes on popular slots.
Sure, you may have no problem paying out that 500k (or whatever the limit is) but surely it would be better if that 500k hit never happened in the first place?

Im not likely to hit any payout limits anytime soon.
Even a max win on doa2 would probably be paid the same day with the stakes i play at.
=)
 

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
I still dont think that 'negates' the upside of reducing liability with gimped math models on the biggest betsizes on popular slots.
Sure, you may have no problem paying out that 500k (or whatever the limit is) but surely it would be better if that 500k hit never happened in the first place?

Im not likely to hit any payout limits anytime soon.
Even a max win on doa2 would probably be paid the same day with the stakes i play at.
=)
Big wins are good advertising, and the person that won it is likely to put it all back, so Casinos don't worry that much.

Also, I believe even when different math models are used for different bet sizes, hmthey still have to maintain the same RTP as all the others. Trance can correct me if I'm wrong on that one tho as he'll know for sure
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
Big wins are good advertising, and the person that won it is likely to put it all back, so Casinos don't worry that much.

Also, I believe even when different math models are used for different bet sizes, hmthey still have to maintain the same RTP as all the others. Trance can correct me if I'm wrong on that one tho as he'll know for sure
Yeah, it has to maintain the same rtp, or else it has to be stated in the helpfile that different models are being used and how the rtp differs.
But removing those 1000x+ bonuses and instead give back that rtp in 1-5x hits in the basegame means the person playing is not very likely to make a withdrawal and instead slowly see their balance being grinded down to zero, so even tho the rtp turns out to be the same, the amount of withdrawals you see will be very different.

You dont have to change much to make a big difference imo.
Making the bonus twice as hard to hit on the highest stakes means you have alot of less big payouts to worry about.
Just let them grind their balance to zero in the basegame instead, cheaper that way.
=)
 

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
Yeah, it has to maintain the same rtp, or else it has to be stated in the helpfile that different models are being used and how the rtp differs.
But removing those 1000x+ bonuses and instead give back that rtp in 1-5x hits in the basegame means the person playing is not very likely to make a withdrawal and instead slowly see their balance being grinded down to zero, so even tho the rtp turns out to be the same, the amount of withdrawals you see will be very different.

You dont have to change much to make a big difference imo.
Making the bonus twice as hard to hit on the highest stakes means you have alot of less big payouts to worry about.
Just let them grind their balance to zero in the basegame instead, cheaper that way.
=)
Certainly could be done, but it would do more harm than good as it would likely come to light and reputation ally be damaging. And as Trance said, a lot of additional cost. Just easier to cap the win or just not let people play at that stake hehe.

I don't believe there is any game that does it. But maybe we'll see one in the future and find out.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
Certainly could be done, but it would do more harm than good as it would likely come to light and reputation ally be damaging. And as Trance said, a lot of additional cost. Just easier to cap the win or just not let people play at that stake hehe.

I don't believe there is any game that does it. But maybe we'll see one in the future and find out.
You have more faith in people than i do i guess.
I would be more surprised if things like this were not being done in a industry involving so much money and greed.

And technically this is not even anything shady/dirty, since its allowed.
No need to bribe testing facility or whatnot to get it done.
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
You have more faith in people than i do i guess.
I would be more surprised if things like this were not being done in a industry involving so much money and greed.

And technically this is not even anything shady/dirty, since its allowed.
No need to bribe testing facility or whatnot to get it done.
But the point still remains that there is very little reason to do it OTHER THAN where you have progressives, when you HAVE to have different maths at every single bet. Btw, in land-based there are many machines that use different maths as you bet up (or denom up). Lightning Link is a great example where, as you go to higher denoms, the number of lines decreases - which in theory INCREASES the volatility, not decreases. Although of course the maths may actually be lower volatility, i'm not 100% sure.

I've not come across this being done online yet, but it may well be out there already for sure. But firstly, if a game DID become less volatile at higher bets, why is this a bad thing? And secondly, there are very, very few people who a) notice and b) care.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
I've not come across this being done online yet, but it may well be out there already for sure. But firstly, if a game DID become less volatile at higher bets, why is this a bad thing? And secondly, there are very, very few people who a) notice and b) care.
Its a bad thing because it can be used to trick players, since there is no way for the player to know its happening.
Someone sitting down to play Doa2 does not want to play a 'less volatile' game.
They want that 100 000x bonus.
If that bonus is five times harder to hit for someone doing max bet, that is not a good thing.
That player will not think 'oh neat, my balance lasted for hours slowly grinding down to zero in the basegame, much less volatile than when i played using 9p spins'
He would probably think, 'why does it feel like its impossible to bonus on this stake'

And if he asks about it, instead of being told the game is shit on higher stakes, he would probably be told 'its random and you were unlucky' because in a twisted way that is kind of true.
Thats one way this kind of thing can be a bad thing.
;)
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
Its a bad thing because it can be used to trick players, since there is no way for the player to know its happening.
Someone sitting down to play Doa2 does not want to play a 'less volatile' game.
They want that 100 000x bonus.
If that bonus is five times harder to hit for someone doing max bet, that is not a good thing.
That player will not think 'oh neat, my balance lasted for hours slowly grinding down to zero in the basegame, much less volatile than when i played using 9p spins'
He would probably think, 'why does it feel like its impossible to bonus on this stake'

And if he asks about it, instead of being told the game is shit on higher stakes, he would probably be told 'its random and you were unlucky' because in a twisted way that is kind of true.
Thats one way this kind of thing can be a bad thing.
;)
But you're assuming that less volatility means wins are not available, which is not true...
Whenever i have done games which have required different maths with different bets (due to progressive jackpot rules), i have never affected the feature or the "high wins". I nearly always adjust the base game slightly. Why would we change the feature or remove the "unicorn" wins - it makes no sense. Casinos know what the wins are, if they don't like them, don't have higher bets (some casinos don't run DOA2 on more than €1.80)
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
But you're assuming that less volatility means wins are not available, which is not true...
Whenever i have done games which have required different maths with different bets (due to progressive jackpot rules), i have never affected the feature or the "high wins". I nearly always adjust the base game slightly. Why would we change the feature or remove the "unicorn" wins - it makes no sense. Casinos know what the wins are, if they don't like them, don't have higher bets (some casinos don't run DOA2 on more than €1.80)
Not that they are not available, just more rare.
Like berryburst vs berryburst MAX for example, im pretty sure the max win is the same, fullscreen of wilds, but hitting it on the non max version is more rare.
You could make make the highest stakes on a slot be the 'non max' version of the slot, without letting the player know they are playing a version where the biggest hits are harder to come by.
They are still available of course, they just wont happen nearly as often.

Imo things like volatility should not be allowed to change without letting the player know.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
And as for 'people dont care'
I think its more like 'people have no idea it can even happen'
And imo thats the problem.

The majority does not even seem to know that rtp is a thing, so how many do you expect to know that a slot can turn into a completely different slot when they change stake?
Im probably in the category of people 'more informed' about about things like rtp volatility etc, but i had no idea that changing volatility depending on stake was allowed before i randomly learned it from asking you.

So i dont think its fair saying 'people dont care' because i bet they would if they knew.
 
Top