Question for the industry guys (RTP)

[andym]

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

 

[The Reel Story]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[The Reel Story]

It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of business. It's just not really worth it for the Casinos/game devs to do this. The 'benefits' just don't outweigh the cost, faff, potential downsides.

 

[pinnit2014]

Is this why Bonanza bonus's more often on 4 quid, rather than 20p, for me?

 

[Kroffe]

It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of business. It's just not really worth it for the Casinos/game devs to do this. The 'benefits' just don't outweigh the cost, faff, potential downsides.

Is it really that expensive testing two math models instead of one for a slot?
A high volatile one that applies to betsizes under €5 and one low volatile for bets over €5.

To me it just seems like a weird thing to allow if its never used.

 

[CasinoNinja]

There are many sites which don't have a max win limit, if you are a high roller you would be smart to avoid those anyway. Imagine betting £9 on doa2 with max win (111kx) just to say, sorry mate. Max win is 50k. That's shit.

If casinos are afraid of max win, they should do so by lowering the max bets. Videoslots already do this and I don't think they have a "max win" on the site.

Some sites do, most common one is around £250k or so. But "good" ones don't.

 

[abuyang]

I think he was trying to explain what CasinoNinja said above but maybe English isn't his first language or he phrased it in a way that made it come across wrong, or it is possible he completely understands how online slots work.

The answer to the question is indeed 'no', at least as far as random online slots work. Compensated games do exist (UK AWPs/fruit machines for example), but they're a completely different beast to random online slots.

It's not even like there's any benefit to coding online slots to be compensated, quite apart from the fact it'd be completely busting the licensing terms for the games, it's a massive ballache for no benefit. Just design the maths of the game correctly, chuck a few billion simulated spins at it, certify the T-RTP, and let random numbers do the rest.

What prevents you from thinking that slots like Jammin Jars are using a compensated model? The advantage of the compensated model for the operator is quite clear: they get fully predicted results in the given timeframe thus avoiding any negative impact of the volatility of their games on their balance sheet.

 

[The Reel Story]

What prevents you from thinking that slots like Jammin Jars are using a compensated model? The advantage of the compensated model for the operator is quite clear: they get fully predicted results in the given timeframe thus avoiding any negative impact of the volatility of their games on their balance sheet.

I believe it is against the terms of all the major licenses to use compensated models in online slots. So it'd be illegal, the casino would lose their license and then go out of business. Not really worth the risk for pretty minimal benefit.

I believe the only reason it was acceptable to UK fruit machines is because they literally had to use the money people put in to pay out, so you didn't want the machine to be in a situation where it didn't have enough in it to pay. Not 100% sure on that though. Plus UK fruit machines are very old and probably prior to any major regulation.

 

[trancemonkey]

I believe it is against the terms of all the major licenses to use compensated models in online slots. So it'd be illegal, the casino would lose their license and then go out of business. Not really worth the risk for pretty minimal benefit.

I believe the only reason it was acceptable to UK fruit machines is because they literally had to use the money people put in to pay out, so you didn't want the machine to be in a situation where it didn't have enough in it to pay. Not 100% sure on that though. Plus UK fruit machines are very old and probably prior to any major regulation.

Nailed it

 

[Sasukdcf]

Interesting how a thread starting off about compensation ends up on the aged old discussion on stakes vs payout argument.


As a high stakes player I have argued this for years ... with trancemonkey a few times I believe, and initially ( going back years now ) he argued couldn’t happen, then progressed a little to... could happen but RTP would still need to be the same so complicated... or it would need to be stated in the rules... and I believe he was involved in the sky is the limit game which had this ....


I have played high stakes and medium stakes for years... had countless big hits on medium stakes (500x plus)

And since last arguing with trance about 5 years ago, I think maybe 3 at higher stakes maybe 4


Why do I play higher stakes I’m sure someone will ask... well it’s more exciting and always chasing the dream hit...

And so many times feel like you have hit it only to be gimped off by the worst feature ever seen!!

Examples that remain fresh in the mind ( oh and posted on another thread recently )

5 enhanced features on wild flower from £5 to £8 ... best one paid £65

27 spins on bonanza at £10 stake £880

22 spins Wwtbam 9x

But no matter how much I argue all you get is jokes about tin hats and don’t play then...

Whereas with many people saying the same thing and years and years of experience re-enforcing this, maybe something should be done...:


Then I had an idea, if there are people out there that enjoy a gamble and are adamant 100% no question that stake is irrelevant to how a game plays then why not a competition.....


A live stream session...:

I’ll have say a starting balance of £1000 and play £5 stakes

Player 2 ( the 100% staunch all slots play the same on any stake ) plays 20p with a start balance of £40

And then we have a points system.

Something like this...
Points for

Hitting a feature
Value of feature
Base wins
First to bust out
Number of consecutive spins with less than 1x return.

( not thought too much about the above yet )

And my theory would be he will score
More point than me.....

Now in theory that should work out 50/50.

So therefore.... If I offered the player 2/1 on a £100 bet

That should be taken up by anyone that believes slots all play the same as they are getting 2/1 for a 50/50 shot....

And happy to play it out 5 times

Now if we did this and it showed the £5 stake being at a disadvantage all 5 times for instance

Would that offer any credence to the argument if the nay sayers saw it live or would the usual argument “ not a big enough sample just be thrown around as that’s all I have ever been given when trying to document anything ...

Would be interesting

 

[aceking123]

Interesting how a thread starting off about compensation ends up on the aged old discussion on stakes vs payout argument.


As a high stakes player I have argued this for years ... with trancemonkey a few times I believe, and initially ( going back years now ) he argued couldn’t happen, then progressed a little to... could happen but RTP would still need to be the same so complicated... or it would need to be stated in the rules... and I believe he was involved in the sky is the limit game which had this ....


I have played high stakes and medium stakes for years... had countless big hits on medium stakes (500x plus)

And since last arguing with trance about 5 years ago, I think maybe 3 at higher stakes maybe 4


Why do I play higher stakes I’m sure someone will ask... well it’s more exciting and always chasing the dream hit...

And so many times feel like you have hit it only to be gimped off by the worst feature ever seen!!

Examples that remain fresh in the mind ( oh and posted on another thread recently )

5 enhanced features on wild flower from £5 to £8 ... best one paid £65

27 spins on bonanza at £10 stake £880

22 spins Wwtbam 9x

But no matter how much I argue all you get is jokes about tin hats and don’t play then...

Whereas with many people saying the same thing and years and years of experience re-enforcing this, maybe something should be done...:


Then I had an idea, if there are people out there that enjoy a gamble and are adamant 100% no question that stake is irrelevant to how a game plays then why not a competition.....


A live stream session...:

I’ll have say a starting balance of £1000 and play £5 stakes

Player 2 ( the 100% staunch all slots play the same on any stake ) plays 20p with a start balance of £40

And then we have a points system.

Something like this...
Points for

Hitting a feature
Value of feature
Base wins
First to bust out
Number of consecutive spins with less than 1x return.

( not thought too much about the above yet )

And my theory would be he will score
More point than me.....

Now in theory that should work out 50/50.

So therefore.... If I offered the player 2/1 on a £100 bet

That should be taken up by anyone that believes slots all play the same as they are getting 2/1 for a 50/50 shot....

And happy to play it out 5 times

Now if we did this and it showed the £5 stake being at a disadvantage all 5 times for instance

Would that offer any credence to the argument if the nay sayers saw it live or would the usual argument “ not a big enough sample just be thrown around as that’s all I have ever been given when trying to document anything ...

Would be interesting

All I would say is your get the small numbers syndrome people would jump to say you haven't spin it enough.
I'm more than willing to help you with playing I could match play same deposit level & we could then do this at same level)

 

[The Reel Story]

Interesting how a thread starting off about compensation ends up on the aged old discussion on stakes vs payout argument.


As a high stakes player I have argued this for years ... with trancemonkey a few times I believe, and initially ( going back years now ) he argued couldn’t happen, then progressed a little to... could happen but RTP would still need to be the same so complicated... or it would need to be stated in the rules... and I believe he was involved in the sky is the limit game which had this ....


I have played high stakes and medium stakes for years... had countless big hits on medium stakes (500x plus)

And since last arguing with trance about 5 years ago, I think maybe 3 at higher stakes maybe 4


Why do I play higher stakes I’m sure someone will ask... well it’s more exciting and always chasing the dream hit...

And so many times feel like you have hit it only to be gimped off by the worst feature ever seen!!

Examples that remain fresh in the mind ( oh and posted on another thread recently )

5 enhanced features on wild flower from £5 to £8 ... best one paid £65

27 spins on bonanza at £10 stake £880

22 spins Wwtbam 9x

But no matter how much I argue all you get is jokes about tin hats and don’t play then...

Whereas with many people saying the same thing and years and years of experience re-enforcing this, maybe something should be done...:


Then I had an idea, if there are people out there that enjoy a gamble and are adamant 100% no question that stake is irrelevant to how a game plays then why not a competition.....


A live stream session...:

I’ll have say a starting balance of £1000 and play £5 stakes

Player 2 ( the 100% staunch all slots play the same on any stake ) plays 20p with a start balance of £40

And then we have a points system.

Something like this...
Points for

Hitting a feature
Value of feature
Base wins
First to bust out
Number of consecutive spins with less than 1x return.

( not thought too much about the above yet )

And my theory would be he will score
More point than me.....

Now in theory that should work out 50/50.

So therefore.... If I offered the player 2/1 on a £100 bet

That should be taken up by anyone that believes slots all play the same as they are getting 2/1 for a 50/50 shot....

And happy to play it out 5 times

Now if we did this and it showed the £5 stake being at a disadvantage all 5 times for instance

Would that offer any credence to the argument if the nay sayers saw it live or would the usual argument “ not a big enough sample just be thrown around as that’s all I have ever been given when trying to document anything ...

Would be interesting

Well being that the last few days I've burned through £40 or £50 deposits on 20p stakes with no features or only gutter features I'd be pretty confident of losing this scenario haha.

But the reality is it would be a few thousand spins at most (if you did it 5 times). Which simply isn't enough to be statistically significant. I know you'll say that's an excuse, but it's unfortunately true (see my video for proof of the varience you can get at even 10000 spins on a really simple game). So whatever the results were would be useless.

Simple fact is, at high stakes, you get less spins so you are likely to see a more statistically outlying behaviour than doing the same balance on low stakes.

 

[Sasukdcf]

Well being that the last few days I've burned through £40 or £50 deposits on 20p stakes with no features or only gutter features I'd be pretty confident of losing this scenario haha.

But the reality is it would be a few thousand spins at most (if you did it 5 times). Which simply isn't enough to be statistically significant. I know you'll say that's an excuse, but it's unfortunately true (see my video for proof of the varience you can get at even 10000 spins on a really simple game). So whatever the results were would be useless.

Simple fact is, at high stakes, you get less spins so you are likely to see a more statistically outlying behaviour than doing the same balance on low stakes.

Thank you Aceking 123... we don’t have to to do it for money ( as in the bet, although happy too ) but could do it just to see ...

As for this response... I get that it’s a low number of spins and only 5 attempts ...

But firstly I must argue one point ...

Your last comment about high stakes less spins .... surely with the figures I quoted £1000 @ £5 and £40 @ 20p

The number of spins should be the same statistically speaking ...

That would be another column to add tho as I would g/tee I would bust out quicker than the 20p player ...

Thank you for a reasonable response tho rather than the tin hat bullsh*t I have had before!!

I’m gonna progress one step further to ask something else I have noticed which has become more and more prevalent over the last year or so and wonder if anyone else has commented or noticed the same ...

The amount of times I’m down ( and it can be £50 or £500 and I hit a feature or run of features and suddenly I’m back to almost exactly my starting balance ...

I noticed this a year or so back and commented on it...

But now it’s almost daily...

And when I say back to starting balance I mean within a few pence ... time after time after time after time ....

Yesterday for instance put on 200 lost

Put on 300 got down to around £170

Hit a plus 5 on bonanza £2

Balance after feature 499.68

And this happens so so so so often now...

It’s another point I have argued on here and someone asked me ... if it was linked to something ... what is that something ....

I don’t know ... all I do wonder is, they can give away a decent win which helps RTp etc and keeps all figures as they should be , but they know from previous play that I won’t withdraw at that point because I always try to get £200 ahead and the withdraw my initial deposits ... if there was a conspiracy then a site knowing that would know that as long as I was kept under that figure they have no liability as it were ...

 

[The Reel Story]

Thank you Aceking 123... we don’t have to to do it for money ( as in the bet, although happy too ) but could do it just to see ...

As for this response... I get that it’s a low number of spins and only 5 attempts ...

But firstly I must argue one point ...

Your last comment about high stakes less spins .... surely with the figures I quoted £1000 @ £5 and £40 @ 20p

The number of spins should be the same statistically speaking ...

That would be another column to add tho as I would g/tee I would bust out quicker than the 20p player ...

Thank you for a reasonable response tho rather than the tin hat bullsh*t I have had before!!

I’m gonna progress one step further to ask something else I have noticed which has become more and more prevalent over the last year or so and wonder if anyone else has commented or noticed the same ...

The amount of times I’m down ( and it can be £50 or £500 and I hit a feature or run of features and suddenly I’m back to almost exactly my starting balance ...

I noticed this a year or so back and commented on it...

But now it’s almost daily...

And when I say back to starting balance I mean within a few pence ... time after time after time after time ....

Yesterday for instance put on 200 lost

Put on 300 got down to around £170

Hit a plus 5 on bonanza £2

Balance after feature 499.68

And this happens so so so so often now...

It’s another point I have argued on here and someone asked me ... if it was linked to something ... what is that something ....

I don’t know ... all I do wonder is, they can give away a decent win which helps RTp etc and keeps all figures as they should be , but they know from previous play that I won’t withdraw at that point because I always try to get £200 ahead and the withdraw my initial deposits ... if there was a conspiracy then a site knowing that would know that as long as I was kept under that figure they have no liability as it were ...

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant high stakes play in general, not in relation to your experiment. As you say, the relative values there are the same

I've addressed the other part somewhere else before, but broadly that is what you would expect, statistically. 96% RTP means for every £100 you put in, you would expect £96 back on average, so dropping down and coming back to near where you were is kind of normal.

 

[Sasukdcf]

I get your point re high stakes play in general but its just a solid fact that high stakes features seem way more gimped than lower staked ones....

maybe you can relate to this a little if you ever happen to have played a game called 6 appeal.... it used to be one of my go to games but they gimped it totally and made it less volatile (which is a whole new can of worms as many say they cant change games... thats bullshit!!! just look at new limit games, they play TOTALLY differenty after being out a few weeks... so either they get 2 variations tested and then switch over the version on the sly or they just change it....

I cant be the only one that found it way harder to hit a feature on san quentin after a few weeks


or harder to hit a east coast 2 wheel feature nowadays ..... (did hit a 14K one though last month !!)

but on 6 appeal I hit the holy grail of features on £20 stake.... 3 blue dice 6x6x5 with a 5 x multiplier so 180 spins

followed by a run of retriggers to a point where i had 250 spins at 27x mutliplier....

so thats the equivilent of £540 a spin....

I had jackpotted that game loads of times on smaller stake it has a max win of 40,000 line bet ( which equates to 2000x, realistic had a weird way of expressing it )

and i had hit JP loads of times on way way way way way less spins and multis than that!!!

I was shall we say a tad excited as my mental maths told me I was about to watch this feature unfold to a rather nice £40,000 TYVM!!

in the base game 3 tens (lowest symbol) pay 0.10x of stake 4oak10s (1 x) 5oak10s (5X)

at that multiplier in the feature they paid £54 for 4oak 10s £540 for 4oak and £2700 for 5oak 10s

so with any win being crazy..... we were guessing that we would hit JP (40K with 170 spins remaining) bear in mind we had both played this game for years so knew how it played...

Me and my friend watched it play out as it spun... spin after spin after spin after spin after spin for nothing

and more nothing

and more nothing

and a bit more nothing

and nothing

after 250 spins it had LIMPED to 8K

I know features are worked out slightly differnently to base games but 250 Spins at equivilent to £540 a spin.... to total 16x is just well... we had no words....




ive never hit anything like it again and never had anything close to replicating it.... by that i mean any other large feature i had, Jackpotted as normal or close too....


as for my comments about getting back to level..... im not talking after cycling through once tho... of a few times.....

im saying and in fact happened AGAIN today

put on 200

played for ages up a little to start eventually down to bust out...

300 back on .... down to about 150.... couple of features ....balance 499.40 after end of second feature.... its literally like it calculates feature value to restore parity !!!

 

[Mouse75]

It's not even like there's any benefit to coding online slots to be compensated, quite apart from the fact it'd be completely busting the licensing terms for the games, it's a massive ballache for no benefit. Just design the maths of the game correctly, chuck a few billion simulated spins at it, certify the T-RTP, and let random numbers do the rest.

Not to mention that SO many compensated games can be manipulated.........

 

[The Reel Story]

I get your point re high stakes play in general but its just a solid fact that high stakes features seem way more gimped than lower staked ones....

It most certainly isn't 'solid fact' It is entirely the opposite. It is your conjecture. I can say with certainty that, on the majority of games (I don't know any that this isn't true for) stake has no impact on the features.

Randomness and statistics have a weird way of producing results that seem unbelievable, but are, in fact, totally normal. I can't really share any more insight beyond that. Your experiences will colour your opinion. That's natural and I can't stop it. All I can do is re-iterate that no kind of compensation or 'management' of money takes place because it's illegal and it doesn't need to. Maths does the same job legally and the Casino still makes their money

 

[Mouse75]

It most certainly isn't 'solid fact' It is entirely the opposite. It is your conjecture. I can say with certainty that, on the majority of games (I don't know any that this isn't true for) stake has no impact on the features.

Randomness and statistics have a weird way of producing results that seem unbelievable, but are, in fact, totally normal. I can't really share any more insight beyond that. Your experiences will colour your opinion. That's natural and I can't stop it. All I can do is re-iterate that no kind of compensation or 'management' of money takes place because it's illegal and it doesn't need to. Maths does the same job legally and the Casino still makes their money

I dont believe that online casinos are rigged... BUT your last sentence is incorrect... throughout the entire history of gambling there have been many "shady" operators improving odds already in their practise. Be it running machines at illegal percentages, sharp practises with packs of cards and all the other swindles gaming operators have offered, your last sentence is valid in principle - but sadly not in reality

 

[The Reel Story]

I dont believe that online casinos are rigged... BUT your last sentence is incorrect... throughout the entire history of gambling there have been many "shady" operators improving odds already in their practise. Be it running machines at illegal percentages, sharp practises with packs of cards and all the other swindles gaming operators have offered, your last sentence is valid in principle - but sadly not in reality

Indeed, but that was when there was little to no regulation, and therefore a minimal risk to the Casino that there would be any recourse. That is not the case these days in a highly regulated environment. Getting caught doing this would literally put them out of business.

Note that I say the highly regulated environment. Anything happening outside of regulated environments is the wild west and I can't speak to the legitimacy of that

In regulated environments, shady practices these days remain in the grey areas. Payoffs to avoid mistakes being raised that would cause higher contractual penalties. Taking casino managers to strip clubs to get preferential positioning for your games on the front page etc etc. All of that goes on This is all low risk stuff, so of course it happens.

 

[Kroffe]

Indeed, but that was when there was little to no regulation, and therefore a minimal risk to the Casino that there would be any recourse. That is not the case these days in a highly regulated environment. Getting caught doing this would literally put them out of business.

Note that I say the highly regulated environment. Anything happening outside of regulated environments is the wild west and I can't speak to the legitimacy of that

In regulated environments, shady practices these days remain in the grey areas. Payoffs to avoid mistakes being raised that would cause higher contractual penalties. Taking casino managers to strip clubs to get preferential positioning for your games on the front page etc etc. All of that goes on This is all low risk stuff, so of course it happens.

I still think that saying that regulations keep people from doing shady shit just because the negatives might outweigh the benefits is a extremely blue eyed approach that puts waaaay too much trust in people.

People do things even tho the possible consequences outweigh the benefits all the time.
Hell when breaking most laws, the consequences outweigh the benefits, especially for small stuff like shoplifting, speeding, etc, and those are not exactly rare things.
Give a greedy person the chance to add 1% to the profits by doing something shady, and he will do it even tho he makes alot of money without adding that 1%.

 

[The Reel Story]

I still think that saying that regulations keep people from doing shady shit just because the negatives might outweigh the benefits is a extremely blue eyed approach that puts waaaay too much trust in people.

People do things even tho the possible consequences outweigh the benefits all the time.
Hell when breaking most laws, the consequences outweigh the benefits, especially for small stuff like shoplifting, speeding, etc, and those are not exactly rare things.
Give a greedy person the chance to add 1% to the profits by doing something shady, and he will do it even tho he makes alot of money without adding that 1%.

Well having worked in the industry, every company I worked with was very adherent to the regulations and took them very very seriously. There was plenty of shady shit, but it wasn't to do with the regulations So I speak from experience, not from a blue-eyed position hehe.

 

[Kroffe]

Well having worked in the industry, every company I worked with was very adherent to the regulations and took them very very seriously. There was plenty of shady shit, but it wasn't to do with the regulations So I speak from experience, not from a blue-eyed position hehe.

Do they announce shady shit to everyone working in the industry in the casino business?
What makes you think you would have been among the people 'in the know' if shady things were going on?

 

[Mouse75]

@Kroffe Makes some very valid points... anything untoward would only be known by a tiny percentage of employees.
People ARE greedy - hence the trend of RTP's lowering.
Anything to give them an edge business wise will be exploited, and indeed most of this may be legitimate - but it doesn't lead to good player experiences.
In a B&M arcade - one of a very successful empire making plenty of legitimate profits.... there were machines were the owners new a flat battery would been the machine was impossible to win on every single day before approx £70 wont through it (£10 JP) its no different. They did not need this very small edge.... but they took it.
We LIKE to believe it all above water and open and transparent.... we can't be sure though..... and plenty of people have no issues.... until that one big withdrawal doesn't get paid..

I'm not pointing fingers or being all doom and gloom - I like online gambling. But to make a sweeping statement that the big reputable boys are all paying fair all the time... just because.... I cant accept that.

 

[The Reel Story]

Do they announce shady shit to everyone working in the industry in the casino business?
What makes you think you would have been among the people 'in the know' if shady things were going on?

Like I said, there was plenty of Shady shit, but what we're talking about here is manipulating the games, against the regulation. Being that my business unit made the games and supplied them to the Casino's, I can pretty confidently say that the games were fully legit, as were each of the Casino's and the game providers involved with those games.

Shady shit involves brown bags of money, PI's sent to investigate players, taking people out for drinks/strippers/coke/hookers for preferential deals etc. It doesn't involve rigging the games. It's easier for these companies to screw over their own employees (reduce bonuses, dodgy dismissals etc) than it is to cheat the players.

 

[Kroffe]

Like I said, there was plenty of Shady shit, but what we're talking about here is manipulating the games, against the regulation. Being that my business unit made the games and supplied them to the Casino's, I can pretty confidently say that the games were fully legit, as were each of the Casino's and the game providers involved with those games.

Shady shit involves brown bags of money, PI's sent to investigate players, taking people out for drinks/strippers/coke/hookers for preferential deals etc. It doesn't involve rigging the games. It's easier for these companies to screw over their own employees (reduce bonuses, dodgy dismissals etc) than it is to cheat the players.

Im not saying you cant vouch for the games you were directly involved in, that they were (atleast at the time) non shady.
But if you look at all the games on the market today, how many of them have you had any direct involvement in and can vouch for?

Rules, regulations, laws, consequences, punishments etc does not stop people from doing illegal stuff, it just means you are not supposed to do those things.
Rules couldnt stop me from eating cookies before dinner, but im supposed to believe it stops greedy people from doing illegal things with slots?
Funniest thing is the punishment when they get caught breaking the rules...they get a fine, which means they have to give back some of the money they earned by breaking the rules.
Doesnt sound all that harsh, eh?

Maybe ive missed all the people being sent to jail over breaking regulations.

 

[The Reel Story]

Im not saying you cant vouch for the games you were directly involved in, that they were (atleast at the time) non shady.
But if you look at all the games on the market today, how many of them have you had any direct involvement in and can vouch for?

Rules, regulations, laws, consequences, punishments etc does not stop people from doing illegal stuff, it just means you are not supposed to do those things.
Rules couldnt stop me from eating cookies before dinner, but im supposed to believe it stops greedy people from doing illegal things with slots?
Funniest thing is the punishment when they get caught breaking the rules...they get a fine, which means they have to give back some of the money they earned by breaking the rules.
Doesnt sound all that harsh, eh?

Maybe ive missed all the people being sent to jail over breaking regulations.

You're right, but I do know that the practicalities of anyone rigging a game, and managing to hide it (for precisely zero benefits, as they have to advertise the RTP and the game has to be reported against that RTP, so rigging the game would mean the reported RTP would be different from the accredited RTP which would be a big red flag), are just too difficult in a regulated market. The risk is going out of business (you lose your license, you're done), the benefit is... nothing. That's why it doesn't happen.

If you want to make more money, simply make a lower RTP game (which, btw, doesn't actually make you more money, because it stops being fun to play. Rigging a game would actually make you less money, because what yoiu want is a game that is addictive and fun and gets high throughput. That's why most games are 94-96%, cause that is the sweet spot for a game that feels fun but still makes good money)

 

[Kroffe]

You're right, but I do know that the practicalities of anyone rigging a game, and managing to hide it (for precisely zero benefits, as they have to advertise the RTP and the game has to be reported against that RTP, so rigging the game would mean the reported RTP would be different from the accredited RTP which would be a big red flag), are just too difficult in a regulated market. The risk is going out of business (you lose your license, you're done), the benefit is... nothing. That's why it doesn't happen.

If you want to make more money, simply make a lower RTP game (which, btw, doesn't actually make you more money, because it stops being fun to play. Rigging a game would actually make you less money, because what yoiu want is a game that is addictive and fun and gets high throughput. That's why most games are 94-96%, cause that is the sweet spot for a game that feels fun but still makes good money)

Rtp being reported to who?
Id send some brown bags over his/her way too look the other way about any discrepancies, but then again im not a saint like all the people working in the industry so maybe thats why such a thing does not happen.
You say they are very careful about following regulations? Look at ukgc or spelinspektionen (swedish ukgc) count the fines being dealt out, they are all for breaking regulations.
And its not like oh that one casino got dealt one fine 3 years ago but nothing since, no. almost all groups have been dealt fines, some of them several, because they keep breaking regulations.

Losing a license, is that such a big deal?
How long does it take to get a new one and setup a new site and re-enter the same market again?
There have been sites kicked out from the Swedish market for breaking regulations, but most of them weasel their way back in under a new license/company.

 

[mack341]

I wonder how many software/programming glitches or maths faults are found during the independent checking phase before the games launch, on average during a year of such checks.

Slightly unrelated, but you never hear of the reverse happening, a fault where a £60 win was displayed but in fact you had won £40 million

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

The conflict began after Mr Merlaku won £40million on a slot machine at Casino Bregenz, but was told his win was invalid due to a software error in the machine.

The casino then attempted to resolve the situation by offering him a free dinner. [as if that would ever go down well in the circumstances ]

The casino's spokesman Martin Himmelbauer, 44, admitted the amount had been displayed in the machine but maintained that the machine was faulty and that Mr Merlaku had in fact only won £60.

'We wanted to apologise but he did not want to co-operate. We offered to pay out the cash that he did win, but he refused to accept it.

Usually these matters are sorted out with a meal for two but in this case the man was not prepared to settle for anything less than the full payment.'

 

[bamberfishcake]

Usually these matters are sorted out with a meal for two but in this case the man was not prepared to settle for anything less than the full payment.'

Gotta love that, how unreasonable of the claimant to refuse the meal for two which usually sorts out this frequent occurrence.

 

[Kroffe]

I wonder how many software/programming glitches or maths faults are found during the independent checking phase before the games launch, on average during a year of such checks.

Slightly unrelated, but you never hear of the reverse happening, a fault where a £60 win was displayed but in fact you had won £40 million

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

The conflict began after Mr Merlaku won £40million on a slot machine at Casino Bregenz, but was told his win was invalid due to a software error in the machine.

The casino then attempted to resolve the situation by offering him a free dinner. [as if that would ever go down well in the circumstances ]

The casino's spokesman Martin Himmelbauer, 44, admitted the amount had been displayed in the machine but maintained that the machine was faulty and that Mr Merlaku had in fact only won £60.

'We wanted to apologise but he did not want to co-operate. We offered to pay out the cash that he did win, but he refused to accept it.

Usually these matters are sorted out with a meal for two but in this case the man was not prepared to settle for anything less than the full payment.'

Dont worry, testing is done over billions and billions of spins, so theres no way bugs and glitches can make it thru.
Well, it did happen that one time with every other btg release that bugs (some of them just visual, some actually gamebreaking) were found within hours of going live, and probably a couple 100k spins done at most.

Dont worry, all the players that spent money on Wild flower received 100% of their money back in case they had lost money on the slot since it was faulty.

Well obviously they didnt, because that would have made sense.

Dont worry tho, i heard they fired the intern responsible for the bug.

 

[Mouse75]

@Kroffe and both Donuts and Final Countdown had faults where front screen - i.e visual display to the player did not match the result generated. Easy to do these things deliberately and pass them off as "glitches"

 

[Kroffe]

@Kroffe and both Donuts and Final Countdown had faults where front screen - i.e visual display to the player did not match the result generated. Easy to do these things deliberately and pass them off as "glitches"

I wonder how Wild flower passed the testing at all, because the bug was causing the enhanced feature to become a normal feature, i dont see how the slot can reach the correct rtp.
Seems a bit unlikely it was working during the billions of testing spins and suddenly stopped working when going live.

Maybe the testing is not as extensive&meticulous as we are told.

 

[Sasukdcf]

Loads of great points above and sadly as much as I respect the views of you all, and I have to respect the fact some of you are from the other side of the fence too with more knowledge of some of the areas we are addressing, I think there is a little bit of naivety here too....

Its illegal so doesn't happen.... seriously, EVERY DAY casinos are fined for not following the rules, why ?greed, and do they care... probably not as they undoubtedly make more from the rule breakage than the fine !!!

and you say Highly regulated..... By who the GC ?? Dont make me laugh, they are clueless and way behind the times.... every rule they bring in the casinos are way ahead of....

I had a very enlightening chat with you of the directors of Nmi Testing house a while back.....

There was a game where the progressive JP was stuck ( I did post about it on here i believe )

I had tried everything to get this resolved as I felt I had won it a few times but anyway.... having gone to GC the casino the provider and got nowhere, despite the game being changed ( the Progressive Jackpot level was changed from 100,000 top prize to £250,000 top prize however it wasnt retested.....

so I got on to the testing house who confimed they hadnt retested it but moreover confirmed that the progressive JP was not part of their testing anyway and that they were not responsible for testing this part of the game


the part that was broken and had been for 3 years yet no one would do anything about it .....

and why would they

because there is no recourse there is no risk........ how would anyone prove that stake manipulation was going on because people like me always come up against...

1) its against the law it cant be
2) not enough data
3) cant tell you anything its a secret !!




so the counter argument is

why wouldnt they.....

its a bit like the live games monopoloy and crazy time etc....

the maths suggests no rigged stuff needs to go on....

but does it... if i had to punt anywhere on the side of yes i would question the wheel on the adventures of wonderland by playtech who have been known to cheat before anyways and that sure as hell does some weird things at times....

do they need to cheat tho?? No

but if they can manipulate the wheel to make some extra money or prehaps give some margin to allow for a huge win to entice new players why not.... as long as the game performs to rtp no one will check!!!

 

[Sasukdcf]

I wonder how Wild flower passed the testing at all, because the bug was causing the enhanced feature to become a normal feature, i dont see how the slot can reach the correct rtp.
Seems a bit unlikely it was working during the billions of testing spins and suddenly stopped working when going live.

Maybe the testing is not as extensive&meticulous as we are told.

my experience is the the normal feature pays better than the enhanced lol !!! had around 20 enhanced and only 1 of them has hit over 100x

 

[Sasukdcf]

I believe it is against the terms of all the major licenses to use compensated models in online slots. So it'd be illegal, the casino would lose their license and then go out of business. Not really worth the risk for pretty minimal benefit.

I believe the only reason it was acceptable to UK fruit machines is because they literally had to use the money people put in to pay out, so you didn't want the machine to be in a situation where it didn't have enough in it to pay. Not 100% sure on that though. Plus UK fruit machines are very old and probably prior to any major regulation.

And just going back to this (as you havent replied to my PM!!!)

thats a rose tinted outlook ^^

a casino breaks the rules and loses its licence .....

they pretty much have to send the boys round with a baseball bat to your grannies and shake her up and down

In reality a casino breaks the rules and gets a slap on the wrist and a fine....

and thats assuming they get caught, and how will they get caught if nobody checks and when the UKGC have no clue what they are supposed to be checking.....

and who tests the testing houses ?

and where do you go when you have an issue... Ibas.... and who funds them... the casinos !!!!

hmmmm

 

[The Reel Story]

And just going back to this (as you havent replied to my PM!!!)

thats a rose tinted outlook ^^

a casino breaks the rules and loses its licence .....

they pretty much have to send the boys round with a baseball bat to your grannies and shake her up and down

In reality a casino breaks the rules and gets a slap on the wrist and a fine....

and thats assuming they get caught, and how will they get caught if nobody checks and when the UKGC have no clue what they are supposed to be checking.....

and who tests the testing houses ?

and where do you go when you have an issue... Ibas.... and who funds them... the casinos !!!!

hmmmm

I responded to your PM 10 minutes after you sent it.

I'm not going to convince any of you. You're dead set on the idea that it's all a con and nothing I say will change your minds.

Your entire argument is predicated on 'It's the gambling industry, everyone in it is crooked and so it's all shady', but that's just an incorrect view of the industry (and any industry). The reality is, the majority of people in the world are good and decent, the majority of businesses are good and decent. Where they are not, they will look to do shady stuff in low-risk ways. Ways that they can blame on an employee or that will just net them a fine. Rigging games is not simple, not easy to hide and carries massive risk. It's just not worth it. There are hundreds of people across multiple companies involved in game production. You would need a conspiracy across all of those companies and all of those people, most of whom just want to take a salary and go home to their families (and are not paid enough to keep massive industry secrets).

Then you have the people who have left the industry, and disgruntled employees (believe me, companies screw people over who work for them way more than they screw their customers. I saw an entire team of 40 people be let go off the back of a phone call cause it would save a million quid a year). That's the kind of bad shite companies do, not ridiculous, complicated, almost logistically impossible industry-wide conspiracies that have numerous layers of regulatory protection and complexity (checksummed game packages, independent testers, maths documents cross-checked with simulated play, audited and independently accredited RNG's all across multiple regulatory bodies).

As I said multiple times, there is plenty of shady stuff that goes on (you all seem to be glossing over that fact and saying that I'm rose tinting the whole industry). There is in every business, but game rigging is not one of them because it just isn't worth the effort. Shady stuff is normally limited to a few individuals who feel they can get away with it. When something becomes too big, it becomes too visible. Game production involves too many moving parts to make rigging invisible.

 

[tazmart]

Game rigging seems pretty easy to me. Devs offer lower RTP games, casinos take them up wholesale, remove RTP info or leave the old higher info on there, then rake it in while we all pay the price. Very few people need to be involved or even 'in' on it, and in the meantime we're all getting turned over by the majority of casinos. Simple.

 

[Kroffe]

Game rigging seems pretty easy to me. Devs offer lower RTP games, casinos take them up wholesale, remove RTP info or leave the old higher info on there, then rake it in while we all pay the price. Very few people need to be involved or even 'in' on it, and in the meantime we're all getting turned over by the majority of casinos. Simple.

But you forget there is one major thing making sure this can never happen.
Its against the rules.
And as we all know, rules are always followed, especially in businesses involving alot of money.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Casinos don't need to break any rules.

They can offer lower-paying versions of the same game, under everybody's noses, legally.

Stall large withdrawals and make requests for additional information, hoping you will chuck the towel in, legally.

Whether it's ethical or fair, is a completely different story.

You don't have to play at those casinos though, there are plenty out there who do it right and thousands of games at default RTP or released with one setting.

 

[tazmart]

Maybe, but how can you know which casinos are playing fairly when so many aren't? The bad ones in this instance are giving all casinos a bad name so how can you trust anything any of them are telling you?

Now you can't change your payment details at more and more casinos if your balance is £1 or over, and there's nobody around in live chat to sort it out, so you're stuck with money you can't get out. Another outrageous scam being allowed by the Gambling Commission, who seem to have completely shifted their purpose and now seem to work completely for the casinos and against the players.

The difference in RTPs, though small on paper, is making a huge difference in how the games play in my experience, and as far as I can see none of them are being properly regulated because I've never seen the games play so consistently awful in all the years I've been playing online slots. I have records going back 5 years on my daily playing and there's been a really dramatic fall in winnings over the last 4 or 5 months, where before that it was pretty much consistent.

We can't believe the stated RTPs from any of them and can only know for sure by how they play, and that will get very costly in the current climate of scamming players for all their worth.

 

[Guntis]

Don't believe anyone in gambling whether they're game providers or licencing bodies -- most of them like it when some throw Euros on their table. Everything you as a player can see around you is a part of a marketing strategy. It's up to you, however, accept it or not.

But regarding this RTP lowering, they forgot the golden rule a happy player = happy casino! The games must pay to keep players happy and keep them coming back, and therefore, earn casinos money in the long run. This is how gambling should work plain and simple.

If players do not win, they won't stay in one place for long, they'll leave and look for other opportunities.

 

[LoopsterAU]

Been "VIP" at way too many casino's and here is my opinion.

Slots are random as stated here until you get flagged as "VIP" due to high depositing, big bets etc because at that point you become a risk of possibly hitting a really high x at a large stake size and cleaning out the casino.

Once "VIP" your experience is a lot more controlled by the casino depending on your recent deposits, taking a break from depositing etc.

If you are showing signs of depositing every day and constantly chasing you will keep losing until you snap out of that pattern and take a break.

Once you have taken a break they will weigh up how much value you are to the casino and set a win cap on the account to let you keep winning to in order to be able to cash out and start the cycle all over again of depositing.

I like to think they are random like most people and agree they are for a very casual player (this is the part that's tested) however once big dollar signs speak corruption kicks in and it is controlled. Seen way too many coincidences where when i'm chasing I cant hit anything on any provider in any game and then after taking a break go on massive streaks where no matter what game I touch I just simply cannot lose to believe it's 100% random.

 

[vnk207]

Well, its maybe not the right topic to reply this on, but i read again RTP is really random. Believe me, it should be totally random but i experienced many times the opposite, i want to explain with a example:


Played many times Playngo Superflip 20 lines slot. For example i have 7€, put it on autoplay on 20 lines 0,01 bets. Ive seen many times 30 dead spins. Then i have 1€ left. Then i change to 2 lines so 0,02 bet. So my changes to win i decrease with 90% if i say that right. Well before you know it you hit your first points or bonus game. That is why i almost play this game with more than 1€ balance anymore. Ofcourse it give also on 20 lines but my example ive seen many times so for unbelievers like me, you know you get sewn by playing slots. Definitely on certain providers. Just sayin


I go now to the waterside to through out my fishing lures, thats healthier for me than gambing.

have a nice day