Question Reasonable WR and game categories?

[ThePOGG]

Hey everyone,

I'm in the process of of trying to develop a system to reasonably rate the quality of a sign-up bonus. What I'm trying to do is devise an out of 10 rating for a bonus based on the type of bonus (cashable, sticky, post wager etc), % match and wagering requirement.

The conclusions I've drawn so far is that ultimately you require a different rating for different types of games given the vast difference to wagering requirement that game selection does make.

So here's my question - what game categories should be included and what do you feel is a good, reasonable and bad wagering requirement for each?

At the moment I'm swaying towards having a separate rating for Slots, Blackjack and Video Poker. Are their other game categories that would be useful? If so what?

When it comes to wagering requirements, for each category what is reasonable? Being realistic of course - there are loads of people who would love to see the old 8xbonus on blackjack back, but that's not going to happen. Is 20xbonus reasonable for a slots bonus? At what point does it go from good to reasonable and from reasonable to bad? I was thinking to compensate for higher percentage matches, decimalize the the percentage and divide the wagering. For example a 50% with a 20xbonus would get divided by 0.5 to become 40xbonus and a 200% with a 20xbonus would get divided by 2 to become 10xbonus. Obviously this would be for rating purposes only and not for information (as the WR would then be wrong lol).

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time and help.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

By my calculations, a 100% bonus on a 20xB WR playing 95% RTP slots leaves you meeting WR as the bonus is exhausted, i.e. you get your own money back.

Anything over 20xB WR becomes EV- and anything less than 20xB WR becomes EV+ (all of Jackpot Party's bonuses for example, are on a 10xB WR which is solidly EV+).

Of course once you get above 95% RTP, even small changes in RTP can make a big change to the expected outcome, there are quite a few NetEnt slots for example that have an RTP of over 97% which makes a 30xB WR look far more achievable.

Personally speaking I'm happy with anything up to a 30xB WR, maybe 35xB WR at a push. Anything over than that and you may as well just set fire to your money IMO

Can't speak for other game categories as I'm purely a slots player.

 

[ThePOGG]

Anything over 20xB WR becomes EV- and anything less than 20xB WR becomes EV+ (all of Jackpot Party's bonuses for example, are on a 10xB WR which is solidly EV+).

I tend to approach the game in a similar fashion and could put something together that would rate the bonus based on a specific game selection and strategy (i.e. how much EV the bonus offered), but I completely accept that most players don't want to take such a mathematical approach to their gambling and certainly don't want to be told how they should be playing. As such i'm looking to put together something that rates the bonuses based on what the 'average' player finds acceptable.

So far then for slots 30xbonus or less would be good, between 30-35xbonus reasonable and more than 35xbonus bad.

ThePOGG

 

[vinylweatherman]

You should also look at the terms, and try to bring the odder and possibly more predatory rules into the rating system. A casino could have a 20x WR, but a whole bunch of vague and predatory terms covering HOW the slots are played to meet that WR. Maybe deduct points for unnecessary complications, especially those that are likely to catch out the average player. For example, having a "slots bonus" advertised, then a smallprint list of excluded slot games.

As well as players not wanting to be told how to play, casinos don't like sites that give an exact guide to beating a bonus which players follow en masse when they join up.

You may have to tweak your rating system at times as you learn from experience. Even Bryan has had to tweak the recent rating system for accredited casinos.

 

[ThePOGG]

You should also look at the terms, and try to bring the odder and possibly more predatory rules into the rating system. A casino could have a 20x WR, but a whole bunch of vague and predatory terms covering HOW the slots are played to meet that WR. Maybe deduct points for unnecessary complications, especially those that are likely to catch out the average player. For example, having a "slots bonus" advertised, then a smallprint list of excluded slot games.

That is something i'm already working on - however the really predatory terms are already covered in the Trustworthiness rating and much like an exam, the student should not get penalized multiple times for the same error. An example of this would be a term that 'may' cause the player to have an increased wagering using certain deposit methods.

As well as players not wanting to be told how to play, casinos don't like sites that give an exact guide to beating a bonus which players follow en masse when they join up.

Tbh, I don't want this to sound aggressive, but I'm not really all that concerned about what various casinos do and don't like. If they don't want to work with me due to the information on the site that's fair enough - I'll state that clearly in their review. There are plenty of casinos out there that won't take this stance. That said, I've no interest in giving lessons in beating individual casino bonuses. There are other sites out there that have a very high quality of information that I've no interest in trying to compete with on that level.

You may have to tweak your rating system at times as you learn from experience. Even Bryan has had to tweak the recent rating system for accredited casinos.

Of course, this is an ever evolving system that will be adjusted and tweaked every time I find reason to do so - in fact this is just the first adjustment I plan on making to improve the system we've been running since October.

My ultimate intention is to take as much of the personal opinion out of the system as possible. If I can devise an arbitrary system that fairly compares the different venues, I can then remove any responsibility I have for the placement of said venues and have gone a very long way to undermine any argument that would suggest that payment influences placement.

ThePOGG

 

[mrmark21]

I'm a slots player... I'm not a big fan of bonuses as they often come with huge wagering requirements. I consider anything under 30x average and anything under 20x fantastic. I won't touch bonuses with wagering requirements over 30x

Good idea

 

[ThePOGG]

I'm a slots player... I'm not a big fan of bonuses as they often come with huge wagering requirements. I can consider anything under 30x average and anything under 20x fantastic. I won't touch bonuses with wagering requirements over 30x

Good idea

Thanks mrmark21! We're starting to build a picture here and if we can get enough opinions we could have something that's both useful to myself and the casino reps that frequent this forum.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I'm a slots player... I'm not a big fan of bonuses as they often come with huge wagering requirements. I can consider anything under 30x average and anything under 20x fantastic. I won't touch bonuses with wagering requirements over 30x

Good idea

It's not as straightforward as that, for example the NetEnt slot Bloodsuckers has a 98.0% RTP.

Even on a 35xB WR, if you played nothing but Bloodsuckers (and managed not to die of boredom), that's still a slightly EV+ bonus. Small changes in RTP can make a massive difference once you get into the high 90s.

In reality of course, slots take so long to reach T-RTP that it doesn't quite work like that, but I always look at my expected wagering on the T-RTP of the slots I'm playing, and make a judgement call from there - and generally speaking it works out OK for me.

NetEnt slots for example I will actually take on at a 35xB WR, the WMS slots at Jackpot Party (92% RTP on the base games), I wouldn't even dream of it.

 

[ThePOGG]

NetEnt slots for example I will actually take on at a 35xB WR, the WMS slots at Jackpot Party (92% RTP on the base games), I wouldn't even dream of it.

And this is where the difficulty lies - honestly, as much as I think it's important, I don't think the majority of players care what the RTP of the game they're playing is and alongside this the range of RTPs in a single venue is so large as to complicate the task immensely. Basing a rating for a bonus on an WR/RTP bases would require a rating for each game individually.

That said - where did you get the figure for the WMS games - is this published somewhere?

Thanks.

ThePOGG.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

That said - where did you get the figure for the WMS games - is this published somewhere?

At the three casinos that I'm aware of running their slots (Jackpot Party, Nordic Bet, Betsafe), the exact RTP is listed in the paytable screens on a slot-by-slot basis, to two decimal places.

Jackpot Party are basically 92% (give or take) plus 3% from the progressives for a 95% overall RTP.

Nordic Bet and Betsafe are 96% (give or take), with no progressives.

 

[mrmark21]

It's not as straightforward as that, for example the NetEnt slot Bloodsuckers has a 98.0% RTP.

Even on a 35xB WR, if you played nothing but Bloodsuckers (and managed not to die of boredom), that's still a slightly EV+ bonus. Small changes in RTP can make a massive difference once you get into the high 90s.

In reality of course, slots take so long to reach T-RTP that it doesn't quite work like that, but I always look at my expected wagering on the T-RTP of the slots I'm playing, and make a judgement call from there - and generally speaking it works out OK for me.

NetEnt slots for example I will actually take on at a 35xB WR, the WMS slots at Jackpot Party (92% RTP on the base games), I wouldn't even dream of it.

That's true and I've considered that, The problem is I can't seem to find a Netent casino with a 35xB WR...

Know of any?

 

[chayton]

I rarely take deposit bonuses because I don't like the restrictions, but on occasion I will if the bonus is 50% or more and wagering is 30x or less. Plus I only take bonuses at MG, I don't use them anywhere else.

Bonuses I won't touch:
Anything higher than 30x WR
D+B wagering
Restriction to one or two games - if it's a slots bonus I want to be able to play all slots and not have to worry about whether a game is excluded.

TBH I prefer a cash back on losses over an upfront bonus, unless it comes with a max cashout. That way I feel like I'm not risking my money being tied to WR - and if I bust out I know I'll get a portion of my money back.

 

[De Beuker]

That's true and I've considered that, The problem is I can't seem to find a Netent casino with a 35xB WR...

Know of any?

Redbet, Whitebet and Heypoker.

30xWR on the bonus only.

With most NetEnt casinos the WR is 30-40x D+B, which I find way too high, especially when the bonus is 50% or less.

The best bonuses are MG, 30x bonus and cashable.

 

[ThePOGG]

So assuming a 100% bonus for slots 30xbonus seems to be somewhere around the good to acceptable level.

Any comments on other games?

 

[Jasminebed]

I think different platforms, different bonus structures, and sometimes it's about being competive with other casinos within the same group.

Maybe an article, or series of articles, on how to evaluate a bonus? And read and understand the terms.

To my mind, the bonuses that are Microgaming and 30x I will take. I'm not enticed by a 20% Microgaming bonus. It's only 32Red I will take 25%, and probably wouldn't do that without the slotmeister.

From a casino point of view, reload bonuses that maybe bring my RTP from the 95% set point to 96.5 are still leaving them making money, and leave me happy to take them as giving me a little bit better return, and I'm willing to accept that I'm playing slots and most likely to lose. If that's the math, you are not going to get the advantage players, or only on a small limit of games. Pay and don't offer them more bonuses. If you run an all you can eat seafood buffet, you have to serve the footballer that mows down three plates of crablegs with the grannies that don't like fish or seafood and eat like a bird as part of the cost of doing business.

I don't like max cashouts on any deposit bonuses. Period. I can only recall one I took in recent history.

To give a bit of yardstick on how to compare a sticky bonus to a cashable one. Maybe some kind of chart where you look across and up to find the comparative value.

I like where there may be a choice of bonuses. 75% cashable or 200% sticky say. Both might be 30x bonus wagering, but I don't know what the difference would be in a ratings term. What I do know as a player is sometimes I want a big bankroll to play for an evening. But it would be good to know what it's costing me.

I'm obviously not too keen on bonuses that make it a lot worse for me than had I not taken them.

I like cashback offers, especially if the deposit offer has something extra going for it. I like free spin offers. I like when you can play them afterwards when you are broke, or upfront like some of the recent RTG bonuses where they do not increase your WR.

Cards and table games, it is about the math, and it's about the math to begin with for the biggest part.

It's info that's very useful to contain in one place. Especially for those just beginning to gamble online.

 

[ThePOGG]

Thanks Jas - a lot of useful thoughts in there.

Some of what you're talking about is certainly going to take full articles to cover (for example, dealing with the cashable/sticky comparison) and these are projects I do have planned for the future, what I'm looking to do here is slightly different.

I'm looking to create an out of 10 rating so that I can generate a sortable table that will reorder venues based on the game you want to play. I was intending to have two separate lists, one with the different bonus ratings built into the overall rating and the other ordered simply by the game selection and bonus rating. The intention in this isn't to provide a detailed comparison of bonuses - that can be dealt with more completely in full articles - but rather provide an 'at a glance' simplified comparison. It's never going to be perfect - simply put there are too many factors for such a simplified rating to accurately express - but I'm at least hopeful there's a way to get a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

[ThePOGG]

How do we feel about post-wager bonuses in general? Are the better or worse than sticky bonuses?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

How do we feel about post-wager bonuses in general? Are the better or worse than sticky bonuses?

I think they're good if you're a regular player at a casino, as you'll always unlock them eventually and they're 'free money' insofar as you're free to withdraw them immediately if you want to.

Where I have a real problem with them however (now documented in two Kerching threads) is when they're presented as normal upfront bonuses instead of what they actually are.

If anything I see them as a 'loyalty reward' more than an actual bonus, because on a bad run it can cost you many times the 'bonus' in deposits to finally unlock it, which is a situation I found myself in at Virgin. And once you get a certain amount along the path of unlocking the bonus, you kind of feel compelled to see it out.

I take bonuses for playtime, and post-wager bonuses are useless for that.

 

[ThePOGG]

So I've spoken to a few of the Affiliate Managers I'm better associated with and for game categories the feedback I've received so far is;

• Blackjack and Roulette both seem to get a higher volume of traffic than slots, slots produces the higher revenue (not really surprising given the often lower RTP of slots games, though with American Roulette at approx 95% that is a little anomalous)
• Craps receives very little turn over in the European markets
• Baccarat accounts for over 80% of Asian demographic betting

Given that list I was going to include as categories Blackjack, Roulette, Slots, Baccarat, Video Poker and Table Poker. I'm not convinced right now that the last two are of that much interest but to me they seem different enough to warrant their own categories. With regard to Table Poker we'll always use the highest rated Table Poker game to calculate wagering.

As i've really only been able to get feed back on slots wagering I'm going to examine the wagering for each venue I currently list and use the quartiles to define the borders. This would be reassessed each year to ensure that the rating reflects the current market.

Despite my personal view that post-wager bonuses are better than sticky bonuses, most people feel it should be the other way round, so for calculating ratings we'll have cashable, sticky then post-wager and a reasonable integer will be applied to their wagering requirements for the purposes of calculating the rating only.

Thanks for everyone's input while I've been working this out in my head - it's been an useful and interesting conversation and if there's anything else anyone would like to add I'd love to hear it.