RTG software backend issues - RTP etc.

[brianzz]

::dries hands::

Washed my hands of this one. I figure since Nifty and Dogboy seem to know so much, maybe they can figure it out.

I've used the same method in B&M casinos for the past 8 years to figure out returns on video slots... I can see where I would have no idea what I'm talking about.

I worked for IGT.

The 'ed' speaks volumes.


Mods feel free to lock this topic as it's just spinning wheels in waist deep mud.

 

[DogBoy001]

::dries hands::

Washed my hands of this one. I figure since Nifty and Dogboy seem to know so much, maybe they can figure it out.

Lol, so as soon as actual information on the actual working processes of slots no longer tallies with your pet theories it's "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home".

I've used the same method in B&M casinos for the past 8 years to figure out returns on video slots... I can see where I would have no idea what I'm talking about..

Yes, I agree, you have no idea what you're talking about.

::The 'ed' speaks volumes.

Mods feel free to lock this topic as it's just spinning wheels in waist deep mud.

The retreat speaks volumes

Woooof

 

[gloria460]

I find this conversation interesting and hopefully you guys will continue as I don't have a clue about reel strips and programming but I do have gut feelings

I haven't played RTG that long but I do know one thing..they are brutal now. Almost impossible to hit a good win but plenty of very poor returns and combinations...who knows what's going on but if players consistently get these kind of payouts they will eventually go elsewhere just like a lot of people are dropping 3dice....good software poor returns.

 

[all4greed]

Caesar's Empire

I always thought this was weird. According to the bonus terms, a 5th Caesar could appear so it should be possible to have 5 Caesars. But the payout only pays up to 4.

So are 5 Caesars possible but would only payout for 4?

 

[DogBoy001]

I always thought this was weird. According to the bonus terms, a 5th Caesar could appear so it should be possible to have 5 Caesars. But the payout only pays up to 4.

So are 5 Caesars possible but would only payout for 4?

Heya

The Caesar can only occur on reel 5 during free games.
When 5 Caesar occur on a played line the payout references the highest possible paying combination that it substitutes for, Cleopatra.

So the 5 Caesar would pay 7500x line bet, and then doubled as this could only occur in the feature, so 15000x line bet.

Wooof

 

[Nifty29]

Brianzz is right. I have an agenda - educating myself about the facts of gambling and how things work.

I know some don't like the truth getting in the way of a good rant or argument, but that's just 'not me.

However, I don't know everything and have never pretended to - that's why it's great when a professional like Dogboy takes the time to share his knowledge.

 

[wobble33]

everytime i seem to play at rtg its also seems soooooo tight the bonus rounds now..

 

[vinylweatherman]

Actually, no, NOTHING has changed with Mystic Dragon, you just CHOOSE to BELIEVE that something has changed.

Flashback to 2007 and it was "these slots are rigged! Bring back the good ol' days of 2005!"
Then in 2009 it was: "oh my god something's changed, bring back the slots of 2007!"
Now that it's 2011: "Surely something's been changed! They're sure different to the way they were in 2009!"

Brings me back to my previous parting statement:
People will believe what they WANT to believe

Wooof

I didn't mean specifically that game, I meant that "in general" something has changed with the overall experience with RTG.

You CANNOT deny that Fruit Frenzy WAS changed though, and THIS is what drives all these conspiracy theories. RTP change is no longer theoretical, we have PROOF that it has been done by SOME casinos, and on this ONE game.

We are NOT going to buy into any reassurances that this was a "one off" on JUST this one game, and JUST at a couple of casinos.

It is more likely that this is a more widespread practise, and one which RTG and operators have gone to considerable length to keep secret from players.

In 2007, RTP settings was nothing more than a "conspiracy theory", and operators were then telling players that the RTP "never changes", and that we were all "seeing patterns that were not really there".

In 2009, RTG got BUSTED. They had the operator manual posted on the website, and although this was NOT accessible through navigation, it WAS accessible to GOOGLE, and it showed up on searches on the names of the games. This was then HARD EVIDENCE that the settings WERE available, and this tallied with the changes seen on Fruit Frenzy.

RTG then changed it's story, they admitted the settings existed, but reassured players that they were NOT used online, but were designed for "booths" in B & M outlets.

Fruit Frenzy WAS changed ONLINE though, so this reassurance was not strictly accurate.

RTG changed tack AGAIN, and now we have this "promise" that from now on, ALL online slots will be set at 95%, and not have any facilities to change this.

Even if true, we are not ever going to believe this without hard evidence, because of all the other times RTG and operators have mislead us when we DIDN'T have evidence to back up our suspicions.

RTG are playing a dangerous game if they ARE trying to pull the wool over our eyes this time around, since we know what to look for. If we find a "new slot" that has different reelstrips in different RTG casinos, then we have proof that the "all new slots don't have settings other than 95%" line is another lie.

RTG were very quick to REMOVE those embarrassing pages from the website, but the information was already out there, and this only made them look even WORSE, because it stank of a "cover up" exercise.

Did RTG not think that these pages had been saved for posterity by players, who knew damn well the value of this evidence, and that RTG would probably seek to cover the whole thing up.

Sadly, this whole affair means players will NEVER trust RTG to give a "fair game", and ANY hint that "something has changed" will be seen as more evidence that RTG have pulled another stunt, even if they haven't.

I certainly don't see the evidence presented as PROOF that Mystic Dragon has actually been changed, but I DO accept the PROOF that Fruit Frenzy was changed from the default 95% setting, to the unknown "two pears" setting at some casinos.

The mere fact that this was done secretly to Fruit Frenzy is enough proof that it was "policy" at some RTG casinos to mess around with the RTP settings without letting players know about it. I bet this whole thing would STILL be nothing more than speculation had there not been the cock-up in the design of reel 2 on Fruit Frenzy for one of the alternate settings.

 

[silcnlayc]

vinylweatherman, please do not take this personal...or to heart...but...

I THINK I LOVE YOU!​

Old Attachment (Invalid)​

hell with the "thanks" button....

.

 

[DogBoy001]

I certainly don't see the evidence presented as PROOF that Mystic Dragon has actually been changed, but I DO accept the PROOF that Fruit Frenzy was changed from the default 95% setting, to the unknown "two pears" setting at some casinos.

The mere fact that this was done secretly to Fruit Frenzy is enough proof that it was "policy" at some RTG casinos to mess around with the RTP settings without letting players know about it. I bet this whole thing would STILL be nothing more than speculation had there not been the cock-up in the design of reel 2 on Fruit Frenzy for one of the alternate settings.

Your argument that having RTP variables (of a limited nature) is inherently untrustworthy does not hold water.
That argument would see every pub, club and casino in most lands thrown into the pit.

You need to address these facts:

1) In the B&M industry, which is heavily regulated and players regard as totally above board, RTP variants exist, and are used across the board.

2) In most jurisdictions across the developed world, B&M RTP is not displayed to the player.

3) In the B&M industry, operators are under no obligation (in practically every jurisdiction) to notify players when an RTP setting is altered.

4) The RTP settings available on RTG products are all higher than most B&M jurisdictions.

5) By your own notation, only "some" of the RTG operators make use of RTP variants, many do not. And yet these operators, some of whom advertise that they only run 95% RTP games, are rubbished by your assertions that RTG as a system, by allowing RTP variants, is somehow not above board.

6) Use of a variable RTP setting WILL be part of any on-line regulatory system introduced by US authorities. If it's part of their B&M regulatory system, which it is, it WILL be replicated.

Your highlighting of Fruit Frenzy is not a case of a 95% RTP game being switched to a 60% RTP setting. It is an operator electing to change from a 95% RTP setting to a 91% RTP setting, which is a business decision they are entitled to make, and is a double-edged sword.

Can players still win on that setting? Absolutely.
Most pubs and clubs here in Australia vary between 85%, 87% and 89%, and yes, people still win (and intranet is now legal here, at least for one operator (Voyager), and we supply them).

And in the end, if players perceive that playtime is decreased in a particular casino (which it will likely be in a 91% setting versus 95%, volatility aside), on-line it is far easier to move than in the B&M world.

But getting back to regulation...all these calls for regulation, and then you'll what?

- Say that you can never trust any software that is allowed to have variable RTP settings, despite the fact that there is only a few % difference between the top and the bottom setting?
- Not trust the information that operators put out when they claim that they use a particular setting?
- Claim the authorities that do bring in regulation are rogue for allowing operators to use several RTP settings, without notification as to which is in use?

Regulation will bring oversight, but it will also institute the use of variable RTP settings (within a limited band), just as it has in the B&M industry ad infinitum.

Woooof

 

[takethemoney]

Someone needs to address the issue of the RTP applying across the RTG network, which has been my biggest complaint / suspicion. If a player deposits $100, takes a 200% no max bonus with a 20x playthough, then goes on to hit a few random jackpots of say $40,000, this player is excessively over any RTP these casinos offer. Said player then makes over 100 deposits and can't seem to hit, can't make playthough on any bonus he takes and continues to deposit to no avail. Problem is, this same play is over many different casinos. How do you explain this, Dogboy? 20 or 30 deposits over 5 or six casinos...yeah, I can buy the bad luck scenario, but 120 deposits? Nope...not buying it! Something else is at play.

Who knows how much money is not being deposited because people don't trust the brand. Being objective, would anyone representing an RTG casino ever come forward and confirm the player's suspicions, even if true? Hell no. It would mean death for the brand. Would they more likely employ "damage control" when a thread like this flares up? Most likely. I don't know Dogboy and I'm certainly not here to say anything to question his integrity or motives, but we need to ask these questions. What's in it for them and what do they stand to lose in not telling what is in it or not in it for us? Utimately we will draw our own conclusions, whatever they may be. To play, or not to play, that is the question.

Personally, I feel like playing online is like playing with the underworld back in the day, except the mafia had more integrity. They might beat you, but if you won they would pay. They might not ever let you play again, but they'd pay.

 

[DogBoy001]

Someone needs to address the issue of the RTP applying across the RTG network, which has been my biggest complaint / suspicion.

The statement of "120 deposits without withdrawal" doesn't really give a whole lot of information to analyse the likelihood of such an event occurring.

However, that aside, the flaw in this erroneous suspicion is evident in several ways:

1) Why would any individual operator need to choose between RTP setttings if such a system existed? The system you describe would make such options irrelevant, as if RTP was a system-wide proposition the operator would always make money, whether it be on slots set to 95%, 91% or 97.5%.
2) If such a system existed, why have reasonable levels of playthrough on bonuses? Why not just give this hypothetical player huge bonuses with minimal playthrough. If the system is rigged, that player would still always lose.
3) If such a system existed, how would any player be ahead? And yes, from the posts I've seen there are players that are ahead, continue to deposit and still win.
4) Technically this would be a nightmare to implement, given the multiple operators. It is akin to applying a UK and European AWP-style product's reactive RTP component structure to a system-wide player-specific RTP scenario. (Note also that RTG does not have any AWP-style products to begin with, though several other major providers do, such games are not as effective or exciting as random products).
5) What about Bodog, which is distinct from the RTG operators and still uses the original game suite?
6) If such a system existed, don't you think one of the numerous operators, staff, contractors or ex-employees would have raised this? Confidentiality among dozens of different businesses with thousands of employees is hardly that good.
7) And ultimately, it's very, very obvious that such a system would be utterly counter-productive. If the player had won $40K, in your example, and then can't win over a series of deposits, the likelihood is that this player would go elsewhere (to other system providers). Hence the $40K would never be played back into the casinos anyway. Why chase off a big winner when it makes far more sense to have a random system where the odds dictate that eventually that player will lose more than they win?

The system you describe simply makes no sense and would be a major money-losing proposition for the casinos.

Woooof

 

[DiamondGeezer]

But getting back to regulation...all these calls for regulation, and then you'll what?

- Say that you can never trust any software that is allowed to have variable RTP settings, despite the fact that there is only a few % difference between the top and the bottom setting?


Woooof

The difference between 95% and 91% is MASSIVE. Your other stuff is all well argued but not to understand this point is a serious flaw.

Operator configurable software is jsut such a bad concept as it undermines the trust of players. And trust is everything in this business.

I think it also affects operators in the sense they are likely to end up getting tarred with the same brush if they are running 95% games and another company is using 91%. That probably explains why there has never been a major gaming company using RTG.

IMO the questions will never go away until we see an RTG casino run by a major european company registered in Alderney or Gibralter. You have to ask yourself why RTG can't penetrate the european market when the software is infact well designed and enjoyable to use. Hopefully one day it will happen.

 

[DogBoy001]

The difference between 95% and 91% is MASSIVE. Your other stuff is all well argued but not to understand this point is a serious flaw.

Undeniably this has an impact on gameplay...more just trying to point out that the variables are not, for example, a 20% RTP shift.

A 4% RTP difference, taking T-Rex as an example, if done by reel strip alterations to decrease feature trigger probability, would shift the feature from an average of 1 in 108 to 1 in 117, coupled with a slight decrease in overall base game RTP (0.4%) due to a longer reel 5 (as adjustments such as increasing the reel strip length by several symbols on reel 5 predominantly affect trigger rate versus base game return).

Operator configurable software is jsut such a bad concept as it undermines the trust of players. And trust is everything in this business.
I think it also affects operators in the sense they are likely to end up getting tarred with the same brush if they are running 95% games and another company is using 91%.

I agree that trust is critically important, however a system that provides operator-configurable RTP settings is not by default an untrustworthy system.
Variable operator-selectable RTP settings are a reality throughout the B&M industry and will become the norm (or at least available for use) on-line in the event of any regulation.

Some operators will never use them, as is the case now with many RTG operations...which again comes down to trust.

On-line the RTP settings are generally much higher than they are in the B&M industry, and the rationale for this is competition, and the ease with which a player simply has to double click to move casinos...certainly easier even than the middle of the strip in Vegas.

And please do not forget that RTG is not the only system that uses variable settings. Wagerworks does as well (albeit they display the RTP in their rules pages if one cares to look). From the looks of the post below, which mentions the Wagerworks system, Playtech may as well.
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/playtech-rtps-vary-casino-to-casino.39992/
The difference, if Wagerworks and Playtech are to be believed, is that they do not vary the RTP once in place.
However, if IGT is using the same functionality as they do in the B&M scene, they would at least have the provision to do this. The operator would be choosing not to...which again comes down to that trust thing.

My argument still stands that the provision of variable RTP settings (within a limited band) that can be changed periodically replicates the B&M industry, and while not the norm for on-line currently, is not untoward.

Woooof

 

[Nifty29]

Questions for the Dogmeister :

If a player were to be given access to all three rtp variants of a slot, would they be able to tell which is which based on gameplay alone?

If an operator changed the rtp of your favorite slot from 95% to 91% would you be able to tell based on gameplay alone?

Do you agree that players often don't understand the concept of rtp in a universal sense I.e. they cannot accept that personal rtp can differ greatly from this figure, but doesn't mean the casino is 'rigged' or somehow cheating?

Thanks in advance

 

[DogBoy001]

Questions for the Dogmeister :

If a player were to be given access to all three rtp variants of a slot, would they be able to tell which is which based on gameplay alone?

If an operator changed the rtp of your favorite slot from 95% to 91% would you be able to tell based on gameplay alone?

Do you agree that players often don't understand the concept of rtp in a universal sense I.e. they cannot accept that personal rtp can differ greatly from this figure, but doesn't mean the casino is 'rigged' or somehow cheating?

Thanks in advance

Heya

A shift in the order of 4% is something that a player is likely going to notice over a longer period than a shorter one.
The T-Rex example of going from an average 1 in 108 hit rate to 1 in 117 is not something a player is going to readily identify on a short-term basis.

Don't get me wrong, in the longer term 91% versus 95% is probably going to make a considerable difference.
if you remove volatility from the equation (which you can't) then it 100% would make a considerable difference.

In both variations, the player could trigger the feature in successive spins, and equally they could go 300 spins with no feature (a 6.1% chance that this will happen in the 95% version, for instance, versus a 7.6% chance, this simply being the odds of (1-trigger rate)^300)

Having an extra 0.7 of one percent chance to trigger a feature per spin is something that usually only becomes apparent in the long term.

This is especially true in volatile features such as this one, where in both instances the RTP from any given feature could be poor or very high once the feature is triggered.

It is very important for players to realise that a slot game could have a mathematical 100% RTP and the player would still be able to lose, because the bankroll is not large enough to have sufficient spins to largely remove volatility from the equation (which may take millions of spins to reduce return to a probable range approximate to the mathematical RTP).
In short, the player will lose out more times than not in this scenario, as a fair portion of that 100% RTP may be made up of combinations that are unlikely to occur over a highly limited number of spins.

Probability is a fickle mistress.

Woooof

 

[3mptyseat]

local reservation

there is one casino in my immed. area (44 miles away) and its a tribal casino situation but with no tribal land. This difference means that the machines payouts are not only based on the reels with some weird electronic bingo game on a top monitor which rests on top of an IGT slot. You have to 'daub' which is to hit the spin button a second time to make the spin valid and do so when the machine prompts you, all in some correlation to a bingo card getting filled out. IDK why I am saying all this, except, it may mean that their system is not truly random, I am not sure. But, I know a maintenance guy I play poker with sometimes, he does the tech tune ups on the machines, and since the casino is on a piece of rented land from the local city, it is designated tribal, but must also conform to the city and their mandates. Besides raking pennies on each spin, and a dollar on every poker hand, the city has other rules. One of which is that the casino may change the RTP but must post a schedule of RTP changes. Which I guess is posted somewhere, IDK, but alas, I get the info from the tech, so I know when its higher and lower. And it has never influenced my choice to play or not. He says they move the machines to pay 4.9 percent higher on weekends and holidays. I forget the starting amount Makes sense. So much more business they can pay out more and still keep the lights on. Point being, when my dumb ass gets sucked in, be it on a busy holiday when nearly every one of the 1150 machines are occupied, or on the deadest Tuesday night, I have won and lost pretty much in similar fashion in both circumstances. Over hundreds of hours. I think variance and bad runs are more what people are complaining about. And though I agree some of the features are fantastic in rtgs real time series, I get much better returns from micro deposits at level 11 platform sites.

I tried to research this "daub" feature as I thought maybe it would provide some insight into payout percentages and all I could find was this, which is hardly official, but maybe interesting to someone....

WTF is "daOld / Expired Linkubing"

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Questions for the Dogmeister :

If a player were to be given access to all three rtp variants of a slot, would they be able to tell which is which based on gameplay alone?

If an operator changed the rtp of your favorite slot from 95% to 91% would you be able to tell based on gameplay alone?

Do you agree that players often don't understand the concept of rtp in a universal sense I.e. they cannot accept that personal rtp can differ greatly from this figure, but doesn't mean the casino is 'rigged' or somehow cheating?

Thanks in advance

I can back up what Dogboy is saying with a personal example:

A while ago I was playing a certain slot (not RTG). I wagered about 20K at low stakes on it and it was returning about 95%. Then a friend recorded about 2 million spins and he found the true payout was a bit under 92%. I was quite surprised because I thought that over 20K wagering on low stakes you would get a feel for the payout percentage. But it is not the case and infact my friend's 2 million spins did not return the definitive answer but just a close approximation.

So I can confirm it is not possible to tell payout percentages with the 'naked eye'.

It is also true that nearly all players do not understand that over time their total losses will conform to amount wagered x average HA.

What confuses players is that it is possible to trick RTP/HA over long periods, especially when you are varying stakes or playing high variance games (or both!). The player can be in a false position for years with actual returns being far higher than theroetical RTP. Then what tends to happen is you get a sudden sharp rebalancing ie you get a total shafting when your actual returns perm back to something close to the true level.

If players were to record their theoretical loss ie wagered amount x HA of games played you would find over the long run you actual losses would be quite near the theoretical losses. The only thing that would mix this up is (as I said above) changing your stakes dramatically or playing high variance or progressive slots.

But how many people are going to do that? Far easier to claim the software is rigged than face up to the fact you may have been avoiding the true cost of your gambling for years.

The real 'noose' thing about RTG is the doubts about the RTP settings and the Fruit Frenzy issue leads to all these 'rigged' theories when the real explanation most likely is at the player end.

But given that I can play at a host of Playtech's, Wagerworks, MG's and Net Ent casinos from solid companies in decent jurisdictions there is little incentive for the european based player to go down the RTG route until a big operator based in say Gibralter offers an RTG casino.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Your argument that having RTP variables (of a limited nature) is inherently untrustworthy does not hold water.
That argument would see every pub, club and casino in most lands thrown into the pit.

You need to address these facts:

1) In the B&M industry, which is heavily regulated and players regard as totally above board, RTP variants exist, and are used across the board.

2) In most jurisdictions across the developed world, B&M RTP is not displayed to the player.

3) In the B&M industry, operators are under no obligation (in practically every jurisdiction) to notify players when an RTP setting is altered.

4) The RTP settings available on RTG products are all higher than most B&M jurisdictions.

5) By your own notation, only "some" of the RTG operators make use of RTP variants, many do not. And yet these operators, some of whom advertise that they only run 95% RTP games, are rubbished by your assertions that RTG as a system, by allowing RTP variants, is somehow not above board.

6) Use of a variable RTP setting WILL be part of any on-line regulatory system introduced by US authorities. If it's part of their B&M regulatory system, which it is, it WILL be replicated.

Your highlighting of Fruit Frenzy is not a case of a 95% RTP game being switched to a 60% RTP setting. It is an operator electing to change from a 95% RTP setting to a 91% RTP setting, which is a business decision they are entitled to make, and is a double-edged sword.

Can players still win on that setting? Absolutely.
Most pubs and clubs here in Australia vary between 85%, 87% and 89%, and yes, people still win (and intranet is now legal here, at least for one operator (Voyager), and we supply them).

And in the end, if players perceive that playtime is decreased in a particular casino (which it will likely be in a 91% setting versus 95%, volatility aside), on-line it is far easier to move than in the B&M world.

But getting back to regulation...all these calls for regulation, and then you'll what?

- Say that you can never trust any software that is allowed to have variable RTP settings, despite the fact that there is only a few % difference between the top and the bottom setting?
- Not trust the information that operators put out when they claim that they use a particular setting?
- Claim the authorities that do bring in regulation are rogue for allowing operators to use several RTP settings, without notification as to which is in use?

Regulation will bring oversight, but it will also institute the use of variable RTP settings (within a limited band), just as it has in the B&M industry ad infinitum.

Woooof

Wooof yourself...... GOTCHA!

91%

When this first came up, you said you could not say WHICH setting this was, and considering that the 91% setting, according to those "secret pages" does not even EXIST, we have another "can of worms" opened.

As to the other points.

1) Quite so, but this is NOT true ONLINE, where players are REPEATEDLY TOLD that this kind of thing does NOT happen online, and in fact is one of the advertising points used by online casinos when comparing their games to the B & M versions.

2) It is COMPULSORY here in the UK to have the RTP displayed, and also it is COMPULSORY to say whether the game is random or compensated. Players in such juristictions ARE being mislead.

3) In the UK, it's the players responsibilty to "read the label" on the game they are about to play, and it is the operator's responsibilty to make sure the label is correct. The newer UK video slots have the RTP displayed by the software, so it always reflects the setting used.

4) Wrong. Some RTG products can be set below 90% (refer to "secret pages" now removed from RTG website). If used, these settings would be LOWER than the 90% used here in the UK for similar slot games.

5) Only some, yes, but the actions of some tarnish the reputations of ALL, because of the SECRECY surrounding this. If this is all "above board", what's with the SECRECY?

6) Even if so, the fact that it is laid out in the regulations means that players will KNOW that the rules allow this. Currently, the rules say NOTHING about whether RTG changes are allowed or not. Players therefore have to go by experience and advertising.


Players can win on a 91% setting, HOWEVER, the "rip off" kicks in where a casino gives the player what they think is the SAME bonus offer with the SAME rules as before, but then secretly drops the qualifying games down to 91%.
When a player DOES have that big win, BUT ARE STILL TIED TO WR, they are MUCH less likely to ever SEE that big win because the lower RTP makes it MUCH harder to meet the WR. This, oddly enough, is EXACTLY what players mean by "something has changed", the WR is the same as before, yet they never seem to MAKE it like they used to before, so don't get to KEEP those big wins like they used to.

It seems that the business decision to change RTG is actually quite common, so the changes players think they have seen are REAL, not their brains seeing patterns where there are none.

We now have an easy first check to see which RTG casino offers the better deal. Load Fruit Frenzy; 2 Pears = RUN LIKE HELL!


This discussion seems to suggest that what has happened is that RTG operators have NOT increaseed WR on the bonuses, but have done pretty much the same SECRETLY through lowering the RTP on the games. This REALLY hits those players who DON'T use bonuses, since they get a shorter play time than players who do, yet are NOT benefiting from the "insurance" aspect of having that bonus money if they bust out their cash balance.


Back to this

It is an operator electing to change from a 95% RTP setting to a 91% RTP setting

Therefore, RTG LIED when they assured players that these settings were there ONLY for operators of B & M booths, and would not be used online.

RTG are busted yet AGAIN. Clearly, the 91% settings ARE being used online, and since ALL requests to change RTG have to be done through RTG themselves, RTG KNOW about this each and every time it happens, so therefore KNOWINGLY lied when they said that the 91% setting was only for booths.

Of COURSE players don't trust RTG to give a "fair game", what else did they expect!!!

Taken alongside the constant screwing of players that goes on with the Virtual group, and the revelation that CDS actually has NO POWER WHATSOEVER to make an operator "play fair", even on those rare occasions they rule in favour of a player, and that RTG don't give a damn so long as THEY get paid, players DO NOT TRUST RTG. Players need PROOF that things are fair at any one RTG operator.

Secrecy surrounding the TRUE value of an advertised offer is not just unfair, it can be ILLEGAL in some jurisdictions. If a casino STATES that the payout is 95%, but has set the games to the 91% setting, they have broken the LAW in a good many jurisdictions, which is WHY RTG operators tend to congregate in places like Costa Rica, rather than jurisdictions that actually REGULATE, rather than just take the license fees.

How many RTG casinos are regulated from Kahnawake, or Malta?
How many Microgaming casinos are regulated in Costa Rica?

These is a very CLEAR sign that certain softwares congregate in certain preferred jurisdictions, yet each operator is supposed to be making such decisions INDEPENDENTLY. This therefore must be an indication of the overall "class" of the operators, and suggests that RTG is the choice of operators who "cannot afford to run with MGS" for whatever reason.

Yes, there ARE exceptions to this, there are good RTG operators, and ROGUE Microgaming operators, but overall there are few ROGUE Microgaming operators, and few TRULY UPSTANDING RTG operators.

Don't think for one minute that this has gone unnoticed by the players. When comparing a new RTG casino with a new MGS one, even before any analysis of who is operating it, and from where, a very different expectation is formed. The MGS casino is going to be considered "probably OK", and unless something looks VERY out of the ordinary, they will start out with a fairly high degree of trust. The RTG casino on the other hand, will be treated with caution, and will NOT be trusted so easily. Players will take fright at even the slightest hint that something isn't going as it should. Others will be looking for drawbacks, and ANYTHING they see as "odd" in the terms is going to be taken as a sign that the reason it looks "odd" is that it is there to enable the screwing over of players.


Whilst other softwares also support RTP variation, UNLIKE RTG, these operators have gained a reputation for "playing fair", and the software is not made available to "rogue" operators. This means that players at least trust these operators to use the RTP change facility in a "fair manner".

 

[AGW]

RTG is still the best software, imo. Until better ones done.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I can back up what Dogboy is saying with a personal example:

A while ago I was playing a certain slot (not RTG). I wagered about 20K at low stakes on it and it was returning about 95%. Then a friend recorded about 2 million spins and he found the true payout was a bit under 92%. I was quite surprised because I thought that over 20K wagering on low stakes you would get a feel for the payout percentage. But it is not the case and infact my friend's 2 million spins did not return the definitive answer but just a close approximation.

So I can confirm it is not possible to tell payout percentages with the 'naked eye'.

It is also true that nearly all players do not understand that over time their total losses will conform to amount wagered x average HA.

What confuses players is that it is possible to trick RTP/HA over long periods, especially when you are varying stakes or playing high variance games (or both!). The player can be in a false position for years with actual returns being far higher than theroetical RTP. Then what tends to happen is you get a sudden sharp rebalancing ie you get a total shafting when your actual returns perm back to something close to the true level.

If players were to record their theoretical loss ie wagered amount x HA of games played you would find over the long run you actual losses would be quite near the theoretical losses. The only thing that would mix this up is (as I said above) changing your stakes dramatically or playing high variance or progressive slots.

But how many people are going to do that? Far easier to claim the software is rigged than face up to the fact you may have been avoiding the true cost of your gambling for years.

The real 'noose' thing about RTG is the doubts about the RTP settings and the Fruit Frenzy issue leads to all these 'rigged' theories when the real explanation most likely is at the player end.

But given that I can play at a host of Playtech's, Wagerworks, MG's and Net Ent casinos from solid companies in decent jurisdictions there is little incentive for the european based player to go down the RTG route until a big operator based in say Gibralter offers an RTG casino.

RTG didn't add this facility just for the hell of it. It was done to give the casino the option of raising it's long term edge from 5% to 9%, which seen that way around, is almost DOUBLE! It was also intended that the player remained ignorant of whether they were playing at a 95% or a 91% operator, thus players cannot make an INFORMED choice as to whether to play a 91% site with added benefits, or a 95% site with fewer benefits.

The likelihood is that those RTG operators that roll out those "too good to be true" bonuses are running 91% slots. Whilst players CAN and DO win, the long term edge for the casino is DOUBLE.

If the long term edge is doubled, your average playing time per $ bankroll is HALVED, which is what players are saying about recent RTG experiences.

A HALVED playing time per $ IS something the average player will pick up on, even though they have no idea how to PROVE it is a real effect, rather than chance, or "false patterns".

 

[DiamondGeezer]

I understand the sentiment but IMO there is no way you can tell a slot RTP by your own play even if you are spinning at 0.45 for 20K. I used to agree with you but I have since changed my opinion.

Thing is say you are playing a 95% game and you are on a stink run for argument's sake you will be returning about 75%. If it was say 71% from a 91% game then the extra hammering would make little difference.

I don't think you can measure playing time easily due to the variance of the slot. You can lose $1K quickly on T-Tex for example even playing $1.50 bets due to it's high variance.

The obvious problem we also have is we don't know what this subset of heavy losing players is relative to the the total number of players.

 

[DogBoy001]

Wooof yourself...... GOTCHA!

91%

When this first came up, you said you could not say WHICH setting this was, and considering that the 91% setting, according to those "secret pages" does not even EXIST, we have another "can of worms" opened.

"Wooof yourself...... GOTCHA!"?

Your credibility is sinking VWM, and I'm just wondering what your actual agenda is?

I refer you to this page on the forums:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/accredited-rtgs-with-differing-rtps.36153/

5th February, 2010 by KasinoKing at 10.33am
You replied 45 minutes later.

His post clearly indicates the 91% RTP variant (which I confirmed, though pointing out an erroneous single entry listing 86%), and you are well aware that it exists, and has been public knowledge for some time.

Woooof

 

[DogBoy001]

As to the other points.

1) In the B&M industry, which is heavily regulated and players regard as totally above board, RTP variants exist, and are used across the board.

VWM: Quite so, but this is NOT true ONLINE, where players are REPEATEDLY TOLD that this kind of thing does NOT happen online, and in fact is one of the advertising points used by online casinos when comparing their games to the B & M versions.

Repeatedly told that this kind of thing does NOT happen online?

You are misrepresenting this position.

I refer you to the earllier post in this thread re Wagerworks and Playtech. And regarding RTG, this has been common knowledge for a long, long time.

2) In most jurisdictions across the developed world, B&M RTP is not displayed to the player.

VWM It is COMPULSORY here in the UK to have the RTP displayed, and also it is COMPULSORY to say whether the game is random or compensated. Players in such juristictions ARE being mislead.

3) In the B&M industry, operators are under no obligation (in practically every jurisdiction) to notify players when an RTP setting is altered.

VWM: In the UK, it's the players responsibilty to "read the label" on the game they are about to play, and it is the operator's responsibilty to make sure the label is correct. The newer UK video slots have the RTP displayed by the software, so it always reflects the setting used.

All due respect to the Brits, but your jurisdiction is hardly reflective of the dozens of other regulated jurisdictions aroud the world, including the majority of the U.S. and Australia.

When U.S. regulators develop internet regulation, which will inevitably happen, they will reference U.S. regulatory regimes that currently exist, not U.K. ones.

It is highly unlikely this will include:
a) No RTP variant options for operators
b) An inability to switch between same, periodically and without notification
c) Display of RTP in oeration

Display of RTP will likely be optional, and used by operators for marketing purposes, not due to regulatory guidelines.

4) The RTP settings available on RTG products are all higher than most B&M jurisdictions.

VWM: Wrong. Some RTG products can be set below 90% (refer to "secret pages" now removed from RTG website). If used, these settings would be LOWER than the 90% used here in the UK for similar slot games.

Wrong? Lol, I think I know more than yourself VWM.

Refer to the "secret pages"? (note to all concerned that the so-called "secret pages" that VWM constantly refers to are pages that were previously supplied for operator and affiliate use, until such time as they were selectively misrepresented).

The only on-line RTP variants available are 91%, 95%, 97.5%, and as KK accurately pointed out, for several progressives a solitary 94% (no 91% is available in those instances).

5) By your own notation, only "some" of the RTG operators make use of RTP variants, many do not. And yet these operators, some of whom advertise that they only run 95% RTP games, are rubbished by your assertions that RTG as a system, by allowing RTP variants, is somehow not above board.

VWM: Only some, yes, but the actions of some tarnish the reputations of ALL, because of the SECRECY surrounding this. If this is all "above board", what's with the SECRECY?

It's hardly a secret that operators can select different RTP variants for use, now is it?
And again, it's reflective of the majority of B&M jurisdictional regulation.

6) Use of a variable RTP setting WILL be part of any on-line regulatory system introduced by US authorities. If it's part of their B&M regulatory system, which it is, it WILL be replicated.

VWM: Even if so, the fact that it is laid out in the regulations means that players will KNOW that the rules allow this. Currently, the rules say NOTHING about whether RTG changes are allowed or not. Players therefore have to go by experience and advertising.

Lol, so let me get this right?

Educated players already know that RTG (and others) have operator-selectable RTP.
And uneducated players aren't going to read up on regulations.

And yet if you have a regulator say: "It's okay to use different RTP variants", and RTG therefore goes on using exactly the same system that it currently uses, this would now be okay in your eyes?

Now that's funny!

Woooof

 

[all4greed]

DogBoy001 - Do you design the software for the games? I know you have something to do with RTG but don't recall what exactly. Please refresh my memory.

 

[DogBoy001]

DogBoy001 - Do you design the software for the games? I know you have something to do with RTG but don't recall what exactly. Please refresh my memory.

Heya,

Yep, our company produces the reel series games.

On-line these are licensed to RTG, while B&M some are licensed to traditional manufacturers (Bally has a dozen in the field, while over 50 are licensed to an Australian group called Voyager).

In both instances the platform provider integrates the games into the final software package, which are then further QA'd by ourselves.

Woooof

 

[takethemoney]

Casinos need to understand that perception is reality for the players. If they believe they are getting screwed...guess what? They are. The RTG image is suffering today, but there are reasons outside of the RTP. The global (and personal) economies dictate that there are less dollars available for gambling. Couple that with regulations making it more difficult to do business in the USA and you have a bad situation for all involved. The casinos are not making the money they are used to and the players are not winning as much as they are used to. I believe everyone suffers under these conditions. The end result is that the casinos have to adjust to meet their payrolls, bills, etc., as do the players. The bottom line is that nobody is winning right now, overall. I'm just trying to look at the business perspective. As consumers we don't need to gamble and the casinos need us to gamble. Tough deal all around.

 

[4 of a kind]

deleted

 

[DogBoy001]

Dogboy001,

Since you know all about RTG software, could you please confirm or deny if the casino owners have access to a "Super User" software account?

If they do what is the purpose of this personal access the software provider gave only to the owners which require a personalized special key to activate?

Other then casino financial information that should of course be personal, what type of access do they have to the games in real time?

Could you please explain in detail the different options given to the owners involving every game listed on their casino?

4OK, you've posted similar fishing missions in the past, and again I will only divulge information relating to technical corrections, including correcting misinformation about RTP settings.

Woooof

 

[RedAndi]

4OK, you've posted similar fishing missions in the past, and again I will only divulge information relating to technical corrections, including correcting misinformation about RTP settings.

Woooof

Is what he asked for something that the public should not know?

Just asking, to me it does not seem like knowing these things would enable the average joe (aka me) any info that would somehow give special advantages.

 

[4 of a kind]

deleted

 

[4 of a kind]

deleted

 

[Lucky Loser]

All I want to know is there an RTG casino that sets their slots at 97.5% ?

I assume not. But if anybody knows please tell.

 

[Nifty29]

Welcome back 4OAK. It's good to know those RTG goons didn't track you down after all.

What's with all the deleted posts?

 

[vinylweatherman]

"Wooof yourself...... GOTCHA!"?

Your credibility is sinking VWM, and I'm just wondering what your actual agenda is?

I refer you to this page on the forums:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/accredited-rtgs-with-differing-rtps.36153/

5th February, 2010 by KasinoKing at 10.33am
You replied 45 minutes later.

His post clearly indicates the 91% RTP variant (which I confirmed, though pointing out an erroneous single entry listing 86%), and you are well aware that it exists, and has been public knowledge for some time.

Woooof

Not if I plug the leak

My "wooof yourself" comment was based upon your initial position regarding the "2 pear" setting, which was:-

There is 1 variation of the 3 (though I can't disclose which) that has the following reel strip order:

Pos.: Reel 2
1 Pear
2 Balloons
3 Ticket
4 "Frenzy"
... (skipped listing the middle section)
37 Balloons
38 Plum
39 Banana
40 Pear

That was 2nd September 2009.

The "GOTCHA" refers to your inabilty to resist saying what in September last you were not allowed to, namely:-

Your highlighting of Fruit Frenzy is not a case of a 95% RTP game being switched to a 60% RTP setting. It is an operator electing to change from a 95% RTP setting to a 91% RTP setting, which is a business decision they are entitled to make, and is a double-edged sword.

Too much eggnog over the festive break perhaps


I also recall (and would quote if I could find it), you telling us that the lower setting of 91% was designed for booth operators, rather than online.

So, why doesn't RTG ENFORCE this, or was this just a load of bullshite to throw players off course.

We certainly didn't believe the "2 pear" setting was 97.5%, yet the alternative didn't even exist on those pages from the RTG site, and we also had the statement that the intent of the 91% setting was for booth versions, which had additional running costs.


What this HAS revealed is that all the players who have been thinking that SOME RTG casinos have "tightened the slots recently" are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! It is NOT just a "conspiracy theory".


As for:-

Wrong? Lol, I think I know more than yourself VWM.

Refer to the "secret pages"? (note to all concerned that the so-called "secret pages" that VWM constantly refers to are pages that were previously supplied for operator and affiliate use, until such time as they were selectively misrepresented).

The only on-line RTP variants available are 91%, 95%, 97.5%, and as KK accurately pointed out, for several progressives a solitary 94% (no 91% is available in those instances).

The main reason they got "misrepresented" was because of the MISPRINTS on some of them, which coupled with the fact that this information was INTENTIONALLY hidden from the view of players, had us players BELIEVING these misprints, and that settings below 91% WERE available.

Had RTP corrected the misprints, and released the correct version of the pages more visibly (after all, the secret was out anyway). We would all have accepted that there were really only the three settings available of 91%, 95%, and 97.5%.

The problem is that the ability to change settings leads to MISLEADING MARKETING. This is where operators openly advertise a bonus that is better than that on another RTG site, yet is in fact a WORSE offer because they have lowered the games to 91% to compensate.

Whilst Wagerworks also have RTP differences between operators, they are OPEN about it, rather than being SECRETIVE like RTG. If a player is interested in the RTP at a specific operator, it is in the help pages for the game - not so with RTG.

Online, it is about TRUST, and when this trust is broken repeatedly, or is taken advantage of, it diminishes. With RTG, players are going to believe the WORST when any controvesy ocurrs. If RTG has a page showing a game setting of 86%, players will believe it to be a "dark truth", rather than a misprint.

RTG need to "come clean", and reveal the TRUTH about ALL aspects of it's software that affect players' gaming experience. They need to do this in such a way that it explains all the "oddities" that players experience.

Operators should not LIE about something just because they don't see how it could ever be checked.

A position of "no comment" is almost as bad. If an operator avoids lying by just not saying anything about overall RTP, nor publishing past monthly payout figures, players will assume this is because they are running closer to the lower 91% settings, but don't want to reveal this, nor claim 95% and risk getting caught out.

Lol, so let me get this right?

Educated players already know that RTG (and others) have operator-selectable RTP.
And uneducated players aren't going to read up on regulations.

And yet if you have a regulator say: "It's okay to use different RTP variants", and RTG therefore goes on using exactly the same system that it currently uses, this would now be okay in your eyes?

Now that's funny!

Woooof

It wouldn't be an ideal situation, but at least the fact that this happens will be laid out in regulations, and presumably it's use REGULATED.
Currently, although we know this happens, HOW this feature is used is UNREGULATED.
I would also presume that operators using a lower setting would NOT be allowed to market with misleading statements about their payouts being higher than they are.


4 of a kind asked:-

Since you know all about RTG software, could you please confirm or deny if the casino owners have access to a "Super User" software account?

If they do what is the purpose of this personal access the software provider gave only to the owners which require a personalized special key to activate?

Other then casino financial information that should of course be personal, what type of access do they have to the games in real time?

Could you please explain in detail the different options given to the owners involving every game listed on their casino?

you replied:-

and again I will only divulge information relating to technical corrections, including correcting misinformation about RTP settings.

However, this information has ALREADY been released.

The answer is YES, there IS a kind of "super user" console, and it is the ONLY console that has access to the RTP settings, and these can ONLY be changed if RTG gives the go-ahead.

This came up when asking about HOW the process works when an operator wants to change settings.

The original position was that operators had to put in a request to RTG, who would implement the changes if agreed. It was also stated that only one change per 6 month period would be approved.
It was also categorically stated that operators were NOT able to repeatedly mess with settings on a day by day basis.

Trust was dented when it was later revealed that RTG themselves did NOT actually implement the changes, but gave permission for them to be done by the operator from this specific "super user console".

The question was then raised as to how RTG could ENFORCE this rule, and what was in place to stop a corrupt OWNER from abusing the "super user" console and making changes WITHOUT permission from RTG.

At this point, RTG sources crept back into the woodwork, and the question remains unanswered. WE interpret this to mean "nothing is there to stop this happening, it's all based on trust".

Unfortunately, the lack of vetting of operators by RTG has sometimes backfired. Look at all those "insider revelations" made by CasinoJack a while back. He worked for an operator, and had considerable levels of access to the RTG "back end". He even offered to give personal tours of it! Despite being mostly bullshit, his "revelations" carried a degree of credibility by virtue of his levels of access to the systems.
He promised to change slots to 97.5% "on demand", and later claimed this had been done. This blew a hole in the official story that only RTG could approve this, and only every 6 months.
Before this we had Phynqster, who claimed that it was routine to boot players off when they were winning, and drop the RTP of the games they were "hot" on down to the lowest setting, and then pretend it was an "internet glitch" that lead to their session being dropped.

This thread has answered two questions.

1) What was the "2 pear" setting on Fruit Frenzy?

91%

2) Do operators actually use this setting online?

YES. Some do, others don't.

 

[petro]

Hey, here is my contribution to this thread.
I don't know much about RTGs slots. But I do know a great deal about their video poker and the casinos have a choice of 3 paytables for it. Giving them a low/medium/high payout % choice.
Someone (dogboy I think) mentioned that they have 3 choices of tables for their slots as well.
This matches what I know about their VP and is probably correct information.

 

[KasinoKing]

Someone (dogboy I think) mentioned that they have 3 choices of tables for their slots as well.
This matches what I know about their VP and is probably correct information.

It definitely is.
For a list of the %'s for most (not all) of the Real Series Slots (taken from RTG's own publications before they were withdrawn from the net) see the table on this page:

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

KK

 

[4 of a kind]

Unfortunately, the lack of vetting of operators by RTG has sometimes backfired. Look at all those "insider revelations" made by CasinoJack a while back. He worked for an operator, and had considerable levels of access to the RTG "back end". He even offered to give personal tours of it! Despite being mostly bullshit, his "revelations" carried a degree of credibility by virtue of his levels of access to the systems.

I can't say for certain the amount of access CasinoJack actually had to the software, never once speaking to him personally other then trashing him in a few old threads. He may know about it and be able to request RTP changes for promotional incentives, but I doubt very much he ever had access to it or even knows its full potential.

Personally I think CasinoJack was always talking out of his ass.

I am however confident that no owner would ever give their personalized key information which gives access to the "super user" version of the software to anyone.

 

[4 of a kind]

Welcome back 4OAK. It's good to know those RTG goons didn't track you down after all.

What's with all the deleted posts?

I posted a screen shot of one of the pages of the "super user" account, just to confirm to all that it does exist.

I was then asked to remove it and not from anyone here.

 

[petro]

It definitely is.
For a list of the %'s for most (not all) of the Real Series Slots (taken from RTG's own publications before they were withdrawn from the net) see the table on this page:

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

KK

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me that RTG wanted them removed. They don't want their players to know the true payout %.

 

[aceking123]

hi WB 4oak )

 

[vinylweatherman]

It definitely is.
For a list of the %'s for most (not all) of the Real Series Slots (taken from RTG's own publications before they were withdrawn from the net) see the table on this page:

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

KK

Better add 91% for Fruit Frenzy, now that DogBoy has confirmed it

Other parts are also outdated. Many "classic" slots have been long removed, Frozen Assets for example - long gone.

I can't say for certain the amount of access CasinoJack actually had to the software, never once speaking to him personally other then trashing him in a few old threads. He may know about it and be able to request RTP changes for promotional incentives, but I doubt very much he ever had access to it or even knows its full potential.

Personally I think CasinoJack was always talking out of his ass.

I am however confident that no owner would ever give their personalized key information which gives access to the "super user" version of the software to anyone.

I met him in London last January, and he immediately gave me the "whisper in the ear" about even MORE dodgy goings on at RTG. I did begin to think he had is ASS next to my ear at this point

I posted a screen shot of one of the pages of the "super user" account, just to confirm to all that it does exist.

I was then asked to remove it and not from anyone here.

THIS is what confirmed the existence of this "super user" console, and RTG lackeys would hardly demand removal of something that was NOT theirs.

I doubt the "super user" console is really so "sinister", as I am sure different levels of access apply for ALL casino "back end" applications. For example, personal data of players would not be available to ALL members of staff, and when I have spoken to front line CS at many MGS casinos, they have told me that their access is limited, and some queries have to be resolved by staff with greater levels of access.

The problem with RTG is that this "super user" account can access and change the RTP settings, yet we are told that this has to be done "through RTG", rather than by the operators. This would surely mean that the "super user" console would be at RTG HQ, yet it is not

The OTHER main problem with RTG is that they set up CDS, yet chose to give it NO POWERS of ENFORCEMENT. This means that rogue operators can just ignore CDS if they don't like the outcome, and carry on being rogue with no fear of their licence being "yanked" by RTG, nor by the non existent "Costa Rican Gambling Commission".

We are being asked to trust a software brand, some of who's operators have repeatedly screwed players.

Whilst players should do their "due dilligence" when confronted with the marketing of incentives, they are not allowed some of the information needed to do so properly.

 

[DogBoy001]

My "wooof yourself" comment was based upon your initial position regarding the "2 pear" setting, which was:-

That was 2nd September 2009.

The "GOTCHA" refers to your inabilty to resist saying what in September last you were not allowed to, namely:-

Too much eggnog over the festive break perhaps

Sep 2009 did not leave me at liberty to disclose anything regarding the RTP settings in use, but by Feb 2010 (which, in case you again choose not to realise, is AFTER Sep 2009) the 91% RTP variants were public knowledge.

Too much eggnog? It is pitiful that you obviously cannot argue a case without resorting to slights, and yes, I do pity you and hope you eventually learn how to debate without recourse to such.

I also recall (and would quote if I could find it), you telling us that the lower setting of 91% was designed for booth operators, rather than online.

Please find it, if it exists.

We certainly didn't believe the "2 pear" setting was 97.5%, yet the alternative didn't even exist on those pages from the RTG site

So your believing the "secret pages" (which were publicly available...not sure how "secret" that makes them), but disbelieving the fact that the games have 91% RTP variants?

You are aware that the 91% RTP variants exist, and yet base your accusation on "oh, it must either be 95% or 97.5%, because my "secret pages" say that's what is available...how could my "secret pages" be wrong?"

Whilst Wagerworks also have RTP differences between operators, they are OPEN about it, rather than being SECRETIVE like RTG. If a player is interested in the RTP at a specific operator, it is in the help pages for the game - not so with RTG.

And yet you fail to believe the accredited RTG operators that state the percentage that they use, namely those that state they only use 95% versions?

So you believe accredited Wagerworks and disbelieve accredited RTG?
Doesn't sound like you hold much faith in the accreditation process.

Despite being mostly bullshit, his "revelations" carried a degree of credibility by virtue of his levels of access to the systems.
He promised to change slots to 97.5% "on demand", and later claimed this had been done. This blew a hole in the official story that only RTG could approve this, and only every 6 months.

And again I marvel at the selective nature of what you believe and do not believe.
On one hand you say that most of what was verballed was bullshit, but on the other you say that the claims that slots had been on-the-fly changed to a higher setting are gospel, and claim that this shows the official position is a lie?

Again it comes down to your position being one of selectively choosing pieces of information that support your position while discarding anything that is contrary.

Woooof

 

[vinylweatherman]

Sep 2009 did not leave me at liberty to disclose anything regarding the RTP settings in use, but by Feb 2010 (which, in case you again choose not to realise, is AFTER Sep 2009) the 91% RTP variants were public knowledge.

Too much eggnog? It is pitiful that you obviously cannot argue a case without resorting to slights, and yes, I do pity you and hope you eventually learn how to debate without recourse to such.



Please find it, if it exists.



So your believing the "secret pages" (which were publicly available...not sure how "secret" that makes them), but disbelieving the fact that the games have 91% RTP variants?

You are aware that the 91% RTP variants exist, and yet base your accusation on "oh, it must either be 95% or 97.5%, because my "secret pages" say that's what is available...how could my "secret pages" be wrong?"



And yet you fail to believe the accredited RTG operators that state the percentage that they use, namely those that state they only use 95% versions?

So you believe accredited Wagerworks and disbelieve accredited RTG?
Doesn't sound like you hold much faith in the accreditation process.



And again I marvel at the selective nature of what you believe and do not believe.
On one hand you say that most of what was verballed was bullshit, but on the other you say that the claims that slots had been on-the-fly changed to a higher setting are gospel, and claim that this shows the official position is a lie?

Again it comes down to your position being one of selectively choosing pieces of information that support your position while discarding anything that is contrary.

Woooof

You are also twisting MY words, just as you say I am twisting YOURS.

Sep 2009 did not leave me at liberty to disclose anything regarding the RTP settings in use, but by Feb 2010 (which, in case you again choose not to realise, is AFTER Sep 2009) the 91% RTP variants were public knowledge.

These settings were public knowledge long before September 2009, you were just not at liberty to CONFIRM what we already know. Come Feb 2010 and later, you ARE now seemingly at liberty to confirm this.

Clearly, the reason you were not at liberty to say anything about this was BECAUSE this was "secret information" as far as RTG were concerned.

So your believing the "secret pages" (which were publicly available...not sure how "secret" that makes them), but disbelieving the fact that the games have 91% RTP variants?

You are aware that the 91% RTP variants exist, and yet base your accusation on "oh, it must either be 95% or 97.5%, because my "secret pages" say that's what is available...how could my "secret pages" be wrong?"

A reasonable assumption, given that this information was published by RTG THEMSELVES, not by a "third party source".

So, you are saying that we should NOT take as "gospel" anthing RTG themselves say, or publish.

I initially said it "must be 95% or 97.5% because I didn't believe even RTG would stoop so low as to hide this 91% setting even from the restricted audience it was intended for.

So what ELSE has been said or published by RTG that is NOT correct, and that we should NOT "take as gospel"

And yet you fail to believe the accredited RTG operators that state the percentage that they use, namely those that state they only use 95% versions?

Wrong, I ONLY believe those accredited RTG casinos who are prepared to state categorically that they are using the 95% settings. This is NOT because I trust RTG in general, but because I trust that when Bryan and an operator have gone to all this trouble to get accreditation, an operator would be silly to blow all this away by lying about what RTP setting it was using.
At worst, I would expect a refusal to say, which would NOT be lying, and would leave us free to come to our own conclusions, even if they were wrong.

And again I marvel at the selective nature of what you believe and do not believe.
On one hand you say that most of what was verballed was bullshit, but on the other you say that the claims that slots had been on-the-fly changed to a higher setting are gospel, and claim that this shows the official position is a lie?

When the "bullshit" comes from the mouth of an OPERATOR, it carries considerable weight, after all, RTG don't let just ANYONE use their software do they, they do a process of "due dilligence" surely, and will ensure that the operators are legit. Therefore, when casinojack comes on here offering to change the RTP settings on request, and next day comes back and says "done it - any more requests", we start to believe he really CAN do this. This was a new operator, no history rogue or otherwise to go on, so we had to take it on trust that he was "good to go" as far as RTG were concerned, and that this was all being done in the name of marketing, and in order to "befriend" a player base of casinomeister members.

It was only when casinojack became over confident, and starting making ever more unlikely claims, that his credibilty started to sag. He started inviting anyone who was interested a tour of the "back end", where he would demonstrate how he could change settings on the fly. This went on for quite a while, and without a whimper of protest from RTG. It was ONLY when a photograph of a "super user console" was passed to a member here, and subsequently posted, that RTG started to take an interest, but ONLY so far as to BURY, rather than EXPLAIN, what was REALLY going on.

So your believing the "secret pages" (which were publicly available...not sure how "secret" that makes them)

Only by ACCIDENT. Despite supposedly being "publicly available", RTG would NOT disclose this to "the public", even when asked. YOU were not even at liberty back in September 2009 to disclose what was supposedly "publicly available".

Now that RTG realise these pages really WERE "publicly available" they acted fast to make them SECRET once again, which is what they always intended - operators and affiliates, NOT for the eyes of PLAYERS, who were the ones actually SPENDING MONEY on the games.

No other mainstream software vendor has been "outed" as often as RTG, probably because they have not HIDDEN anything like as much, and take a GREATER interest in the behaviour of the operators using the software, lest they bring the brand into disrepute.

The fact that so many OPERATORS have been the ones spewing out the misinformation shows that RTG are NOT in control of the situation.

I bet if a Microgaming operator came here, and started telling players they would alter the RTP on various games on request, Microgaming would be down on them like a ton of bricks, because such promises would damage the credibilty of the brand, even though they are wrong. RTG on the other hand, didn't see this type of marketing as a problem until things REALLY got out of hand, and they feared that very sensitive information was possibly being leaked by a rogue operator.

RTG should consider what some of these "sources" have been "disclosing" about RTG OFF the public forum, especially if they are both provable, and contrary to the official PR.

WRONG information, but from a CREDIBLE source, tends to get believed until PROVEN to be wrong. CORRECT information, but from an unreliable source, often gets treated with a degree of scepticism until PROVEN to be correct.

The situation with RTG is that many players think they are STILL hiding something "bad", and will ONLY start to talk about it if it "leaks out" into general public knowledge.

In fact, we have probably got EVERYTHING bar the actual reelstrip layouts for each variant, and there is nothing substantive left to be revealed. The problem is getting players to BELIEVE this after they have had a "bad run" on the software, and are convinced they have been screwed over by another, yet to be revealed, trick.


Microgaming took the position that their RTP was set in stone, and was of the order of 95%. Did players tust this, hell NO! a few years ago a group got together and analysed the reelstrips of a number of slots. This went on to PROVE that MGS were indeed telling the truth. NO amount of further looking has found ANY evidence that RTP settings vary between different MGS casinos. This will NEVER bring an end to the looking though, but as years go by, and nothing new is found, most players will TRUST this "truth".

No doubt, these recent discussions will trigger an effort to gather the reelstrops of a selection of RTG slots, and analyse them for evidence that the official line is wrong. For a SIMPLE slot, one with NO "probability pick tables", it should be possible to calculate an EXACT RTP from the reelstrips, and any result OTHER than one of the 3 settings is going to ignite one HELL of a debate.

 

[petro]

...problem with RTG is that they set up CDS, yet chose to give it NO POWERS of ENFORCEMENT...

Loosely quoting CDS: "Sorry, we can only ask the casino to do the right thing. Anything else is beyond our power."

CDS is a joke.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Loosely quoting CDS: "Sorry, we can only ask the casino to do the right thing. Anything else is beyond our power."

CDS is a joke.

This is the problem. One thing RTG CAN do is SHUT THEM DOWN for failing to comply with a ruling from CDS.

This is what happens even with the Kahnawake. When the Kahnawake decide that an operator was in the wrong, and has to pay the player, they can shut them down if they don't comply - and this is a big enough "stick" to ensure that they DO.

I bet if RTG shut down operators who failed to abide by CDS, there would be almost NO cases of operators NOT complying with a CDS determination.

Kahnawake recently went way ahead in my estimation when they told Casino Rewards to pay a player half his winnings because the term he breached was "too well buried" in the website. They were also told to restructure the site to make the rule clearer, and they had to, or else end up paying more players "half their winnings".

How many RTG casinos are licensed by Kahnawake?

 

[footdr]

RTG's-All of them-sudden low payout

I have found RTG's to have very low payout for over 1 month now. My deposits gone way to fast.

I have stopped playing all of them. I have been very very lucky at all English Harbour Casino Group Casinos. Today I won another 6K at superslots flash on Beat the Bank, pick a safe, bonus round. Awesome.

 

[DogBoy001]

In fact, we have probably got EVERYTHING bar the actual reelstrip layouts for each variant, and there is nothing substantive left to be revealed. The problem is getting players to BELIEVE this after they have had a "bad run" on the software, and are convinced they have been screwed over by another, yet to be revealed, trick.

And once again I say "players will believe what they want to believe".

Microgaming took the position that their RTP was set in stone, and was of the order of 95%. Did players tust this, hell NO! a few years ago a group got together and analysed the reelstrips of a number of slots. This went on to PROVE that MGS were indeed telling the truth. NO amount of further looking has found ANY evidence that RTP settings vary between different MGS casinos. This will NEVER bring an end to the looking though, but as years go by, and nothing new is found, most players will TRUST this "truth".

No doubt, these recent discussions will trigger an effort to gather the reelstrops of a selection of RTG slots, and analyse them for evidence that the official line is wrong. For a SIMPLE slot, one with NO "probability pick tables", it should be possible to calculate an EXACT RTP from the reelstrips, and any result OTHER than one of the 3 settings is going to ignite one HELL of a debate.

I suggest you start analysing then!

My only question is what happens to the pet theories once the reel strips verify the RTP?

Woooof

 

[deucebag]

So your believing the "secret pages" (which were publicly available...not sure how "secret" that makes them), but disbelieving the fact that the games have 91% RTP variants?

You are aware that the 91% RTP variants exist, and yet base your accusation on "

I looked at those pages at realtimegaming.com when they were available. Most of the real series video slots were said to have three settings, but several, among them Fruit Frenzy, had only 95% and 97.5% listed as possible settings.

 

[silcnlayc]

DogBoy001: And once again I say "players will believe what they want to believe".

Players will believe first hand experience over any theory, or people coming out saying "nothing has changed" . I mean...you have proof at the local level (your play for many years) vs a person saying ta ta...all is good..I mean, who would you believe??

I know I believe what I have seen , experienced and felt for the last few years..even without being told and forcefed the "all is good" mantra....People do not believe WHAT they want to, they believe WHAT is happening...the odd happenings, the not normal happenings...the extreme changes...

Dogboy: Someone puts out an unfounded assertion as "fact", and it is instantly accepted as such

Aren't you doing exactly that by claiming nothing has changed and we should believe this even when our play has become different?

Dogboy: If the game uses a probability schedule in awarding, for example, bonus prizes, this may be adjusted.

I guess that means change?

If things have not changed then prove it. You can't, just as we cannot prove they have except for hands on experience that is not the same ...and I will take hands on experience over anyones word of "all is good" anyday.

I swore I would not reply in this thread but it seems as if you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth also IMO..Adjusting is just another word for changing unless I am misreading the meaning of the words....And you say in one breath nothing has changed and in another adjustments can and are made...so , what is it? I will sit back now..and the floor is all yours..I do not want to run you off again as some have accused before, because there are many that do enjoy your input...so I will take my leave and let you at it.


.