Question RTP - A new thought......I know it getting boring now but bear with me

Mouse75

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Location
Southport
As far as i can see - almost all the blame for lowering RTP, we are understandably pointing at the casinos themselves. But is this completely fair?

Does anyone know categorically how slot providers are paid?
Do they get a cut of profits - or a flat rate per spin?

If its the first - then it is in THIER interests as a profit making organisation to encourage lower RTP's - maybe the ire should be directed at Play N Go?

If it is the second - then they can still push for it - by offering more favourable business terms is the casino hosts the lower RTP.

In light of the 21Casino group very quick reversal on this - maybe it is something to be considered?

Just a thought.........
 

bamberfishcake

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
Its both - Casino and Provider.

There are some amazing providers who offer just one RTP:

Relax Gaming and pretty much all of the 3rd party studios that run through their platform.
Yggdrasil
Push Gaming
BTG
Blueprint

To name a few.

Relax recently came out and said they do not believe in offering variable RTP's.

As a player, just snub PlaynGo and Pragmatic as I am afraid both those providers are dragging the market down for the player and increasing profits for themselves and the casino.

Snub any provider who offers lower and try and stay away from casinos that do the same.

You know it makes sense ;)
 

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 22, 2013
Location
Cumbria
As far as i can see - almost all the blame for lowering RTP, we are understandably pointing at the casinos themselves. But is this completely fair?

Does anyone know categorically how slot providers are paid?
Do they get a cut of profits - or a flat rate per spin?

If its the first - then it is in THIER interests as a profit making organisation to encourage lower RTP's - maybe the ire should be directed at Play N Go?

If it is the second - then they can still push for it - by offering more favourable business terms is the casino hosts the lower RTP.

In light of the 21Casino group very quick reversal on this - maybe it is something to be considered?

Just a thought.........
Won't affiliates also make more money, ultimately?
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
Kind of, but mostly yes.
More money lost = more money to affiliates.

If everyone is just losing the same amount, but quicker, it wont change their total.
But its more than likely that people are spending more money to make up for the lost playtime, meaning affiliates make more monies.
Basically, if a change is bad for the player, its probably good for the affiliate.


ggg.gif - Random streamer
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
As far as i can see - almost all the blame for lowering RTP, we are understandably pointing at the casinos themselves. But is this completely fair?

Does anyone know categorically how slot providers are paid?
Do they get a cut of profits - or a flat rate per spin?

If its the first - then it is in THIER interests as a profit making organisation to encourage lower RTP's - maybe the ire should be directed at Play N Go?

If it is the second - then they can still push for it - by offering more favourable business terms is the casino hosts the lower RTP.

In light of the 21Casino group very quick reversal on this - maybe it is something to be considered?

Just a thought.........
I think some people are missing the point on the RTP thing.

If you deposited £100 and played £1 spins on a 96% RTP game, on average you would get 2,475 spins before your balance dropped below £1.
If the RTP was 94%, you would get 1,650 spins
And if it was 92% you would only get 1,238 spins before busting out.

Now in all 3 cases - you lose £100, the casino makes £100 and the provider gets the same share of the profit.
The ONLY difference with the lower RTP, is that you get a lot less spins for your money :mad:

In my opinion, lowering the RTPs will ultimately make the casinos and providers LESS profits, because people don't like paying the same as before for less "product".

KK
(Pretty sure my maths is right, but happy to be corrected!)
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
More money lost = more money to affiliates.

If everyone is just losing the same amount, but quicker, it wont change their total.
But its more than likely that people are spending more money to make up for the lost playtime, meaning affiliates make more monies.
Basically, if a change is bad for the player, its probably good for the affiliate.
I completely disagree.
Re my post above; as an affiliate myself, I want the casinos to run their games on the highest available RTP setting.
IMHO lowering the RTPs is bad for EVERYONE in the long run.

KK
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
I think some people are missing the point on the RTP thing.

If you deposited £100 and played £1 spins on a 96% RTP game, on average you would get 2,475 spins before your balance dropped below £1.
If the RTP was 94%, you would get 1,650 spins
And if it was 92% you would only get 1,238 spins before busting out.

Now in all 3 cases - you lose £100, the casino makes £100 and the provider gets the same share of the profit.
The ONLY difference with the lower RTP, is that you get a lot less spins for your money :mad:

In my opinion, lowering the RTPs will ultimately make the casinos and providers LESS profits, because people don't like paying the same as before for less "product".

KK
(Pretty sure my maths is right, but happy to be corrected!)
100% correct- the house edge doubles from 4 to 8%, your play time halves. Therefore your chance of having that big-win spin halves.
 

bamberfishcake

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
So the people who are used to a certain play-time will probably deposit more.

And people new to slots will get a worse experience.

Agree its bad on the whole for the industry.
 

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 22, 2013
Location
Cumbria
I think some people are missing the point on the RTP thing.

If you deposited £100 and played £1 spins on a 96% RTP game, on average you would get 2,475 spins before your balance dropped below £1.
If the RTP was 94%, you would get 1,650 spins
And if it was 92% you would only get 1,238 spins before busting out.

Now in all 3 cases - you lose £100, the casino makes £100 and the provider gets the same share of the profit.
The ONLY difference with the lower RTP, is that you get a lot less spins for your money :mad:

In my opinion, lowering the RTPs will ultimately make the casinos and providers LESS profits, because people don't like paying the same as before for less "product".

KK
(Pretty sure my maths is right, but happy to be corrected!)
That's assuming zero variance. So every player deposits and plays to zero, without making any profit.
Since games don't run at zero variance, that argument can only be applied to the whole player base, not the individual player.

Overall, with a little variance (to keep it simple) some players are going to make a profit and withdraw, and some (most) are going to lose.
In order for the casino to make £100 at 96% they need deposits of £100 from 25 players to get their 4%

If those same 25 players deposit £100 and play at 94% RTP, the casino will make £150 rather than just £100

Then. If those same 25 players deposit £100 and play at 92% RTP, the casino will make £200 rather than just £100.
That's twice as much profit from the same deposits.

Obviously, this is simplified in every way. Since casinos have thousands and thousands of players and games have a range of variance.
But if you scale it up to 'real world' levels, the casinos with 92% RTP will make DOUBLE the profit from those games, compared to running them at 96%.

So aren't the affiliates, as a whole, going to get more?
 

Gaz237

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
May 8, 2014
Location
chelmsford UK
That's assuming zero variance. So every player deposits and plays to zero, without making any profit.
Since games don't run at zero variance, that argument can only be applied to the whole player base, not the individual player.

Overall, with a little variance (to keep it simple) some players are going to make a profit and withdraw, and some (most) are going to lose.
In order for the casino to make £100 at 96% they need deposits of £100 from 25 players to get their 4%

If those same 25 players deposit £100 and play at 94% RTP, the casino will make £150 rather than just £100

Then. If those same 25 players deposit £100 and play at 92% RTP, the casino will make £200 rather than just £100.
That's twice as much profit from the same deposits.

Obviously, this is simplified in every way. Since casinos have thousands and thousands of players and games have a range of variance.
But if you scale it up to 'real world' levels, the casinos with 92% RTP will make DOUBLE the profit from those games, compared to running them at 96%.

So aren't the affiliates, as a whole, going to get more?

I thought most affiliates were paid from deposit and losses (or a one off fee), so unless their player deposits more, affiliate earnings will not change with a lower RTP?.

Unless i'm missing something, what profit the Casino makes has no bearing on affiliate payments.
 

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 22, 2013
Location
Cumbria
I thought most affiliates were paid from deposit and losses (or a one off fee), so unless their player deposits more, affiliate earnings will not change with a lower RTP?.

Unless i'm missing something, what profit the Casino makes has no bearing on affiliate payments.
AFAIK some deals are a one-off payment but the majority are based on losses, losses over the lifetime of the player's account.

But aren't casino profits the same thing as players' losses?
If the casinos are making more profits, then the players are obviously losing more./ withdrawing less / withdrawing less often.
If the affiliate gets a set percentage of those loses. Then that amount will rise.
Maybe not so noticeable to the individual affiliate, but will be for affiliates, as a whole

Although that doesn't necessarily mean it's good news for affiliates.
Affilates with long-standing player accounts, which have generated their income, month after month, may change to playing at a different casino,. Through a different affiliate, or even through no affiliate at all. If they are losing more money, more often, because of lower RTP> or maybe even give up playing completely.
 

colinsunderland

On a Break
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
AFAIK some deals are a one-off payment but the majority are based on losses, losses over the lifetime of the player's account.

But aren't casino profits the same thing as players' losses?
If the casinos are making more profits, then the players are obviously losing more./ withdrawing less / withdrawing less often.
If the affiliate gets a set percentage of those loses. Then that amount will rise.
Maybe not so noticeable to the individual affiliate, but will be for affiliates, as a whole

Although that doesn't necessarily mean it's good news for affiliates.
Affilates with long-standing player accounts, which have generated their income, month after month, may change to playing at a different casino,. Through a different affiliate, or even through no affiliate at all. If they are losing more money, more often, because of lower RTP> or maybe even give up playing completely.

Profits/player losses aren't the same, although similar, and most affiliates wouldn't see a difference.
If someone loses £100 a month playing 96% RTP games and someone else loses £100 a month playing 91% games, the affiliate income will be almost identical. Even with 1000's of active players, I doubt you would see an increase in earnings that were noticeable, if at all.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
Profits/player losses aren't the same, although similar, and most affiliates wouldn't see a difference.
If someone loses £100 a month playing 96% RTP games and someone else loses £100 a month playing 91% games, the affiliate income will be almost identical. Even with 1000's of active players, I doubt you would see an increase in earnings that were noticeable, if at all.
Wouldnt it be fair to assume that a % of the players will increase their deposits to make up for lost playtime due to low rtp, and in turn increasing the profits for affiliates.
 

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 22, 2013
Location
Cumbria
Profits/player losses aren't the same, although similar, and most affiliates wouldn't see a difference.
If someone loses £100 a month playing 96% RTP games and someone else loses £100 a month playing 91% games, the affiliate income will be almost identical. Even with 1000's of active players, I doubt you would see an increase in earnings that were noticeable, if at all.
If a player is depositing £100 a month, and maybe getting to a stage they will make a withdrawal every 3rd month (on average) playing at 96%.
But only manages to withdraw every 6th month playing at 92%. Won't that increase the affiliate's earnings for the year?
£800 in lost deposits vs £1000
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
That's assuming zero variance. So every player deposits and plays to zero, without making any profit.
Since games don't run at zero variance, that argument can only be applied to the whole player base, not the individual player.

Overall, with a little variance (to keep it simple) some players are going to make a profit and withdraw, and some (most) are going to lose.
In order for the casino to make £100 at 96% they need deposits of £100 from 25 players to get their 4%

If those same 25 players deposit £100 and play at 94% RTP, the casino will make £150 rather than just £100

Then. If those same 25 players deposit £100 and play at 92% RTP, the casino will make £200 rather than just £100.
That's twice as much profit from the same deposits.

Obviously, this is simplified in every way. Since casinos have thousands and thousands of players and games have a range of variance.
But if you scale it up to 'real world' levels, the casinos with 92% RTP will make DOUBLE the profit from those games, compared to running them at 96%.

So aren't the affiliates, as a whole, going to get more?
Sorry, but I don't understand your reckoning.
How can the casino make £150 or £200 from a £100 deposit??? :what:

And I go back to my main point - with lower RTP's players will not get as much play-time and so will play less, not more.

Only players with a serious addiction could be tempted to keep depositing more, and that's why I think the UKGC should impose a minimum RTP of 96% on all casino games. By allowing lower RTP's they are adding fuel to the fire they are supposed to be putting out :(

KK
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
I thought most affiliates were paid from deposit and losses (or a one off fee), so unless their player deposits more, affiliate earnings will not change with a lower RTP?.

Unless i'm missing something, what profit the Casino makes has no bearing on affiliate payments.
Very few operators use the simple "Deposit - Withdrawals" calculation - and none of the EU or UK ones that I know of use it.

Most are based on Gross Gaming Revenue = a percentage of the casino's profit from all the players an affiliate has referred, added together.
The GGR being (All bets placed) - (all wins).
From the GGR, the casinos subtract Fees, Overheads, Chargebacks, etc to result in Net Gaming Revenue.
The affiliates get a % of the NGR.
Deposits and withdrawals do not come into this equation at all.

e.g. VS deduct all these from the GGR: Jackpot Deduction, Gaming taxes, Bank Fees, Provider Fees, 25% Admin Fee, Bonuses Given & Loyalty.
In a typical month, the NGR is only about 15% - 25% of the GGR - and we only get a % of that.

KK
 

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 22, 2013
Location
Cumbria
Sorry, but I don't understand your reckoning.
How can the casino make £150 or £200 from a £100 deposit??? :what:

And I go back to my main point - with lower RTP's players will not get as much play-time and so will play less, not more.

Only players with a serious addiction could be tempted to keep depositing more, and that's why I think the UKGC should impose a minimum RTP of 96% on all casino games. By allowing lower RTP's they are adding fuel to the fire they are supposed to be putting out :(

KK
If you read the post properly, in order for the casino to make £100 based on all deposits and withdrawals. they need 25 deposits of £100. If you take it at it's simplest. level and a low variance.

25x £100=£2500 4% (@96%RT) of £2500 = £100

But those same 25 Deposits at 94% and 92% give a house edge of £150 and £200
25x £100=£2500 6% (@94%RT) of £2500 = £150
25x £100=£2500 8% (@92%RT) of £2500 = £200
Assuming the variance is such that the games can reach TRTP over those spins

Scale that up to refect 'real' variance, and the thousands and thousands of players
and 92%RTP makes twice as much profit as 96%


Your figures assume zero variance and each £100 deposit being played to £0 with each spin producing a win of %RTP x Stake (less than stake, with no actual wins, spinning at £1 a spin.
Which can only be used as a very simplified illustration of spins vs RTP. So, indeed the casino would only make £100

But scale that up to the real variance levels, over a million spins, which a player would be capable of doing, given a reasonable amount of time. Then factor in some withdrawals during that time.
Since some people do win and the majority withdraw most, if not all of their balance. The games are likely to reach TRTP, with the billions of spins from all the players combined.

You only need to look at VideoSlots RTP page and compare the Theoretical and actual RTP to see that the majority of popular games do in fact reach TRTP.

So 96% vs 92% = DOUBLE the profit
96% vs 94% = 1.5 x the profit.
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
If you read the post properly, in order for the casino to make £100 based on all deposits and withdrawals. they need 25 deposits of £100. If you take it at it's simplest. level and a low variance.

25x £100=£2500 4% (@96%RT) of £2500 = £100

But those same 25 Deposits at 94% and 92% give a house edge of £150 and £200
25x £100=£2500 6% (@94%RT) of £2500 = £150
25x £100=£2500 8% (@92%RT) of £2500 = £200
Assuming the variance is such that the games can reach TRTP over those spins

Scale that up to refect 'real' variance, and the thousands and thousands of players
and 92%RTP makes twice as much profit as 96%


Your figures assume zero variance and each £100 deposit being played to £0 with each spin producing a win of %RTP x Stake (less than stake, with no actual wins, spinning at £1 a spin.
Which can only be used as a very simplified illustration of spins vs RTP. So, indeed the casino would only make £100

But scale that up to the real variance levels, over a million spins, which a player would be capable of doing, given a reasonable amount of time. Then factor in some withdrawals during that time.
Since some people do win and the majority withdraw most, if not all of their balance. The games are likely to reach TRTP, with the billions of spins from all the players combined.

You only need to look at VideoSlots RTP page and compare the Theoretical and actual RTP to see that the majority of popular games do in fact reach TRTP.

So 96% vs 92% = DOUBLE the profit
96% vs 94% = 1.5 x the profit.
My senile dementia must really be kicking in right now! :eek2:
Reads to me like your saying that if the casino only has 96% games, then they will only make £100 profit from £2,500 in deposits...
I don't get that at all.

Yes, my example is based on zero variance, and players always busting out - but over infinite spins that is what happens.
Of course, in reality some players will win & cash-out - but that is an unknown factor which can't be calculated.
However, unless they stop playing forever, at some point they will re-deposit their winnings and the maths says they will lose in the end.

My whole point though, was not how much money the casinos make, but how lowering the TRTP's has a DRAMATIC effect on the number of spins players get for their money.
So although the casinos do make more money per deposit as you described, players will get fed up with losing so fast and stop playing or cut down, which ultimately will reduce the casino's turnover & profit.
We have already seen many threads on this forum from players looking for casinos running on the high TRTP settings and I myself, for example, have cut down playing the Play 'N' Go slots I used to play all the time due to their reduced TRTPs.

As I said before (and I may be wrong), but in my personal opinion reducing RTPs is bad for everyone - bad for players, bad for casinos & bad for affiliates.

KK
 

colinsunderland

On a Break
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
If you read the post properly, in order for the casino to make £100 based on all deposits and withdrawals. they need 25 deposits of £100. If you take it at it's simplest. level and a low variance.

25x £100=£2500 4% (@96%RT) of £2500 = £100

But those same 25 Deposits at 94% and 92% give a house edge of £150 and £200
25x £100=£2500 6% (@94%RT) of £2500 = £150
25x £100=£2500 8% (@92%RT) of £2500 = £200
Assuming the variance is such that the games can reach TRTP over those spins

Scale that up to refect 'real' variance, and the thousands and thousands of players
and 92%RTP makes twice as much profit as 96%


Your figures assume zero variance and each £100 deposit being played to £0 with each spin producing a win of %RTP x Stake (less than stake, with no actual wins, spinning at £1 a spin.
Which can only be used as a very simplified illustration of spins vs RTP. So, indeed the casino would only make £100

But scale that up to the real variance levels, over a million spins, which a player would be capable of doing, given a reasonable amount of time. Then factor in some withdrawals during that time.
Since some people do win and the majority withdraw most, if not all of their balance. The games are likely to reach TRTP, with the billions of spins from all the players combined.

You only need to look at VideoSlots RTP page and compare the Theoretical and actual RTP to see that the majority of popular games do in fact reach TRTP.

So 96% vs 92% = DOUBLE the profit
96% vs 94% = 1.5 x the profit.
I understand where you are coming from, but in terms of affiliates the difference will be minimal, even assuming players don't go elsewhere to play the higher RTP.

Most players will have a budget. If they decide to deposit £50 and lose it they stop. If it takes 1000 spins to lose it they don't think, oh, I was expecting 1500 spins before I lost, better deposit another £25, they just think, ffs, lost that. Therefore the profit is £50 on either 96% or 91% (at the simplest way of looking at it, obviously costs come out of that and the casino hasn't made £50).

As there are less spins played, it may be that provider fees are less, but I think most casinos pay the provider a % of the profit they make on the game, rather than a fixed cost per spin, but that would be pennies to most affiliates.

Even then, it's also assuming the casino would increase the affiliate payment to make up for the slight increase in profit. I would suggest thats very unlikely. Casinos do what they can to maximize profits, and affiliates, as a rule, get a lot less than the advertised percentage.

As an affiliate (although only a small amount of my customers are slots, most are sports betting) I would prefer to see higher RTP's, or higher rewards/deposit bonuses, to keep players playing longer, rather than slashing everything to the bone in order to try to squeeze a few extra pence out of customers, which only goes to serve to alienate them and drive them elsewhere.

In a few months I think affiliates are going to see a large drop in income due to autospins being removed, and a slight increase from RTP being lowered won't make a difference being honest.
 

dealer wins

Meister Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Location
London the sh$thole
Another thing on lowered RTPs.

When people find their £50 or £100, rather than gives them an hour or two of fun, now gives them 15 minutes, they will quickly go off this leisure activity and find another one.

Most people realise slots are a losing proposition, but we like the occasional big win, and more importantly getting entertainment value out of our deposits.
 

colinsunderland

On a Break
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Location
uk
Another thing on lowered RTPs.

When people find their £50 or £100, rather than gives them an hour or two of fun, now gives them 15 minutes, they will quickly go off this leisure activity and find another one.

Most people realise slots are a losing proposition, but we like the occasional big win, and more importantly getting entertainment value out of our deposits.
Exactly, plus the changes that are coming in the UK soon will decimate the market.
 

Jono777

Ueber Meister
CAG
mm1
mm4
Joined
May 13, 2014
Location
Wolverhampton
Another thing on lowered RTPs.

When people find their £50 or £100, rather than gives them an hour or two of fun, now gives them 15 minutes, they will quickly go off this leisure activity and find another one.

Most people realise slots are a losing proposition, but we like the occasional big win, and more importantly getting entertainment value out of our deposits.

This, spot on!

90%+ of players, deposit for just this, if they are not getting it, anyone with any common sense and a degree of control will (eventually) run for the hills.

RTP chopping is not good for anyone as has been mentioned but in the long run it will actually be worse for the casinos, a business cannot be successful with no customers. It is almost as if the operators will rely on the addicts and out of control players who will still continue to deposit even when slots are paying 70% RTP!

Entertainment is what it is all about, I will happily lose most sessions, even every session as I only put in what I can afford and am willing to lose IF I get a couple of hours play most times, I am pretty sure I am not alone in this line of thinking either.

Lets all lose, s-l-o-w-l-y at 96%+ and keep coming back rather than get ragged at 92%- and think "Fuck this!" :confused: :what:
 
Top