# QuestionRTP - A new thought......I know it getting boring now but bear with me

#### colinsunderland

##### Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
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
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

##### Experienced Member
webmeister
MM
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
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!"