RTP and how deposit bonus benefit the casino

[geordiecolin]

It appears to me while using deposit bonuses that I hit most of my biggest wins while playing a bonus but then ultimately I still fail to meet the wagering requirements.
I am possibly experiencing this right now while taking up the 400% deal at Jackpot strike. I hit nothing until my original deposit zeroed out and then hit the wagering requirements for the bonus. Now with huge wagering to achieve I am hitting wins that would have had me withdrawing if it had not gone below my original deposit ( Triggering the wagering)
My question is. Are these very big wins during wagering requirements that eventually turn to losses for the player effecting casino's RTP massively in the casino's favour?

Edit. I thought that no casino could allow you to use 1000 auto spins as they are in JATB?

 

[spoton]

They don't affect the casinos RTP a bit, since each spin is random. Once one spin is done you have the same chance of winning on the next one no matter if you won 10000€ or not.

 

[brianmon]

It appears to me while using deposit bonuses that I hit most of my biggest wins while playing a bonus but then ultimately I still fail to meet the wagering requirements.
I am possibly experiencing this right now while taking up the 400% deal at Jackpot strike. I hit nothing until my original deposit zeroed out and then hit the wagering requirements for the bonus. Now with huge wagering to achieve I am hitting wins that would have had me withdrawing if it had not gone below my original deposit ( Triggering the wagering)
My question is. Are these very big wins during wagering requirements that eventually turn to losses for the player effecting casino's RTP massively in the casino's favour?

Edit. I thought that no casino could allow you to use 1000 auto spins as they are in JATB?

You'll be well pissed off if you hit really big, since the most you can withdraw is 2x bonus (£160)

 

[SlotGrinder]

There's no way this particular deposit bonus can benefit the casino because your deposit is treated as real money and you can do what you want with it . Only once you have lost your real money then does the bonus come into effect . How can it benefit the casino if you have already lost your entire deposit ? They can't possibly make more money from you unless you redeposit

Now you can say ah the wagering requirement has swallowed up my big hits so now if I do redeposit then the slots will have a lower rtp but would you be saying that if instead of bonus money you had just been playing with playmoney ? Would playmoney big hits and slow decline then make you think that the playmoney spins had "stolen" your rtp ? Because it's no different except that at least at the end of your bonus money session you might end up with some real cash.

Next time you play a slot the rtp will be the same as it's always been . It doesn't matter what happened the last time you played it

 

[mimi26]

One thing that I can never understand is if each spin is random, lets take thunderstruck 1 for example, how is it that you can have lets say 5 lowest paid symbols pay numerous times through out a session but after millions of spins the 5 hammers never show, surely every winning combination should have an equal chance of showing up.

I think I have seen the wilds in a five reel win on these slots twice and never had them myself after 13 years and millions of spins

 

[BananaCognac]

Im a bit of a skeptic to this randomness of spins that has been preached to us.

Unless you work as the person who puts these slot machines together (land based obviously), I dont think anyone can say categorically that its rigged.

I have been playing for close to three years, but many many sessions, and I just dont understand why that after you get a big hit--say 300x bet plus - the game inevitably goes cold for a long time, almost until the game has recouped the win amount you had won not that long before.

Yes--this doesnt happen 100% of the time but I am sure it happens at least 80% of the time - which leads me to question the randomness of each spin.

 

[colinsunderland]

I am possibly experiencing this right now while taking up the 400% deal at Jackpot strike. I hit nothing until my original deposit zeroed out and then hit the wagering requirements for the bonus. Now with huge wagering to achieve I am hitting wins that would have had me withdrawing if it had not gone below my original deposit ( Triggering the wagering)

The amount of times that happens is unreal. Played on slottyvegas last night, £50 deposit, £25 bonus, RTP for the first £50 was around 50%, was playing 90p spins, balance was £23.90, so just into bonus, got a win of £180, 2 spins later £120. Actually worked out well for a change, as if I had been in cash still I would have withdrew £200 at that point, ended up getting a £390 win on girls with guns with around £100 wagering left and withdrew £600 , that is the exception rather than the rule though!

 

[KasinoKing]

One thing that I can never understand is if each spin is random, lets take thunderstruck 1 for example, how is it that you can have lets say 5 lowest paid symbols pay numerous times through out a session but after millions of spins the 5 hammers never show, surely every winning combination should have an equal chance of showing up.

I think I have seen the wilds in a five reel win on these slots twice and never had them myself after 13 years and millions of spins

Because there aren't the same number of each symbol on each reel!
This is a truly random slot - each reel has an equal chance of landing in any position.

The chances of getting 5 wilds on Thunderstruck is one in 3.96 MILLION spins... so pretty rare!
(I hit it once on the direct clone: Spring Break )
The chances of getting 5 Hammers (including with wilds) is once in 11,000 spins.

To see the reel layouts, look here:

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

KK

 

[mimi26]

Because there aren't the same number of each symbol on each reel!
This is a truly random slot - each reel has an equal chance of landing in any position.

The chances of getting 5 wilds on Thunderstruck is one in 3.96 MILLION spins... so pretty rare!
(I hit it once on the direct clone: Spring Break )
The chances of getting 5 Hammers (including with wilds) is once in 11,000 spins.

To see the reel layouts, look here:

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

KK

Thanks KK such a sinple explanation but one that has had me baffled and yes I meant your screenshot when talking about the five wilds, maybe I am due one

 

[SlotGrinder]

Obviously in slots it can look like you have equal chances to hit the big pays when of course you don't.. like here I expect the graphics are completely disproportionate to the actual chance of hitting the vegas jackpot (or any of the big jackpots)

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

 

[geordiecolin]

If huge wins are obtained during a bonus's wagering,which the vast majority of my big wins occur, and in which I ultimately do not complete wagering in then surely it does favour the casino's RTP requirements because they are not paying out anything?

 

[goatwack]

If huge wins are obtained during a bonus's wagering,which the vast majority of my big wins occur, and in which I ultimately do not complete wagering in then surely it does favour the casino's RTP requirements because they are not paying out anything?

If I had my TF hat on I'd say bonuses are looser and give you the big wins early on (a common theme) so by the time you do clear wagering all your 'luck' has been used up, and you're left readdressing the slots RTP over many, many dead spins.

Very rarely do we see people have a bad start on bonuses, only to peak once wagering is done and going on stupendous runs. Almost always it's the other way round

 

[spintee]

The way I look at it if I am reading right.

Of course the RTP is equipped in with the bonus, Put 100 quid in and win 10, put 100 in with 100 bonus win 10 quid your RTP is going to be half but that still registrar with each spin, If you get my drift.

So in reality that other 10 squid you not win that is still going to the RTP pot, If you belive in RTP, I been playing long time to know RTP does not come into factor, play a 99% rtp or 2% rtp its about luck

If sites was charge foer every spin I Ccould understand but very rar you take a bonus and win, I say win I mean break into he bonus than get good hits fora take out, 90% or more of bonus I took ot than I would of win before hit the bonus and due to the bonus I and up playing ad take more out

Once in a blue moon I break into a bonus and take out???

 

[geordiecolin]

If I had my TF hat on I'd say bonuses are looser and give you the big wins early on (a common theme) so by the time you do clear wagering all your 'luck' has been used up, and you're left readdressing the slots RTP over many, many dead spins.

Very rarely do we see people have a bad start on bonuses, only to peak once wagering is done and going on stupendous runs. Almost always it's the other way round

I am sure a mathematician would conclude that there is scope within a bonus play through for a RTP to be higher than expected yet still achieve no cash out. If this is so then the casino must benefit in terms of RTP obligations over all deposits.

 

[SlotGrinder]

If huge wins are obtained during a bonus's wagering,which the vast majority of my big wins occur, and in which I ultimately do not complete wagering in then surely it does favour the casino's RTP requirements because they are not paying out anything?

I own a casino (in my dreams) and I give you £50 from my own pocket and say you can only cashout if you wager £2000 and you say ok thanks for the free shot . You have some big hits but eventually end up at zero . Next day you go to play at my casino with your own money and you think the slots will "remember" how you did last time ? No they are just slots the same as always.

The wagering requirement/winnings cap is to lessen the damage to the casino , it can't "steal" rtp from the player . Especially when it's a bonus which only comes into effect after your real money is wagered . If it was a bonus that immediately ties up your real money then it benefits the casino in that although they give you free money they set the wagering requirements so that by the time you have completed the wagering you will have expected to have lost at least the bonus money and in some cases both your deposit and the bonus money (when WR is high) . But it's just the money you deposited that they are after . They can't devise a strategy to steal rtp

 

[geordiecolin]

I own a casino (in my dreams) and I give you £50 from my own pocket and say you can only cashout if you wager £2000 and you say ok thanks for the free shot . You have some big hits but eventually end up at zero . Next day you go to play at my casino with your own money and you think the slots will "remember" how you did last time ? No they are just slots the same as always.

The wagering requirement/winnings cap is to lessen the damage to the casino , it can't "steal" rtp from the player . Especially when it's a bonus which only comes into effect after your real money is wagered . If it was a bonus that immediately ties up your real money then it benefits the casino in that although they give you free money they set the wagering requirements so that by the time you have completed the wagering you will have expected to have lost at least the bonus money and in some cases both your deposit and the bonus money (when WR is high) . But it's just the money you deposited that they are after . They can't devise a strategy to steal rtp

The bigger the wagering requirements of a deposit bonus the higher a RTP during the play through can be obtained without making the play through. Without a cash out then surely it enables a casino to average a return of less that the advertised RTP over a period of time for real money deposits?
I am happy for me to be proven to be incorrect

 

[spintee]

I own a casino (in my dreams) and I give you £50 from my own pocket and say you can only cashout if you wager £2000 and you say ok thanks for the free shot . You have some big hits but eventually end up at zero . Next day you go to play at my casino with your own money and you think the slots will "remember" how you did last time ? No they are just slots the same as always.

The wagering requirement/winnings cap is to lessen the damage to the casino , it can't "steal" rtp from the player . Especially when it's a bonus which only comes into effect after your real money is wagered . If it was a bonus that immediately ties up your real money then it benefits the casino in that although they give you free money they set the wagering requirements so that by the time you have completed the wagering you will have expected to have lost at least the bonus money and in some cases both your deposit and the bonus money (when WR is high) . But it's just the money you deposited that they are after . They can't devise a strategy to steal rtp

The bigger the wagering requirements of a deposit bonus the higher a RTP during the play through can be obtained without making the play through. Without a cash out then surely it enables a casino to average a return of less that the advertised RTP over a period of time for real money deposits?
I am happy for me to be proven to be incorrect

I cannot take to much in at the miunute guys due to consumption of beers, But I belive Grinder is right, (staeling) the RTP is what its called

Put in £10 lose but end up wager 100

put in 10 get 10 free and end up wager 200 but bust out due to wager req, the machine has stolne stolen (give) you more than the RTP but due to bonus your stuffed

 

[xxshepxx]

What irk me is that so many of us agree that bigger wins happen earlier on in bonuses so we can bust before meeting wagering requirements.....then we follow it uo by saying tin foil hat statement.


Is it about time to think it isnt? And this is actually pre-programmed to do this? All too many times i have had big wins thinking YES im gonna do this and make a withdrawal...only for the killswitch effect to start working and it goes dead.

I decided to stop playing with bonuses for a while....oh my lord what a difference. I was doing upwards of 800spins on Immortal romance for a set of scatter...which of course paid 5x. Majority of games behaved like this and it bored me to the point I wanted to call it quits.

I now use bonuses again, just for sheer entertainment. I am now getting regular bonuses again...and on the odd occasion a withdrawal.

Now berate me, be-little my comments/views/expieriences all you want. Its my opinion and Im free to voice it.

Bit I am 100% in the mindset that casinos can and do set things how they like, so they make money. Random my arse. Funny how I can lose 100 deposits in a row, but never withdraw from 2 in a row.

I play purely for entertainment now, so it doesnt really get to me.

 

[SlotGrinder]

The bigger the wagering requirements of a deposit bonus the higher a RTP during the play through can be obtained without making the play through. Without a cash out then surely it enables a casino to average a return of less that the advertised RTP over a period of time for real money deposits?
I am happy for me to be proven to be incorrect

RTP is linked to your wagering not to the amount you deposit . So higher wagering requirement equals more wagering . The rtp doesn't change but the reason it's hard to cashout is that you're forced to do more wagering than you would when you didn't take a bonus . If you have a balance of £500 but have wagering of £2000 to complete then you will wager up to £2000 at 96% rtp . If you cashout then you get the money but next time you deposit and play you will play a slot at 96% rtp . There's no difference to the rtp of the slot . If you're asking does wagering requirements affect how much the casino has to actually pay out in real money .. then of course it does that's why they put wagering requirement on their bonuses . Look what happened at Betfair when they put unlimited bonuses at 10x and got absolutely smashed

The point is , after you have finished the whole bonus and did or did not cashout etc then the next time you deposit and play you are playing fresh . There's no lingering "lost rtp" or anything like that

 

[SpinUk]

RTP is linked to your wagering not to the amount you deposit . So higher wagering requirement equals more wagering . The rtp doesn't change but the reason it's hard to cashout is that you're forced to do more wagering than you would when you didn't take a bonus . If you have a balance of £500 but have wagering of £2000 to complete then you will wager up to £2000 at 96% rtp . If you cashout then you get the money but next time you deposit and play you will play a slot at 96% rtp . There's no difference to the rtp of the slot . If you're asking does wagering requirements affect how much the casino has to actually pay out in real money .. then of course it does that's why they put wagering requirement on their bonuses . Look what happened at Betfair when they put unlimited bonuses at 10x and got absolutely smashed

The point is , after you have finished the whole bonus and did or did not cashout etc then the next time you deposit and play you are playing fresh . There's no lingering "lost rtp" or anything like that

Ive read about this promotion debacle a few times - was a there a thread about it on here

 

[Harry_BKK]

To answer the question whether online slots are random:

- Fact is --> WE DON'T KNOW ...and probably never will.
- Fact is also --> 100% randomness just does not exist in anything mankind has build.

Netent is using Fortuna as RNG which is a secure random number generator, but they do not state how those generated random seeds are distributed.

I look at it as a mathematician and there are umpteenth occasions where my understanding screams --> "it just can't be random" .....

Example 1 - VS battles

This is happening in each and every battle but i will take straight numbers to make it easy to follow.

- 300 players, each spinning 1x / 2 seconds = 9,000 spins / minute
- 100 battle spins are played in appr. 3 minutes = 30.000 spins
- all is totally random, right
- however, in each battle is see players who made 2-5 spins suddenly shooting to the top with some outrageous number and they keep getting more bonus rounds and more high wins, like they are getting piled up on them. I experienced it myself --> 6 bonus rounds in 100 spins, each paying min. 50x bet, on top a few high 5OAK's
- random results means this can happen, no problem with that but it happens in every battle, so where is the randomness??
- that the RNG, which is supposedly 100% random, gives all those high wins to 1, 2 or 3 players out of hundreds and that in every single battle CANNOT be random.

Just to put it in perspective:

- assume you have a giant wheel with 30,000 possible results = the amount of battle spins, of those 20 are the really high wins who get the players in the battles to the TOP3
- that is 1:1500 to hit one of those high wins
- now comes the kicker: in each and every battle those few players are hitting repeatedly exactly those few high results available on the wheel

- mathematically it can happen occasionally but for it to happen all the time comes close to "absolutely impossible" to say it is random.

Example 2 - DOA --> Double 5OAK Sheriff Star

I have more numbers on this slot but will just give this one example. The win is very rare as it can happen only in 2 combinations on Line 1+6 or Line 3+7 .....i assume it happens about 1/15 - 20,000 spins.

Now here are my numbers:

- I took 0.5 Mio spins played at each of these bet levels since i started playing DOA, played a lot more than that but I only took the first 0.5Mio spins at each of those values, obviously it took a much longer period to accumulate those @ $.4.50 - 9.00 .... but I would say that it is a pretty good sample size
- The total hits for that specific win are:

--> 0.09 - 0.36 / 0.01 denomination --> 21x the double 5OAK
--> 0.90 - 3.60 / 0.10 denomination --> 1x
--> 4.50 - 9.00 / 0.50 denomination --> 0x

Now, you can call me a big unlucky git, but those numbers just don't add up if something is totally random. You have one event happening on average every 23,800 spins at one denomination but only 1x in 0.5Mio spins at the higher denomination and never in 0.5Mio spins at the highest.

Until this day, with tons more spins at the 0.50 denomination, I have yet to hit that win once at $4.50 or $9.00.

Again, looking at it mathematically, it is sheer impossible to say "yeah, it is random"



'NUFF SAID!

 

[goatwack]

What irk me is that so many of us agree that bigger wins happen earlier on in bonuses so we can bust before meeting wagering requirements.....then we follow it uo by saying tin foil hat statement.


Is it about time to think it isnt? And this is actually pre-programmed to do this? All too many times i have had big wins thinking YES im gonna do this and make a withdrawal...only for the killswitch effect to start working and it goes dead.

I decided to stop playing with bonuses for a while....oh my lord what a difference. I was doing upwards of 800spins on Immortal romance for a set of scatter...which of course paid 5x. Majority of games behaved like this and it bored me to the point I wanted to call it quits.

I now use bonuses again, just for sheer entertainment. I am now getting regular bonuses again...and on the odd occasion a withdrawal.

Now berate me, be-little my comments/views/expieriences all you want. Its my opinion and Im free to voice it.

Bit I am 100% in the mindset that casinos can and do set things how they like, so they make money. Random my arse. Funny how I can lose 100 deposits in a row, but never withdraw from 2 in a row.

I play purely for entertainment now, so it doesnt really get to me.

I wear my tinfoil hat all the time, not just for slot conspiracy theories. It's a great look although I fear it may have fused onto my scalp

 

[geordiecolin]

To answer the question whether online slots are random:

- Fact is --> WE DON'T KNOW ...and probably never will.
- Fact is also --> 100% randomness just does not exist in anything mankind has build.

Netent is using Fortuna as RNG which is a secure random number generator, but they do not state how those generated random seeds are distributed.

I look at it as a mathematician and there are umpteenth occasions where my understanding screams --> "it just can't be random" .....

Example 1 - VS battles

This is happening in each and every battle but i will take straight numbers to make it easy to follow.

- 300 players, each spinning 1x / 2 seconds = 9,000 spins / minute
- 100 battle spins are played in appr. 3 minutes = 30.000 spins
- all is totally random, right
- however, in each battle is see players who made 2-5 spins suddenly shooting to the top with some outrageous number and they keep getting more bonus rounds and more high wins, like they are getting piled up on them. I experienced it myself --> 6 bonus rounds in 100 spins, each paying min. 50x bet, on top a few high 5OAK's
- random results means this can happen, no problem with that but it happens in every battle, so where is the randomness??
- that the RNG, which is supposedly 100% random, gives all those high wins to 1, 2 or 3 players out of hundreds and that in every single battle CANNOT be random.

Just to put it in perspective:

- assume you have a giant wheel with 30,000 possible results = the amount of battle spins, of those 20 are the really high wins who get the players in the battles to the TOP3
- that is 1:1500 to hit one of those high wins
- now comes the kicker: in each and every battle those few players are hitting repeatedly exactly those few high results available on the wheel

- mathematically it can happen occasionally but for it to happen all the time comes close to "absolutely impossible" to say it is random.

Example 2 - DOA --> Double 5OAK Sheriff Star

I have more numbers on this slot but will just give this one example. The win is very rare as it can happen only in 2 combinations on Line 1+6 or Line 3+7 .....i assume it happens about 1/15 - 20,000 spins.

Now here are my numbers:

- I took 0.5 Mio spins played at each of these bet levels since i started playing DOA, played a lot more than that but I only took the first 0.5Mio spins at each of those values, obviously it took a much longer period to accumulate those @ $.4.50 - 9.00 .... but I would say that it is a pretty good sample size
- The total hits for that specific win are:

--> 0.09 - 0.36 / 0.01 denomination --> 21x the double 5OAK
--> 0.90 - 3.60 / 0.10 denomination --> 1x
--> 4.50 - 9.00 / 0.50 denomination --> 0x

Now, you can call me a big unlucky git, but those numbers just don't add up if something is totally random. You have one event happening on average every 23,800 spins at one denomination but only 1x in 0.5Mio spins at the higher denomination and never in 0.5Mio spins at the highest.

Until this day, with tons more spins at the 0.50 denomination, I have yet to hit that win once at $4.50 or $9.00.

Again, looking at it mathematically, it is sheer impossible to say "yeah, it is random"



'NUFF SAID!

I too have played many battles and I have often wondered if you average out the RTP of every one of the 300-500 players who take part in each battle the average would be way over 100%. I bet most battles would be.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I too have played many battles and I have often wondered if you average out the RTP of every one of the 300-500 players who take part in each battle the average would be way over 100%. I bet most battles would be.

Oh i am sure the overall RTP in a battle is sometimes over 100%, the max. is 50,000 spins if the battle is full - not superbly much for a slot. What I just found very strange is that concentration of high wins on a few players in each battle. It can happen but it should not in every battle if the results are truly random.

 

[jasonuk]

Ive read about this promotion debacle a few times - was a there a thread about it on here

Betfair Happy Hour - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/betfair-bonus-fiasco.41102/ (warning: 51 pages)

 

[geordiecolin]

Betfair Happy Hour - https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/betfair-bonus-fiasco.41102/ (warning: 51 pages)

Ha ha ha. Brilliant. I shall just drop this here.

Edit. Can anyone give a brief synopsis of how proceedings panned out in this Betfair case? Did folk get paid? How did the offer get abused? I began reading but the thread is too long to follow through.

Thanks in advance

 

[dunover]

I haven't seen so much hatting in ages! The slot doesnt know if you are using bonus funds. Secondly, the chances of hitting a big win if you have 100% bonus and play cash first are 50-50 on either cash or bonus funds. Then, should you be lucky enough to win big at any stage while tied to bonus wagering, the RTP curve will noticeably drop, as it always will after big spikes. People seem to be pointing out their lack of success in clearing wagering after bigger wins - well what do you expect since anything over 25xB wagering (assuming 100% bonus playing average 96% RTP games) is EV- and in the casino's favour. Given that most offers are at the very least 35xB (and even that's getting harder to find nowadays) you should on average lose all your bonus plus 40% of your qualifying deposit every time assuming 100% match. You should bust on that basis at least 3/4 of the time, more if higher than 35x WR.

BONUS = Bullshitting Of Numerous Unsuspecting Slotters

The point Harry made about raising stakes I admit seems to have some foundation - it's most noticeable when playing for a sustained period on say 30p then raising 3x for example to 90p and seeing the frequency of wins dry up. Perhaps an algorithm at work to 'adjust' the game so any spike in RTP would be within the parameters of what you would have got on the 30p stake until such time the game has made x-amount? It'd still be totally random as you'd never know the pool of values had been adjusted that the slot uses at that stake.

This all boils down to depositors seeing the word 'Bonus' and getting dollar signs in their eyes, without really understanding how crap 99% of them are, where in most cases you are effectively playing for 'fun money' for the majority of or sadly all of your session.

The casino is effectively saying "Here, take this and spend hours being the victim of bad math until like most you lose your deposit. By the way, in case it lasts too long you cannot play games of over 96.5% RTP or those that often give 1000's x stake hits. Oh, sorry player we forgot - to further reduce your chances of beating this bad proposition by hitting 100x stake immediately into your session, we have capped stake at $5. Bloody hell, before we go in the unlikely event you do beat us, we'll limit your win to 2x or 6x deposit. ROLL UP, ROLL UP!"

The whole bloody bonus scenario has developed over the years and fine-tuned to make casinos money and cost YOU money! And you're all still obsessed with them, so much so that when the inevitable busts occur people start wondering what's gone wrong! Well, read the above and you'll see!

 

[Jono777]

Good post Mr D but sadly there are exceptions to every rule / situation.

Inexperienced / novices don't really come into it, they will learn (usually the hard way) but (and I'll use myself as an example here)

Imagine a player who has a set gaming allowance/budget which they (I) stick to 99/100.

Imagine that budget is pretty small (due to disposable income not been massive)

Imagine that budget has to be reduced drastically for reason 'x' which leaves just a few quid to enjoy their (my) 'hobby' now and then but a lot less than they (I) am used to.

Now on top of this their (my) luck is rat shit and has been for weeks. Last 10 cash only deposits have gone bust withing 10-20 minutes and I cannot afford (or want to) deposit again for say 3-4 days (maybe longer)

In this situation (even though we are not) Can feel 'forced' into taking a bonus simply to think "FFS this session WILL last longer than 1/2 hour"

I shop around most times before finally choosing and clicking that deposit button, usually for a 50%+ with a 35x (or thereabouts WR) ((Seems This is why I spend more time searching a fair bonus than actually slotting))

Now I could not agree more, if Income/budget allowed so I'd NEVER take a bonus and allow myself the freedom to cash out whenever I wanted to but just wanted to share this example of how players can be easily forced/trapped.

 

[Deeplay]

While I can understand and see the sense of a bonus I suppose for people on micro budgets ... (as I have been often) for me I would rather deposit less but when I do have more of a balance. I have zero interest in bonus play now unless its something amazing. Which is rare. Skys monthly 100% I do go for sometimes. But playing less is dictated by how my cash outs have gone. Take the past week or so. Down in the hole .... by a good bit. So I have again lowered all my limits to below the depo level at the few casinos I play at. So Deposit is not an option until I start to reset them. And i take a break as I am firmly on now for another 2 weeks at least.

When I do return to my vice it will be with a sizeable amount which for me in theory works better than doing allot of small £10 / £20 deposits which usually get me no where. But then again even with a £100 deposit as of late its got me no where

So im on a break now until near the end of the month but will then have a larger bank roll I can afford to have to some fun and who knows even come out on top ? but none of this I think would be helped by taking a bonus. Straight cash in / straight cash out (if it happens) .

 

[geordiecolin]

I haven't seen so much hatting in ages! The slot doesnt know if you are using bonus funds. Secondly, the chances of hitting a big win if you have 100% bonus and play cash first are 50-50 on either cash or bonus funds. Then, should you be lucky enough to win big at any stage while tied to bonus wagering, the RTP curve will noticeably drop, as it always will after big spikes. People seem to be pointing out their lack of success in clearing wagering after bigger wins - well what do you expect since anything over 25xB wagering (assuming 100% bonus playing average 96% RTP games) is EV- and in the casino's favour. Given that most offers are at the very least 35xB (and even that's getting harder to find nowadays) you should on average lose all your bonus plus 40% of your qualifying deposit every time assuming 100% match. You should bust on that basis at least 3/4 of the time, more if higher than 35x WR.

BONUS = Bullshitting Of Numerous Unsuspecting Slotters

The point Harry made about raising stakes I admit seems to have some foundation - it's most noticeable when playing for a sustained period on say 30p then raising 3x for example to 90p and seeing the frequency of wins dry up. Perhaps an algorithm at work to 'adjust' the game so any spike in RTP would be within the parameters of what you would have got on the 30p stake until such time the game has made x-amount? It'd still be totally random as you'd never know the pool of values had been adjusted that the slot uses at that stake.

This all boils down to depositors seeing the word 'Bonus' and getting dollar signs in their eyes, without really understanding how crap 99% of them are, where in most cases you are effectively playing for 'fun money' for the majority of or sadly all of your session.

The casino is effectively saying "Here, take this and spend hours being the victim of bad math until like most you lose your deposit. By the way, in case it lasts too long you cannot play games of over 96.5% RTP or those that often give 1000's x stake hits. Oh, sorry player we forgot - to further reduce your chances of beating this bad proposition by hitting 100x stake immediately into your session, we have capped stake at $5. Bloody hell, before we go in the unlikely event you do beat us, we'll limit your win to 2x or 6x deposit. ROLL UP, ROLL UP!"

The whole bloody bonus scenario has developed over the years and fine-tuned to make casinos money and cost YOU money! And you're all still obsessed with them, so much so that when the inevitable busts occur people start wondering what's gone wrong! Well, read the above and you'll see!

None of that addressed my question

 

[dunover]

None of that addressed my question

It was a politician's answer.

But more directly, no the RTP isn't skewed in the casino's favour, merely the chance of you cashing out is skewed in their favour, quite simply by the bonus rules rather than how the slot performs for you.

 

[geordiecolin]

It was a politician's answer.

But more directly, no the RTP isn't skewed in the casino's favour, merely the chance of you cashing out is skewed in their favour, quite simply by the bonus rules rather than how the slot performs for you.

I have just finished reading the Play N Go RTP thread and it does nothing to dispel my thoughts on deposit bonuses improving overall RTP figures in the casino's favour. Given that Casino's profit overall from Bonuses and the x20-60 wagering involved I am sure that bonuses can afford to give out a much higher RTP overall during bonuses which in turn must help reach their required overall RTP.
I would like a Casino rep to respond and a mathematician to consider the specifics of my theory

 

[Harry_BKK]

None of that addressed my question

It was a politician's answer.

But more directly, no the RTP isn't skewed in the casino's favour, merely the chance of you cashing out is skewed in their favour, quite simply by the bonus rules rather than how the slot performs for you.

I fully agree with Dunover, the WR and other restrictions are skewing the whole bonus "spiel" in favor of the casino.

OK Colin, here is another answer, maybe for Jon too.

I spend the last 2 hours going through my records from 2013 - 2015 (started to avoid bonuses in 2016), compared and added numbers where bonuses were taken vs non-bonus sessions:

RESULT: If i would have never taken a bonus i could have cashed out a whopping and absolutely staggering $48.350 more than i did.

The reason i can state the exact number is because i noted down if my balance went up before i touched bonus funds, my peak balances with bonuses and what the end result was when wagering was finished.

Whether i would have cashed out every time if there was no bonus involved or carried on I can't say as at the time i was always looking to hit 1k in profit before going for the withdrawal button. But, to be honest, seeing that number really shocked me....damn' bonuses

 

[geordiecolin]

I fully agree with Dunover, the WR and other restrictions are skewing the whole bonus "spiel" in favor of the casino.

OK Colin, here is another answer, maybe for Jon too.

I spend the last 2 hours going through my records from 2013 - 2015 (started to avoid bonuses in 2016), compared and added numbers where bonuses were taken vs non-bonus sessions:

RESULT: If i would have never taken a bonus i could have cashed out a whopping and absolutely staggering $48.350 more than i did.

The reason i can state the exact number is because i noted down if my balance went up before i touched bonus funds, my peak balances with bonuses and what the end result was when wagering was finished.

Whether i would have cashed out every time or carried on I can't say as at the time i was always looking to hit 1k in profit before going for the withdrawal button. But, to be honest, seeing that number really shocked me....damn' bonuses

I totally understand that bonuses are heavily in favour of the casino. What I am suggesting is that due to heavy wagering requirements it is possible for casino's to gain financially from bonuses as well as improve their over all RTP.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I have just finished reading the Play N Go RTP thread and it does nothing to dispel my thoughts on deposit bonuses improving overall RTP figures in the casino's favour. Given that Casino's profit overall from Bonuses and the x20-60 wagering involved I am sure that bonuses can afford to give out a much higher RTP overall during bonuses which in turn must help reach their required overall RTP.
I would like a Casino rep to respond and a mathematician to consider the specifics of my theory

Sorry mate but even as a mathematician that is hard to answer. The simple option is to say that it is all "man" build to make profit and that as much as possible. The ever increasing WR's show though that players are getting smarter on beating the odds and casinos have to put the numbers higher to avoid being taken for a ride.

To alter play results from bonus to non-bonus play would have to involve sending different lines of code between the servers, different RNG applications and a whole lot more to achieve that which would be very obvious during an audit. I doubt authorities or those "independent" labs would certify the results.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I totally understand that bonuses are heavily in favour of the casino. What I am suggesting is that due to heavy wagering requirements it is possible for casino's to gain financially from bonuses as well as improve their over all RTP.

Well, casinos make the profit on the amount that is wagered in their establishment. So one could say the more wagered the more profit they make. More bonuses means more wagering, right? But casinos have to pay for the bonuses, so it is not really that straightforward.

They do try to clinch the cost back by increasing the WR and putting more restrictions in place to ensure that overall they still stay in profit.

 

[geordiecolin]

Sorry mate but even as a mathematician that is hard to answer. The simple option is to say that it is all "man" build to make profit and that as much as possible. The ever increasing WR's show though that players are getting smarter on beating the odds and casinos have to put the numbers higher to avoid being taken for a ride.

To alter play results from bonus to non-bonus play would have to involve sending different lines of code between the servers, different RNG applications and a whole lot more to achieve that which would be very obvious during an audit. I doubt authorities or those "independent" labs would certify the results.

Given the massive wagering requirements I would suggest that they would have no need to tamper with differing RNG's or switching servers. The wager difficulties themselves provide all they need

 

[Deeplay]

I totally understand that bonuses are heavily in favour of the casino. What I am suggesting is that due to heavy wagering requirements it is possible for casino's to gain financially from bonuses as well as improve their over all RTP.

Casinos dont need to do anything to gain financially from a bonus its already a sure thing that they will win more than they loose on deposits with a bonus. Basically the longer you play the more risk there is of the variance and RTP destroying your bank roll. Only thing casinos do do is up the play through requirements making it even harder along with more and more oppressive terms. Thats why I never bother with a bonus now, its a false economy and odds are you will bust before you reach the finish line.

If I wanted to play with £100 deposit for example I used to go hunting for a 100% match on £50 .... bust after bust - bar a few cash outs. Plus time wasted reading through terms conditions and all the other crap a bonus comes packaged with ...

so these days when I want to play with say £100 i deposit 100 straight or as i am now "wait" until i feel happy enough with my bank balance to depo 100
no bonus needed for that. There is no hidden agenda just RTP which in the end will stuff us all the longer we play.

Many think that suddenly the RTP drops when you get near the finish line. It dont its just the average high and lows of the games. And granted sometimes bonus or not you can win and keep on winning.

In your case maybe consider doing some none bonus play much less head ache .... and its a good feeling when you know you can hit that cash out button anytime

 

[dunover]

The casino's RTP is moot really, it's more a case of the RTP of the games they provide. All bonuses do is keep the RTP of the games exactly the same but greatly reduce the chances of a player being at 'cash-out available' point when they DO hit a decent win. Put it this way, take £100 deposit no bonus. Hit 1000x for 90p stake say, and have balance of £1k and you'd withdraw. 100% chance of withdrawal. Now deposit £100 take £100 bonus and have wagering of 35x. Effectively you now have 35 blocks of £100 worth of spins where you CANNOT cash that win out should it land and some or all will inevitably be lost back. Hence Harry's figures.

I think what Colin is getting at is rather than the RTP set for a game, the returns the casino actually pays the player in cash terms due to bonuses being utilized and therefore effectively the casino may be benefiting EQUIVALENT to the games paying out far less than the average game RTP of 96%.

Yes, that would inevitably be the case under the average bonus rules, but as Harry says it would be mathematically near-impossible to give a precise figure without huge reams of data and complex analysis.

So a casino could pay 96% with ALL cash depositors overall, then if 50% took a bonus maybe 88% and if all new depositors took one their RTP may be equivalent to less than 50% - who knows? But what we DO know is that bonuses help the casino retain deposits.

 

[Deeplay]

But what we DO know is that bonuses help the casino retain deposits.

Think that 1 line just about sums it up

 

[geordiecolin]

I think that many bonus takers do so purely to increase their play time as apposed to having high expectations of winning. Take the recent 400% deal at Jackpot strike that I took last Friday. I was simply happy to low roll with a total of £100 for the £20 deposit that I was quite prepared to lose.
Twas the night I got pissed and posted the "Not worthy" thread

 

[PatrickNess]

What do the accredited casinos say huh ?

What do the accredited casinos say huh ?

It's just a matter of time until a casino / game developpers employee leak everything and shit hits the fan for affiliates and tinfoil calling xxxxxxx. "Authorities" & co just get along.

Otherwise everyone would be open about everything, stats and game designs.

Gameplay with bonus locked money (but not only) is designed to increase addiction. I withdraw if someone provides rock solid proof it's not.

 

[SlotGrinder]

I fully agree with Dunover, the WR and other restrictions are skewing the whole bonus "spiel" in favor of the casino.

OK Colin, here is another answer, maybe for Jon too.

I spend the last 2 hours going through my records from 2013 - 2015 (started to avoid bonuses in 2016), compared and added numbers where bonuses were taken vs non-bonus sessions:

RESULT: If i would have never taken a bonus i could have cashed out a whopping and absolutely staggering $48.350 more than i did.

The reason i can state the exact number is because i noted down if my balance went up before i touched bonus funds, my peak balances with bonuses and what the end result was when wagering was finished.

Whether i would have cashed out every time if there was no bonus involved or carried on I can't say as at the time i was always looking to hit 1k in profit before going for the withdrawal button. But, to be honest, seeing that number really shocked me....damn' bonuses

What about all the play between you hitting peak balance and your balance by the time wagering was finished ? Did you discount that ?

A made up example , £100 deposit £100 bonus . Peak balance £1000 . Balance after completing wagering £400 = £300 profit

Ok you can say if this had been a real money only session then you would have cashed out £800 profit . But that leaves the rest of your play where you gradually lost £600 vanishes into thin air ?

If you had started a new real money session you would have lost £600 cash . Ends up £200 profit in total which works out worse overall than your one session with bonus

Just wondering if you included this or just considered each session to end at peak balance then looked at the next

Obviously bonuses don't generally favour the casino . If they did then why aren't they handing out bonuses freely all the time ? A lot of sites give out one monthly reload and that's all
Bonuses might lock us in to more wagering than we'd normally do but lets be honest for most of us a cashout is a temporary thrill which will soon be redeposited so by using bonus funds you're losing less per £1 wagered overall .

 

[brianmon]

I fully agree with Dunover, the WR and other restrictions are skewing the whole bonus "spiel" in favor of the casino.

OK Colin, here is another answer, maybe for Jon too.

I spend the last 2 hours going through my records from 2013 - 2015 (started to avoid bonuses in 2016), compared and added numbers where bonuses were taken vs non-bonus sessions:

RESULT: If i would have never taken a bonus i could have cashed out a whopping and absolutely staggering $48.350 more than i did.

The reason i can state the exact number is because i noted down if my balance went up before i touched bonus funds, my peak balances with bonuses and what the end result was when wagering was finished.

Whether i would have cashed out every time if there was no bonus involved or carried on I can't say as at the time i was always looking to hit 1k in profit before going for the withdrawal button. But, to be honest, seeing that number really shocked me....damn' bonuses

More often than not, I't been quite the opposite for me. If I deposit, say, £100 without a bonus, I'll quite happily withdraw when my balance reaches £250-£300.

But many many time's, because of the wagering on a bonus, I've had to carry on playing after reaching that level.
But also because my starting balance was higher, I'd be playing at a higher stake level. So I often ended up with much more.

It happened just last month with a £60 deposit and 50% bonus, I got my balance up to about £550 playing IR, which I would have withdrawn, had I been playing straight cash.
But because of the wagering I had to continue. I then went on to win £3k on DOA, finished the wagering and cashed out £2.9k

 

[Harry_BKK]

What about all the play between you hitting peak balance and your balance by the time wagering was finished ? Did you discount that ?

A made up example , £100 deposit £100 bonus . Peak balance £1000 . Balance after completing wagering £400 = £300 profit

Ok you can say if this had been a real money only session then you would have cashed out £800 profit . But that leaves the rest of your play where you gradually lost £600 vanishes into thin air ?

If you had started a new real money session you would have lost £600 cash . Ends up £200 profit in total which works out worse overall than your one session with bonus

Just wondering if you included this or just considered each session to end at peak balance then looked at the next

Obviously bonuses don't generally favour the casino . If they did then why aren't they handing out bonuses freely all the time ? A lot of sites give out one monthly reload and that's all
Bonuses might lock us in to more wagering than we'd normally do but lets be honest for most of us a cashout is a temporary thrill which will soon be redeposited so by using bonus funds you're losing less per £1 wagered overall .

Mentioned that in my last sentence. A lot of times i would have cashed out at the peak, especially if the balance reached 1K and would have left maybe $100 to keep playing with small bets. At the time my target was to hit 1K and i would then withdraw the largest part and then play with the leftovers until it was gone or i would be lucky to make it again to 1K.

The calculations are based on the peak balances with the bonuses and what was left when i finished wagering, it includes that sometimes i ended up winning more with the bonus because i would hit some more good wins while wagering. But as many experienced I would get often good hits at the start of the wagering and then it was always a "fight" to survive the wagering requirement.

 

[Harry_BKK]

More often than not, I't been quite the opposite for me. If I deposit, say, £100 without a bonus, I'll quite happily withdraw when my balance reaches £250-£300.

But many many time's, because of the wagering on a bonus, I've had to carry on playing after reaching that level.
But also because my starting balance was higher, I'd be playing at a higher stake level. So I often ended up with much more.

It happened just last month with a £60 deposit and 50% bonus, I got my balance up to about £550 playing IR, which I would have withdrawn, had I been playing straight cash.
But because of the wagering I had to continue. I then went on to win £3k on DOA, finished the wagering and cashed out £2.9k

Lucky man you are!

I surely had too occasions where the longer play because of the bonus wagering got me to some nice wins. I remember the hit on DOA for EUR13K at Redbet. I was already at 900 but still had to wager some 2K, hence i kept playing and although it brought me down to only 150 @ 4.50 bets in the end it gave me then my biggest DOA hit ever.

So it does happen, but my experience is that it is more often not the case.