RTP is too low..

[trancemonkey]

Yeh but that's the trouble - it's all about attracting new players with bonuses which need to be paid for by the existing player who is no longer eligible for welcome bonuses . It's all backwards . Join a casino and you get welcome bonuses , you get rewards more quickly as well . Play on there for a while and you no longer get any bonuses and the rewards dry up lol and you're left with the shitty rtp that the casino needs to make enough money to cover the cost of all the welcome bonuses and affiliates
My broadband/phone package used to cost 19.99 now its 40 for some reason because the "deal" has run out and I cba to go through the hassle of changing it!
Shouldnt the price go down if you are loyal and a good customer ? Not the other way around

What I'm trying to say is the guy who wants to deposit some money and play slots without any gimmicks (bonuses , rewards , races blah blah which are usually fairly worthless) well they are the one getting the bad deal with rtp at 96% considering the speed of play online that eats your money too quickly without providing enough playtime/entertainment imo

I am actually shocked I'm reading a thread where someone is complaining about 96%. You don't know how lucky you are to get that....

 

[SlotGrinder]

So we should all donate our money to casinos and be happy we got the "playing experience" ? I don't know how you think 96% is so awesome when spins are like lightning , look at clash of spins where people are playing 1000s of spins in a couple of hours . Things have changed with providers like push and pragmatic offering superfast spins because their games are HV and its a lot of boring pointless basegame nothing spins to get through before you get the bonus . With a lot of games moving in that direction there is nothing stopping them raising the rtp since playerseasily get in twice the volume in the same time anyway

 

[slotmaster]

I am actually shocked I'm reading a thread where someone is complaining about 96%. You don't know how lucky you are to get that....

This!

I am in a like 85% market or suppose to be years ago, They don't say anymore here and I am not sure why people are not asking or demanding to know, I'm sure it's way less than they are supposed to be paying even more so by how awful it was my last 2 trips.

 

[zreb]

Are we lucky that 96% slots exist, or are casinos lucky that there are still uninformed players who will sit down at much lower return slot games without a reasonable chance of winning?

Well, if casinos want to base their business models around targeting uninformed players with a combination of flashy sounding bonuses and bad paying games, I guess they have the right to do that. And some players will continue to show up. Some will quit.

There are different viable business models. Some attempt to respect players, others hope for idiots that they can harvest money from as fast as possible. More seem to fall into the second category, but a few businesses or casinos will always try to find a niche in providing a quality service - and sometimes find great success (though other times the predatory businesses do quite well, unfortunately). I hope a few of those good businesses will find a model that allows for good paying games, though I can understand there are some difficulties when everyone from payment processors to slot developers and affiliates to governments want to take a percentage.

But the fact that some places are fleecing the shit out of their customers with 85% games doesn't mean we're lucky and entitled to have 96% games. Casinos didn't offer those games to be generous, it's a balancing act between generating profit and keeping players happy.

We could argue whether 96% is "good" or "bad" - personally I'd say its pretty average but why play average when you can play anything? But all I'm saying here is that, 1: it's ridiculous to call players lucky for having the privilege of giving casinos their money on a 96% slot, and that 2: the idea that there isn't much of a difference between a 96% payout slot and a 98% payout slot is completely crazy. Casinos themselves sure think there's a difference between the two, why wouldn't the players?

I'll play 96% slots sometimes myself if I like how they play, but like I said, on a personal level that's about the limit for me since I know how fast the slot is eating money when it gets much lower. The slots under 90% are basically a robbery if the player thinks they have a reasonable chance of winning instead of just exchanging money for some flashing lights - and there's no magical math model that can change that fact.

 

[trancemonkey]

So we should all donate our money to casinos and be happy we got the "playing experience" ? I don't know how you think 96% is so awesome when spins are like lightning , look at clash of spins where people are playing 1000s of spins in a couple of hours . Things have changed with providers like push and pragmatic offering superfast spins because their games are HV and its a lot of boring pointless basegame nothing spins to get through before you get the bonus . With a lot of games moving in that direction there is nothing stopping them raising the rtp since playerseasily get in twice the volume in the same time anyway

It's your choice whether you play fast or not - no one is forcing you. Most UKGC casinos require a 3 second game time.

It's fine to say "I want higher returns" but you clearly don't understand what running a casino entails. Certainly not a legit one...

If you don't like it at 96, then don't play any at that RTP. Simple choice really...

 

[trancemonkey]

So we should all donate our money to casinos and be happy we got the "playing experience" ? I don't know how you think 96% is so awesome when spins are like lightning , look at clash of spins where people are playing 1000s of spins in a couple of hours . Things have changed with providers like push and pragmatic offering superfast spins because their games are HV and its a lot of boring pointless basegame nothing spins to get through before you get the bonus . With a lot of games moving in that direction there is nothing stopping them raising the rtp since playerseasily get in twice the volume in the same time anyway

Also, why do you think there is a move towards HV? It's not because the casinos want it... it's because those games are successful. Which means the players (you guys) want it

 

[trancemonkey]

But all I'm saying here is that, 1: it's ridiculous to call players lucky for having the privilege of giving casinos their money on a 96% slot, and that 2: the idea that there isn't much of a difference between a 96% payout slot and a 98% payout slot is completely crazy. Casinos themselves sure think there's a difference between the two, why wouldn't the players?

I'll play 96% slots sometimes myself if I like how they play, but like I said, on a personal level that's about the limit for me since I know how fast the slot is eating money when it gets much lower. The slots under 90% are basically a robbery if the player thinks they have a reasonable chance of winning instead of just exchanging money for some flashing lights - and there's no magical math model that can change that fact.

You clearly have no idea how slot maths works or the industry works - other than a layman's idea of how you "feel it should work" - to say either of those things is ridiculous.

But that's fine... unless you understand it, your point of view is understandable. Wrong but understandable.

 

[lotusch]

Upping the RTP to 98% would make very little difference to how it feels. It certainly wouldn't help remove wins < half stake. Adding 2% just means that every 50 spins, you would have your stake to give away as a prize that you wouldn't have had at 96%.

96% is exceptionally high. A lot of markets (not online) are below 92%. Some below 90.
You should consider yourselves lucky to have 96. I don't think that will last though...

Think most b&m casinos have much lower RTP settings for their slots.
I defo can vouch for the difference in play when it comes to Novomatic / Greentube slots as I do play them often online and when I visit a local b&m casino I play them most of the times too.
The multi game Greentube cabinets here run at 88% - 91% I was told which makes sense as even in the old days the slots in The Netherlands used to run that kind of RTP % in b&m casinos.
Very hard to get retriggers on games like LLC and Book of Ra de Luxe for example.

Also some of the b&m casinos near here have 1 or 2 linked jackpots attached to their slots which most likely also take a chunk from the actual slots RTP.

I rather play the Novos online!

 

[zreb]

I don't believe that the only way the casino industry can function is by providing players with games that they don't have a reasonable chance of winning. If that's wrong, I'll remain wrong.

If you would tell me then, what are the chances of a player coming out ahead after 500 spins on your 86% slot you designed? How about after 2500 spins? I imagine you have numbers that could answer that question, and I doubt they are numbers that would look very good. That's not a hypothetical, I would be interested to see them.

That's not meant to be an attack on you or your design process, I know you're just doing the best you can with the parameters you're given. But I stand completely by the statement I said - it's literally impossible to make a maths model that turns a <90% RTP game into a good game.

It's also blatantly obvious without inside industry info that a 96% game and a 98% game have the potential to be very different.

There are certainly things you know about the industry that I do not, but I understand basic math and logic. You can argue with me that a 96% slot is barely viable in the industry and you may be right. You can't argue that it gives the same player experience as a 98% slot. That's simply false.

Add 2% RTP to starburst and even that game would probably have managed to avoid... most of the hate it receives on this forum.

 

[lotusch]

Add 2% RTP to starburst and even that game would probably have managed to avoid... most of the hate it receives on this forum.

You'd get 3 stars every 100 spins!
But agreed, one of the worst games ever made, played it a few times when I just started to play online and was thinking, if all online slots are like this I better quit right away.
That said I did manage to get a €600.00 hit on it from a €2.00 stake I think, not sure as it was a long time ago.
Hit the bars with wilds, a couple of lines.

 

[trancemonkey]

I don't believe that the only way the casino industry can function is by providing players with games that they don't have a reasonable chance of winning. If that's wrong, I'll remain wrong.

If you would tell me then, what are the chances of a player coming out ahead after 500 spins on your 86% slot you designed? How about after 2500 spins? I imagine you have numbers that could answer that question, and I doubt they are numbers that would look very good. That's not a hypothetical, I would be interested to see them.

That's not meant to be an attack on you or your design process, I know you're just doing the best you can with the parameters you're given. But I stand completely by the statement I said - it's literally impossible to make a maths model that turns a <90% RTP game into a good game.

It's also blatantly obvious without inside industry info that a 96% game and a 98% game have the potential to be very different.

There are certainly things you know about the industry that I do not, but I understand basic math and logic. You can argue with me that a 96% slot is barely viable in the industry and you may be right. You can't argue that it gives the same player experience as a 98% slot. That's simply false.

Add 2% RTP to starburst and even that game would probably have managed to avoid... most of the hate it receives on this forum.

It's not false.. Because players only experience games over a short lifecycle. Yes over a long period you might notice, but I would bet you 50 quid you couldn't tell the difference between a 93 or 89% slot over 500 games. Why? Because good designers design them that way....

 

[SlotGrinder]

98% rtp will mean it takes you double the amount of spins to lose the same amount of money . Doesn't matter if the player "feels it " Thats just the maths . Every regular player knows they will lose in the end and most lose as much as they can afford or their budget . So why does it matter to the casino if they get 10 hours playtime in a week instead of 5 . Obviously the variance is huge but ultimately that is what it comes down to

Anyway , if some slot designer makes a 98% rtp game which gets loads of volume played on it and everyone loves it then its going to earn more revenue than all the boring clone 96% rtp slots out there . Ofc rtp is not everything but it is a factor and whilst slot designers try to push the envelope regarding max potential and megaways etc noone seems to put much thought into increasing rtp beyond the std 96%

 

[zreb]

It's not false.. Because players only experience games over a short lifecycle. Yes over a long period you might notice, but I would bet you 50 quid you couldn't tell the difference between a 93 or 89% slot over 500 games. Why? Because good designers design them that way....

I might not be able to tell the difference between even a 95% slot and an 87% slot with a high degree of certainty over 500 games, but that doesn't mean I'm unaffected by it. I'm very likely to have a bad experience on the 87% game, I just won't know "why" - whether I got unlucky or the slot payout is terrible. I can suspect the slot is a money gobbler, but I couldn't know for sure - in fact I've had that exact experience a few times where I just don't know if it's bad luck or bad payouts. Several bad sessions - or even a big win followed by dead slots - and I'll start to wonder whether or not I'm throwing away my money, or underestimating the variance, or simply on a bad run.

That's why I think transparency (providing RTP) is very important for slots - because it's very difficult to judge these things from the results of a few spins, but in an ideal world players can make informed decisions. And to reiterate, even if you don't know the cause, it still affects your results, your length of play, and your experience.

Regarding the potential to win on a <90% slot, like I said, I know you have (or at some point had) those kind of numbers. If you wish to prove me wrong and to show that an 86% slot is winnable, you can provide them.

You do have knowledge that many here (including myself) do not have, and I appreciate your willingness to share it with the community. My intention is not to antagonize, but it feels somewhat insulting when you tell players they are "lucky" for the privilege of spending their money on a 96% slot game - as I said before, these casinos are not charities, and the "lucky" players are what make the industry run.

Well, that's enough arguing out of me today, what better way to start the new year than with some forum battles.

 

[trancemonkey]

I might not be able to tell the difference between even a 95% slot and an 87% slot with a high degree of certainty over 500 games, but that doesn't mean I'm unaffected by it. I'm very likely to have a bad experience on the 87% game, I just won't know "why" - whether I got unlucky or the slot payout is terrible. I can suspect the slot is a money gobbler, but I couldn't know for sure - in fact I've had that exact experience a few times where I just don't know if it's bad luck or bad payouts. Several bad sessions - or even a big win followed by dead slots - and I'll start to wonder whether or not I'm throwing away my money, or underestimating the variance, or simply on a bad run.

That's why I think transparency (providing RTP) is very important for slots - because it's very difficult to judge these things from the results of a few spins, but in an ideal world players can make informed decisions. And to reiterate, even if you don't know the cause, it still affects your results, your length of play, and your experience.

Regarding the potential to win on a <90% slot, like I said, I know you have (or at some point had) those kind of numbers. If you wish to prove me wrong and to show that an 86% slot is winnable, you can provide them.

You do have knowledge that many here (including myself) do not have, and I appreciate your willingness to share it with the community. My intention is not to antagonize, but it feels somewhat insulting when you tell players they are "lucky" for the privilege of spending their money on a 96% slot game - as I said before, these casinos are not charities, and the "lucky" players are what make the industry run.

Well, that's enough arguing out of me today, what better way to start the new year than with some forum battles.

I understand your points... And I agree that the higher the better... But honestly, RTPs will only come down with taxation and increased costs. Make the most of the high RTPs while you have them. They won't be around forever... And nearly all decent casinos want to run at the highest they can whilst still being profitable - its not an easy balance for decent casinos.

 

[trancemonkey]

I might not be able to tell the difference between even a 95% slot and an 87% slot with a high degree of certainty over 500 games, but that doesn't mean I'm unaffected by it. I'm very likely to have a bad experience on the 87% game, I just won't know "why" - whether I got unlucky or the slot payout is terrible. I can suspect the slot is a money gobbler, but I couldn't know for sure - in fact I've had that exact experience a few times where I just don't know if it's bad luck or bad payouts. Several bad sessions - or even a big win followed by dead slots - and I'll start to wonder whether or not I'm throwing away my money, or underestimating the variance, or simply on a bad run.

That's why I think transparency (providing RTP) is very important for slots - because it's very difficult to judge these things from the results of a few spins, but in an ideal world players can make informed decisions. And to reiterate, even if you don't know the cause, it still affects your results, your length of play, and your experience.

Regarding the potential to win on a <90% slot, like I said, I know you have (or at some point had) those kind of numbers. If you wish to prove me wrong and to show that an 86% slot is winnable, you can provide them.

You do have knowledge that many here (including myself) do not have, and I appreciate your willingness to share it with the community. My intention is not to antagonize, but it feels somewhat insulting when you tell players they are "lucky" for the privilege of spending their money on a 96% slot game - as I said before, these casinos are not charities, and the "lucky" players are what make the industry run.

Well, that's enough arguing out of me today, what better way to start the new year than with some forum battles.

With regards to win potential .. it's all down to the win profile.

 

[dunover]

Give me a 96% HV slot any day over a 98% slot with an egg-timer LV maths model. I want to have some kind of belief I can see some excitement and win something worth cashing out, as opposed to death by 1000 cuts which those near-98% games like 1429 Uncharted Seas are....

If you want a 98%+ RTP game go play blackjack.

Either way, you'll lose the house edge over time.

You wouldn't get much in the way of casino bonuses if the house edge was only 2%. Then you'll have double the turnover for the same deposit which means the developer fees would double for the casino too. 95-96.5% isn't a bad range for any slots player IMO.

The only way you'd notice quite quickly if a slot game had changed from 96 to 98% was if the mechanic and math model was based on very low variance and frequent very small wins. And players don't tend to gravitate to those kind of games, as we know.

 

[goatwack]

I've had plenty of escapades from Playtech over the years, albeit not so much now. Yet their games are notoriously low payout-wise.

In the short-term however (and this could be over many years given a slot's infinite cycle) even the 94/ 95%ers can knock out some belters.

I guess I find the variance of a slot more appealing, coupled with its entertainment factor, than simply pouring over spreadsheets, ultimately....

 

[robby811]

ups wrong window

 

[SlotGrinder]

To put some numbers on it

say your budget for the week is 100GBP which is a fair amount rly to be throwing at slots

If you do 50p bets on slots with 96% rtp then your avg playtime will be around 3 hr 20 mins , if you do 25 spins per minute . I did 100 spins on book of dead (fast spins ) and it took 3.5 mins so around 29 spins/min

If you do the 50p bets on slots with 98% rtp then your playtime for your weekly deposits rises to 6hr 40 mins on avg

This is for a generic slot model (I don't know exactly what slot this is based on) but high variance or low variance the avg playtime will be the same , just the actual playtime will vary a lot more with the higher variance slots

What player is honestly happy with paying 30GBP /hr to get their entertainment at 50p bets ? because thats what you're paying , at least on games with quick spins and lets face it noone likes a slow spinning game (jumanji )

NOTE : Obv there is a lot of downtime in a slot session - changing games , lag , deciding what slot to play next , stopping to screenshot that 10000x hit (yeh right) so this only applies if you are constantly spinning... still I think it is an excessive cost for a relatively low stake . Especially when you consider that most games you need to do hundreds of spins just for anything interesting to happen

 

[Gaz237]

So we should all donate our money to casinos and be happy we got the "playing experience" ? I don't know how you think 96% is so awesome when spins are like lightning , look at clash of spins where people are playing 1000s of spins in a couple of hours . Things have changed with providers like push and pragmatic offering superfast spins because their games are HV and its a lot of boring pointless basegame nothing spins to get through before you get the bonus . With a lot of games moving in that direction there is nothing stopping them raising the rtp since playerseasily get in twice the volume in the same time anyway

I think 96% is quite awesome.

The machine in the pub in our village is 74%.

Not really sure I understand your logic about donating money to Casinos?. They are providing a platform to gamble on. You don't have to gamble, it's a choice.

When i have a bet on the horses, I don't expect the horses to do an extra lap of the course, Just to make me feel like I got value for money.

Edit to add--- I agree with Dunover. I don't want to be bored shitless on a 98% machine, knowing a 400X will be the limit of a big win.

I'd rather have 3 hours of a decent chance of 2000X+. Than 6 hours of watching my balance drain away.

 

[SlotGrinder]

Why is a 98% rtp going to be more boring ? The variance / game play doesn't have to be any different except better payouts - that's the whole point
Yeh I know I don't have to gamble . I like playing slots . I just want better longterm payouts because atm I don't think I get enough playtime for my money unless I play the boring 98% games like you said , or blackjack which is not my cup of tea

 

[trancemonkey]

Why is a 98% rtp going to be more boring ? The variance / game play doesn't have to be any different except better payouts - that's the whole point
Yeh I know I don't have to gamble . I like playing slots . I just want better longterm payouts because atm I don't think I get enough playtime for my money unless I play the boring 98% games like you said , or blackjack which is not my cup of tea

You still seem to think there is a direct correlation between RTP and game play. This is simply not true - until you understand that it's what you do with the RTP that makes a good game, you won't understand why 96 to 98 makes very little difference.

Yes, on average your money will last twice as long, but that assumes identical maths models and an endless wallet... because if I make a game at 98% that pays 10% of my wins every 10,000 games (as a 1000x win) and someone else makes a game at 96% with an 800x win every 10,000 spins, but the rest of the game is identical, how do you think those two games play for the 9,999 spins (on average) until you get the huge win.

I'll tell you.. they will play EXACTLY the same. So you're win/loss rate will be identical for 9,999 games. And then in only one win you would see the difference. But you still wouldn't know it was a difference.

So this idea that you lose half as much per spin is true in statistically, but to the players it is entirely dependent on a lot of other things.

You just can't simplify it the way you are.

 

[SlotGrinder]

I don't think you understand basic maths . If I spin at a 96% slot for a year I will lose twice as much as if I spin on a 98% slot . Yes there is variance . I could lose every spin and have 0% rtp or I could win massive every spin and have 10000% rtp . But w/e happens my results if I did this a trillion times would vary around whatever the rtp figure is

 

[trancemonkey]

I don't think you understand basic maths . If I spin at a 96% slot for a year I will lose twice as much as if I spin on a 98% slot . Yes there is variance . I could lose every spin and have 0% rtp or I could win massive every spin and have 10000% rtp . But w/e happens my results if I did this a trillion times would vary around whatever the rtp figure is

And therefore i don't think you can read

As i said this, with an example of why [shown above] in theory it's true but in practice it is only true over a much longer period than most people will ever play. It is ENTIRELY dependent on how the RTP is distributed in the maths as to whether you (personally) will feel the extra (or lower) RTP.

 

[goatwack]

So there you have it, RTP is based on emotion and feelings

Ties in nicely with the current zeitgeist