RTP is too low..

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
I don't see why he'd be banned going by his recent posts, unless I've missed something. Perhaps it was done because of a PM :eek:

My son is no more :(

Yeah the post quoted above was from Dec 19... the guy didn't believe a word any one said, but his recent posts weren't ban worthy so guess it must have been a PM or something else that's maybe been deleted...
 

aceking123

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Location
uk
Bloaty & irish both banned same time anyone know why or whats been missed??
 

slot_zombie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Location
UK
Back on the thread subject, I see from Dunover's reviews today that blueprint have rolled out a couple of new slots on under 95% RTP so the value is indeed disappearing. Whats the point (of playing).
 

zreb

Experienced Member
PABaccred
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Location
currently in US
I'm curious what kind of dialog goes on between slot developers and casinos - are casinos requesting slots with lower RTP? Do casinos negotiate lower rates (payments from casinos to slot providers) for slots with a higher RTP?

Hypothetically, a slot provider could create whatever kind of slot they want, and it's up to the casinos whether or not to accept it. I wonder if this single degree of separation has any potential impact on the kind of slots we will see. A slot provider could release, say, a 97% rtp slot, and if it proved popular, they have negotiating power even if casinos wanted to push down slot RTP's to the 94-95% range.

But I don't know how exactly the whole negotiating process goes down between casinos and slot providers.
 

Aryol

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Location
DE
I think that super high variance is the worst thing that can happen because this way they gonna make 92 % RTP Slots and teasing you with the chance for 10 000x or more.

Right now if you are super unlucky, you can lose 1000 € in a few minutes with 1 € bet. The number of features, ... in some slots are great but they are not often enough. There must be a little "anti-luck" system for this games with bad base game, I mean 1-2k spins and no free spins is the worst experience a player can make. Quickspin added coin rewards so the player can buy features which were a great choice in my eyes.

With anti-luck I mean just a system that increases the playtime, often I just want gamble a little bit checking new games. But there is always one game that has multiple features which are not triggering once in over a thousand spins. Even slots with max. win 150x having such a high variance that having a good playtime is not guaranteed. I like the animations some games do, but this 50-100 dead spins in a row cannot be the true design game providers aiming for. Increasing the RTP would not solve this, I think 96 % is fine and 98 % is really good but I do not like games which are designed like "pay super mega ultra big win" or "pay nothing" we need more medium variance games where we do not need to fear bonus round to pay 1x or less.

I mean what is this? Got 10 times bonus in doa, not once over 15x... I know that there is one player who has the luck to get a wildline in the first spin but thats not the point. Free Spins should be something special or at least have a decent min. win around 20x and I would be happy. Netent is really special, getting into free rounds sometimes impossible and when finally getting in you went out with 0x and thinking about the meaning of life...
 

lockinlove

Staring into the sun
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Location
Canada
Some of these casinos I wont touch if it was the last casino on earth. Lucky Dino have super nice staff but I will never play there because they have such terrible rtp. 92% on jurassic giants and others. I see no reason for online casino to be that damn greedy. Go play a 92% rtp vs a 96% and tell me how you feel after lol or simply go play at a landbased.

Landbased have 90% rtp because of all the employees they have, which are hundreds a night, huge buildings to maintain etc. Online casinos have maybe 10-30 employees in a smallish office? Now they want to put their rtp with landbased? Try it and I will buy my own slot machine to play by myself to fill the need to gamble. Oh and family members I dont like can play it too ;p
 

Gaz237

Ueber Meister
MM
Joined
May 8, 2014
Location
chelmsford UK
I was partly to blame for irish ranger's ban :( I asked him about his chat room adventures from times past and well the conversation became a bit too detailed, it upset some of the ladies and ended in a ban.

His actual ban was for dissing the mod who warned him about said convoy/comments.
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
His actual ban was for dissing the mod who warned him about said convoy/comments.

yeah, but If I hadn't prompted him to reply further it's maybe unlikely it would have happened. I was interested in the possible humorous mishaps in travelling all the way to america for basically blind dates etc.. but it got a bit more graphic, I should have pm'd him instead..I blame the christmas delirium for affecting my brain and clouding my normal common sense :oops:
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
yeah, but If I hadn't prompted him to reply further it's maybe unlikely it would have happened. I was interested in the possible humorous mishaps in travelling all the way to america for basically blind dates etc.. but it got a bit more graphic, I should have pm'd him instead..I blame the christmas delirium for affecting my brain and clouding my normal common sense :oops:

You didn't make him have a go at dunover - that's entirely his decision.
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
I'm curious what kind of dialog goes on between slot developers and casinos - are casinos requesting slots with lower RTP? Do casinos negotiate lower rates (payments from casinos to slot providers) for slots with a higher RTP?

Hypothetically, a slot provider could create whatever kind of slot they want, and it's up to the casinos whether or not to accept it. I wonder if this single degree of separation has any potential impact on the kind of slots we will see. A slot provider could release, say, a 97% rtp slot, and if it proved popular, they have negotiating power even if casinos wanted to push down slot RTP's to the 94-95% range.

But I don't know how exactly the whole negotiating process goes down between casinos and slot providers.

It's a super-simple(ish) process...
I'm a game developer. I want my games on as many casinos as possible. I also want my game to play as well as it can, so i probably make my game just north of 96%.
Some casinos are happy to take games at 96%.
Some casinos want a lower RTP.
You do (almost) whatever it takes to get your games live, because the more casinos you're games are live at, the more money you make.
If you're very lucky, and you have a killer game (Bonanza for example) you will have more sway in refusing to lower the RTP below you're preferred RTP.
If you don't have a killer game, and a casino you want your games live on asks for 94%, then you either do it, or you don't release the game.
If you don't release the game on that casino, you are losing revenue. Not many people will lose money on purpose...
 
Last edited:

Siohmy

Experienced Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Location
Blighty
The combination of lower RTP and HV god-awful design will kill the industry. The things play badly enough as it is. Rather than take a long term look at ways of increasing custom whilst retaining the entertainment factor (not easy i know), to the shock of no-one, casinos and manufacturers have gone for the short term quick hit.

Personally I would have tapered the RTP based on stake. I know WMS have done this but their base level of £2 for 96% seems a little steep. Either that or remove stakes below 50p. There has to be some element of inflation which has to be accounted for but reducing the RTP whilst also encouraging players to buy features in stupidly HV slots is a pretty shitty way of going about things.

That said, we’ve only got ourselves, largely at least, to blame. If we didn’t gobble up the HV slots tempted by the “we get them every week” record wins on YT then the manufacturers and casinos wouldn’t be attracted to them like a moth to a flame.
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
The combination of lower RTP and HV god-awful design will kill the industry. The things play badly enough as it is. Rather than take a long term look at ways of increasing custom whilst retaining the entertainment factor (not easy i know), to the shock of no-one, casinos and manufacturers have gone for the short term quick hit.

Personally I would have tapered the RTP based on stake. I know WMS have done this but their base level of £2 for 96% seems a little steep. Either that or remove stakes below 50p. There has to be some element of inflation which has to be accounted for but reducing the RTP whilst also encouraging players to buy features in stupidly HV slots is a pretty shitty way of going about things.

That said, we’ve only got ourselves, largely at least, to blame. If we didn’t gobble up the HV slots tempted by the “we get them every week” record wins on YT then the manufacturers and casinos wouldn’t be attracted to them like a moth to a flame.

They won't kill the industry - for exactly the reason you give at the end. A problem could arise, however, if you end up in a situation like the UK retail bookmakers - here you have games with profiles so unfriendly that a new player would almost never entertain the games - but because the bulk of the money goes through games like that, the bookies just want more like that. Fine - the current customers like them, but new customers would (i would argue) be put off for life by spinning 30 times at 2 quid a spin without a single win - it's terrible. I'm a player, and i won't play UK bookmaker games other than for research purposes. So your pool of players just gets smaller and smaller.

Luckily, the online casinos don't have this problem and the way they are set up means they probably never will - UNLESS they start to dictate game and maths designs (which i have seen start to happen). Data is brilliant, and they have a lot of data - but equally you shouldn't look at data and say "60% of people like HV games, so all our games should be HV". That's a one way ticket to the bottom. Games, profiles, themes, etc.. should cater to as many people as you can. Some of those games might not be top 20 games, but if they cater to a group of players that don't play anything else, then the income is still incremental. You can't just look at the top 10 games and say "we need more of those" without also looking at other metrics or KPI's.

Why would a casino remove stakes lower than 50p? What possible reason do they have to do that? Land-based need high coin-in, and therefore stakes play a part - but online, stakes are much less relevant - you want people playing. There is no occupancy issue - no bums on seats blocking other players - so if someone wants to spin at 10p a spin for 5 hours a day, so what. And also, i believe changing RTP based on stake is something the UKGC don't like...
 

Siohmy

Experienced Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Location
Blighty
They won't kill the industry - for exactly the reason you give at the end. A problem could arise, however, if you end up in a situation like the UK retail bookmakers - here you have games with profiles so unfriendly that a new player would almost never entertain the games - but because the bulk of the money goes through games like that, the bookies just want more like that. Fine - the current customers like them, but new customers would (i would argue) be put off for life by spinning 30 times at 2 quid a spin without a single win - it's terrible. I'm a player, and i won't play UK bookmaker games other than for research purposes. So your pool of players just gets smaller and smaller.

Luckily, the online casinos don't have this problem and the way they are set up means they probably never will - UNLESS they start to dictate game and maths designs (which i have seen start to happen). Data is brilliant, and they have a lot of data - but equally you shouldn't look at data and say "60% of people like HV games, so all our games should be HV". That's a one way ticket to the bottom. Games, profiles, themes, etc.. should cater to as many people as you can. Some of those games might not be top 20 games, but if they cater to a group of players that don't play anything else, then the income is still incremental. You can't just look at the top 10 games and say "we need more of those" without also looking at other metrics or KPI's.

Why would a casino remove stakes lower than 50p? What possible reason do they have to do that? Land-based need high coin-in, and therefore stakes play a part - but online, stakes are much less relevant - you want people playing. There is no occupancy issue - no bums on seats blocking other players - so if someone wants to spin at 10p a spin for 5 hours a day, so what. And also, i believe changing RTP based on stake is something the UKGC don't like...

My point with the raising of minimum stake as one alternative to bring in the money as opposed to reducing RTP or making “lotto” slots is that, as you have said, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract and keep new customers. The one sure way of chasing new customers away is to produce slots which largely give no entertainment and once in a blue moon chucks a 1000x plus win.

However casinos need to cover increasing costs, at least to the level of inflation, so by raising the minimum bet you are to some degree increasing the throughput of money so desperately desired. Neither options are really desirable as there are a lot of players out there playing 20-40p spins who may be chased away by this option (I myself rarely venture north of 60p-£1) but would casinos rather these players just reduce their play a little but still play some of the time at 50p or chase everyone away by producing ever decreasing returns for your money.

I will not play any slot below 95% so if that is where we end up then I would give it up. I know I am but one man but suspect many will likely follow and once again, following on from AWPs and FOBTs, you’ll just be left with addicts who cannot stop.
 

zreb

Experienced Member
PABaccred
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Location
currently in US
It's a super-simple(ish) process...
I'm a game developer. I want my games on as many casinos as possible. I also want my game to play as well as it can, so i probably make my game just north of 96%.
Some casinos are happy to take games at 96%.
Some casinos want a lower RTP.
You do (almost) whatever it takes to get your games live, because the more casinos you're games are live at, the more money you make.
If you're very lucky, and you have a killer game (Bonanza for example) you will have more sway in refusing to lower the RTP below you're preferred RTP.
If you don't have a killer game, and a casino you want your games live on asks for 94%, then you either do it, or you don't release the game.
If you don't release the game on that casino, you are losing revenue. Not many people will lose money on purpose...

That's true, but my thought process was along the lines of whether, for example, a 97% slot might get several times as much play as a 94% slot, it could be worth it to lose some business if you get a great deal more actual spins and plays on the slot.

Take a slot like immortal romance for example - would it have ever received near the popularity it did as a 94-95% game instead of an almost 97% game? I wouldn't be surprised if it received an order of magnitude less play - but we can't really know for sure. Even though casinos and slot providers have a great deal of info on their hands, they might not know what particular factor led to the success, for one slot to go "viral" where another never leaves the middle of the pack.

But it's certainly possible I'm overestimating how responsive most players are to RTP, in which case I guess casinos would be right (from a business perspective) in lowering RTP if a lot of players just sit down at an interesting looking game and don't particularly care anyway.

My point with the raising of minimum stake as one alternative to bring in the money as opposed to reducing RTP or making “lotto” slots is that, as you have said, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract and keep new customers. The one sure way of chasing new customers away is to produce slots which largely give no entertainment and once in a blue moon chucks a 1000x plus win.

However casinos need to cover increasing costs, at least to the level of inflation, so by raising the minimum bet you are to some degree increasing the throughput of money so desperately desired. Neither options are really desirable as there are a lot of players out there playing 20-40p spins who may be chased away by this option (I myself rarely venture north of 60p-£1) but would casinos rather these players just reduce their play a little but still play some of the time at 50p or chase everyone away by producing ever decreasing returns for your money.

I will not play any slot below 95% so if that is where we end up then I would give it up. I know I am but one man but suspect many will likely follow and once again, following on from AWPs and FOBTs, you’ll just be left with addicts who cannot stop.

Aside from things like customer service, I think many casino costs are percentage based (payments to affiliates, slot providers, sometimes payment processing, taxes). So there probably isn't much reason or need to charge low rollers a higher fee, since they don't have the same per player costs as a physical casino. And today's low roller may be tomorrow's bigger player, so that might be some reason not to try to nickel and dime the low rollers too much - especially since it's easy for them to simply switch to another casino or another game.
 
Last edited:

Siohmy

Experienced Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Location
Blighty
That's true, but my thought process was along the lines of whether, for example, a 97% slot might get several times as much play as a 94% slot, it could be worth it to lose some business if you get a great deal more actual spins and plays on the slot.

Take a slot like immortal romance for example - would it have ever received near the popularity it did as a 94-95% game instead of an almost 97% game? I wouldn't be surprised if it received an order of magnitude less play - but we can't really know for sure. Even though casinos and slot providers have a great deal of info on their hands, they might not know what particular factor led to the success, for one slot to go "viral" where another never leaves the middle of the pack.

But it's certainly possible I'm overestimating how responsive most players are to RTP, in which case I guess casinos would be right (from a business perspective) in lowering RTP if a lot of players just sit down at an interesting looking game and don't particularly care anyway.

That last point is a good one. How many players genuinely are even aware of the RTP of a slot they are playing. I actually suspect it is quite a small number. That does bring trancemonkeys point about game design to the fore. Personally, even if the TRTP is over a gazillion spins, I will still use it to gauge value for money. I know I am going to lose, it’s just how much on average I am prepared to pay for that privilege. I won’t ignore a slot at the lower end of my acceptable scale but will be more reluctant to spend too much on it.

If a game is designed well then I may up my “per hour” loss rate but when you start drilling down below 95% online I can’t help but feel casinos are choosing the easiest path of least resistance to make more money in the short term. It’s why I’d far more advocate a slightly higher min stake or staggered RTP based on stake (just one a little less harsh than SGi).
 

zreb

Experienced Member
PABaccred
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Location
currently in US
That last point is a good one. How many players genuinely are even aware of the RTP of a slot they are playing. I actually suspect it is quite a small number. That does bring trancemonkeys point about game design to the fore. Personally, even if the TRTP is over a gazillion spins, I will still use it to gauge value for money. I know I am going to lose, it’s just how much on average I am prepared to pay for that privilege. I won’t ignore a slot at the lower end of my acceptable scale but will be more reluctant to spend too much on it.

Bodog group (bovada/ignition/etc.) is likely the biggest online casino for U.S. players that I'm aware of (unless some other sportsbook has them beat.)

For more of the slots, they don't even list the RTP. Rival games even offer an option to show or not show the help file showing the RTP, and they choose to block that feature. So bodog group actually makes an effort so that players WON'T have knowledge of the RTP. And they're still wildly successful.

So as much as I might not like to admit it, many players likely don't care - at least not about seeing the actual number. However, they still are affected by the gameplay whether or not they ignore the numbers, and it's harder to tell the exact effect of that (a few % more or less generous games) on player preferences.
 

SlotGrinder

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Location
England
Most ppl play slots for entertainment/gambling not as an investment so they're not really in the mindset of checking out rtp figures . It's all about "feeling lucky" for most
But reality is that longterm the rtp dictates how quickly you will lose your money . I think it is lost too quickly these days . B&M casinos have way more overheads and spin volume is a lot lower so of course their rtp is a lot lower
Online casinos can have 1000s of ppl playing the same slots and spins are very quick . Also players can jump from slot to slot in an instant and bet any amount they wish pretty much . I see no need for the casino to have 4% edge (96% rtp) . But it won't change unless players show an interest in it changing
 

Bloatgoat

Senior Member
webby
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Location
Somewhere
I don't see why he'd be banned going by his recent posts, unless I've missed something. Perhaps it was done because of a PM :eek:

My son is no more :(

He seems to be on a 7 day suspension now so we can expect him back shortly. Good.

Sorry, got banned for writing some words on the forum somewhere which 'some' users feel offended by. Did'nt know people take it THAT serious, lol. Ah well. When someone got taken away for 100k of his winnings it pretty much clarifies on how i feel about these 'online casino's'.
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Location
Londonia
Sorry, got banned for writing some words on the forum somewhere which 'some' users feel offended by. Did'nt know people take it THAT serious, lol. Ah well. When someone got taken away for 100k of his winnings it pretty much clarifies on how i feel about these 'online casino's'.
Don't worry about it. Ten angels die each time I commit fingers to keyboard, so you're not alone :D
 
Top