RTP Over the Years

[johnnybagel]

One for the more experienced players probably.

I only started playing around 2019, there or there abouts, but for any of you who have been playing for longer, what have you noticed about RTP rates over time?

I've read a lot on this forum about RTPs being reduced, and being made variable - so would you say the average RTP used to be higher back in the day?

What are the differences, what changed? I'd be really interested to read your observations.

Cheers!

 

[orion]

I have been playing online since 2003 till 2022. Always with minimum bet.

In my opinion the reduction of the RTP value has only taken place in the last 4/5 years (I'm talking about dotcom casinos, at a national local level it's a totally other beast).
In any case we are talking about fluctuations of 2% which are huge, but still acceptable (from the players' pow).

Recently I'm not playing anymore, but I'm being told about games set to 92, 90, 88, 84%. It is clear to everyone that these are catastrophic values.

In my humble and poor opinion focusing only on the RTP value is misleading, what has changed the most is the variance, especially since the switch to html, and simultaneously with the advent of megaways games and such.
That was the most important moment of change.
Still, we have (erm.... YOU have) games set at 96/94% RTP, but your 50£/€ deposits last shorter, because of crazy variance.

At least this is my 2 little cent.

 

[KamenValev]

I've been playing since 2007 in land based and online casinos - in my opinion the RTP will always stay between average 94-96% - the players arent stupid and if the providers lower the RTP too much noone will play that slot etc

 

[Siohmy]

I've been playing since 2007 in land based and online casinos - in my opinion the RTP will always stay between average 94-96% - the players arent stupid and if the providers lower the RTP too much noone will play that slot etc

I think you underestimate just how greedy the providers are. It’s become pretty much known this is driven by the casinos and they will push things to the very edge.
Sub 94% RTPs are becoming more common especially amongst the biggest providers, *cough* Sky *cough* William Hill. There are some less volatile slots being released which may cover up the reduction a little in the short term. UHV slots paying less than 94% is a fast track to a mass exodus. I suspect there will be pretty much no slots paying over 95% by the end of the year, certainly not new releases anyway. BTG will be forced into a corner on RTP this year I’m sure.

 

[johnnymcc1966]

Been playing since around 2007/08 time and now my £10 and £20 deposits are pretty pointless as they are like simply handing money to the casino.

 

[OliverCooper]

I don't have as much experience as you but even I noticed that with RTP less than 94% there is no desire to play. And although the casino is trying to reduce this indicator, the reaction of the players shows that in this case they will lose the audience

 

[KamenValev]

I think you underestimate just how greedy the providers are. It’s become pretty much known this is driven by the casinos and they will push things to the very edge.
Sub 94% RTPs are becoming more common especially amongst the biggest providers, *cough* Sky *cough* William Hill. There are some less volatile slots being released which may cover up the reduction a little in the short term. UHV slots paying less than 94% is a fast track to a mass exodus. I suspect there will be pretty much no slots paying over 95% by the end of the year, certainly not new releases anyway. BTG will be forced into a corner on RTP this year I’m sure.

well, if this is the way the providers acting this is very bad for us the players - many people think that there is no big difference between 95 and 96% RTP but I've read many articles and in a long run, this is a huuuuuge number.
I believe that even if they make smth like the standard of 95% they will start losing players and after 1-2 years will go again higher for 96% etc

 

[satchnz]

Then you get providers like ELK who now only release their slots with one RTP, being 94%. They used to be 96%+, then quietly all new releases at 95%, and their last few releases being at 94%. Disgusting.

 

[Shafted]

The outcome is still exactly the same, ie you deposit £100 or your usual amount and play until its spunked, repeat, repeat repeat, it just happens at a much faster rate with lower rtp%, even 2% lower will on average will have huge effect on the time

 

[Triple A]

I don't even care depositing a 20 to play slots.

 

[bamberfishcake]

The outcome is still exactly the same, ie you deposit £100 or your usual amount and play until its spunked, repeat, repeat repeat, it just happens at a much faster rate with lower rtp%, even 2% lower will on average will have huge effect on the time

Lol, I know what you are saying, but the outcome is not the same as you also explain.

In the end, we all lose, but the experience is very different. With much shorter play time, coupled with volatility changes, deposits go much quicker now, and there is less opportunity for small profits/cashouts on later releases, which are, by design, more volatile.

High volatility ratings of old are nothing like the high volatility ratings of recent times. As they are made-up ratings by each developer, they are quite irrelevant by comparison.

Four years ago, you could deposit 30/40/50, and if you were patient and played sensibly (which I know most people are not with slots), you could, on occasion, be reasonably confident of getting in a position to make a withdrawal after a few hours of enjoyment.

Now, on the latest games, the deposits fly away in under an hour most of the time. Low RTP sucks the fun out of it for many. Hence, the complaints about deposits draining of late.

 

[snorky510238]

I actually think games are advertised at say 94% but are actually paying 92% (or less). They are allowed a tolerance so why wouldn’t they use it to their advantage?

Back in the day, you had compensated slots running at around 84% and your money lasted twice as long as it does playing the so called higher rtp.

In any case, there is no doubt whatsoever that you’re just being robbed blind nowadays. I doubt you could throw it down the drain quicker if you tried.

The whole industry is corrupt and nobody can do a thing about it.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Also, much of the math has changed. Max wins in a billion spins instead of a million.

Would not be hard for them to remove many of the 200x to 600x wins also, with more, much less frequent, wins at bigger, headline-grabbing, twitch-streaming amounts.

 

[SlotLover4U]

Interesting this.
I think it is the variance or volatility which is getting crazy.
What is the use of RTP of 90% or 98% if nearly 100% of that RTP is in the one big max win you'll get in 1 billion spins.

I am feeling it over the last few months. It is frustrating that you play many slots chasing that bonus with potential (NL, so no BB) and just end up losing your balance of 1000x stake while the max hit is a 20x or a 40x.

The previous years I always tried to record my bigger hits (500x+) using a history or replay option.
I did that quite frequently as I was getting a decent amount of those.
For the last year I just didn't get those at all. Of course it's variance/volatility, but it's also that more of the RTP is in that Max Win, or the very very rare very very big hits.

But in the end it makes playing less fun, as the fun is to get an occasional small hit, and at least have some balance to play a little longer and dream of the big hit.

And only the streamers can do a bonus hunt where they easily make 100x+ on bonus games on average!
I did track long time average for bonuses myself and it was around 55x for me.

And when the fun disappears, and your losing streaks add up, you'll stop playing. Either out of frustration, or out of cash!

 

[slot_zombie]

Then you get providers like ELK who now only release their slots with one RTP, being 94%. They used to be 96%+, then quietly all new releases at 95%, and their last few releases being at 94%. Disgusting.

And yet they must have done their sums and worked out that any reduction in players will be more than offset by increased revenue. Agreed it is disgusting though. They don't get my business any more but perhaps I'm not their target audience...

There are people (or should I say, mugs) happily playing on 87% RTP Book Of Dead in the UK today via some Aspire Global sites like Greenplay. Obviously not enough folks give a crap about RTP.

 

[KamenValev]

come on guys, I was wondering if u are right and checked few sites that are publishing upcoming sltos etc - to be honest the average RTP is still like 96%

From 10 slots that are about to come next month only 2 are under 96, so I beleive the situation is not that bad - of course there are some providers that keeping low RTPs but most of them are around 96

 

[bamberfishcake]

come on guys, I was wondering if u are right and checked few sites that are publishing upcoming sltos etc - to be honest the average RTP is still like 96%

From 10 slots that are about to come next month only 2 are under 96, so I beleive the situation is not that bad - of course there are some providers that keeping low RTPs but most of them are around 96

Not many review sites list the available RTP designs of online slots.

Nearly all list what used to be the default model in the 96% bracket.

One of the reviews, Moon Princess Trinity, will be released in five different versions for casinos to pick from to host. Something like 96.20%, 94.20%, 91.20% 87.20% and 84.20%.

It's not about what versions are made, it's about the vast majority of low versions being employed. In the UK, there is one casino I know of that has all in the 96% range. The rest host lower-paying versions, for players anyway.

p.s. Don't bother checking demo games for Pragmatic Play and Play'n GO either, they use 96%ers for demos, while games for cash at the same casinos are often much lower.

 

[johnnymcc1966]

The whole industry is corrupt and nobody can do a thing about it.

You've basically just summed up the whole planet in one sentence there.

 

[KamenValev]

u

Not many review sites list the available RTP designs of online slots.

Nearly all list what used to be the default model in the 96% bracket.

One of the reviews, Moon Princess Trinity, will be released in five different versions for casinos to pick from to host. Something like 96.20%, 94.20%, 91.20% 87.20% and 84.20%.

It's not about what versions are made, it's about the vast majority of low versions being employed. In the UK, there is one casino I know of that has all in the 96% range. The rest host lower-paying versions, for players anyway.

p.s. Don't bother checking demo games for Pragmatic Play and Play'n GO either, they use 96%ers for demos, while games for cash at the same casinos are often much lower.

maybe the RTP is different for demo, thats normal - if I am not mistaked only NetEnt demos are closer to the actual one.
But I didnt get smth - u mean that the RTP of the same slot is 96% for example at casino A and 95% for example at casino B ?

 

[bamberfishcake]

u

maybe the RTP is different for demo, thats normal - if I am not mistaked only NetEnt demos are closer to the actual one.
But I didnt get smth - u mean that the RTP of the same slot is 96% for example at casino A and 95% for example at casino B ?

Yes, with the exception of Big Time Gaming and a few smaller studios, all online slots are now made in several versions.

As mentioned, your review site says 96% for Moon Princess Trinity, but that's not the case. In reality, most will probably plumb for the 94% or 92% versions. Germany is the main user of 87% and 84%ers.

I also think the demo should replicate the version at the casino. Not sure if a demo having a different payback percentage to a real-money version is normal, and certainly not ethical in my book. You could play a demo of Book of Dead at 96% and expect that when you play, the real one will play the same. Lower versions, especially the much lower versions, won't have the same hit frequency, the opportunity for big wins, or even the same max win with some slots. At best, it's false advertising. In my eyes, it's a deliberate attempt to dupe prospective players

 

[snorky510238]

If you get rinsed absolutely dry on 92-94%. How the hell do German players justify playing 80 odd %? Must be lucky to make a withdrawal once a year.

 

[bamberfishcake]

If you get rinsed absolutely dry on 92-94%. How the hell do German players justify playing 80 odd %? Must be lucky to make a withdrawal once a year.

I can't remember the name, but there was one German Casino that offered 96%ers with the added tax per spin.

Most of them run low versions and pay tax from profits.

Would be interesting to see some stats before and after the tax came in. To see what effect it has had on volume.

 

[Siohmy]

I personally think that if you should not be able to release a slot with the same name in multiple rtp variants. You are being given the impression you are playing the same game everywhere when that is far from the truth.
At the very least the UKGC could actually do something useful for a change and insist the RTP be displayed when opening the game.

 

[snorky510238]

I don’t believe for a second that games are made with one rtp. Why would providers do that when the flick of a switch will create any rtp you want.

Take BTG for example. They run Bonanza, EC, Millionaire and DHV on 50% most of the time and get away with it.

 

[Yellowsamuel]

I could be wrong but isnt one of the reason the casinos, particulary the UK ones, are now setting their slots to a lower rtp% is because the goverment are taking a bigger chunk of their profits in tax? I am not sure but I remember something along those lines, or it might have to do with the changes in allowed stakes that is causing a decrease in their revenues that they are trying to claw back through poor rtp