RTP (Return to Player ) posts from another thread

nikantw

Banned User
PABaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Location
EU
No worries, all is coming.

Germany submitted last week its overhaul of the "Glückspielstaatsvetrag", in short GlüStV, to the EU for their blessing. It includes among other whoppers:

- Centralized player database
- Maximum deposit limit across all licensed casinos: EUR1,000 per calendar month
- Withdrawals are not subtracted from the limit.
- Max bet: EUR1

Is that what you are looking for, my friend? :confused:

Shouting all the time for authorities to do something won't end well, that is as sure as the Amen in church. :rolleyes:
What I say is more like "we must force you to fix the mess you created" and less "please help" ;)
 

bamberfishcake

Experienced Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
Firstly lets get rid of the idea that casinos 'NEED' more money.....

'The global online gambling market is anticipated to be valued at more than 94 billion U.S. dollars in 2024. The current size of the market is almost 46 billion U.S. dollars, meaning the size is forecast to double in the upcoming years.'

I wont quote the source as its not hard to find details about the growth of online gambling. It attracts worldwide investment and makes a killing - FACT!

More comments require full belly of breakfast :)
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
Firstly lets get rid of the idea that casinos 'NEED' more money.....

'The global online gambling market is anticipated to be valued at more than 94 billion U.S. dollars in 2024. The current size of the market is almost 46 billion U.S. dollars, meaning the size is forecast to double in the upcoming years.'

I wont quote the source as its not hard to find details about the growth of online gambling. It attracts worldwide investment and makes a killing - FACT!

More comments require full belly of breakfast :)
The global food service market size was worth US$ 3.4 Trillion in 2018 and is expected to reach a value of US$ 4.2 Trillion by 2024, registering a CAGR of 3.6% during 2019-2024


So let's get rid of that the idea that any food store (or pick what ever part you want from supply chain) "NEED" more money (and same time could stop all that economical support paid to them which only in Europe is quite huge amount, doesn't make any sense when following this logic) and still my beers and food price keep increasing :(

But as you are smart person, i assume that you clarify your post little bit after your breakfast. Of course casinos don't need any money, world would exist without them like without many other things which don't really deliver anything essential. If there's supply and demand, there is market that creates value. Casinos need that amount of money they can get and if that's not enough, then they close down, like in any other industry which is not categorized to be essential and get financing somewhere else than from markets).

I hope you could break down that number little bit like where that amount money is going, is it all purely to casinos pocket (they probably would hope)? To keep that comparison to food market, is this 3.4 trillion USD:s just going to shops who sell product to customers and there's no others in supply chain sharing that amount and paying taxes and other expences from them.

Do you know how much in average from £100 you play to slots end up to be casinos profit? Of course casinos are there only to make much profit as possible, like most of other companies. This converastion really remind me from my granny (RIP) who always kept mentioning how much cheaper everything was 20 years ago.

I just don't get where this idea is coming from that casinos should cut their profits and start to operate as charity organizations, i have little doupts that many here wouldn't run own business with less profit just to make people happy and hug the world. Would like to get know some examples from any industries which are not essential or otherwise is special condition that their aim is not to make profit. Once you are public stock listed company, it's your legal obligation to try make money to your owners unless otherwise decided in AGM (which haven't really read happening often), if you do operate against your share holders interest, you are very easily breaking law.

Looking forward a day when companies start to change their business models not profitable and do what they do just for fun and love for work for free.
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
At the risk of Bambi shootings me, the other way of looking at it is that the management of a casinos duty of care (legal) is to maximise shareholder wealth (though there have been moves in company law to extend this to ‘Stakeholders’; think someone touched upon social responsibility which PLCs I think now need to report against

Quick plausible then that SH’s, looking at their company offering 96, say ‘Oi, you’re not doing that; I see other places running at 92; so why aren’t we doing that‘?

Obviously if management said, ah but we’d lose X amount of customers if we did that, so we’re best sticking where we are; in fact we may get more folk transferring over to us’: but tbh I’m not sure that would be enough as some of these guys are quite myopic when it comes to Short Term Gains (as opposed to longer term returns)
 

myke35

Experienced Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Location
Uk
This seems a simple decision for me but maybe this is as I don't go in for the 25-35x bonuses and free spins promotions and prefer just to play with my own money so that I can cash in whenever I want.
As long as casinos indicate they are lowering RTP/playtime on games I will just choose to play those games elsewhere that offer the factory RTP. Playtime and wins are already in short supply (possibly due to an already over saturated player base) and reducing that even further across the board would probably make me question whether it is worth continuing to play.
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
This seems a simple decision for me but maybe this is as I don't go in for the 25-35x bonuses and free spins promotions and prefer just to play with my own money so that I can cash in whenever I want.
As long as casinos indicate they are lowering RTP/playtime on games I will just choose to play those games elsewhere that offer the factory RTP. Playtime and wins are already in short supply (possibly due to an already over saturated player base) and reducing that even further across the board would probably make me question whether it is worth continuing to play.
That kind of makes perfect sense, it's quite hard mission to make any particular casino to change bonus wagering or RTP on your request, so simply just choose best place to play on your needs.

Now when these different versions of RTP settings are implemented, they also are going to be used. Not sure what exact story is that who's idea was start to implement them, was it casinos asking or providers offering but now they exist.

Obviously if management said, ah but we’d lose X amount of customers if we did that, so we’re best sticking where we are; in fact we may get more folk transferring over to us’: but tbh I’m not sure that would be enough as some of these guys are quite myopic when it comes to Short Term Gains (as opposed to longer term returns)
I'm sure that many are interested about long term profits and not looking to make quick profit and quite, but is there loads of data available which would support that providing that 2% more RTP would make you more profit than 2% lower one? I think it's obviously really seen by many to cover increased operating costs and support to remain profit levels, when most of things are more expensive every year, you kind of need to do same if you want to remain your profits, cutting profits every year until business is break even and then negative is something i would like to be listening to be accepted in AGM by investors.

Unfortunately most of data just pointing to other direction, Aspire have no any problems to keep increasing amount of new depositors almost every quarter. Instead of giving more money to these same players you have, it seems you get better ROI by using it to get new traffic and depositors to your site. These days when online gambling is already everybodys thing to do and device to gamle is in everybodys pocket, you have so much bigger group of people you can possibly to make deposit that making your existing players to spend same amount of money would be kind of mission impossible or are most of people doubling their gambling budget every month for 2% RTP and some bit better bonuses, guess no or then too many hit to problem gambling.

If you can convince with realistic numbers that this way company would make more money to your investment for longer period, i'm really sure that many would listen but there just is no data to support it that lowering end user price would make you a significant increase in revenue, even that much that you would cover these costs.
 

SuperVGA

Newbie member
Joined
Sep 30, 2018
Location
Germany
Germany submitted last week its overhaul of the "Glückspielstaatsvetrag", in short GlüStV, to the EU for their blessing. It includes among other whoppers:

- Centralized player database
- Maximum deposit limit across all licensed casinos: EUR1,000 per calendar month
- Withdrawals are not subtracted from the limit.
- Max bet: EUR1
Well, in my opinion online gambling will be dead in Germany next year.
For me Max Bet: EUR1 is not the main problem.

The main problem is, no table games anymore. No live table games and no RNG table games, only slots.
And playings slots under these conditions will be horrible. No autoplay, no turbo mode, etc...

But okay, Germany is Germany and I really wonder why some people thought a regulation would be good.
It's the dead of Online-Casinos in Germany to protect their state lotttery/casinos etc.., nothing else,
 

Mr_Slot5

Experienced Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Location
Cheshire
Well, in my opinion online gambling will be dead in Germany next year.
For me Max Bet: EUR1 is not the main problem.

The main problem is, no table games anymore. No live table games and no RNG table games, only slots.
And playings slots under these conditions will be horrible. No autoplay, no turbo mode, etc...

But okay, Germany is Germany and I really wonder why some people thought a regulation would be good.
It's the dead of Online-Casinos in Germany to protect their state lotttery/casinos etc.., nothing else,
I've been thinking about this.

I think the best solution for all would be to levy a tax on gambling winnings at source. So if you withdraw €1000 the casino takes some off that and sets it to one side to pay the government of the jurisdiction they are offering the games to.

That way the government is happy, the casinos are happy and the player is happy that they have all games available at a decent RTP.
 

bamberfishcake

Experienced Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
So let's get rid of that the idea that any food store (or pick what ever part you want from supply chain) "NEED" more money (and same time could stop all that economical support paid to them which only in Europe is quite huge amount, doesn't make any sense when following this logic) and still my beers and food price keep increasing :(
I stand by what i say. Casinos are very profitable. I posted because i did not like the tone of the thread where some people seemed to be implying that casinos 'need' more money.

Were not talking about a cost of living rise or a rise in line with inflation. Its a move by all casinos across the UK market to increase profits.

While we are comparing with other industries I also cannot think of any other industry hiking prices at this time apart from Pharmaceutical.

I think the lowering of RTP at such a time is also unethical considering the increase in traffic. (Increase in traffic being a fair assumption i think given the way the UKGC have responded).

Do the casinos 'need' this increase at such a time? No, but they are still going ahead with it.

But as you are smart person
Thanks, but a bit presumptive.

I sometimes say smart things i suppose but so did Forrest Gump.

Of course casinos don't need any money
Thanks, thats my point. The 'Need'.

I just don't get where this idea is coming from that casinos should cut their profits and start to operate as charity organizations
Neither do I. I have never said 'do not run a profitable business' or 'give me free money'.

The initial move is the lowering of the RTP so where does the idea of 'cutting' profits come from?

If there is a move to lower then the gain is an increase in profits. I have not asked anybody to cut anything because the profits have not been made yet since the discussion is around the lowering.

Looking forward a day when companies start to change their business models not profitable and do what they do just for fun and love for work for free.
That would be something eh :)


My argumentative nature of the lowering of RTP is born from the thin and false reasons posted that try and justify the lowering in any other way except for the truth, which is simply that they want to make more money.

A statement of 'Casino A lowered RTP because they want to be more profitable' is not one i would argue with as its a fact.

I am sure i would be fighting a different fight were i a casino owner but im not. I am a player who is seeing my playing time and opportunity being diminished whilst being fed poor reasons and excuses for doing so.

The playing time and less opportunity i can take. I have said this before and i really do have bigger fish to fry. Its the bull that gets my back up.
 

pinnit2014

Meister Member
PABnoaccred
mm1
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Location
Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
I stand by what i say. Casinos are very profitable. I posted because i did not like the tone of the thread where some people seemed to be implying that casinos 'need' more money.

Were not talking about a cost of living rise or a rise in line with inflation. Its a move by all casinos across the UK market to increase profits.

While we are comparing with other industries I also cannot think of any other industry hiking prices at this time apart from Pharmaceutical.

I think the lowering of RTP at such a time is also unethical considering the increase in traffic. (Increase in traffic being a fair assumption i think given the way the UKGC have responded).

Do the casinos 'need' this increase at such a time? No, but they are still going ahead with it.



Thanks, but a bit presumptive.

I sometimes say smart things i suppose but so did Forrest Gump.



Thanks, thats my point. The 'Need'.



Neither do I. I have never said 'do not run a profitable business' or 'give me free money'.

The initial move is the lowering of the RTP so where does the idea of 'cutting' profits come from?

If there is a move to lower then the gain is an increase in profits. I have not asked anybody to cut anything because the profits have not been made yet since the discussion is around the lowering.



That would be something eh :)


My argumentative nature of the lowering of RTP is born from the thin and false reasons posted that try and justify the lowering in any other way except for the truth, which is simply that they want to make more money.

A statement of 'Casino A lowered RTP because they want to be more profitable' is not one i would argue with as its a fact.

I am sure i would be fighting a different fight were i a casino owner but im not. I am a player who is seeing my playing time and opportunity being diminished whilst being fed poor reasons and excuses for doing so.

The playing time and less opportunity i can take. I have said this before and i really do have bigger fish to fry. Its the bull that gets my back up.
This is the thing though: particularly if they're a listed company, there will be pressure on the management to squeeze as much from a pound as possible. Some may only be in it for a short term horizon and won't care about 5 year plans; they want quick, instant returns and reducing RTP is such a way (rather than, presumably, things like 'negotiating better deals with payment providers/software providers/reducing inefficiencies)

Ties into people caring (or not) about RTP as well - the fact someones sat down and proposed reducing RTP's would infer than another forecast has been done ; if we reduce it, how much will it impact upon the footfall in the casino? The fact that many are doing it would possibly suggest that they don't anticipate a reduction in players (or, if the do, more than compensated by the reduction in returns) due to this which, in turn, maybe points to the issue of most players (or certainly the most profitable), not caring. Until that changes, which it won't IMO, it's a race to the bottom.

Viva la capitalism.
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
That's how capitalism works, don't see online gaming to making exceptions to it. There always can be nice speeches that we like to provide our players XYZ on a cost of our profits to make players happy but wouldn't buy honesly of that statement right away.

End of the day these companies exist to make money, can call it greed or which word everyone prefers, very few companies set target to operate minimum profit to be enough to cover expenses and make living for people working/owning it, why not to make two million a month instead of million, if something not work and seems to be bad for your profits, you review it again and take actions needed. Even not all casinos are not gold mines and also do invest money to develop to grow more.

edit: Except in capitalism there wouldn't be so many governments and regulators but only supply and demand between company and it's customers, more regulations usually make product more expensive to provide and therefore also for end used (not only in online gaming).

Some may only be in it for a short term horizon and won't care about 5 year plans; they want quick, instant returns and reducing RTP is such a way (rather than, presumably, things like 'negotiating better deals with payment providers/software providers/reducing inefficiencies)
With my experience about these deals, both part really try to negotiate best possible price they can get, all have their own deals, big ones of course better ones as usually when you are bigger customer bringing more transactions you get them better price than some smaller one. These other providers are there to maximize their profits as well and really try to squeeze every cent they can. Last one i fully agree, there are so much inefficiencies in processes, one reason is that when you operate on platform made originally over 5 years ago, they all are not really great in automating processes as technology itself start to be old and many things which are now part of daily operations, were not there years ago when many platforms were planned to do something. I bet many would laugh to know how much some casinos keep filling some sheets with copy pastes from backoffice, that's something most are probably working with but these all not happen overnight, if you don't have your own platform (which many don't), it's up to provider to make it do things you want. Same like most of softwares, i use many which i would hope to have some functionalities but they just fcking dont :)
 
Last edited:

nikantw

Banned User
PABaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Location
EU
Profit is fine. You provide a service and you should get paid for it.
The industry worked fine at 97% - 98% RTP for about 15 years. Wasn't any greed then? No capitalism back then? So what changed?

Governments got involved creating monopolies and wanting a big piece of the profits. That is what changed.

But we aren't talking about tomatoes or alcohol. You put a VAT on tomatos, no problem. You put an extra tax on alcochol because it is bad for your health, no problem.

But gambling is different because gambling becomes exponentially more dangerous the more expensive you make it (lower RTP).
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
Assume most of prices what you pay in salaries, providers of games, payment processing and all, these prices are not same than years ago. Also there are quite few regulations more than 15 years ago.

These and many other factors don't have same prices in euros than 15 years ago for sure, so can't really say that nothing have changed :)

Most of studies show that high RTP and fast paced games have much more addiction potential than lotteries, scratch cards etc... I'm pretty sure if RTP would be decreased somewhere between 10-30%, there wouldn't be many addicts as you would end up to withdraw once in few years or something, that's why it's industry interest to keep RTP:s high instead of making remarkable decrease of them, i doubt that some percent up or down in RTP create more problem gamblers, but be of course stand corrected if some stats do support that fact.

Most of people don't gamble any more money they have budgeted, if you happen to have bad session, most are ready to accept it instead of making deposit after other and spend over your budget.

edit: I think we all have our all opinions in these and other things. Just wanted to point some things which could be partly reasonings to price increases in gaming, don't have any need to try to change anyone mind or way of thinking so not much more to add from me :)
 
Last edited:

ternur

Deep in the Mosh'sh Pit
webby
CAG
mm3
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Location
Finland
You put an extra tax on alcochol because it is bad for your health, no problem.
Fake news.

Alcohol is good for your health. It provides a much needed aid to those lacking adequate social skills needed to cope with other people in the society. And it's a source of fun.
 

bamberfishcake

Experienced Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
This is the thing though: particularly if they're a listed company, there will be pressure on the management to squeeze as much from a pound as possible. Some may only be in it for a short term horizon and won't care about 5 year plans; they want quick, instant returns and reducing RTP is such a way (rather than, presumably, things like 'negotiating better deals with payment providers/software providers/reducing inefficiencies)

Ties into people caring (or not) about RTP as well - the fact someones sat down and proposed reducing RTP's would infer than another forecast has been done ; if we reduce it, how much will it impact upon the footfall in the casino? The fact that many are doing it would possibly suggest that they don't anticipate a reduction in players (or, if the do, more than compensated by the reduction in returns) due to this which, in turn, maybe points to the issue of most players (or certainly the most profitable), not caring. Until that changes, which it won't IMO, it's a race to the bottom.

Viva la capitalism.
Bang on in my opinion.

Its a nice quick and easy way of making extra money from your customers and increasing profits. Thats it - No necessity, no dip in the market to counter. An actual increase in revenue due to the explosion of the industry.

Far more customers now than 15 years ago to counter the increase in costs.

As a player/customer the best i can hope for is that an increase in awareness leads to an increase in playing the max sites leading to a dip in profits for the ones who maintain lower RTP as their client base shrinks.

To effect this we must, as players, gamble responsibly and not play the lower versions. Its our only course of action.

To accept it as 'part of the course' and to empathise with the casinos making the reductions is bowing to their will and wont benefit you as a player.
 

Halvor

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Location
Malta
So operators are running from the UK and Swedish markets because its so easy to make a profit there then?

If you agree with it or not, the profit margin for casinos have gone down over the years. And more customers also means more staff, more operational costs etc.

You can also factor in that abuse is a lot more widespread now as well. And yes that is a big cost to operators, directly reflected in the constant dwindling of bonus offerings to customers.
 

bamberfishcake

Experienced Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
If you agree with it or not, the profit margin for casinos have gone down over the years. And more customers also means more staff, more operational costs etc.
Profit margin may have gone down but revenue has increased has it not?

The market has exploded. Just a question, not a challenge, are you saying they make less revenue now than before?

Profit margin may have reduced but if revenue is sky high it counters any loss in margin from 5, 10 or 5 years ago.

I would need to see facts and figures to be convinced as i dont get that impression anyway.

For now, I will stick with my logic that the raising of RTP is born out of a desire for more profit than necessity to stay afloat. Anything else to me is just spin without proof.
 

nikantw

Banned User
PABaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Location
EU
Assume most of prices what you pay in salaries, providers of games, payment processing and all, these prices are not same than years ago. Also there are quite few regulations more than 15 years ago.

These and many other factors don't have same prices in euros than 15 years ago for sure, so can't really say that nothing have changed :)

Most of studies show that high RTP and fast paced games have much more addiction potential than lotteries, scratch cards etc... I'm pretty sure if RTP would be decreased somewhere between 10-30%, there wouldn't be many addicts as you would end up to withdraw once in few years or something, that's why it's industry interest to keep RTP:s high instead of making remarkable decrease of them, i doubt that some percent up or down in RTP create more problem gamblers, but be of course stand corrected if some stats do support that fact.

Most of people don't gamble any more money they have budgeted, if you happen to have bad session, most are ready to accept it instead of making deposit after other and spend over your budget.

edit: I think we all have our all opinions in these and other things. Just wanted to point some things which could be partly reasonings to price increases in gaming, don't have any need to try to change anyone mind or way of thinking so not much more to add from me :)
Fast passed games increase the cost/min of entertainment --> proving my point.
High RTP reduces the cost/min so it is very helpful. But spin 1/week (loteries) vs spin 1/sec (slots) is a huge difference to be corrected by even 30% higher RTP. Simple math.

Most studies have very little scientific value if you look at them thoroughly. They provide food for thought more than proof.

You usually find what you want to find, or what you are paid to find. I doubt anybody would pay for a study that will prove the effects of low RTP on the same games on the same people.

I mean, how can any player argue that losing your deposit in 30 min instead of 5 doesn't help you stay in control?
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
My last post to thread, but would be interesting to see companies which business is planned based on to make only profit which is needed "necessity to stay afloat " :) Hope these companies have loyal customers who are happy to help out them to survive when their profit goes under that limit for what ever reason (hardly any company can really accurately forecast their exact profits beforehand) :)

I mean, how can any player argue that losing your deposit in 30 min instead of 5 doesn't help you stay in control?
Quite many would stop playing totally if winning anything would be next to impossible. Therefore these slots are running with high RTP:s instead of 20-40%. It's been quite a lot studied by industry itself which way they can make most of money and these just have ended up to provide high RTP:s, change 2% up or down is not really relevant but if lower RTP would be higher profits, these slots would been made much lower RTP:s for very long time ago. Usually these studies which are made to find out how you maximize your profit are at least tried to be made to be true as possible.

If you make slot like lottery which would give only extreme wins in average after many many many spins, how many would keep depositing when biggest odds are that you never win more than you deposit even you would play that spin in few second? i honestly believe that these wouldn't be really popular and very few hardcore addicts in max could be playing them.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top