RTP (Return to Player ) posts from another thread

[Halvor]

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.

You got the same access to any financial report from publicly listed companies as I do. So I simply won't be going through multiple of them on your behalf.

But if you take Betsson Group for example. Their income after taxes in 2019 was the second lowest in a 5 year period, and significantly lower than 2015 and 2016.

I may be wrong here, but I'm confident you will see the same trend with a lot of companies.

 

[pinnit2014]

Had a quick look out of curiosity and since 2015 their key financial indicators (EBIDTA/Gross Margins etc) are on a downward slope: their profit margin since 2015 has been squeezed by 40 odd % as well; it's (well maybe not in this case, haven't looked in enough detail) these figures/%'s that may make owners twitchy or at the least the directors if they have to tell them no/reduced dividends this year etc.

Again, not any time to properly go through examples like this but i think you'd need to read through these reports to get a feel for what challenges they facing etc, rather than (Sorry Bamber) high level statements of it's only greed etc.

Didn't know that Italy jacked up taxes from 20 to 25% for example.

 

[Slottery]

Had a quick look out of curiosity and since 2015 their key financial indicators (EBIDTA/Gross Margins etc) are on a downward slope: their profit margin since 2015 has been squeezed by 40 odd % as well; it's (well maybe not in this case, haven't looked in enough detail) these figures/%'s that may make owners twitchy or at the least the directors if they have to tell them no/reduced dividends this year etc.

Again, not any time to properly go through examples like this but i think you'd need to read through these reports to get a feel for what challenges they facing etc, rather than (Sorry Bamber) high level statements of it's only greed etc.

Didn't know that Italy jacked up taxes from 20 to 25% for example.

Fck, one more post after my last one It would be easy to still make directors and manageer to look for longer period but these stocks are publicly traded (even i own some in my very small investment portfolio) and you need to make investors happy enough in your quarterly presentations or your can be in big shite when all start to sell and your company lost most of it's value which is high as market pricing it.

Good example what happen when you lose trust of investors is GIG, their share if you look history, was over 60 nok, now under 7 nok, then it comes that you have to sell assets like Rizk/Guts (which were making very good profit all the time until last day they werre owned by GIG and can't find reason why wouldn't still) to your competitor to pay back bond which expire and now continue only B2B services which don't promise a lot either.

If reading these public numbers and analyze them as you would like any other publicly listed companies, there could be found some reasons which do add some pressure for board to do something there and there. Also here have been quite a lot taken all casinos are in same position, they like any other businesses are in very different positions in how they are doing, some much healthier and well being than some others which would start to ready for euthanasia (it's quite easy to get any company in that condition, harder to be greedy and make huge profits).

 

[GunarsB]

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.

I can tell that in Latvia, when you play slots (not online), from every withdrawal, which is more than €500, government takes 25% before you even have that money. So I believe that there are no high rollers.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Had a quick look out of curiosity and since 2015 their key financial indicators (EBIDTA/Gross Margins etc) are on a downward slope: their profit margin since 2015 has been squeezed by 40 odd % as well; it's (well maybe not in this case, haven't looked in enough detail) these figures/%'s that may make owners twitchy or at the least the directors if they have to tell them no/reduced dividends this year etc.

Again, not any time to properly go through examples like this but i think you'd need to read through these reports to get a feel for what challenges they facing etc, rather than (Sorry Bamber) high level statements of it's only greed etc.

Didn't know that Italy jacked up taxes from 20 to 25% for example.

No need to apologise........i dont think

Not sure what high level statement means but i aint messing with Mrs P and google gets enough searches from me.

For the record @Halvor i didnt ask you to go through company reports for me. I cant find the time myself and wouldnt expect it from a stranger.

Dont want to give you the wrong impression. My nature is one of why be quiet when you can just ask. Too many things go unsaid in my opinion.

When i get a minute i will see if i can counter, have a good evening all.

 

[pinnit2014]

No need to apologise........i dont think

Not sure what high level statement means but i aint messing with Mrs P and google gets enough searches from me.

For the record @Halvor i didnt ask you to go through company reports for me. I cant find the time myself and wouldnt expect it from a stranger.

Dont want to give you the wrong impression. My nature is one of why be quiet when you can just ask. Too many things go unsaid in my opinion.

When i get a minute i will see if i can counter, have a good evening all.

Read that as you googling Mrs P and thought; what kind of toxic friendship is this

 

[Kroffe]

Read that as you googling Mrs P and thought; what kind of toxic friendship is this

 

[trancemonkey]

I find it honestly bizarre that there are people on here that seem to think casinos should be run as charities or that somehow they are not businesses and should not, for some reason, make profit or be subject to market forces (supply and demand).

If players will play at lower RTPs then of course companies will lower them. When a market is saturated, then the only way to make more money is to lower the RTP or reduce running costs, because attracting new players is very very hard.

New games rarely do anything other than move money around between the providers - it's very rare they increase overall take (although some may).

It's an unpleasant and unpopular opinion, but it's a fact of life - whatever the casinos want to run their games at is up to them. Don't like it, go elsewhere - as long as the RTPs are available, you can make a decision. Of course I would love to play all games at 96+%, but it's a pipe-dream if you think that will last long term.

And as casinos are cash cows for governments in need of money (more so now after covid19) they will increase taxes, which will decrease RTP. It has to.

 

[SuperVGA]

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.

That would be a nice idea, but in Germany it will be different.
First of all, there is something special in Germany. There are normal casinos and "Spielhallen".

I really don't know how to translate this one. It's like old arcade rooms(popular in the 80s/early 90s in Germany),but nowadays just with slot machines.

In Germany there are about 70 real casinos and more than 10.000 Spielhallen.
The RTP in these Spielhallen is usually between 70% and 80%.

The main discussion in Germany is to protect them against online casinos.
For that reason there will be many restrictions in the new Glücksspielstaatsvertrag( State Treaty on Gambling).

For example:
- Max BET 1 EUR
- No table games
- No progressive Jackpots(Mega Moolah etc...)
- 1000 EUR Deposit limit per month(for all Casinos. If I deposit 900 in Casino A, I will be able to deposit 100 in Casino B).
- No autoplay
- No Turbo-Spin
- The spin round has to be 5 seconds
etc....

In my opinon no compay should apply for a German license under these conditions.

Anyway, I guess most people don't care about these restrictions and would play anyways, because nowadays a lot of people also play in these arcade halls with RTP between 70% and 80%.

Funny thing about this, the slots in the real Casinos will not be affected by the new law.

 

[pinnit2014]

I find it honestly bizarre that there are people on here that seem to think casinos should be run as charities or that somehow they are not businesses and should not, for some reason, make profit or be subject to market forces (supply and demand).

If players will play at lower RTPs then of course companies will lower them. When a market is saturated, then the only way to make more money is to lower the RTP or reduce running costs, because attracting new players is very very hard.

New games rarely do anything other than move money around between the providers - it's very rare they increase overall take (although some may).

It's an unpleasant and unpopular opinion, but it's a fact of life - whatever the casinos want to run their games at is up to them. Don't like it, go elsewhere - as long as the RTPs are available, you can make a decision. Of course I would love to play all games at 96+%, but it's a pipe-dream if you think that will last long term.

And as casinos are cash cows for governments in need of money (more so now after covid19) they will increase taxes, which will decrease RTP. It has to.

Agree mainly but in terms of the bolded - whilst the cost of attracting new is higher than retaining, I can't fathom why so many casino's are blase towards player retention then: be it rubbish support, erratic withdrawals, lack of communication from some of them (even if to say hello, we exist - One Click Group are the worse), sending out rubbish offers (if at all) that make you not want to even deposit, all that does is push players towards other places. Some of them have the distinct feel that once you're in the door and make that first deposit, that's job done.

 

[trancemonkey]

Agree mainly but in terms of the bolded - whilst the cost of attracting new is higher than retaining, I can't fathom why so many casino's are blase towards player retention then: be it rubbish support, erratic withdrawals, lack of communication from some of them (even if to say hello, we exist - One Click Group are the worse), sending out rubbish offers (if at all) that make you not want to even deposit, all that does is push players towards other places. Some of them have the distinct feel that once you're in the door and make that first deposit, that's job done.

I agree with you... the amount of casinos that treat players like expendable commodities is quite ridiculous in my opinion

 

[Slottery]

Then there are some operators who really seem not give a shite about retention but instead concentrate to get huge amount of new players to , Aspire maybe best known example. Their business model is quite clearly to get loads of NDC:s which they manage to do, make very good hold % of deposits but their terms and practices really don't look that they would make their best to retain players with their terms, withdrawal handlings, support, RTP......

I don't think even here in this very big community many categorize them good "place to play" category (or haven't catch many threads where they collect anything positive as feedback), don't know if that's just so different culture to run business in country they coming from or how they ended up to operate way they are.

Probably stay as mystery for me, but concentrating B2B business which is way less volatile and easier to forecast than B2C, they keep getting new casinos to their platform quite well, they must have an attractive offer.

 

[dunover]

That would be a nice idea, but in Germany it will be different.
First of all, there is something special in Germany. There are normal casinos and "Spielhallen".

I really don't know how to translate this one. It's like old arcade rooms(popular in the 80s/early 90s in Germany),but nowadays just with slot machines.

In Germany there are about 70 real casinos and more than 10.000 Spielhallen.
The RTP in these Spielhallen is usually between 70% and 80%.

The main discussion in Germany is to protect them against online casinos.
For that reason there will be many restrictions in the new Glücksspielstaatsvertrag( State Treaty on Gambling).

For example:
- Max BET 1 EUR
- No table games
- No progressive Jackpots(Mega Moolah etc...)
- 1000 EUR Deposit limit per month(for all Casinos. If I deposit 900 in Casino A, I will be able to deposit 100 in Casino B).
- No autoplay
- No Turbo-Spin
- The spin round has to be 5 seconds
etc....

In my opinon no compay should apply for a German license under these conditions.

Anyway, I guess most people don't care about these restrictions and would play anyways, because nowadays a lot of people also play in these arcade halls with RTP between 70% and 80%.

Funny thing about this, the slots in the real Casinos will not be affected by the new law.

Spielhallen (Play Halls) I wouldn't say are only on 70-80%. I went in one in Berlin a couple of years ago, big downstairs section full of Novomatics and had a decent run for my money. I can't remember the name but there was a MacDonalds directly opposite the place. Anyway, they seemed to be far higher RTP than the filth I played in the Empire in London this year which are supposed to be on 88-92% but actually did play like they were on 80%.

It seems Germany (like the USA and Australia) is making it very hard for online competitors to go up against their state-run or domestic gambling operations.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I find it honestly bizarre that there are people on here that seem to think casinos should be run as charities or that somehow they are not businesses and should not, for some reason, make profit or be subject to market forces (supply and demand).

If players will play at lower RTPs then of course companies will lower them. When a market is saturated, then the only way to make more money is to lower the RTP or reduce running costs, because attracting new players is very very hard.

New games rarely do anything other than move money around between the providers - it's very rare they increase overall take (although some may).

It's an unpleasant and unpopular opinion, but it's a fact of life - whatever the casinos want to run their games at is up to them. Don't like it, go elsewhere - as long as the RTPs are available, you can make a decision. Of course I would love to play all games at 96+%, but it's a pipe-dream if you think that will last long term.

And as casinos are cash cows for governments in need of money (more so now after covid19) they will increase taxes, which will decrease RTP. It has to.

Well no.

The upside of the whole ideology of capitalism was that it promotes innovation and greater consumer choice.

We don't see that anymore...we get all the downsides of it but no upside. It's now a race to the bottom as far as customer experience is concerned. There is no incentive for casinos to provide a better experience for the consumer it seems.

Where businesses once had long term plans, we now see an invasion of parasitic owners and shareholders who don't want to take any social responsibility and want to make a 'quick buck'.

Classic capitalism would see the casino that stands out with higher RTP and better customer experience attract the customer at the expense of other casinos.

The issue is, we're dealing with a pastime with high rates of addiction and compulsion and so some people will play wherever they can get a 'fix', they will deposit at multiple casinos. Therefore the usual rules over customer choice go out of the window.

Whichever way you look at it, lowering RTP of games is in no way good for anyone but the casino owners.

 

[Kroffe]

Well no.

The upside of the whole ideology of capitalism was that it promotes innovation and greater consumer choice.

We don't see that anymore...we get all the downsides of it but no upside. It's now a race to the bottom as far as customer experience is concerned. There is no incentive for casinos to provide a better experience for the consumer it seems.

Classic capitalism would see the casino that stands out with higher RTP and better customer experience attract the customer at the expense of other casinos.

The issue is, we're dealing with a pastime with high rates of addiction and compulsion and so some people will play wherever they can get a 'fix', they will deposit at multiple casinos. Therefore the usual rules over customer choice go out of the window.

Whichever way you look at it, lowering RTP of games is in no way good for anyone but the casino owners.

Yeah, comparing it to other businesses does not really work.
Store A cannot make more money simply by offering an inferior product for the same price.
Store B thats offering a better product would soak up all customers from store A and store A would go out of business.

But since the vast majority dont even know they are being screwed (rtp) in the casino-business you can make more money by offering a shittier product.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Yeah, comparing it to other businesses does not really work.
Store A cannot make more money simply by offering an inferior product.
Store B would soak up all customers from store A and store A would go out of business.

But since the vast majority dont even know they are being screwed (rtp) in the casino-business you can make more money by offering a shittier product.

Not just that. A lot of people are 'in the zone' when they gamble so pragmatic thought goes out of the window.

A lot of gamblers if they want to gamble will gamble, regardless of house edge.

 

[trancemonkey]

Well no.

The upside of the whole ideology of capitalism was that it promotes innovation and greater consumer choice.

We don't see that anymore...we get all the downsides of it but no upside. It's now a race to the bottom as far as customer experience is concerned. There is no incentive for casinos to provide a better experience for the consumer it seems.

Where businesses once had long term plans, we now see an invasion of parasitic owners and shareholders who don't want to take any social responsibility and want to make a 'quick buck'.

Classic capitalism would see the casino that stands out with higher RTP and better customer experience attract the customer at the expense of other casinos.

The issue is, we're dealing with a pastime with high rates of addiction and compulsion and so some people will play wherever they can get a 'fix', they will deposit at multiple casinos. Therefore the usual rules over customer choice go out of the window.

Whichever way you look at it, lowering RTP of games is in no way good for anyone but the casino owners.

And yet there is no evidence im aware of that RTP correlates to problem gamblers. There IS evidence that if you constantly lower the RTP that eventually you make less money, and there is a tipping point. What that RTP is is up for debate and depends on many factors, but I would actually argue that the higher the RTP, the better the experience, the more likely addiction is to occur. But as I say, I've seen no evidence either way...

 

[pinnit2014]

Yeah, comparing it to other businesses does not really work.
Store A cannot make more money simply by offering an inferior product for the same price.
Store B thats offering a better product would soak up all customers from store A and store A would go out of business.

But since the vast majority dont even know they are being screwed (rtp) in the casino-business you can make more money by offering a shittier product.

True - you may have companies who decide to reduce the quality of products by using cheaper inputs/labour etc with the aim of being able to sell the product to parts of a market that previously couldn't afford, it by being able to lower their selling price.

But if that was the case with casinos you'd need something like 'Right, well i want to be paid (per the paytables), based on a 1 euro stake, but i'm only going to bet 75c'

Apple have done ok though in releasing phones that are either no improvement, limited improvement or, in some cases, technically not as good as their competitors, despite costing more, though? (though, to be fair, a lot of that i presume is based upon the 'cost of switching' - or being locked into their product range, which doesn't apply here)

 

[bamberfishcake]

I find it honestly bizarre that there are people on here that seem to think casinos should be run as charities or that somehow they are not businesses and should not, for some reason, make profit or be subject to market forces (supply and demand).

Morning, I hope this was not directed at me because if it was maybe you should read my posts again

 

[trancemonkey]

Morning, I hope this was not directed at me because if it was maybe you should read my posts again

Directed at the majority of the thread... no one in particular. I skim read it