RTP (Return to Player ) posts from another thread

New Casino Brand!

Race Casino Logo
Fast Pay'n Play Casino from L&L Europe..
Race Casino Review

brianmon

Ueber Meister
webby
mm4
Joined
May 23, 2013
Location
Cumbria
One thing here which is an important thing. The average player will not lose more money by changing the RTP from 96% to 94%. But maybe 1 of 1000 player will win less money on a big/medium sized win. Instead of paying out 2500x it might payout 2250x ( these are examples and numbers are imaginary ).
If the 'average player' doesn't experience any difference between 96% and 94%.
Then why is Bonus and XP wagering tied so tightly to the RTP percentage at VideoSlots?
96% = 100%, 94% = 150%
The extra 50% is only there to 'compensate' for the lower return and less spins.
It's not like VS are giving extra away for nothing.
 

Mr Wild

Experienced Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Location
Malta
If the 'average player' doesn't experience any difference between 96% and 94%.
Then why is Bonus and XP wagering tied so tightly to the RTP percentage at VideoSlots?
96% = 100%, 94% = 150%
The extra 50% is only there to 'compensate' for the lower return and less spins.
It's not like VS are giving extra away for nothing.
For VS it makes a difference, but not for the average players play time. It do makes a difference for the player of chance to win the big win. But the average player dont win the big win, that is the logic I refer to.

If you dont agree with it, its ok. Dont bother me if your opinion is different :)
 

bamberfishcake

Experienced Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
When i get a minute i will see if i can counter, have a good evening all
I am happy to return to this discussion armed with some facts and figures.

Welcoming @Halvor Mr and Mrs @pinnit2014 @Slottery and @trancemonkey back to the warm bosom of the RTP debate specifically regarding the question - Is the current RTP reduction trend greed or necessity?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


An investors report of the market. Interesting stuff if you are that way inclined.

In short, there is huge investment opportunity and market conditions have to be right for such attraction. Massive growth worldwide and although UK growth has slowed its still growing and at the point of this report, July 2019, worth a staggering £6.4bn.

And following this, i cement my original point that 'RTP reduction is born out of greed not necessity'.
 

Halvor

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Location
Malta
I am happy to return to this discussion armed with some facts and figures.

Welcoming @Halvor Mr and Mrs @pinnit2014 @Slottery and @trancemonkey back to the warm bosom of the RTP debate specifically regarding the question - Is the current RTP reduction trend greed or necessity?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


An investors report of the market. Interesting stuff if you are that way inclined.

In short, there is huge investment opportunity and market conditions have to be right for such attraction. Massive growth worldwide and although UK growth has slowed its still growing and at the point of this report, July 2019, worth a staggering £6.4bn.

And following this, i cement my original point that 'RTP reduction is born out of greed not necessity'.
And yet most publicly listed companies show a lower profit margins and more often than not the regulated markets force the hands of the operators.

To clarify I do NOT think reduced RTP in many markets benefit the operators long term.

But the notion that all rtp decisions is driven by greed is factually incorrect, and nothing in your single source justify any other opinion.

That there are multiple emerging markets that contribute to continuing growth does not change the fact that it's extremely hard to earn money in most of the bigger regulated markets.

Surely we can also agree that for example the current limited regulation of the US market do not compensate for the quickly escalating loss of profit in the UK and Sweden?

Or do you think the proposed changes in the German market do not force operators into lower rtp settings either, but any rtp reductions will be solely motivated by greed?
 

bamberfishcake

Experienced Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
I cant see any benefit for anybody long term either. I think short term gains are the drive for the reduction which means greed.

Though one mans greed is anothers profit so we could all be on different pages before we even start.

nothing in your single source justify any other opinion.
A single quote mentions otherwise:

The model remains structurally cash generative. Notwithstanding the regulatory hurdles, the online gaming market continues to be characterised by structural growth (from newly regulating markets), attractive margins and strong free cash flow generation (albeit less than before).

Continual rpofit and an increase in revenue. Its still an attractive market though a bit slower. I propose the inadequacy of speed of growth is one of boardroom dissatisfaction. The money and the investment is the only drive i see which means greed to me. They have enough and the model works well.

fact that it's extremely hard to earn money in most of the bigger regulated markets.
Again, the quote from the report is contradicting the idea of it being hard to make money as well. I dont see any complex business going on operating a casino. The hardest thing is the compliance in being regulated, ticking the boxes, something casinos have not had to do before.

Surely we can also agree that for example the current limited regulation of the US market do not compensate for the quickly escalating loss of profit in the UK and Sweden?

Or do you think the proposed changes in the German market do not force operators into lower rtp settings either, but any rtp reductions will be solely motivated by greed?
I dont get the first question, sorry :(

I guess limiting any market would not compensate for struggles in others unless there was a direct link.

I will look into the German market as i dont know the specifics but if by saying 'forced' you mean they have actually told them, in no uncertain terms, to use lower RTP versions then there is not much they or anybody can do about that.

There is always an exception to the rule - start ups etc but in most cases because of the current value and growth yes, in most cases, its greed for me.
 

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

Top