RTP (Return to Player ) posts from another thread

It's a business, the aim for any company is to make a profit.

I'd you don't like the rtp then choose a casino with different settings.
But businesses with big turnovers have a big social responsibility. When is enough profit enough profit?

This is what is wrong more widely today and why we're seeing the average guy becoming more and more disillusioned with growing gap between the haves and have nots. It's capitalism on steroids.
 
But businesses with big turnovers have a big social responsibility. When is enough profit enough profit?

This is what is wrong more widely today and why we're seeing the average guy becoming more and more disillusioned with growing gap between the haves and have nots. It's capitalism on steroids.
The casino-business is also unique in that you can increase the price on a product identical to what your competitors are selling, and still make more money somehow.

If you had 10 stores all selling the same thing, but one was more expensive, they wouldnt make more money, they would go out of business.
 


Casinos trying to make much money as possible and players win much as possible, money have quite a big role in this commercial entertainment.

The casino-business is also unique in that you can increase the price on a product identical to what your competitors are selling, and still make more money somehow.

If you had 10 stores all selling the same thing, but one was more expensive, they wouldnt make more money, they would go out of business.

End product is very similar, ingredients it's made have different costs for all which makes casinos different, others can do things others can and some can pay much less for certain operations due to better tehcnology when other still doing something manually. There are surprisingly lot things some still do manually and some do same almost fully automated. Even casino platforms are really different if developed within the last two years or 10 years ago which is one of the reasons why all casinos can't make success with the same pricing of their products and ending up to different pricings in many areas.

But businesses with big turnovers have a big social responsibility. When is enough profit enough profit?

This is what is wrong more widely today and why we're seeing the average guy becoming more and more disillusioned with growing gap between the haves and have nots. It's capitalism on steroids.

Guess that bolded one is after all major thing when you do business, not many start to fulltime business without target to make money or decide at some point that let's give vall 50% wager free cashback (number not based on any facts but just random) and we still can break even and pay our salaries instead of making that 50% more profit from every spin. Thing probably might change when you come to billionaire but don't know many people who would have their childhood dream to build non-profit online casino, it still don't make any good like charities but only take money from it's customers and for some cause even problems, so if willing to make some charity, there probably are some more important (in most people opinion i would guess) than run non-profit online casino which you never can turn as good cause, don't matter who cheap you sell your product, as long it takes more than gives. Helping kids, homeless and such things are more popular in that are.

If you take investment loan to start your business, making it successful is quiet top of most wish list. Also trying to get investors to share risk is easier if you don't start to explain your business plan to be more customer friendly company making less profit than average (there you can end up but most don't plan it if they decide to invest their time and money plus usually loan to start one).
 
Last edited:
This is fast becoming an insult, every week new RTP problems for the player, flying thick and fast from every angle. Lower than brick and mortar casinos in the UK. Bravo....

I, as well as @Harry_BKK said many months ago that the RTP reduction at VS was just the start of a much wider industry trend so its nothing new happening right now.

People can still choose where to play but I still maintain that ALL casinos will lower in time one way or another.

As for being lower than brick and mortar casinos in the UK I would like to know where you play and which games as my local casino has 90% for years as did a lot of London ones I frequented, so online is still higher in all cases that I know of.

People need to stop moaning, if you don't like it, don't play online or go somewhere that still currently offers the higher RTP, but also I consider and factor in everything as the old saying "too good to be true" could also apply to those places offering the MAX RTP.

Why are staying at max when others are not? How are they sustaining it? and will they forever?

One of the biggest reasons that online casinos thrived in the first place for slots was they were offering way above land based RTP in the first place, now online gaming is firmly mainstream and that most gamblers are comfortable playing online it was inevitable that they were going to close the RTP gap IMO its probably been planned for some time.

Bottom line. if your luck's in your still gonna win :)
 
As for being lower than brick and mortar casinos in the UK I would like to know where you play and which games as my local casino has 90% for years as did a lot of London ones I frequented, so online is still higher in all cases that I know of.

Isn't it 94%+ in all UK casinoes, I'm pretty sure they are.
Even a few of the bookies games have higher RTP than the casinos now, there is one game that runs at 95%!
 
Well for obvious reasons I not been to a land based in a while but last time i looked there was definitely some on 90% and have seen games at 90% in London casinos as long as 4 yrs ago. From experience people tend to look at RTP on land based even less than online players!

When they reopen and i go I will now make it my mission to have a good look :)
 
Land based UK Casinos slots are usually set between 90-94% There’s a handful of games on 95% too.

An example is SG Rainbow Riches Pick N Mix £10,000 Jackpot, this is 94% on all stakes.

Rob :)
 
Why are staying at max when others are not? How are they sustaining it? and will they forever?

They’re still making money at 96% just not as much as on 94% - both options are ‘sustainable’

There are that many casinos to choose from you would think in a wide open market you would think websites would want to select higher RTPs, to attract custom from elsewhere, but instead as with everything else it seems to just be becoming a race to the bottom; same thing with bonuses, loads of casinos had no deposit offers/huge matched deposit offers and they’ve slowly faded away. One place jumps and the others follow suit.

The same reason most places are based in Malta/Gibraltar, it all just boils down to greed, more and more profit, and as more people turn to online they will continue to take advantage of it.
 
They’re still making money at 96% just not as much as on 94% - both options are ‘sustainable’

There are that many casinos to choose from you would think in a wide open market you would think websites would want to select higher RTPs, to attract custom from elsewhere, but instead as with everything else it seems to just be becoming a race to the bottom; same thing with bonuses, loads of casinos had no deposit offers/huge matched deposit offers and they’ve slowly faded away. One place jumps and the others follow suit.

The same reason most places are based in Malta/Gibraltar, it all just boils down to greed, more and more profit, and as more people turn to online they will continue to take advantage of it.
Race to the bottom is correct, and we are seeing across all aspects of capitalism at present. NOT sustainable in the long run...
 
I am really proud for CM and the members here for starting a serious discussion about the RTP that will without a doubt effect all the industry. :thumbsup:

The biggest responsibility here obviously falls to the Regulatory Bodies. Lets face it: EU failed to have some common standards because of the tax money and most countries prefer to look the other way because of the tax money.

Truth is that if a player is in control, when the casino will lower the TRTP that will only cut down playtime, since "in control" means I have a budget and when it ends I stop. So players in control = no profit for casinos when they lower TRTP.

The only way for a casino to profit from lowering TRTP is by creating problem gamblers that lose control of their budget.

First step is to acknowledge that lowering TRTP creates problem gamblers. Second step is the Regulatory Bodies to set some better standards for it, some higher limits and obligations to better inform the players.

What limit should that be? When a player can easily lose a month's salary in a day on Video Poker that has TRTP 99%, then I would say 96% is low for online and it shouldn't get any lower. If that means the governments should cut down on the taxes and fines, then they should do that. The health of their citizens is more important.

We can "help" them get there by informing as many people as possible so that eventually most will avoid lower TRTP games.
 
They’re still making money at 96% just not as much as on 94% - both options are ‘sustainable’

There are that many casinos to choose from you would think in a wide open market you would think websites would want to select higher RTPs, to attract custom from elsewhere, but instead as with everything else it seems to just be becoming a race to the bottom; same thing with bonuses, loads of casinos had no deposit offers/huge matched deposit offers and they’ve slowly faded away. One place jumps and the others follow suit.

The same reason most places are based in Malta/Gibraltar, it all just boils down to greed, more and more profit, and as more people turn to online they will continue to take advantage of it.

There are less bonuses in general available than used to be some years ago for sure. Can be greed and also that operating costs have increased, unfortunately part of these normally are paid by customers like in most of industries. It would probably be quite good marketing tool to offer highest RTP:s, much more bonuses than other casinos and make your profits that way, it just seems that there are not many willing to try it (which probably would be the case if somebody would believe to be able to run enough profitable operations with that kind of cost structure).

Most of little things, starting from office supplies to salaries have increased and are not same than years ago, at some these start to affect end users. In casino industry bonuses are big part of that this, they were easy way to cut really slowly, little by little, some charge for deposits/withdrawals, some choose to decrease RTP etc..

Even igaming in many parts is quite unique industry, some of these kind of normal laws of business exist even there. There are not many things which wouldn't got higher priced for customers, even for entertainment where you don't buy actual product like movies, sport events, concerts etc... do cost more than years ago. Can be called capitalism that's actually right word where supply and demand set up price of product. Don't know many industries where all would keep cutting their profit margins year after year just to be nice for customers and cut own earnings instead, guess most of us wouldn't be too happy to cut our salaries with 10%, even though we would survive alive even after that but in general people are not happy to get decrease instead of increase to their earnings.

Of course profitable company is profitable even after you cut 99% of your profits but that's not really reality to see any companies doing that. When you make your business research you review and decide what risk and profit level you would be looking to your business some casinos also have got busted and out of business, you also need money to investments, especially in industry where technology is playing high part.

Even inflation have been really low for quite a long, most of prices just increase, there probably are not too many things which would cost exactly same than 5-10 years ago (if not somehow regulated and supported, maybe some medicines etc.. have low increases but even my asthma inhalers which i have to use every day get more expensive around annually). We probably have to accept it happening in gambling as well, can't see much hope it wouldn't, happily most of salaries keep increasing as well, so just have to add some % more from your hourly wage more to get same amount of entertainment or almost anything, your 5 pints in pub also cost more than 5 years ago (if not, be really happy and stay loyal :) ).

Of course it's everybody right to be not happy for increased prices, not trying to say it's not allowed, it's really normal behavior, many people keep mentioning how much petrol price keep increasing and it's not fair we have to pay that much, same applies for almost everything. There are just quite limited ways you can affect them as a customer, stop using products you think are too expensive is one way but it would need most of people to do same to have chance to effect it, nobody would sell product what absolutely nobody buys it's price (can't be called selling but only promoting, offering etc.. when you don't have buying customers).

The only way for a casino to profit from lowering TRTP is by creating problem gamblers that lose control of their budget.

First step is to acknowledge that lowering TRTP creates problem gamblers. Second step is the Regulatory Bodies to set some better standards for it, some higher limits and obligations to better inform the players.

There are quite many studies done that higher RTP actually creates gambling problems, when you think you have decent chance to win, you can end up chasing it. Games like lotteries and others which don't have that "win big in few seconds" factory. Slots are causing most gambling problems, they are fast to win/lose in very short moment.

When regulators see this kind of studies (no idea how good or bad it is but written by a professor and there are some other ones with similar conclusions), it can be hard to convince them to the opposite (haven't seen any which would suggest that lower RTP would increase gambling problems). Would imagine if games RTP would be around 40-50% that would actually stop people playing when chance of winning is so small, now players can have decent hope to make cashouts there and then instead of once in a lifetime.

Here's one fast found from 2018:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Last edited:
As for being lower than brick and mortar casinos in the UK I would like to know where you play and which games as my local casino has 90% for years as did a lot of London ones I frequented, so online is still higher in all cases that I know of.

Can only speak for my local (Genting Resorts World, Birmingham) but it is a cemented 94% across the board, with SG Gaming running on 90% + progressive contribution.

I also receive a lot of freebies, food and drink + free parking and play points.
 
I am really proud for CM and the members here for starting a serious discussion about the RTP that will without a doubt effect all the industry. :thumbsup:

The biggest responsibility here obviously falls to the Regulatory Bodies. Lets face it: EU failed to have some common standards because of the tax money and most countries prefer to look the other way because of the tax money.

Truth is that if a player is in control, when the casino will lower the TRTP that will only cut down playtime, since "in control" means I have a budget and when it ends I stop. So players in control = no profit for casinos when they lower TRTP.

The only way for a casino to profit from lowering TRTP is by creating problem gamblers that lose control of their budget.

First step is to acknowledge that lowering TRTP creates problem gamblers. Second step is the Regulatory Bodies to set some better standards for it, some higher limits and obligations to better inform the players.

What limit should that be? When a player can easily lose a month's salary in a day on Video Poker that has TRTP 99%, then I would say 96% is low for online and it shouldn't get any lower. If that means the governments should cut down on the taxes and fines, then they should do that. The health of their citizens is more important.

We can "help" them get there by informing as many people as possible so that eventually most will avoid lower TRTP games.

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:
 
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:

You forgot to mention that the proposed tax will be 2% of stake/bet and not on profit :) RTP will probably be around 92% - 93% on all games if not lower.
 
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" ;)
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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,
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top