RTP (Return to Player ) posts from another thread

[Slottery]

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

 

[nikantw]

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]

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

 

[ternur]

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.

 

[Slottery]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[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

 

[dionysus]

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

Doubtful. I've seen similar thoughts expressed in different threads; I'd wager it's a 'for all to see' viewpoint

 

[Slottery]

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)

I would also maybe compare online gaming to some other industries which are not selling physical products, we have loads of banks, stockbrokers, insurance companies and from entertainment different streaming services, and much more where you pay monthly or based your usage, who can offer really same product (for example you can watch same movie with different prices depends where you watch it, many are not aware about all services and therefore not able to compare prices) as part of their services with different prices than in another place if willing to make it really simple like in comparing store A and B selling same product with different prices.

Simple examples are great to point things but often these don't make really good argument. Yes, online gaming is hard to compare grocery or other stores who sell exact same physical product with same prices, but there are some industries that could have more similarities to online gaming.

 

[bamberfishcake]

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

I dont think casinos should be run as charities and ive not read or seen any posts that have suggested that. I think that's a misconceived perception from what i have read but im sure ive missed a lot.

I should say sorry though.....

Afterwards i thought i was a little passive aggressive, its a new day and i should not say stuff so inflammatory.

Ive not had breakfast - no excuse, i should have

 

[nikantw]

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...

Generally speaking you have some interesting points but in this specific topic of discussion those points are mostly irrelevant or wrong.

This topic, like others, is mostly about lowering RTP from 96% to 94% and 92%. What that does to players and what to casinos.

The casinos said they do it to earn more money (or enough to simlply survive but that also means more than before). There is no argument there, they make more money.

The players lose more money. They have to, otherwise the casinos wouldn't make more, right?
Is that a good thing for the players? I guess nobody heard anything about players chasing losses and how this is very problematic.

Since it makes perfect sense and there is no specific proper study against it, lowering RTP from 96% to 92% is very very bad for the players and definitely causes problem gambling (if not addiction).

A personal statement is that I had bigger problems with sports betting and lotteries at 60% RTP than with online slots at 97%. A good product will attract customers. Liking something isn't the same as being addicted and you don't have to be addicted to something for it to cause you problems.

 

[Slottery]

Would it be anyhow possible that players lose the same amount of money but casino make more money?

 

[trancemonkey]

Generally speaking you have some interesting points but in this specific topic of discussion those points are mostly irrelevant or wrong.

This topic, like others, is mostly about lowering RTP from 96% to 94% and 92%. What that does to players and what to casinos.

The casinos said they do it to earn more money (or enough to simlply survive but that also means more than before). There is no argument there, they make more money.

The players lose more money. They have to, otherwise the casinos wouldn't make more, right?
Is that a good thing for the players? I guess nobody heard anything about players chasing losses and how this is very problematic.

Since it makes perfect sense and there is no specific proper study against it, lowering RTP from 96% to 92% is very very bad for the players and definitely causes problem gambling (if not addiction).

A personal statement is that I had bigger problems with sports betting and lotteries at 60% RTP than with online slots at 97%. A good product will attract customers. Liking something isn't the same as being addicted and you don't have to be addicted to something for it to cause you problems.

Trust me, I fight for the highest possible RTP whenever I can, but it is often a losing battle. Some markets are great (Eastern Europe for example) but these tend to have the lowest government taxes.

Of course, lowering RTPs gives the player a worse game. It has to, although some games hide it better. But it is not strictly true that casinos lower RTP to make more money - it is sometimes true that they do, but it is also true that sometimes they have no choice due to government regulations and taxation.

 

[nikantw]

Trust me, I fight for the highest possible RTP whenever I can, but it is often a losing battle. Some markets are great (Eastern Europe for example) but these tend to have the lowest government taxes.

Of course, lowering RTPs gives the player a worse game. It has to, although some games hide it better. But it is not strictly true that casinos lower RTP to make more money - it is sometimes true that they do, but it is also true that sometimes they have no choice due to government regulations and taxation.

Yes, I completely agree with that.

 

[trancemonkey]

Yes, I completely agree with that.

Friends again?

 

[Mr Wild]

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 ).

 

[Halvor]

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 ).

Of course the average player will lose more money quicker on a lower rtp setting.

 

[Mr Wild]

Of course the average player will lose more money quicker on a lower rtp setting.

Please explain that?

 

[Halvor]

Please explain that?

Explain what exactly? The return of investment is lower, hence you lose money quicker?

Changing the rtp of a game is not as straight forward and just reducing the number of max wins...

 

[Mr Wild]

Explain what exactly? The return of investment is lower, hence you lose money quicker?

Changing the rtp of a game is not as straight forward and just reducing the number of max wins...

Its of course up to the game provider, but most lower the chance to win big or medium/big. So the average player dont see much difference.

If a game is set to 96% RTP the average player will def not have 96% return of their investment if you think that is the case.

 

[Halvor]

Its of course up to the game provider, but most lower the chance to win big or medium/big. So the average player dont see much difference.

If a game is set to 96% RTP the average player will def not have 96% return of their investment if you think that is the case.

I work for a game provider, I understand very well how rtp works

 

[Kroffe]

I dont work for a game provider, but i have been told i work in the industry.
I can confirm what halvor is saying.
96% good
94% bad

 

[trancemonkey]

Its of course up to the game provider, but most lower the chance to win big or medium/big. So the average player dont see much difference.

If a game is set to 96% RTP the average player will def not have 96% return of their investment if you think that is the case.

I agree with the first part. The second part is not entirely true... depends how many games the average player plays, the volatility of the game, etc...

 

[trancemonkey]

I dont work for a game provider, but i have been told i work in the industry.
I can confirm what halvor is saying.
96% good
94% bad

I visited a Gregg's once and I can say for certain that 10% RTP is not as good as 99%.

 

[Kroffe]

I visited a Gregg's once and I can say for certain that 10% RTP is not as good as 99%.

It is not as good, but only 1 out of a 1000 players will notice any difference.

 

[Slottery]

Guess it's very rare players who ever to hit exact TRTP, that's why it's theoretic and should be more accurate for casino who get it from all spins combined.

Also if TRTP is 96% your expected ROI is 2% higher than with 94%, these can end up percents there and there, even you play loads and loads of spins these can for some be upside down that other one is higher than one which should in theory, depends of which spins you receive from that lovely RNG. But ALWAYS higher is HIGHER and BETTER for PLAYER.

Like said, for casino (or game provider) who get their RTP:s from all players (for game provider obviously still much bigger amount of spins than for some casino operator) should see their numbers long time much closer TRTP, but for some weeks periods (like for example @L&L-Jan have some time posted) their RTP can be way over it theoretically should due to few lucky persons.

So in order how accurate you could expect TRTP to be when looking numbers, listed in numerical order, mots accurate (most volume) first:
1. Slot Provider
2. Casino Operator
3. Individual slot player

 

[brianmon]

Its of course up to the game provider, but most lower the chance to win big or medium/big. So the average player dont see much difference.

If a game is set to 96% RTP the average player will def not have 96% return of their investment if you think that is the case.

If that's the case, and those big wins are of a billion/1 chance, which some are. Then would the casino actually see the benefit of lower RTP? Especially if there are 10,000 games for the customer to choose from?

Would there be enough spins going through the games to make that financial gain and would it be enough to counteract the loss of income from customers, who are aware of RTP, who are now alienated because of the lower RTP?