RTP (Return to Player ) posts from another thread

[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?