RTP (Return to Player ) posts from another thread

Well most played game in Sweden is Triss and that works great with 48% RTP!
I guess even you have scratched it ;)
Usually get one or two each christmas.
Think i won money back once like 5 years ago.
So our definition of what is great might be a little different. :)
 
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?

It depends how many spins you have. The bigger you are the more accurate the RTP will be. I dont know the size of L&L but I do know the size of VS. RTP remain the same month on month. Dont move much at all. If there is movement its from 0.20 to 0.30 at max.
 
Usually get one or two each christmas.
Think i won money back once like 5 years ago.
So our definition of what is great might be a little different. :)

The profit Svenska Spel does on a monthly basis from TRISS is more than the whole slots industry together in Sweden. :)
 
When casinos start giving €4 000 000 to swedish youth sports each year and offer scolarships i will gladly accept the reduction of rtp. ;)

Well, that just the thing, that should be illegal. Its quite bad by government Online Casino to sponsor children. Imagine that in the UK. BET365 sponsor the 8 year kids league :) Not ok!
 
Well, that just the thing, that should be illegal. Its quite bad by government Online Casino to sponsor children. Imagine that in the UK. BET365 sponsor the 8 year kids league :) Not ok!
Uh, yeah it would be much better if they just kept the money. :confused:
Would bet365 giving some of their profits back into the communities really be such a bad thing?
 
Uh, yeah it would be much better if they just kept the money. :confused:
Would bet365 giving some of their profits back into the communities really be such a bad thing?

I think its a bad thing for gambling companies to sponsor children of that age and ask them to wear their logo on their uniforms. Sweden is the only country in the world where this is accepted as its the government doing it. Any other country you would lose your licence if you as a gambling company sponsor a child or a child league.
 
I think its a bad thing for gambling companies to sponsor children of that age and ask them to wear their logo on their uniforms. Sweden is the only country in the world where this is accepted as its the government doing it. Any other country you would lose your licence if you as a gambling company sponsor a child or a child league.
Well i know what i prefer when it comes to giving profits back to the communities they came from vs not giving back anything.
 
I think its a bad thing for gambling companies to sponsor children of that age and ask them to wear their logo on their uniforms. Sweden is the only country in the world where this is accepted as its the government doing it. Any other country you would lose your licence if you as a gambling company sponsor a child or a child league.

I'm pretty sure alot of state controlled betting companies to sponsor communities, Norsk Tipping does it in Norway, Lottery company Camelot in UK does it.

So I find that statement strange to say.
 
I'm pretty sure alot of state controlled betting companies to sponsor communities, Norsk Tipping does it in Norway, Lottery company Camelot in UK does it.

So I find that statement strange to say.

In my view its horrible for gambling companies to sponsor children regardless if they are state owned or not.
 
Working for an online casino
Being upset by unethical advertisement

You may only pick one.
View attachment 133978

When the problem gamblers are sufficiently rinsed dry, there is a potential new market of 8 year olds doing 2 quid spins on Bonanza.

I can see a lot of spaghetti hoops and turkey dinosaurs being thrown across the room.
 
I'm pretty sure alot of state controlled betting companies to sponsor communities, Norsk Tipping does it in Norway, Lottery company Camelot in UK does it.

So I find that statement strange to say.

If they wouldn't what the fcking excuse they would have to exist :D In Finland it's at least common thinking that all lost money is going to country wellbeing, young people sports, many charities etc... and be promoted with slogan "Finnish always win" referring to it doesn't matter if you lose or win, it's still Finnish win :D

Which probably cause this laughter smileys is that i personally don't know any gaming company with any European license or monopoly who would care less about RG or if that's ok to fail, that much about AML that you can when ever withdraw or transfer your money to who ever your account number you just enter... Only Finnish people with bank logins can register, probably biggest reason that fcking monopoly still exist there is that they don't have any tools to be regulator or watch even one operator who is owned by governement.

Sorry about rant, just love that piece of public governement owned piece of corporation <3
 
It depends how many spins you have. The bigger you are the more accurate the RTP will be. I dont know the size of L&L but I do know the size of VS. RTP remain the same month on month. Dont move much at all. If there is movement its from 0.20 to 0.30 at max.

Just to add, it was some random week or bit over what Jan posted about RTP, not whole month. I bet that few days period VS and most of casinos depends of their volume have few day periods where your RPT and TRTP don't match, which is obvious if some few players get lucky. One month period usually that theoretic average start to have enough yield to be accurate.
 
Speaking of sponsorships one thing has me stumped on these interim Kindred figures for Qtr 1

Cost of sales

Cost of sales includes betting duties, marketing revenue share and other costs of sales. For the first quarter of 2020 betting duties were GBP 54.6 (52.2) million and marketing revenue share amounted to GBP 13.0 (13.3) million.

Gross profit

Gross profit for the first quarter of 2020 was GBP 140.7 (120.3) million.

Operating costs (marketing and administrative expenses)

Operating costs include all indirect costs of running the business and are a combination of activity-related and fixed costs such as marketing, salaries and other administrative expenses. During the first quarter of 2020, operating costs were GBP 109.4 (103.6) million. Of these operating costs, GBP 52.4 (53.6) million were marketing costs and GBP 26.5 (22.8) million were salaries.

What are these marketing costs? Nearly half of their operating costs? Is this advertising in different markets such as Asia - Pacific or sponsorship deals and such?
 
Speaking of sponsorships one thing has me stumped on these interim Kindred figures for Qtr 1

Cost of sales

Cost of sales includes betting duties, marketing revenue share and other costs of sales. For the first quarter of 2020 betting duties were GBP 54.6 (52.2) million and marketing revenue share amounted to GBP 13.0 (13.3) million.

Gross profit

Gross profit for the first quarter of 2020 was GBP 140.7 (120.3) million.

Operating costs (marketing and administrative expenses)

Operating costs include all indirect costs of running the business and are a combination of activity-related and fixed costs such as marketing, salaries and other administrative expenses. During the first quarter of 2020, operating costs were GBP 109.4 (103.6) million. Of these operating costs, GBP 52.4 (53.6) million were marketing costs and GBP 26.5 (22.8) million were salaries.

What are these marketing costs? Nearly half of their operating costs? Is this advertising in different markets such as Asia - Pacific or sponsorship deals and such?

Did Kindred not go into the USA last year? Probably a decent chunk went into that: Direct Internet marketing probably makes the bulk of it, affiliates, Social Media, TV (probably the lowest now)

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

For VS it makes a difference, but not for the average players play time. It do makes a difference for the player of chance to win the big win. But the average player dont win the big win, that is the logic I refer to.

If you dont agree with it, its ok. Dont bother me if your opinion is different :)
 
When i get a minute i will see if i can counter, have a good evening all

I am happy to return to this discussion armed with some facts and figures.

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

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


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

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

And following this, i cement my original point that 'RTP reduction is born out of greed not necessity'.
 
I am happy to return to this discussion armed with some facts and figures.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or do you think the proposed changes in the German market do not force operators into lower rtp settings either, but any rtp reductions will be solely motivated by greed?
 
I cant see any benefit for anybody long term either. I think short term gains are the drive for the reduction which means greed.

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

nothing in your single source justify any other opinion.

A single quote mentions otherwise:

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

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

fact that it's extremely hard to earn money in most of the bigger regulated markets.

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

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

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

I dont get the first question, sorry :(

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

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

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top