- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Ontario
I like to think of Variance in terms of how big a bankroll will I need to get close to the theorhetical RTP. For games that a very large part of the payback is on bonus rounds, if the bonus round doesn't usually trigger in around 140 spins or so, that means it is pretty high variance.
For games which produce decent line wins, you might play a few hundred spins and still be close to even, without a bonus round.
Let's take a page from one of Enzo's past posts, and use a slot machine with every spin costing $1 and paying back .99 cents. That would be the ultimate in low variance, but guarantees every session will be a losing session.
At the other end of the spectrum is a slot that costs $1 to play, and pays a jackpot of $99,000 on average once every 100,000 spins, and no other wins are possible. But because of it's random nature, you might hit that Jackpot win on the very first spin, and you might hit it again the very next spin even. Or you could spin 200K times and never hit it.
If it was $1 a spin and hit on average once every 100 times and paid $99, that would be very medium variance IMO, but another player might consider it low variance. If I usually only play with $10, I might feel it's high, if I have $1,000 bankroll, I'm sure I would consider it low..
All the above examples produce payback of 99%
Of course few games play quite that way, offering intermediate wins that keep you playing. The more smaller wins you have to increase the number of spins you get to hit that jackpot or hit that bonus round, the lower the variance as I see it.
Oh, and by the way, I don't have that big a problem with "winning" 60 cents when I bet $1. I spent the $1 to take a chance to win, and winning 60 cents is better than nothing.
For games which produce decent line wins, you might play a few hundred spins and still be close to even, without a bonus round.
Let's take a page from one of Enzo's past posts, and use a slot machine with every spin costing $1 and paying back .99 cents. That would be the ultimate in low variance, but guarantees every session will be a losing session.
At the other end of the spectrum is a slot that costs $1 to play, and pays a jackpot of $99,000 on average once every 100,000 spins, and no other wins are possible. But because of it's random nature, you might hit that Jackpot win on the very first spin, and you might hit it again the very next spin even. Or you could spin 200K times and never hit it.
If it was $1 a spin and hit on average once every 100 times and paid $99, that would be very medium variance IMO, but another player might consider it low variance. If I usually only play with $10, I might feel it's high, if I have $1,000 bankroll, I'm sure I would consider it low..
All the above examples produce payback of 99%
Of course few games play quite that way, offering intermediate wins that keep you playing. The more smaller wins you have to increase the number of spins you get to hit that jackpot or hit that bonus round, the lower the variance as I see it.
Oh, and by the way, I don't have that big a problem with "winning" 60 cents when I bet $1. I spent the $1 to take a chance to win, and winning 60 cents is better than nothing.