Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
All Games
Popular Bonus Filters
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Recent Forum Threads
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Popular News Sections
Recent News
That's definitely a Bryan thing. I have no input on or access to the ratings.
And the other thing to add about Unibet is that there is no SOW nonesense,in fact i have never even been asked for KYC documentation from them.Finally withdrawals to my debit card have been known to hit my bank account in under a minute.
The post by the Twin rep saying they aim to provide a good customer service will cut no ice with members of this forum now that we know they have imposed a disgustingly low rtp on some of their slots.
In Bitstarz dont show in play´n go the RTP but in pragmatic and other provider have 96%Yeah, luckily there are still awesome places with the default/highest RTPs slots and quick cash-outs. Bitstarz also offers default RTP settings, along with the ultra fast withdrawals.
And hiding ughhhThey are not cheating , they are greedy and act like scum ...
I don't gamble anymore, haven't for almost 15 years. And I certainly wouldn't be tempted by abnormally low RTP.You have been in industry for ages so is this kind of cheating ok from @Twin ?
Bitstarz does not offer the highest RTP on Play'n Go.Yeah, luckily there are still awesome places with the default/highest RTPs slots and quick cash-outs. Bitstarz also offers default RTP settings, along with the ultra fast withdrawals.
Any chance of any sort of official input here please @Casinomeister ?
The 9.7 rating for this casino really needs revisiting as it was awarded back when Twin said they were running all the top RTPs, whereas now they're helping themselves to a house edge of 12.5% on PnG slots.
At least Dick Turpin wore a mask, as the old saying goes.
As a long time member here, you should be well aware that Max deals primarily with complaints, and that Pere deals with technical matters. Don't badger the moderators.
This sounds like something we can implement. And yes, we should reserve judgement on "why" RTPs change, it's not all about greed in most cases, but survivability. But the reasons are inconsequential, it's the numbers/percentages that are....
So the simplest way to incorporate this into a casino listing here would not be the points, but I believe a simple star or emblem by their label/rating/logo. You would only need 3 types, say a green star denoting NONE of the games are sub-factory top RTP, an orange or green/red split star where SOME games are offered lower than top and a red star if ALL games where the option exists are at sub-factory RTP.
This would be easy to spot for the viewer, it's a simple legend and wouldn't involve pissing about with formulae and points. @maxd @Casinomeister
And with our extensive membership across all sites, it would be easy to keep updated in a specific 'My Casino's RTP' thread or similar, so people can keep us informed but in one reference thread.
To ensure this is kept complete, the CM casino reps could be mass-mailed and informed of this and told it's their call to update us themselves if possible.
Like most of the members here, I was under the impression that Twin was running RTPs at the highest level. I guess I was wrong, and it's definitly not cool that we were not informed of this change. You don't make a statement and subsequently do the opposite without a heads up.
To add my two penn'orth it's a competitive casino world out there and market conditions which we often attribute, wrongly in many cases, to 'greed' will inevitably induce a herd mentality like you see in retail for example. One producer shrinks a product, others will do so later. One discounts baked beans, the others do the same. Pretty much the same here - you can only guess if a casino has seen others reduce RTP and observe them 'get away with it' and followed, OR has had to implement a reduction due to market conditions. The exact reason me, Bryan or anyone else will not know.
To strike points from a casino for being forced in some cases to compete in the market could be unfair to those who did it solely for that reason. As I said, it will be hard to tell either way. It's a bit like slamming your local mini-market shop because they charge higher prices than a corporate supermarket chain. Unibet, Hills etc. are giant operations with multi-market profits to cover the cost or subsidize RTP if they choose, whereas most are not.
The problem I have with this analogy is that the local mini-market is providing a useful service to society, so someone might choose to pay slightly higher prices because they appreciate the convenience of a nearby store that provides them with a function that the nearest branch of Asda a few miles away can't.
Playing at an online casino is an entirely different scenario, the casino exists only to take money off the players, there are no goods or meaningful services for sale (and indeed the casino is basically just 'reselling' games made by other organisations), the players only play in the hope of winning, and to fulfil their desire/urge to have a gamble. (Or in some cases, because of addiction.)
Moreover, there's no such thing as 'bespoke service' at a casino these days, there's no kind of 'boutique offering' that smaller casinos can provide, since none of the games are their own and the bonus is all but dead (at least for 'normal' players), as such all it really comes down to is (1) How much are the games paying out, how likely am I to win (i.e. RTP) and (2) How quickly and with how little fuss will I get paid if I win? (3Dice is one of the very few (only?) exceptions left in this regard, as they're entirely a self-contained outfit, do make their own games, do maintain a bonus/VIP structure, do run special offers and promotions that actually have some value to them, and so on - if there are any others, I'm not aware of them.)
With the greatest of respect I honestly have no earthly idea why any player would bother with 99% of the new casinos that turn up, especially since it's the smaller operators that seem to struggle most with quick payouts, support and live support, SOW nonsense, not understanding the rules under which they're supposed to be operating, games being laggy and disconnecting due to shitty integration, and so on.
In a world when Unibet still exists (top RTPs on everything, massive selection of providers and games, payouts often in 5-10 minutes, easy document verification, no SOW crap etc), what on earth is Twin's pitch for our custom when they can't even satisfy the 'Unibet Standard', let alone when they've also decided to help themselves to a house edge of a truly monstrous 12.5% on PnG slots?
I can understand the case (although I personally disagree with it) for playing at somewhere like VS that do have a decent number of perks and rewards on offer, do pay out very quickly, and have at least only taken 94% versions of games rather than going any lower. (Although it can never be stated too many times that a move from 96% to 94% increases the house edge by 50%.)
I've read the CM review for Twin and nothing jumps out at me as being exceptional, including the bonuses which are described as 'great', and all of this with the knowledge that they'll reduce RTPs on some games to 87.5% and not even tell their players about it, waiting instead to be called out on it here on the forums.
My recommendation would be to add RTP as a category here, weight it more than the other categories (so it has a 200%-300% weighted impact on the overall casino rating), and award Twin zero shields out of five. I'd also add an explicit 'LOW RTP WARNING' to the 'Cons' colu
The problem I have with this analogy is that the local mini-market is providing a useful service to society, so someone might choose to pay slightly higher prices because they appreciate the convenience of a nearby store that provides them with a function that the nearest branch of Asda a few miles away can't.
Playing at an online casino is an entirely different scenario, the casino exists only to take money off the players, there are no goods or meaningful services for sale (and indeed the casino is basically just 'reselling' games made by other organisations), the players only play in the hope of winning, and to fulfil their desire/urge to have a gamble. (Or in some cases, because of addiction.)
Moreover, there's no such thing as 'bespoke service' at a casino these days, there's no kind of 'boutique offering' that smaller casinos can provide, since none of the games are their own and the bonus is all but dead (at least for 'normal' players), as such all it really comes down to is (1) How much are the games paying out, how likely am I to win (i.e. RTP) and (2) How quickly and with how little fuss will I get paid if I win? (3Dice is one of the very few (only?) exceptions left in this regard, as they're entirely a self-contained outfit, do make their own games, do maintain a bonus/VIP structure, do run special offers and promotions that actually have some value to them, and so on - if there are any others, I'm not aware of them.)
With the greatest of respect I honestly have no earthly idea why any player would bother with 99% of the new casinos that turn up, especially since it's the smaller operators that seem to struggle most with quick payouts, support and live support, SOW nonsense, not understanding the rules under which they're supposed to be operating, games being laggy and disconnecting due to shitty integration, and so on.
In a world when Unibet still exists (top RTPs on everything, massive selection of providers and games, payouts often in 5-10 minutes, easy document verification, no SOW crap etc), what on earth is Twin's pitch for our custom when they can't even satisfy the 'Unibet Standard', let alone when they've also decided to help themselves to a house edge of a truly monstrous 12.5% on PnG slots?
I can understand the case (although I personally disagree with it) for playing at somewhere like VS that do have a decent number of perks and rewards on offer, do pay out very quickly, and have at least only taken 94% versions of games rather than going any lower. (Although it can never be stated too many times that a move from 96% to 94% increases the house edge by 50%.)
I've read the CM review for Twin and nothing jumps out at me as being exceptional, including the bonuses which are described as 'great', and all of this with the knowledge that they'll reduce RTPs on some games to 87.5% and not ev
My recommendation would be to add RTP as a category here, weight it more than the other categories (so it has a 200%-300% weighted impact on the overall casino rating), and award Twin zero shields out of five. I'd also add an explicit 'LOW RTP WARNING' to the 'Cons' column.
Like the idea with a new RTP rating with a 300% influence and a red warning box in addition.The problem I have with this analogy is that the local mini-market is providing a useful service to society, so someone might choose to pay slightly higher prices because they appreciate the convenience of a nearby store that provides them with a function that the nearest branch of Asda a few miles away can't.
Playing at an online casino is an entirely different scenario, the casino exists only to take money off the players, there are no goods or meaningful services for sale (and indeed the casino is basically just 'reselling' games made by other organisations), the players only play in the hope of winning, and to fulfil their desire/urge to have a gamble. (Or in some cases, because of addiction.)
Moreover, there's no such thing as 'bespoke service' at a casino these days, there's no kind of 'boutique offering' that smaller casinos can provide, since none of the games are their own and the bonus is all but dead (at least for 'normal' players), as such all it really comes down to is (1) How much are the games paying out, how likely am I to win (i.e. RTP) and (2) How quickly and with how little fuss will I get paid if I win? (3Dice is one of the very few (only?) exceptions left in this regard, as they're entirely a self-contained outfit, do make their own games, do maintain a bonus/VIP structure, do run special offers and promotions that actually have some value to them, and so on - if there are any others, I'm not aware of them.)
With the greatest of respect I honestly have no earthly idea why any player would bother with 99% of the new casinos that turn up, especially since it's the smaller operators that seem to struggle most with quick payouts, support and live support, SOW nonsense, not understanding the rules under which they're supposed to be operating, games being laggy and disconnecting due to shitty integration, and so on.
In a world when Unibet still exists (top RTPs on everything, massive selection of providers and games, payouts often in 5-10 minutes, easy document verification, no SOW crap etc), what on earth is Twin's pitch for our custom when they can't even satisfy the 'Unibet Standard', let alone when they've also decided to help themselves to a house edge of a truly monstrous 12.5% on PnG slots?
I can understand the case (although I personally disagree with it) for playing at somewhere like VS that do have a decent number of perks and rewards on offer, do pay out very quickly, and have at least only taken 94% versions of games rather than going any lower. (Although it can never be stated too many times that a move from 96% to 94% increases the house edge by 50%.)
I've read the CM review for Twin and nothing jumps out at me as being exceptional, including the bonuses which are described as 'great', and all of this with the knowledge that they'll reduce RTPs on some games to 87.5% and not even tell their players about it, waiting instead to be called out on it here on the forums.
My recommendation would be to add RTP as a category here, weight it more than the other categories (so it has a 200%-300% weighted impact on the overall casino rating), and award Twin zero shields out of five. I'd also add an explicit 'LOW RTP WARNING' to the 'Cons' column.
View attachment 158401
