Whamoo Casino - Check RTP via 'Inspect'

[EuropaEclipse]

Hey! Does anyone know how to check the RTP of a game using the 'Inspect' element within Chrome?

I was playing on PlaynGo slots at Whamoo **snip** (which advertise the default RTP of ~96.2%. However the gameplay was Very* noticeable that it was playing at a much lower RTP, compared to playing on PlaynGo slots on Novibet, for example.

Cheers!

 

[gonzo fonso]

play n go are well known for offering several maths models of RTP on there slots,best way to check RTP on a slot is load the slot and click the info/? icon will show all information of slot etc including RTP

 

[EuropaEclipse]

play n go are well known for offering several maths models of RTP on there slots,best way to check RTP on a slot is load the slot and click the info/? icon will show all information of slot etc including RT

• I am aware of the multiple variants
• I am aware that this can be checked by clicking '?'

My question is, can someone check the RTP by right-clicking > 'Inspect' because it's possible to also check the RTP there.

 

[gonzo fonso]

i do not know this,but im sure someone on the forum will know

 

[The Reel Story]

It depends on the provider and whether they pass that information in any of the communications. In Chrome developer tools, use the 'network' tab and see if any of the playngo requests in there contain an RTP number (sometimes they do).

That said, it's impossible for a single player to 'feel' an RTP difference over the small number of spins that they do, so it's much more likely you will have just had a run of bad luck

 

[anddi32]

That said, it's impossible for a single player to 'feel' an RTP difference over the small number of spins that they do, so it's much more likely you will have just had a run of bad luck

500 spins game session in 84% PnG can be better for the player than 500 spins session in 96% PnG.
Impossible to say anything about theoretical RTP because spin amount is so low.
Player needs to play tens and tens of same sessions and at that point the difference starts to show in the statistics.
Sure 12 points difference is so big there that the number of rounds doesn't even have to be huge.

But if player wants to compare difference between 94 and 94 in real life at that point the number of rounds should be quite large depending on the game. An here you also have to pay attention to the volatility of the game

 

[The Reel Story]

Yep, exactly.

 

[dunover]

Hey! Does anyone know how to check the RTP of a game using the 'Inspect' element within Chrome?

I was playing on PlaynGo slots at Whamoo **snip** (which advertise the default RTP of ~96.2%. However the gameplay was Very* noticeable that it was playing at a much lower RTP, compared to playing on PlaynGo slots on Novibet, for example.

Cheers!

Please do not link to casinos unless they are CM reviewed! Thanks.

 

[09237653]

On Chrome press F12 before loading the game, load the game and look for

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

on the side panel, RTP is displayed there.

 

[EuropaEclipse]

Please do not link to casinos unless they are CM reviewed! Thanks.

I'm not sure I understand, sir. Many CM certified casinos are total garbage.

 

[EuropaEclipse]

It depends on the provider and whether they pass that information in any of the communications. In Chrome developer tools, use the 'network' tab and see if any of the playngo requests in there contain an RTP number (sometimes they do).

That said, it's impossible for a single player to 'feel' an RTP difference over the small number of spins that they do, so it's much more likely you will have just had a run of bad luck

If you were to put 10euro into 'Raging Rex 2' on a 96.2% version, then put 10 euro into a 94.2% version, I guarantee you'll notice the difference.

 

[The Reel Story]

If you were to put 10euro into 'Raging Rex 2' on a 96.2% version, then put 10 euro into a 94.2% version, I guarantee you'll notice the difference.

Statistically, no, you will not

 

[dunover]

I'm not sure I understand, sir. Many CM certified casinos are total garbage.

Whatever your opinion, the people in charge have reviewed them accordingly, unlike the clip joint you linked to.

If you're having difficulty understanding me, I suggest you read the forum rules - do NOT post links to external sites without permission.

Forum Rules

Check out 1.3 among others.

 

[EuropaEclipse]

Statistically, no, you will not

Incorrect. You notice it. Go ahead and try if you wish.

 

[EuropaEclipse]

Whatever your opinion, the people in charge have reviewed them accordingly, unlike the clip joint you linked to.

If you're having difficulty understanding me, I suggest you read the forum rules - do NOT post links to external sites without permission.

Forum Rules

Check out 1.3 among others.

I will take a look

 

[bamberfishcake]

It depends on the provider and whether they pass that information in any of the communications. In Chrome developer tools, use the 'network' tab and see if any of the playngo requests in there contain an RTP number (sometimes they do).

That said, it's impossible for a single player to 'feel' an RTP difference over the small number of spins that they do, so it's much more likely you will have just had a run of bad luck

I have to disagree here and think it's wrong to suggest to players they won't notice a difference in different RTP models. That is a very broad and bold statement.

It depends on the game and how the game has been changed to compensate for the lower payout.

Dazza also has an RTP calculator on his site which tells you the average difference in time spent on the reels. Even if you can't tell the difference over a small number of spins because of a keen hit frequency and low volatility, the difference is evident in your session time and wallet.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Statistically, no, you will not

Statistically, it depends on the game. A Quickspin I saw the other day has a bonus hit frequency on a 96%er of 1 in 176ish compared to the 94%er of 1 in 145ish.

So, statistically, you will, even over a small number of spins. There are many more games and developers whose different models, I would suggest, stand out like a sore thumb.

I don't have enough experience playing different models side by side to back up what I say, but then again, I don't think anyone has, nevertheless, statistically, you will notice the difference, and more on some games than others depending on how the game has been changed.

Its simple, one pays more, fact

Why put it down to bad luck? statistically - it's because you are playing a lower-paying version, so logic dictates its because of the model, not bad luck. To me anyway

 

[Reelsoffun]

I think what reel story meant is statistically if you played £10 etc into any slot on different RTP you are extremely unlikely to notice any difference esp if your using 1 bets and even 0.20 bets you wouldn't have known which one was higher consistently, and I totally agree with him also.

Very long term absolutely you will tell, but consistently from 10-50 spins not a chance.

Standard deviation would hide any RTP difference for quite a while overall.

 

[bamberfishcake]

I think what reel story meant is statistically if you played £10 etc into any slot on different RTP you are extremely unlikely to notice any difference esp if your using 1 bets and even 0.20 bets you wouldn't have known which one was higher consistently, and I totally agree with him also.

Very long term absolutely you will tell, but consistently from 10-50 spins not a chance.

Standard deviation would hide any RTP difference for quite a while overall.

In any case, it's bad advice to tell someone you probably had bad luck, and statistically, you won't notice it, when it might not be bad luck, and statistically, there are, and can be significant differences in gameplay by playing a lower RTP version.

 

[Guntis]

Try playing a lowered RTP version of Playn'go Book of Dead for an hour and then switch to a normal version and you'll notice the outright robbery almost instantly

 

[bamberfishcake]

Try playing a lowered RTP version of Playn'go Book of Dead for an hour and then switch to a normal version and you'll notice the outright robbery almost instantly

I think I noticed a difference playing the VS battles when the RTP dropped on Book of Dead. Trouble is, due to the random nature of slots, it can always be argued that it might be bad luck, but I prefer not to play lower versions than take the risk.

Besides, the more you feed the reductions, the more you will see, The power really is with the players and what they play, we carve our own paths, but the industry hangs on by trying to conceal the fact that slots with the same name, from the same developer, like Book of Dead, can be completely different at different casinos and expertly built to pay less, guaranteed.

 

[The Reel Story]

I wasn't recommending whether someone should or shouldn't play high or low RTP versions of games. I simply stated the fact. Statistically, over the small number of spins you're likely to do, you won't notice. You can argue with that if you want, but it's Maths, and it's pretty solid :-/

 

[bamberfishcake]

Yes, maths does tend to be solid

Noticing the difference depends on many things, like what game, what has changed, and what models are we talking about. But I agree to disagree whilst agreeing that the maths is solid but think our interpretation of the result of said solid maths differs

 

[The Reel Story]

It does indeed depend on the models. A low volatility game (or indeed, a zero volatility game that just took £1 and returned £0.94 every spin) would of course be noticeable. The example given was Raging Rex 2 though, which as far as I can remember is pretty high volatility. The higher the volatility, the less noticeable any RTP reduction will be in a short-term set of spins.

 

[satchnz]

They must also do other fuckery to slots like changing bonus hit rates without changing RTP. DOA2 is a great example in my experience. I remember first playing it a couple of years ago and I’d get my fair share of spin ups/draws/teases for the bonus (landing two scatters before the last reel). I’d get enough third scatters to be happy. Nowadays I’m lucky to even see one scatter let alone two. And a bonus? Close to never.

 

[pinnit2014]

I can't see you noticing any difference in play in 10 spins tbh. I'd been playing a 94% Reactoonz2 and if i didn't know better i'd have assumed it was the 96%. You probably notice the difference more if you're not winning

 

[bamberfishcake]

I can't see you noticing any difference in play in 10 spins tbh. I'd been playing a 94% Reactoonz2 and if i didn't know better i'd have assumed it was the 96%. You probably notice the difference more if you're not winning

What about, if you had only 10 spins on a slot before changing, but did that every time you played, would the lower RTP version pay less?

I think the maths is solid

 

[pinnit2014]

What about, if you had only 10 spins on a slot before changing, but did that every time you played, would the lower RTP version pay less?

I think the maths is solid

I like to think: i've had more 1000x's in Unibets 94 as opposed to MrQ's 96 as the basis for the maths

What i would say, regarding the mechanics, is that you definitely see less two scatter teases on the Book of Dead on 94 than the 96. I think standard deviation is often missed when talking about RTP/Volatility

 

[jasonuk]

Statistically, it depends on the game. A Quickspin I saw the other day has a bonus hit frequency on a 96%er of 1 in 176ish compared to the 94%er of 1 in 145ish.

So, statistically, you will, even over a small number of spins. There are many more games and developers whose different models, I would suggest, stand out like a sore thumb.

Unless there is a clear and obvious tell such as wonky reel configurations (e.g. bonus symbols) - The Reel Story is right, you certainly wouldn't over 50-100 spins, and for something stark like your example above you'd struggle over 10,000 spins too.

My Binomial Distribution knowledge is a bit rusty, so any errors here are my own (and corrections welcome):

* At 96% (1 in 176) - we would expect 57 bonuses over 10,000 spins, a 95% confidence would cover 42 to 72 bonuses.
* At 94% (1 in 145) - we would expect 69 bonuses over 10,000 spins, a 95% confidence would cover 52 to 85 bonuses.

So even for a modest 95% confidence, you've got a 24% chance to uncover the 96% model (51 or less) and a 32% chance of uncovering the 94% model (73 or more). For a 99.9% confidence, that drops to 1%/5% chance.

The two curves diverge around 200k spins, so would be looking at perhaps 500k+ spins before you could trivially state which is which - a "small number of spins" in the grand scheme of things perhaps, but not in the context of this thread!

 

[bamberfishcake]

I like to think: i've had more 1000x's in Unibets 94 as opposed to MrQ's 96 as the basis for the maths

What i would say, regarding the mechanics, is that you definitely see less two scatter teases on the Book of Dead on 94 than the 96. I think standard deviation is often missed when talking about RTP/Volatility

I was kind of pulling your leg. I mean who would do just 10 spins? Actually, my pal and I started off doing that, we even went as low as six because we heard the sixth spin was the most probable wait for a win lol

 

[pinnit2014]

I was kind of pulling your leg. I mean who would do just 10 spins? Actually, my pal and I started off doing that, we even went as low as six because we heard the sixth spin was the most probable wait for a win lol

Glad u added leg to the response

 

[bamberfishcake]

My Binomial Distribution knowledge is a bit rusty

Must admit I laughed out loud like a schoolboy when I read that, didn't even know what it meant until I saw your solid maths

The Reel Story is right, you certainly wouldn't over 50-100 spins, and for something stark like your example above you'd struggle over 10,000 spins too

Agree to disagree. My point was that the suggestion that you won't notice a difference playing a lower RTP model is wrong and subjective in its statement. I thought it was a sweeping statement and didn't realise we were talking about 10 spins on Raging rex 2, to be honest, I should have read the whole thread.

I don't disagree that you won't notice a difference with ten spins on many games but do those ten spins over and over again and you will. For the simple fact that it pays less. An individual may still score a big win, but there will be less of them, and maybe even a lower max payout, or less wins in the 100x range. Just saying that it is designed to pay less, and it will.

I also agree with many players, just from personal experience, that some games are suspiciously lacking in scatters in lower models, like BOD for example.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Where is Dino with his bag of marbles analogy?

@dionysus , remember when you baffled me with science and your bag of marbles analogy?

Is the bag of marbles example you mentioned affected by RTP?

Would you notice the difference between a 96% bag of marbles and a 91% bag? Do they make the bag smaller, or are there fewer marbles? Oh, the mind boggles...

 

[jasonuk]

Where is Dino with his bag of marbles analogy?

Would you notice the difference between a 96% bag of marbles and a 91% bag? Do they make the bag smaller, or are there fewer marbles? Oh, the mind boggles...

Things get a lot more painful when we swap reel-based slots for scripted games - I'm sure @ChopleyIOM also has his bag of marbles from the Scammin' Jars incident.

For reel-based slots, one symbol change can influence thousands of spins - so there is a chance (if you're studious enough) you'll observe said change, for some providers that provide reel strips you'd be able to confirm that way also. For scripted games, all bets are off...

If we had a bag with one million marbles, of which two offer the top prize of 20,000x (4% of RTP). If they removed one of those jackpot marbles, you now have one 20,000x marble from 999,999 but the game is otherwise identical - and 2% RTP has been lopped off.

How would you verify that independently ? It's basically impossible...

 

[slot_zombie]

If I was in the business of lopping RTP out of a game, which I'm not, I'd definitely do it from the top end of wins. Maybe that max win gets a little harder to land, and the rest of the game remains "untouched".

Of course, once we start dipping below 91% it would get harder to avoid nerfing the lower win ranges as well...

 

[The Reel Story]

There are a lot of ways in which you can alter RTP.

Change symbol payout values
Change symbol frequencies on reels (which doesn't always have the effect you expect).
Change bonus frequencies
Change reel sets in bonuses (so bonuses pay more/less on average).

and probably a bunch I'm forgetting cause I've not done it in many years now :-D

 

[dionysus]

Where is Dino with his bag of marbles analogy?

@dionysus , remember when you baffled me with science and your bag of marbles analogy?

Is the bag of marbles example you mentioned affected by RTP?

Would you notice the difference between a 96% bag of marbles and a 91% bag? Do they make the bag smaller, or are there fewer marbles? Oh, the mind boggles...

probably just best to think of playing slots these days as marbles and stick to betting on the next outbreak

 

[X-Raided]

Statistically, it depends on the game. A Quickspin I saw the other day has a bonus hit frequency on a 96%er of 1 in 176ish compared to the 94%er of 1 in 145ish.

So, statistically, you will, even over a small number of spins. There are many more games and developers whose different models, I would suggest, stand out like a sore thumb.

I don't have enough experience playing different models side by side to back up what I say, but then again, I don't think anyone has, nevertheless, statistically, you will notice the difference, and more on some games than others depending on how the game has been changed.

Its simple, one pays more, fact

Why put it down to bad luck? statistically - it's because you are playing a lower-paying version, so logic dictates its because of the model, not bad luck. To me anyway

Bring back the Austin Powers avatar!

 

[satchnz]

I do subscribe to the notion that the reduced RTP practice is dirty. But at times this doesn’t seem to stack up in reality. I almost exclusively play at bet365 and MrQ, both max RTP establishments. I honestly struggle to win on MrQ, only having had a small number of withdrawals. But I’m hundreds of pounds up on bet365. Makes me wonder sometimes if MrQ truly are running max RTP but I’ll leave that alone for now…