Who define the concrete RTP?

[andym]

Hi guys,
often discussed here but who defines the concrete RTP of a slot in a specific casino?
is it the game provider (e.g. playngo)?
or do the game provider only define the possible RTP range and the specific online casino who offers the slot do then set their specific RTP in that slot?

 

[4048]

The provider makes the maths for the game, for example "ok, you have a 96 in 100 chance to get 1x your bet back, therefore RTP is 96%" then they send it over to a licenser, who simulates a few billion spins. If the licenser sees that the RTP is as advertised, the game can be released.

Then they make the same game, but this time you only win 1x 94 in 100 times, and releases this version as the 94% one, and so on.


Edit: I don't think I read your question right, it is the casino that choses which version of the game to host. The provider gives the casino muiltiple options, and the casino decides "all right, we want the 81% RTP one for our casino".

 

[andym]

Edit: I don't think I read your question right, it is the casino that choses which version of the game to host. The provider gives the casino muiltiple options, and the casino decides "all right, we want the 81% RTP one for our casino".

this was exactly what I was asking for. And also what I expected.

but I clearly got a different answer from a loyalty manager of one of the top accredited casinos here!
He said it’s the provider. ‚His online casino has no influence on the RTP of that slot‚
Which is in my eyes bullshit as it’s clearly the casino who choose which RTPversion they want to host.
or am I wrong?

 

[TheAddict]

Probably just got him or herself mixed up. May have thought you were asking if the casino can directly influence or control the RTP on their side, rather than the casino selecting which RTP they wish the games to be set to aim for.

 

[dionysus]

there's a thread or 2 going more into detail, but generally speaking, your best bet is @trancemonkey for the full-on or dumbed-down version

 

[dionysus]

in a crunch, @Halvor is a good source as well

 

[anddi32]

the specific online casino who offers the slot do then set their specific RTP in that slot?

Thank god this is not possible (yet). But i'm a bit worried because when i read MGA's policy paper from RTP's there is a summary of the casinos' answers to the survey. Direct quote:

"Several respondents stated that operators should have the ability to set their own RTP within prescribed ranges, in order to remain profitable in view of the various changes in national tax regimes and rising compliance costs. It has been acknowledged that the alignment with the land-based sector will give the online operators the option to decide on the optimal RTP based on the game type and the targeted customer segment, whilst keeping the games sufficiently attractive for players."

I don't trust MGA so much that they will keep players' side. Whole drop to 92 -> 85 was just because casinos wanted it and several casinos want some magic button where they can change RTP on the fly. Bad bad bad and i hope this all remains only at the level of thoughts

 

[bamberfishcake]

Thank god this is not possible (yet). But i'm a bit worried because when i read MGA's policy paper from RTP's there is a summary of the casinos' answers to the survey. Direct quote:

"Several respondents stated that operators should have the ability to set their own RTP within prescribed ranges, in order to remain profitable in view of the various changes in national tax regimes and rising compliance costs. It has been acknowledged that the alignment with the land-based sector will give the online operators the option to decide on the optimal RTP based on the game type and the targeted customer segment, whilst keeping the games sufficiently attractive for players."

I don't trust MGA so much that they will keep players' side. Whole drop to 92 -> 85 was just because casinos wanted it and several casinos want some magic button where they can change RTP on the fly. Bad bad bad and i hope this all remains only at the level of thoughts

I picked up on that. It is apparently being trialled. Yes, I don't trust the MGA either, nor any governing body who lets their flock get fleeced daily.

The MGA have a single focus, and that is to make Malta the gaming capital of the world. Any player protection or transparency s being flogged at the expense of it.

Nice place to live at the minute though, especially if you are young and carving a career in gaming, exciting times for the Maltese faithful.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Oh, and next on the horizon unless I have only just found out this is a thing - adjustable max wins! I think Push Gaming have one out now that says something like 'the max win may not be the actual max win and speak to your casino for confirmation'

 

[Nate]

this was exactly what I was asking for. And also what I expected.

but I clearly got a different answer from a loyalty manager of one of the top accredited casinos here!
He said it’s the provider. ‚His online casino has no influence on the RTP of that slot‚
Which is in my eyes bullshit as it’s clearly the casino who choose which RTPversion they want to host.
or am I wrong?

You are correct. The Casino chooses which RTP model they wish to offer. Not many providers offer a single RTP anymore. It's as black and white as it comes.

Nate

 

[jasonuk]

It's certainly caused a lot of confusion, particularly as casinos have been quite opaque in RTP reductions (often using cryptic messaging, broken webpages or other tricks to frustrate discovery). Simple enough when one slot design = one math model (and a reskinned version would be launched with the lower RTP) but now it's a lot messier when one slot could have 10+ configurations.

So when they say they don't control the RTP, they mean they don't influence the running of math model - they can (and indeed have) changed the math model to a different variant.

Furthermore the existing definition of RTP is becoming more of an issue:

• RTP is billions of spins by one player - this doesn't scale with an increasing number of stored value games where the realised house edge is higher than indicated because of all the abandoned climbs (or worse, perpetual stored value that is almost impossible to fully unlock - e.g. Monopoly Megaways)
• games that have increasingly absurd "perfect strategy" descriptions that it's nearly impossible to execute, which is not strictly a new thing (e.g. video poker) but having to read a multi-page description for that 99% RTP inevitably means people are going to make a lot of mistakes

I wonder if this would work better if all providers were required to report publicly the actual RTP, or a normalised actual RTP (to avoid excessive skew from the biggest bets) - something that I recall Microgaming used to do back in the day? It would certainly open some eyes if a 98% live casino game had a 8% realised take...

 

[aceking123]

I've been a long time thinker that even in the early days these casinos have had the power to adjust rtp% including micro gaming, never once did get to the bottom of when you changed bet, you got a pause, it doesn't show anymore, but really suspected it was down to a different rtp% model.
I suspect it being like this for many many years.

 

[The Reel Story]

It believe it is legal to have a different Math Model for different stakes (I believe the RTP still has to remain the same, but I forget). CAn't say i've ever seen a game do it though. A LOT of effort for basically no payoff.

But yes, as has been stated above, game providers make games, they define the mathematical models of the games which in turn produces an RTP as the outcome for that mathematical model. The provider may make multiple models for a single game to have range of RTP options.

The Casino can then buy whichever version of that game they want off the provider, but the Casino cannot just 'choose an RTP' or 'Hot swap math models' on the fly.



My video explaining RTP.

 

[jasonuk]

It believe it is legal to have a different Math Model for different stakes (I believe the RTP still has to remain the same, but I forget). CAn't say i've ever seen a game do it though. A LOT of effort for basically no payoff.

It's commonplace - FOBT's do this all the time, and Barcrest/SG tested this online a few years back having 94%/96% depending on the stake you played (I recall it was £2+ for the higher RTP).

The Casino can then buy whichever version of that game they want off the provider, but the Casino cannot just 'choose an RTP' or 'Hot swap math models' on the fly.

Of course they can - they send a request to the game provider to switch the math model, follow the procedure (which includes notifying players the game has changed) and then they can "just choose an RTP". That process may take a few days, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't really matter as players frequently struggle to realise they're not playing the same game anymore - not a surprise when some providers have 10 or 15 RTP configurations available!

I don't trust MGA so much that they will keep players' side. Whole drop to 92 -> 85 was just because casinos wanted it and several casinos want some magic button where they can change RTP on the fly. Bad bad bad and i hope this all remains only at the level of thoughts

It's scary that some of the responses were looking to push the minimum down from 92% to 75% last year! ? The thought of dynamic RTPs is scary - most players are already completely lost when it comes to the RTP reductions as it is (they're "playing the same game" but "seem to be losing more" - one of those statements being false of course). Given how many casinos are already deploying 90% and 91% games, I expect similar pressure on the UKGC in the near future.

 

[The Reel Story]

Of course they can - they send a request to the game provider to switch the math model, follow the procedure (which includes notifying players the game has changed) and then they can "just choose an RTP". That process may take a few days, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't really matter as players frequently struggle to realise they're not playing the same game anymore - not a surprise when some providers have 10 or 15 RTP configurations available!

Yep, hence I said they cannot hot-swap it on the fly. Takes a few days.

 

[The Reel Story]

Creating a game that can account for a dynamic RTP is actually incredibly difficult. There are so many factors that effect RTP, you'd somehow need to come up with a method that translated the percentage asked for into changes to the math model. If you do this the simplest way (by just altering one aspect of the model) you likely make the game a horrible experience to play.

Ultimately this would mean that game providers would make less money, so they're likely to push back on that. Game providers put a lot of effort into making their games fun and 'feel' good to play, so that people play them and come back to them. That's also the reason why RTP's don't go too low, because it ends up with less profit due to the fact that people abandon the game very quickly because it doesn't 'feel' fun.

 

[jasonuk]

Creating a game that can account for a dynamic RTP is actually incredibly difficult. There are so many factors that effect RTP, you'd somehow need to come up with a method that translated the percentage asked for into changes to the math model. If you do this the simplest way (by just altering one aspect of the model) you likely make the game a horrible experience to play.

And those already exist - 5+ math models for a game is commonplace (and FOBTs often deploy with 4-10 of them concurrently), 10+ math models isn't a rarity. The protection currently comes from the procedure to change the RTP, if that goes then all hell breaks loose. Barcrest (again) released such a game in 2016 called "Hot Slot" where you picked from five different machines, one of which (for the duration of the clock) was running a 100%+ math model.

Ultimately this would mean that game providers would make less money, so they're likely to push back on that. Game providers put a lot of effort into making their games fun and 'feel' good to play, so that people play them and come back to them. That's also the reason why RTP's don't go too low, because it ends up with less profit due to the fact that people abandon the game very quickly because it doesn't 'feel' fun.

The evidence suggests otherwise sadly - plenty of 90% and 91% slots out there in the UK, a handful of providers who are designing bonus buy first slots (for the monopoly money streamers) where the base game is so dull it makes paint drying look exciting, and a significant increase in dopamine hits from small wins (UKGC banned sound cues for 1x or smaller wins, so now we get coin showers at 1.2x instead).

As soon as the longstanding traditions of 95-96% RTP went, the race to the bottom would inevitably start... until players realise that it's not "the same game" anymore, they're just going to assume they're having unlucky sessions.

 

[The Reel Story]

And those already exist - 5+ math models for a game is commonplace (and FOBTs often deploy with 4-10 of them concurrently), 10+ math models isn't a rarity. The protection currently comes from the procedure to change the RTP, if that goes then all hell breaks loose. Barcrest (again) released such a game in 2016 called "Hot Slot" where you picked from five different machines, one of which (for the duration of the clock) was running a 100%+ math model.

I meant truly dynamic. As in, the Casino can just type in a number and it will run at that. Sure, having multiple selections is already done and as you say, if they remove the protection of the procedure they could start hot swapping math models. That's still not fully dynamic though.

The evidence suggests otherwise sadly - plenty of 90% and 91% slots out there in the UK, a handful of providers who are designing bonus buy first slots (for the monopoly money streamers) where the base game is so dull it makes paint drying look exciting, and a significant increase in dopamine hits from small wins (UKGC banned sound cues for 1x or smaller wins, so now we get coin showers at 1.2x instead).

As soon as the longstanding traditions of 95-96% RTP went, the race to the bottom would inevitably start... until players realise that it's not "the same game" anymore, they're just going to assume they're having unlucky sessions.

I think that pressure for lower RTP games comes from the Casino, not the provider. Providers often argue against it, but if it's a choice between having your game on a Casino or not, then Providers will buckle.

It will take the Casinos to realise that they're actually making less money this way but that is hard for them to see because they attribute declining revenue to regulation and other factors (which are also true). So it's a vicious circle. Casinos are VERY trigger happy with their decisions though. I once had a Casino ask us to disable Roulette because a player had won 20k. He was martingaling and would lose eventually, but they were convinced Roulette was broken. Fucking ROULETTE :-/ Give me strength.

 

[anddi32]

It's scary that some of the responses were looking to push the minimum down from 92% to 75% last year! ?

Some groups under MGA who offers 87% PnG's maybe these groups want more and more they don't care.
It's really sad that MGA does not oblige casinos or providers to display game RTP directly in game launch window.
It should be the same duty as showing the time in the game window

It's too easy at the moment to mislead players because i guess there is big group of players who don't even know what's going on with RTP's. Every player should read casino forums but in real life a large group is completely unaware of these great platforms.

 

[trancemonkey]

It's certainly caused a lot of confusion, particularly as casinos have been quite opaque in RTP reductions (often using cryptic messaging, broken webpages or other tricks to frustrate discovery). Simple enough when one slot design = one math model (and a reskinned version would be launched with the lower RTP) but now it's a lot messier when one slot could have 10+ configurations.

So when they say they don't control the RTP, they mean they don't influence the running of math model - they can (and indeed have) changed the math model to a different variant.

Furthermore the existing definition of RTP is becoming more of an issue:

• RTP is billions of spins by one player - this doesn't scale with an increasing number of stored value games where the realised house edge is higher than indicated because of all the abandoned climbs (or worse, perpetual stored value that is almost impossible to fully unlock - e.g. Monopoly Megaways)
• games that have increasingly absurd "perfect strategy" descriptions that it's nearly impossible to execute, which is not strictly a new thing (e.g. video poker) but having to read a multi-page description for that 99% RTP inevitably means people are going to make a lot of mistakes

I wonder if this would work better if all providers were required to report publicly the actual RTP, or a normalised actual RTP (to avoid excessive skew from the biggest bets) - something that I recall Microgaming used to do back in the day? It would certainly open some eyes if a 98% live casino game had a 8% realised take...

You summed it up perfectly... CR games have some bizarre perfect strategy rules which are completely counter-intuitive.. I think these are likely designed to confuse players and, I would argue, are hugging the very edge of the regulations...

 

[Kwee Ceng]

It believe it is legal to have a different Math Model for different stakes (I believe the RTP still has to remain the same, but I forget). CAn't say i've ever seen a game do it though. A LOT of effort for basically no payoff.

But yes, as has been stated above, game providers make games, they define the mathematical models of the games which in turn produces an RTP as the outcome for that mathematical model. The provider may make multiple models for a single game to have range of RTP options.

The Casino can then buy whichever version of that game they want off the provider, but the Casino cannot just 'choose an RTP' or 'Hot swap math models' on the fly.



My video explaining RTP.

I'm new here and was planning to ask about RTP, then this video came out from my search.
so RTP has nothing to do with the payout, it is a winning chance. so it's like "win more when we bet higher and lose more when we bet lower" kind of thing.
Thank you for the explanation

 

[The Reel Story]

I'm new here and was planning to ask about RTP, then this video came out from my search.
so RTP has nothing to do with the payout, it is a winning chance. so it's like "win more when we bet higher and lose more when we bet lower" kind of thing.
Thank you for the explanation

Certainly not 'Win more when we bet higher/lower'. The theoretical RTP is just the statistical return the game produces based on its math model.

If you paid £1 per coin flip, and only heads returned you £1, then the TRTP would be 50%, because half the time you would get your money back and half the time you would lose it all.

If you increased the payout to £2, then the TRTP would be 100%, because half the time you would lose £1 and half the time you would win £1.

Both are predicated on the randomness of the coin and the odds of getting heads or tails.