William Hill go even lower on RTP

[goatwack]

Most certainly that. I doubt providers are doing this for any other reason than wanting in on the action, and having seen the current 'trend' in lobbing chunks off existing RTPs. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd already engineered 75% versions of their games, just waiting to be greenlit

I guess the writing was on the wall when the RTP tomfoolery began in earnest a couple of years ago, with no real overview or limitations, as opposed to the 'standard' one or two settings. When that ship sailed, it became a question of 'How far can we push it before players stop playing this particular title?'....

Well as we're seeing now, it's a freefall, with no end in sight. I'd like to think most punters would have a threshold for being fleeced, but when almost every title leans into the higher variance realm, many may not even notice, and just want to play their favourites.

For those that do notice the ever-widening gulf, I'd expect they may not want to play the likes of e.g Adventure Palace at 90%, and in time we'll see those games first to be canned, to be replaced with a slew of Wank Megaways clones.

Truly amazing what goes on before the UKGC's gaze, and how irresolute they are in keeping order. Still, despite all that, there is nothing stopping casinos in hosting optimal-RTP versions, even carving out a 'niche' corner of the market. Other than the current trend of Greedflation of course

Anyone that believes this business model to be indefinitely sustainable really ought to give their head a wobble. It'll crash and burn, and then we'll have casinos falling over themselves trying to attract new customers with 95%+ gaming catalogues. Might be 20 years off, but still

 

[jasonuk]

The fact is that your average slots punter doesn't know what rtp is. If they did, then this wouldn't be happening at one of the biggest Bookmakers in the uk

Historically I would agree, but people are (slowly) realising they don't get as much playtime - now whether that's because of RTP, or because they're playing insane variance streamer slots, or both (!) is the question.

The disconnect with some content creators between lamenting games not playing like they used to, and not understanding RTP and variance is pretty scary though. Especially when some of them are ploughing thousands a week into a FOBT.

I assume the indifference is because the providers also make more from lower RTP games.
AFAIK, the slot providers are paid a percentage of the house edge. I don't know exactly what that percentage is. But for argument's sake, let's say it's 10%

I would say it's a balance of power thing - if we go back a decade and the big names offering 94-95% slots, the upstarts of that era used RTP as a way to get their foot in the door... why play that existing 95% when you can play our shiny new 96.5% game etc. - new slot designs, high RTP and sensible variance was pretty much the golden era for online slots.

Then once the explosion of providers happened, and every Tom, Dick and Harry tried to design a slot chasing the pot of gold, then the power shifted towards the casinos who then played providers off against each other - and those that were desperate to get some publicity were happy to offer 94%, 92%, 90%, 88%...

When we look at the slots coming out, how often do you see a slot that you think "wow, that's different?"... So many slots now that are clones of something else, so they're not competing on RTP, they're not competing on gameplay, and often not competing on style either... so what are they bringing to the table? Nothing... they just want a cut of the pie and will do anything to get it - including by nefarious means it appears.

94% was bad enough, 92%, for online, is larceny, I can walk down to my local pub and play random games on the digicabs set to 94%!

This is the part that gets me... "oh we need to increase house edge for this that and other reason" and yet physical venues with significantly more overheads can function on 94%. I might have understood the change from 96-97% back to 95-96%, but when we're getting into 88-92% territory there's no answer but greed.

 

[PMKFRUITPRO]

I also don’t understand why the tiny minority that are still offering the top rtp across the board are not shouting this from the rooftops.

Whilst I appreciate it’s probably only 365 that could afford to run national tv adverts promoting exactly this. I’m sure morr could be done.

Get it out there, that us at 96.2% and them at 92% means exactly the sort of stats that have been mentioned here. Roll it all up in a quick presentable advert that will draw attention to the poor schmucks that are punting away at hills not having a clue!!

Wouldn’t take long before word got around and people took notice. But you never hear a peep, even from 365.

I’m sure at some point a bidding war would have to start taking place if enough players got clued up.

 

[slot_zombie]

This is the part that gets me... "oh we need to increase house edge for this that and other reason" and yet physical venues with significantly more overheads can function on 94%. I might have understood the change from 96-97% back to 95-96%, but when we're getting into 88-92% territory there's no answer but greed.

94% would be a rarity for brick and mortar these days. The arcades such as Merkur and Admiral have the rows of SG Equinox cabs and Prismatics on 88%-92% (have to play max stake to get 92%).

Classic machines such as Bar-X, Party Time usually lower still around 84%-86%.

Genting casinos are running at 90% across the board.

Daylight robbery.

 

[satchnz]

94% would be a rarity for brick and mortar these days. The arcades such as Merkur and Admiral have the rows of SG Equinox cabs and Prismatics on 88%-92% (have to play max stake to get 92%).

Classic machines such as Bar-X, Party Time usually lower still around 84%-86%.

Genting casinos are running at 90% across the board.

Daylight robbery.

Hmm, it’s enough to drive oneself to crypto casinos… ?

 

[TheAddict]

Just play Berry Berry Bonanza on 1 line 1p at Hills. You get 95.99% rtp + the random Gold slot droppy-mathingy every 30-400 minutes boosting the balance by £1. It's a no fkng brainer.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Hmm, it’s enough to drive oneself to crypto casinos… ?

Crypto is not without its faff, and certainly not without fees. When I was still playing at 3Dice, fees were a non-trivial consideration, especially considering my deposits were usually in the region of £60-£120 (i.e. relatively small amounts). 3Dice themselves didn't charge any fees, it was getting 'real money' into the crypto system and moved around that tended to cost, and then getting it back out again.

Many mainstream banks are very wary of crypto now too, hence I had to get a Revolut account to sit as a middleman between my actual normal bank, and the crypto system/coin exchanges etc.

I'm not saying it's an unsolvable problem, but it definitely adds faff and expense compared to say, depositing and withdrawing at VS with a normal card.

 

[satchnz]

Crypto is not without its faff, and certainly not without fees. When I was still playing at 3Dice, fees were a non-trivial consideration, especially considering my deposits were usually in the region of £60-£120 (i.e. relatively small amounts). 3Dice themselves didn't charge any fees, it was getting 'real money' into the crypto system and moved around that tended to cost, and then getting it back out again.

Many mainstream banks are very wary of crypto now too, hence I had to get a Revolut account to sit as a middleman between my actual normal bank, and the crypto system/coin exchanges etc.

I'm not saying it's an unsolvable problem, but it definitely adds faff and expense compared to say, depositing and withdrawing at VS with a normal card.

My comment was tongue in cheek. I’m a reasonably seasoned crypto casino player ?

 

[mightydegen]

I also don’t understand why the tiny minority that are still offering the top rtp across the board are not shouting this from the rooftops.

Whilst I appreciate it’s probably only 365 that could afford to run national tv adverts promoting exactly this. I’m sure morr could be done.

Get it out there, that us at 96.2% and them at 92% means exactly the sort of stats that have been mentioned here. Roll it all up in a quick presentable advert that will draw attention to the poor schmucks that are punting away at hills not having a clue!!

Wouldn’t take long before word got around and people took notice. But you never hear a peep, even from 365.

I’m sure at some point a bidding war would have to start taking place if enough players got clued up.

I think this is a case of it's not as simple as it sounds. Advertising nationally that for every £100 you spend, you should lose £4 is not a great selling point (even if it's better than most others). The vast majority of players are not like you, or me, and certainly not a member of this site and will be oblivious - Taking advantage of this fact is equally, in all forms, terrible. There's also likely the issue that if you advertise having the highest RTP, you cannot U-turn, that puts companies like bet365 in a precarious position, especially given what the UKGC are doing, and have done to the market.

With that all said, I do think education and pointing out the core difference players are getting with these variations is a good angle. Some (far more clever than myself) marketing individuals could probably spin this up.

 

[satchnz]

I think this is a case of it's not as simple as it sounds. Advertising nationally that for every £100 you spend, you should lose £4 is not a great selling point (even if it's better than most others). The vast majority of players are not like you, or me, and certainly not a member of this site and will be oblivious - Taking advantage of this fact is equally, in all forms, terrible. There's also likely the issue that if you advertise having the highest RTP, you cannot U-turn, that puts companies like bet365 in a precarious position, especially given what the UKGC are doing, and have done to the market.

With that all said, I do think education and pointing out the core difference players are getting with these variations is a good angle. Some (far more clever than myself) marketing individuals could probably spin this up.

For a start you wouldn’t market this advantage using the word “lose” anywhere. You’d focus on the increased play time/spin count, giving you more opportunities to hit a decent win.

 

[mightydegen]

For a start you wouldn’t market this advantage using the word “lose” anywhere. You’d focus on the increased play time/spin count, giving you more opportunities to hit a decent win.

Sounds like you’re better at marketing than me .

 

[jasonuk]

For a start you wouldn’t market this advantage using the word “lose” anywhere. You’d focus on the increased play time/spin count, giving you more opportunities to hit a decent win.

I was trying to think how you'd phrase it - but most of the ideas I came up with are either bad marketing or likely to annoy the UKGC... especially as players complain enough about random games being "fixed" without being told things like they'll lose less often or play for longer (and use their sample size of 1 to cry to the ASA or similar).

94% would be a rarity for brick and mortar these days. The arcades such as Merkur and Admiral have the rows of SG Equinox cabs and Prismatics on 88%-92% (have to play max stake to get 92%).

Agreed, once the books started pushing 88-92% in shop, the arcades were predictably going to follow. The point was more they can operate successfully at those margins - so anything below say 93% retail / 95% online is where the greed kicks in.

 

[BetterValueCasino]

It's certainly a shame that the RTPs have come down. And I went briefly into a William Hill shop a few months ago with a tenner or something, couldn't believe the roulette machines had a Treble Zero! Not just the European roulette 0, not just also the American Roulette 00, but a 000 too!

As stated by other posters, if the slot game is a "jackpot" slot, then the effectively perceived and actual RTP will be less still for the vast majority of players to provide the jackpot contribution.

I think it was hard enough to win big or quite big on slots before the RTPs came down. Some industry documents I've seen I think said that the absolute minimum RTP may be 85%. I wish the trend will be for higher RTPs as soon as possible, yes it's certainly not the current trend.

 

[jasonuk]

I think it was hard enough to win big or quite big on slots before the RTPs came down. Some industry documents I've seen I think said that the absolute minimum RTP may be 85%. I wish the trend will be for higher RTPs as soon as possible, yes it's certainly not the current trend.

That's true for the MGA, they changed from 92% to 85% in 2021. In the case of the UKGC, I don't think they have a specified minimum for online games (traditional Fruit Machines are 70% iirc) even though people somewhat assumed it was 90% - which we now know isn't the case as WH and others are pushing 88% slots (and were already pushing 70-80% scratchcards and other mug products)

 

[satchnz]

That's true for the MGA, they changed from 92% to 85% in 2021. In the case of the UKGC, I don't think they have a specified minimum for online games (traditional Fruit Machines are 70% iirc) even though people somewhat assumed it was 90% - which we now know isn't the case as WH and others are pushing 88% slots (and were already pushing 70-80% scratchcards and other mug products)

I bet you a tenner that UKGC have no idea what RTP stands for or means…

 

[jasonuk]

I bet you a tenner that UKGC have no idea what RTP stands for or means…

Given the incoming UKGC bods have zero background in the gambling industry, you may be right ?

 

[slot_zombie]

Agreed, once the books started pushing 88-92% in shop, the arcades were predictably going to follow. The point was more they can operate successfully at those margins - so anything below say 93% retail / 95% online is where the greed kicks in.

Thing is with max wins of 500x / 250x (£1 / £2 stakes respectively) the arcades and bookies can "sort of" get away with it up to a point for a bit of casual play- because there are no high x wins to account for, so the game can still run reasonably comparably to an online slot on 96%, in terms of bonus entry and base game play.

Where it all fall down is that one can still find oneself 300-500x down on £2/play if gaming for any decent length of time - and then there is almost no coming back from that.

 

[greylady]

I see that you now can't have an account at William Hill and Mr Green, it's one or the other from 4 December 2023.

I can't say it's much of a loss

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

Given the incoming UKGC bods have zero background in the gambling industry, you may be right ?

I was at a UKGC briefing recently and they mentioned that a growing number of their employees are ex gambling industry.

 

[Guntis]

I have personally spoken with a few London casino managers, many of whom have been in the gambling business since their youth. Most of them had little to no knowledge about online gambling. It would be pointless to even ask if they know what Play'n GO is. But i believe some had expert knowledge about classic casino games and gamblers behavior. These people likely would be OK to work for UKGC in land-based matters, but with online casino stuff, they would be totally useless.

 

[jasonuk]

I was at a UKGC briefing recently and they mentioned that a growing number of their employees are ex gambling industry.

You would hope so! Unfortunately it looks like they would be referring to the lower ranks of the UKGC because I'm not seeing any of the 22 executive or independent commissioner roles declare any background in the industry (mostly civil servants, lawyers, financial sector etc)

For clarification the "incoming bods" relate to their seven new independent commissioners - who according to recent media reports (or the

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

) similarly have no direct industry experience - three lawyers, pensions regulator, financial services, NHS and DMCS.

Obviously you wouldn't want most or all of them to because that would be equally bad, but none of the 22 is a bit of a concern - but it might explain some of the stranger decisions.

 

[satchnz]

You would hope so! Unfortunately it looks like they would be referring to the lower ranks of the UKGC because I'm not seeing any of the 22 executive or independent commissioner roles declare any background in the industry (mostly civil servants, lawyers, financial sector etc)

For clarification the "incoming bods" relate to their seven new independent commissioners - who according to recent media reports (or the

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

) similarly have no direct industry experience - three lawyers, pensions regulator, financial services, NHS and DMCS.

Obviously you wouldn't want most or all of them to because that would be equally bad, but none of the 22 is a bit of a concern - but it might explain some of the stranger decisions.

There is a Brain Surgeon role open at my local hospital that I am considering applying for. I’m a Business Analyst by trade. Should be a good fit if you apply the logic above…

 

[bamberfishcake]

I don't know if it is such a bad thing to employ people who don't have an online casino background, especially for a regulator.

You don't need a background in the industry to know the difference between right and wrong, and who is to say that somebody from a big casino group would be of any benefit to the player side of regulation? More likely, they would lean towards greasing the palms of their previous colleagues.

Let's use the RTP con as an example (my favourite subject) -

A recruit from a casino group may be brainwashed to think it is all fair and above board, while someone from another industry might question the ethics of different paying versions of the same game.

You can apply the same logic to most gripes you have about the industry.

It's more about the individual than their background I think when it comes to regulation. Maybe some ex/current players should be employed instead, or perhaps the UKGC should take the feedback from their chest-flexing surveys a bit more seriously.

 

[satchnz]

I don't know if it is such a bad thing to employ people who don't have an online casino background, especially for a regulator.

You don't need a background in the industry to know the difference between right and wrong, and who is to say that somebody from a big casino group would be of any benefit to the player side of regulation? More likely, they would lean towards greasing the palms of their previous colleagues.

Let's use the RTP con as an example (my favourite subject) -

A recruit from a casino group may be brainwashed to think it is all fair and above board, while someone from another industry might question the ethics of different paying versions of the same game.

You can apply the same logic to most gripes you have about the industry.

It's more about the individual than their background I think when it comes to regulation. Maybe some ex/current players should be employed instead, or perhaps the UKGC should take the feedback from their chest-flexing surveys a bit more seriously.

Unfortunately I think it has already been proven that a UKGC manned with people with no industry experience (including being an active customer) implements regulations that aren’t always logical (auto spins for example), and that are even a detriment to the player.

You need experience in order to effectively regulate an industry.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Unfortunately I think it has already been proven that a UKGC manned with people with no industry experience (including being an active customer) implements regulations that aren’t always logical (auto spins for example), and that are even a detriment to the player.

You need experience in order to effectively regulate an industry.

Agreed that you need experience, just not convinced it has to be from the same industry in order to be good at your job.

An extreme example, but I think smart folk like Elon Musk would be a good fit for most jobs. You can buy and train industry knowledge.