Rtp and ante bets.

[spindoctor99]

So I play on land based slots (which are around 85% rtp) and online which vary in the 96% percentile.

I don't know why people focus on this so much however when the algorithms behind this are so complex. The rtp for a slot IRL is for the life of the machine, the rtp for online slots is based over billions of spins. Most users aren't spinning that in a session.
If a slot is 94% or 96% you aren't going to notice any difference in the payouts in a particular session. Some times I can play and any slot I hop onto is on fire and paying out loads.. other times every slot I touch is as cold as my ex wife and pays nothing.

Slot providers have to have a fair and show the rtp but it does nothing when its theoretically averaging over a billion spins.

It would be different if the rtp was set to a specific time frame ie averaged over a year or was based per user etc. Obviously that would never happen though.

The only gripe I have is the ante bets and how that impacts the rtp. Its a bit of a mystery, particularly with pragmatic and others. Does it increase it by 1% or 50%? The only provider which seems to work for the ante bet is Hacksaw. I'm a bit dubious about any other provider though. I don't bother with any ante bet now as I have rinsed loads in the past assuming the ante bet did something. Apparently not.

A casino could theoretically increase the rtp to 190% and it could still rinse me. The slots are 100% luck.

 

[SpinUk]

On the Ante bet in Hacksaw, usually 3x, you will notice the smaller microwins occur much less. I am guessing the abandoment of those makes up for larger allocation of rtp towards getting the bonus.

 

[dunover]

So I play on land based slots (which are around 85% rtp) and online which vary in the 96% percentile.

I don't know why people focus on this so much however when the algorithms behind this are so complex. The rtp for a slot IRL is for the life of the machine, the rtp for online slots is based over billions of spins. Most users aren't spinning that in a session.
If a slot is 94% or 96% you aren't going to notice any difference in the payouts in a particular session. Some times I can play and any slot I hop onto is on fire and paying out loads.. other times every slot I touch is as cold as my ex wife and pays nothing.

Slot providers have to have a fair and show the rtp but it does nothing when its theoretically averaging over a billion spins.

It would be different if the rtp was set to a specific time frame ie averaged over a year or was based per user etc. Obviously that would never happen though.

The only gripe I have is the ante bets and how that impacts the rtp. Its a bit of a mystery, particularly with pragmatic and others. Does it increase it by 1% or 50%? The only provider which seems to work for the ante bet is Hacksaw. I'm a bit dubious about any other provider though. I don't bother with any ante bet now as I have rinsed loads in the past assuming the ante bet did something. Apparently not.

A casino could theoretically increase the rtp to 190% and it could still rinse me. The slots are 100% luck.

The ante bet doesn't do anything to the RTP, increase it by 1 or 50% is not happening. There may be a microscopic difference like 96.51 to 96.59% or something, but that's it.

You couldn't get rinsed on a 190% RTP slot unless it had colossally high volatility which it wouldn't.

What the ante bet does is simply change the volatility of the slot, making it far lower by making rarer wins (features) more common to replace some base game results. You still get the same RTP, through less base game wins and more feature results which tend to be the bigger wins. Playing normally the bigger wins would be far more unusual, making them frequent decreases variance and deviation from RTP in the short term.

The higher stake simply pays for the frequent feature average returns.

It's almost like 'banking' money as the base game still pays to say a $1 base unit even if you are betting $2.50 say for ante bet spins. The $1.50 extra pays for the feature results you wouldn't have had playing normally.

 

[spindoctor99]

The ante bet doesn't do anything to the RTP, increase it by 1 or 50% is not happening. There may be a microscopic difference like 96.51 to 96.59% or something, but that's it.

You couldn't get rinsed on a 190% RTP slot unless it had colossally high volatility which it wouldn't.

What the ante bet does is simply change the volatility of the slot, making it far lower by making rarer wins (features) more common to replace some base game results. You still get the same RTP, through less base game wins and more feature results which tend to be the bigger wins. Playing normally the bigger wins would be far more unusual, making them frequent decreases variance and deviation from RTP in the short term.

The higher stake simply pays for the frequent feature average returns.

It's almost like 'banking' money as the base game still pays to say a $1 base unit even if you are betting $2.50 say for ante bet spins. The $1.50 extra pays for the feature results you wouldn't have had playing normally.

You could still get rinsed on a slot which had 190% rtp as the its based on over billions of spins not smaller amounts. The rtp guarantees nothing in the short term. Most users might do 50-100 spins in a session on a particular slot and its just as likely to be losing spins.

 

[Mr Shine]

the difference between 96 and 94 is that if on average your bankroll runs out after an hour at 96 it'll happen after 40 minutes at 94. It's a huge difference.

 

[spindoctor99]

the difference between 96 and 94 is that if on average your bankroll runs out after an hour at 96 it'll happen after 40 minutes at 94. It's a huge difference.

I'm not sure if your taking the piss or not. The rtp provides zero guarantee what so ever. The average is based on billions of spins, not a one hour session so for the majority of users it makes no difference. Its why you can have really lucky streaks and unlucky ones. If you knew you were going to get back $96 when you deposited $100 you wouldn't bother as there is no excitement.

 

[Mr Shine]

I refer you to the phrase "on average" which you clearly missed.

 

[spindoctor99]

I refer you to the phrase "on average" which you clearly missed.

Slots and on average don't exist in the same sentence. Trust me, if we worked on that basis then I would have a lot more money than i do after a decade of playing them.

 

[Mr Shine]

You play a 94% slot for an hour, I play a 96% version of the same slot at the same stake at the same speed for an hour. 95% of the time you will have less money at the end.

 

[spindoctor99]

You play a 94% slot for an hour, I play a 96% version of the same slot at the same stake at the same speed for an hour. 95% of the time you will have less money at the end.

Are you just making these figures up. That's not even close to being accurate. Whether you win or lose is dependent on luck and the RNG. With online slots the rtp is an average return over a massive amount of spins, we aren't talking about hours or days but billions of spins.

We could do your experiment every day for a year and on all those occasions the person with the lower rtp might end up with more every time. Slots are by designed to be random and as such, there is no way to know when or if a slot will pay out.. regardless of what the rtp is set to.

 

[TheAddict]

There's many an example of just how well slots pay if set to over 100% rtp, evidence of which can be seen in the thread here which Jasminebed made years ago, regarding GameArt demo slots.
Granted, nobody knows exactly what the rtp of those games were set to. But as the thread shows, If you spun for more than 15 minutes you quite simply couldn't lose.

Thread 'Demo play not the same as real - GameArt slots'

Jan 25, 2018

There is a game called Thunder Bird from GameArt.

I like the game, played some in real with mixed results.

But the past few days, I've been playing in fun mode at VideoSlots. I've tried both desktop and mobile platforms.

This game in demo mode hits the bonus like crazy. Rare to go fifty spins without one. Less than 10 spins is common. I've only once gone over 100 spins.

Took me less than 1/2 hour today to get my balance, starting with 500 and $10 bets to over 100K, with max bet of $40. The other day it took me nearly an hour

Only once have I lost the initial stake of $500, and...

• Jasminebed
• Replies: 204
• Forum: Online Casinos

• 

 

[ultra100]

A casino could theoretically increase the rtp to 190% and it could still rinse me. The slots are 100% luck.

That's true. But the odds are still much higher that it would rinse you on 85% RTP than on 190% RTP. Why play a slot where your odds are clearly worse?

Take this sample.

Slot A: 96.47% RTP - players won €7,478,657 out of €7,751,987 wagered.
GGR = €273,330.

Slot B: 85% RTP - players won €6,589,189 out of the same €7,751,987 wagered.
GGR = €1,162,798.

That’s over 4.25x more profit for the casino on the same betting volume - and players collectively lost €889,468 more on Slot B.

So that 11.47% RTP difference isn’t just a number - it's nearly €890k less returned to players for the same €7.7M wagered. Those missing €890k might not affect you personally in a short session, but why take that risk knowingly?

 

[slaman29]

It's not just slots, even on something straightforward like Roulette or BJ or dice, you always need large samples to overcome variance. Just last month I did a dumb martingale with some balance, and of course the wheel struck me 8 losses in a row. Turned out to be 10-streak so I wouldn't have lasted even with 4x more starting balance.

 

[satchnz]

I'm not sure if your taking the piss or not. The rtp provides zero guarantee what so ever. The average is based on billions of spins, not a one hour session so for the majority of users it makes no difference. Its why you can have really lucky streaks and unlucky ones. If you knew you were going to get back $96 when you deposited $100 you wouldn't bother as there is no excitement.

Your logic seems a bit flawed.

Sure, if we only ever played slots for one hour of our lives, then RTP makes little difference in the scheme of things. But we never only play for one hour and not go back. We play an hour today, a couple tomorrow, a few in the weekend etc. All those hours over your lifetime of playing slots add up. Sure, you're very unlikely to ever do a billion spins over your lifetime, but you do get through thousands and thousands and that's where RTP make a noticeable difference.

 

[spindoctor99]

That's true. But the odds are still much higher that it would rinse you on 85% RTP than on 190% RTP. Why play a slot where your odds are clearly worse?

Take this sample.

Slot A: 96.47% RTP - players won €7,478,657 out of €7,751,987 wagered.
GGR = €273,330.

Slot B: 85% RTP - players won €6,589,189 out of the same €7,751,987 wagered.
GGR = €1,162,798.

That’s over 4.25x more profit for the casino on the same betting volume - and players collectively lost €889,468 more on Slot B.

So that 11.47% RTP difference isn’t just a number - it's nearly €890k less returned to players for the same €7.7M wagered. Those missing €890k might not affect you personally in a short session, but why take that risk knowingly?

Because its theoretical. Its a theoretical number designed for fairness but the reality is that number is literally based on an infinity amount of spins.
I personally wouldn't play on a slot that had 70% rtp as it seems too low but I wouldn't focus on one casino which has a rtp set to 94% compared to another at 96%. Volatility of a slot is more important as those really volatile slots generally pay nothing most of the time but make up for it with those massive wins.

My preferred slot provider is Quickspin due to that fact its not a high volatility slot provider. I can last for ages with $100 yet on other providers its gone quick smart.

 

[spindoctor99]

Your logic seems a bit flawed.

Sure, if we only ever played slots for one hour of our lives, then RTP makes little difference in the scheme of things. But we never only play for one hour and not go back. We play an hour today, a couple tomorrow, a few in the weekend etc. All those hours over your lifetime of playing slots add up. Sure, you're very unlikely to ever do a billion spins over your lifetime, but you do get through thousands and thousands and that's where RTP make a noticeable difference.

So if that's are the case, over the lifetime of your slot playing are you down just 4%?

If I was to look at my slot playing over the last decade my rtp would be at -5000%... not 96% and I'm sure I am not the only one who has torched loads of cash.

The rtp provides zero guarantee for individual slot players. None.

 

[dunover]

You could still get rinsed on a slot which had 190% rtp as the its based on over billions of spins not smaller amounts. The rtp guarantees nothing in the short term. Most users might do 50-100 spins in a session on a particular slot and its just as likely to be losing spins.

No, you really couldn't UNLESS (as I said above) it had ridiculously high variance. That variance would break game rules anyway, so wouldn't happen on the grounds that it would be impermissible to deviate from stated RTP by enough to give that result you talk about.

Remember, when games are checked and audited they, (as well as RTP over billions of plays) are also checked for deviation at certain points, i.e. after 10,000 spins the player shouldn't be more than say 10% away from the RTP stated, 100,000 spins 6% and a billion +/- 1% for example. So parse sheets (game maths set-up and win spread to you and me) are designed accordingly.

This is to ensure players don't get fleeced too quickly as with your suggestion above. It also enables games with very high volatility to give the player some kind or return and turnover as well as being able to pay those huge wins of say 5,000x or in some cases in NLC games, 300,000x.

As someone above told you, check the GameArt bent demo slots thread, where (not as high as 190% by the way!) players could simply not lose on them and noticed the fact very quickly.

 

[satchnz]

So if that's are the case, over the lifetime of your slot playing are you down just 4%?

If I was to look at my slot playing over the last decade my rtp would be at -5000%... not 96% and I'm sure I am not the only one who has torched loads of cash.

The rtp provides zero guarantee for individual slot players. None.

Over my lifetime I am closer to just 4% down than just playing for an hour. But because slots are random, this can vary wildly from player to player. For example, I have net deposits of just over $2,000 (USD) on one casino from just over two years of playing, and that is off the back of only $50 deposits and $0.20 spins. Other casinos I am down hundreds.

Also I think it might only be you who is putting "RTP" and "guarantee" in the same sentence. Most of us already know that this isn't the case.

 

[Mr Shine]

If I was to look at my slot playing over the last decade my rtp would be at -5000%

So every time you do a 10p spin you burn a £5 note?

 

[ultra100]

If I was to look at my slot playing over the last decade my rtp would be at -5000%... not 96% and I'm sure I am not the only one who has torched loads of cash.

You're just mixing up your deposit-to-cashout ratio with your actual rRTP%. Those are different metrics.

 

[Casinos Hate Winners]

You could still get rinsed on a slot which had 190% rtp as the its based on over billions of spins not smaller amounts. The rtp guarantees nothing in the short term. Most users might do 50-100 spins in a session on a particular slot and its just as likely to be losing spins.

No offense, but that sounds like the kind of answer you’d expect from a casino employee whose RTP settings are all turned to the minimum.

RTP is simply the rule that defines how probabilities are paid out.
You need billions of spins only to calculate it with maximum precision.

When you play a game with 94% or 96% RTP, the casino’s edge is 6% or 4% — a difference of 1.5 times

If a coin flip pays 1:1.92, the RTP is 96%.
If it pays 1:1.88, the RTP is 94%.
If it pays 1:2, that’s 100% RTP.

But in all these cases, the probability of winning remains 0.5 — it has nothing to do with RTP itself.
So which one would you choose — the higher or the lower?

Of course, you’re right about short sessions: if you flip the coin once and lose, your RTP will be zero.
But you’re wrong about the “billions of spins” part. Yes, the longer the sample, the closer the actual RTP will match the theoretical one — and the higher the volatility, the longer that distance needs to be.

For comparison:
European roulette, straight-up bet → about 10,000 spins;

• Starburst → around 100,000 spins;
• DOA 2 High Noon Saloon → even 1 million spins won’t be enough.

I’ve written about this in more depth if you’re curious — link’s in my profile.