Share
What are the factors that make some gambling products riskier than others? You’ll often hear gamblers claiming that some games are more exploitative than others because the “house” holds a greater share of each bet. But is that really true?
Every gambling product has what’s called an “RTP,” or return-to-player. That’s the percentage of each bet that gets paid out as prize money, on average. In theory, higher RTP is better for the player, so people complain when it’s too low. But many games with high RTP rely on high-frequency betting to make the same amount of money, and that can potentially make them higher risk from the point of view of addiction, not lower.
An analysis of existing literature on that relationship between disordered gaming and RTP by Per Binde, Ph.D. published in the 55th edition of the Journal of Gambling Issues evaluates that premise within the scope of the existing scholarship on the issue. Binde’s review concludes that existing works on the issue is insufficient to establish a strong correlation between gambling disorder and RTP.
Additionally, Binde argues that other aspects of games with comparatively and traditionally higher RTPs have a stronger causal relationship with problem gambling than the RTP alone does. Reading Binde’s review also points to a need for more research on the subject to address the opposing question of whether games with relatively lower RTPs have a relationship with gambling-related behavioral issues, for either better or worse.
Review points to need for greater study of possible correlation
problem gambling and looks at whether the data available at this time s that assumption. In that interest, Binde reviewed 300 items including but not limited to peer-reviewed papers and other reports that did not undergo peer review.
Most importantly, Binde found that “there appear to be no empirical studies specifically on the impact of various RTP levels on PG (problem gambling) prevalence.” Binde flat out states that “there seem to be only two previous substantial discussions on the influence of RTP percentage on the extent of PG, [and] neither of them [were] published in a peer-reviewed journal.”
Peer review is crucial to the legitimacy of research because it verifies that studies meet academic standards for logic and transparency among other concerns. That doesn’t mean that research that is not published in peer-reviewed journals is worthless, but their impact carries a little less weight.
Another focus of some of the literature that Binde assessed is player comprehension of RTP. While a short discussion, it can still be useful.
Player comprehension of RTP could aid responsible gambling measures
Binde shared that “a few studies have investigated consumer of knowledge of RTP.” One study that Binde specifies from Denmark in 2007, for example, “found that people with PG had slightly better knowledge of RTP levels of various forms of gambling than people without PG.” That’s not a surprising finding.
Typically, people who have more experience with an activity have better knowledge of the aspects of that activity. Binde’s discussion raises the question of whether most gamblers truly understand what RTP means and that points to a potential gap that responsible gambling measures could fill.
Misconceptions about RTP could be a bigger issue than RTP itself
The vast majority of online casino apps in the United States have an RTP upwards of 90%. The exact RTP is usually available in the apps on each game’s details section.
Knowledge is only power if you can use it, though. Some players might see the 96.21 RTP in the Paws N Claws A Tail of Fortune slot at BetMGM and form erroneous expectations for their play with that data.
For example, players might assume that they can expect to get back 96.21% of the money they bet on the game each time they play or that for every 100 plays of the game, 96.21 of them result in a win. Neither would be correct.
In this case, RTP means that BetMGM returns $96.21 out of every $100 wagered on Paws N Claws A Tail of Fortune to players and keeps the other $3.79. However, that percentage is for the lifetime of the game, not for every $100 wagered.
A correct understanding of RTP helps players decide whether they enjoy the experience enough to pay BetMGM that rate for the amusement. Agencies advocating for responsible gambling could ramp up efforts to educate gamblers about RTP to enable them to make more informed decisions.
At the same time, a person suffering from gambling disorder may not be a clear enough head space to make such an evaluation and even for a person who may understand RTP correctly but suffer from this type of behavioral issue, a higher RTP may be perceived as a better value. Binde’s paper looks at whether that RTP evaluation alone is a cause of problem gambling.
Evidence lacking for high RTP games being predatory
Binde’s paper not only points to a lack of evidence that high RTPs influence problem gambling but also points out that RTPs don’t exist in vacuums. A single game’s potential to correlate with problem gambling involves every aspect, not just the RTP.
To demonstrate that, Binde points to other aspects of games like slots. That includes animations and sounds that are designed to hold players’ attention. Binde also highlights the inclusion of near-misses and losses disguised as wins in incentivizing players to continue betting, perhaps beyond individual limits.
In order to isolate the effect of RTP, research would have to eliminate all the other variables. However, the elimination of the other elements of games would make such a study irrelevant to the real-life experiences of gamblers.
If you took out all the bells and whistles of a slot and removed the near-misses, you might only find that players find such games boring, not establish how RTP correlates to problem gambling in a population. So while the research doesn’t a conclusion that high RTP games produce more problematic gambling, studies that could that hypothesis would be difficult to conduct in a conclusive manner.
Similarly, the question of whether games with lower RTPs are more predatory is hard to answer as well. Binde does spend some time on that issue.
Are games with lower RTPs the real culprits?
Binde points out that research suggests that a lower “price” of gambling has different effects on different types of gambling. For example, “higher price makes fewer people enter the lotteries and/or spending less on lottery tickets purchases” while “lower price has the opposite effect.” However, the same research shows that consumers are less price-conscious in of casino games and sports wagering.
Binde points out that the diminished price adversity could be due to people with gambling problems preferring those types of gambling because they deliver more frequent results than lottery games. That returns the conversation to people who suffer from gambling-related behavioral pathologies seeking out the types of gambling that tend to have a higher RTP rather than the RTP causing those pathologies.
Binde’s paper examines this “the chicken or the egg” quandary by assessing scholarships on RTP and problem gambling through the lens of players’ lived experiences.
The paper is overall a call for more research on the topic and an objective rebuttal to erroneous perceptions that games with high RTP escalate problem gambling.
