April 14th, 2025 at 6:39:51 PM
permalink
Friends,
I am wondering if it is possible to calculate the % difference in potential or hypothetical returns between playing a slot with RTP 86% versus RTP 96%?
Let's suppose we play $100k through both slots @ $10 per spin. And let's assume that $100k represents enough of a stake to achieve approximately accurate RTP rates.
The easy math is the 96% game returns $10,000 more than the 86% game, which as a function of the original stake ($100k) is 10%. Is the calculation that simple?
Or should I be using (0.96 - 0.86) / 0.86 = 11.5% as the uplift?
Sorry for the dumb question! I'm looking for a way to quantify the value of moving between slots having different RTPs (and I'm not that smart!)
TIA
I am wondering if it is possible to calculate the % difference in potential or hypothetical returns between playing a slot with RTP 86% versus RTP 96%?
Let's suppose we play $100k through both slots @ $10 per spin. And let's assume that $100k represents enough of a stake to achieve approximately accurate RTP rates.
The easy math is the 96% game returns $10,000 more than the 86% game, which as a function of the original stake ($100k) is 10%. Is the calculation that simple?
Or should I be using (0.96 - 0.86) / 0.86 = 11.5% as the uplift?
Sorry for the dumb question! I'm looking for a way to quantify the value of moving between slots having different RTPs (and I'm not that smart!)
TIA
April 30th, 2025 at 2:41:47 AM
permalink
Not a dumb question at all — it's a really smart way to think about long-term slot value.
You're right that the basic difference between 86% and 96% RTP (Return to Player) over $100,000 in wagers is a $10,000 difference in expected return. That’s the absolute view:
96% RTP → Expected return = $96,000
86% RTP → Expected return = $86,000
Difference = $10,000
But if you're trying to express the relative uplift in returns, then yes, your second formula is also valid:
(
0.96
−
0.86
)
/
0.86
=
11.63
(0.96−0.86)/0.86=11.63
That shows you're getting 11.63% more value relative to the lower-RTP game. Both ways are useful depending on context.
Also keep in mind that RTP is a long-term statistical measure — actual sessions can swing wildly. But over large volumes of play (like $100k in wagers), it becomes a solid benchmark.
mod: ad blurb sanitized -D
Hope that helps!
You're right that the basic difference between 86% and 96% RTP (Return to Player) over $100,000 in wagers is a $10,000 difference in expected return. That’s the absolute view:
96% RTP → Expected return = $96,000
86% RTP → Expected return = $86,000
Difference = $10,000
But if you're trying to express the relative uplift in returns, then yes, your second formula is also valid:
(
0.96
−
0.86
)
/
0.86
=
11.63
(0.96−0.86)/0.86=11.63
That shows you're getting 11.63% more value relative to the lower-RTP game. Both ways are useful depending on context.
Also keep in mind that RTP is a long-term statistical measure — actual sessions can swing wildly. But over large volumes of play (like $100k in wagers), it becomes a solid benchmark.
mod: ad blurb sanitized -D
Hope that helps!
Last edited by: unnamed administrator on Apr 30, 2025