First of all, the purpose of this topic is purely informational. All figures and assumptions presented here are based either on the game's published rules and descriptions or on my own observed results and credit balance. The calculations and conclusions are provided for discussion purposes and are open to individual interpretation. No controversy is intended.

Including the RTP is useful for transparency. However, some aspects of the available data remain open to question. At the same time, the available data can be used to estimate the value that the company appears to assign to a joker card.

According to the publicly available instructions, the RTP of this game is 90%. In other words, if a customer wagers a sufficiently large number of credits, say N, the expected return should be approximately 0.9N, corresponding to an expected loss of 0.1N credits.

In my case, I started with roughly 5,700 credits and, after 200 plays (at a cost of 25 credits each), I ended up with approximately 3,200 credits. This corresponds to a net loss of about 2,500 credits after wagering a total of 5,000 credits (200 × 25).

Taken at face value, these figures suggest an RTP much closer to 50% than to 90%. However, this calculation does not yet account for the non-credit rewards, namely gift cards and joker cards. After those 200 plays, I had obtained 15 gift cards and 2 joker cards.

The value of a gift card depends on how it is used and on the user's rank, but a reasonable estimate places its value somewhere between 12 and 30 credits. For the sake of illustration, let us assign each gift card its midpoint value of 21 credits. In that case, the 15 gift cards would represent an additional value of 315 credits (15 × 21), reducing the effective loss from approximately 2,500 credits to approximately 2,185 credits.

Even after accounting for the gift cards, and ignoring the joker cards for the moment, the observed figures would still appear difficult to reconcile with an RTP of 90%.

If the RTP were indeed 90%, the expected loss after wagering 5,000 credits would be approximately 500 credits (0.1 × 5000), rather than the 2,185-credit effective loss obtained after accounting for the gift cards. Thus, if the advertised RTP is accurate and the previous assumptions hold, the difference would have to be explained by the value assigned to the two joker cards:

2J ≈ 2,185 - 500,

which yields

J ≈ 842.5.

If the previous assumptions are accepted and the uncertainty in the gift-card valuation is taken into account, the implied value of a joker card lies approximately between 775 and 910 credits per unit. These bounds are obtained by assuming gift-card values of 30 Cr. and 12 Cr., respectively.

It's worth noting that all of the above calculations disregard the current event-specific incentives, namely the opportunity to obtain the SEC and EX cards. Nevertheless, if the game is expected to be available in other contexts under the same rules and advertised RTP, then excluding the value of the EX card from the RTP analysis seems justified.

This is super interesting, and I found it really informative.

Your I.Q. is too high.
You're bothering stupid people.

@Evaneself
Everybody can post his thought about the games (if it's not insulting for the team).

You're bothering stupid people.

Don't be so rude, @MissingNumber doesn't deserve that.

Moi j'aime bien ce genre de petite analyse.

J'en ai fait, les rares fois où j'ai joué à des jeux, pour voir combien m'avait coûté une carte SEC.

Dites-vous bien que Totem, a fait ce genre d'analyse également, afin que ce soit plus rentable pour eux que pour nous. En nous faisant gaspiller nos crédits dans leurs jeux. Car c'est le but de ces jeux. Sinon ils n'existeraient pas.

Merci @MissingNumber pour votre analyse. 👍


I actually like this kind of little analysis.

I've done this myself on the rare occasions I've played games, to see how much a SEC card cost me.

Keep in mind that Totem has done this kind of analysis as well—to make it more profitable for them than for us. By getting us to waste our credits on their games. Because that’s the whole point of these games. Otherwise, they wouldn’t exist.

Thanks, @MissingNumber, for your analysis. 👍

To be honest I don't think @Evaneself meant to be disrespectful.

The problem with text as a medium and the fact that there are different languages to be translated can make it difficult to get your point across.

i think @Evaneself was just being humorous. I found it amusing even though I am one of the "stupid" people.😀

Le problème c'est que ce genre de remarque peut-être sujet à interprétation, et décourager à l'avenir les gens à faire ce genre d'analyse, qui je trouve, donne un éclairage intéressant.

The problem is that this kind of comment can be open to interpretation and may discourage people from conducting this kind of analysis in the future—which, in my opinion, sheds interesting light on the subject.

Thank you for the analysis.

I also think that the returns on this "game" are very poor, judging from my limited experience.

@MissingNumber:

In addition to the current event-specific incentives you mentioned, there's value in intangible rewards such as the enjoyment people like me get out of recreational gaming.

@MissingNumber:In addition to the current event-specific incentives you mentioned, there's value in intangible rewards such as the enjoyment people like me get out of recreational gaming.

You really have to be a gamer to experience that kind of enjoyment. As for me, I don't get any enjoyment out of these games. Instead, I feel “exploited” by the artificially inflated prices of these cards, which could be sold just like any other cards. That's why I avoid playing them as much as possible.

Il faut vraiment être un passionné de jeux pour éprouver ce genre de plaisir. Quant à moi, ces jeux ne me procurent aucun plaisir. Au contraire, je me sens « exploité » par les prix artificiellement gonflés de ces cartes, qui pourraient très bien être vendues comme n’importe quelle autre carte. C’est pourquoi j’évite autant que possible d’y jouer.