Online Casinos in general: StarGames experience (Page 144)

XxGameBoyxX wrote on 19.03.2024 at 10:54 am: In case this has already been asked, I apologize in advance:

When can we expect to see a sports betting section on your site?

This post has been translated automatically

StarGames_Official wrote on 19.03.2024 at 10:48 am:
From today you can also play Microgaming / Games Global games with us. Soon the Red Tiger games will be added to the program

This post has been translated automatically

StarGames_Official wrote on 19.03.2024 at 08:43:
You are unfortunately still wrong, so once again the clarification on 3 important points.

1. The RTP is not applied to the 0.05 Euro tax cost in the first case. Therefore, you will incur the following costs: 1 euro bet per spin with 95% RTP = 0.05 euro costs per spin PLUS 0.05 euro fixed tax costs = 0.10 euro per spin. It's as simple as that.
   


2. We are not part of the DGGS. And if you think that someone from the gambling industry has lobbied for this tax, then perhaps you should read the articles from the last 3 years again. The licensed gambling industry is in favor of changing and reducing this tax to make it more worthwhile for you as a player to play in the licensed market.
   


3. A licensed market alone is not bad. A licensed market makes sense everywhere. That's what we stand for. It's just about the rules that are used to create this licensed market. We see it differently: offering gambling with a license from Kahnawake or another fantasy island without limits, with a 5,000 euro Welcome bonus and sometimes even without payouts is unscrupulous.

This post has been translated automatically

mtorero wrote on March 19, 2024 at 4:11 pm:

Re point 1:
Who determines that the Rtp + tax is calculated according to this formula, and the Rtp is not applied to the total bet as in my calculation? Does this only apply to Greentube slots or would you confirm 100% that e.g. at the licensed Provider Lapalingo a slot from the provider Play'n Go with 94.20% and tax deduction per spin offers exactly the same playing time/chances of winning as an 88.xx version without tax deduction? There is also the option to choose to tax every win (7.x%) instead of every spin. How would this affect the calculation? Your calculation does not take into account the increased chances of winning for the normal Rtp.
Any experienced player will be able to confirm that it is a completely different gaming experience with N1 or back then with Platin, for example, when the tax was also deducted but the Rtp was still normal. (Which doesn't mean that you can lose your house and home with a 96-99% payout ratio) Either way, this tax per spin is usurious and a crime against humanity.

On point 2:
On mernovpunktde (I repeat, the name Mernov originated from Merkur-Novomatic) you can read in detail that the Novomatic subsidiary GreenTube belongs to this construct. Does StarGames not belong to Greentube and therefore also to Novomatic AG?
The fact that they have now renamed themselves Deutsche Gesellschaft für Glücksspiel (German Gaming Association) and brought other greentubers on board does not change the fact that this lobbying association was created to force the current offer on us players.
If you say it's not, then I have a few questions:
Is it really a coincidence that Mernov came into existence in 2020, at that time still based in Bulgaria?
Is it really a coincidence that the online gambling license was pushed through exactly during the Covid period (2020-2021) when the offline casinos had to close?
Is it really a coincidence that Merkur&Novomatic received the first online license, i.e. the very providers whose rip-off machines (the world's worst payout rates) can be found in the local casinos and, above all, take the last few cents out of the pockets of the less educated lower class in Germany?
Is it really a coincidence that the tax, behind which you always like to hide and justify the poor payout rates, prevents a real counter-offer to the offline casinos from being created online? It would be a shot in the arm for both companies if the online offering offered a better gaming experience than offline, or am I wrong?
Why is your partner, Gauselmann, constantly seen at receptions with high-ranking politicians (just three days ago he even received the German President at Benkhausen Castle)? Couldn't he address the issue of unfair taxes to improve it if he wanted to?
Sorry, but I see a very clear case of lobbying here, which doesn't seem to be a problem in the lobbying paradise of Germany, but I dare say could be a case for the public prosecutor's office in many countries around the world.

Point 3:
Curacao is not a fantasy island, sure there are many black sheep under this license but with a bit of common sense and GUTS you can easily filter out the very good ones. And when I think of stake or winz, I am bursting with envy for the players worldwide who have the freedom to experience fair gambling with payout ratios of over 96%. Kahnawake as an Indian reservation in Canada also exists in reality. The latter license has even existed since 1996 and has a very good reputation. Even though it is not recognized by Canada, it is tolerated. To be honest, I find it a bit racist how disrespectful you are about Kahnawake and that it is supposed to be a fantasy island.
By the way, your employer Greentube Malta writes on its own homepage Greentube Malta benefits from all the advantages Malta has to offer: stability, a highly-skilled work force, a reputable regulatory framework, low costs, and strict approach to responsible gaming. The country's regulatory bodies have set benchmarks in the gaming industry.
So if my English skills are not deceiving me, I can see that the Malta (this island actually exists ✌️) EU license is not so bad after all. But why is it only not good enough for players from Germany?

And should German tourists who want to visit the Dragonara or Casino Malta, for example, be denied entry because these casinos are subject to the MGA and not the GGL?

And when I think of stake or winz, I am bursting with envy for the players worldwide who have the freedom to experience fair gambling with payout percentages of over 96%.

And should German tourists who want to visit the Dragonara or Casino Malta, for example, be denied entry because these casinos are subject to the MGA and not the GGL?

This post has been translated automatically

StarGames_Official wrote on 19.03.2024 at 17:21:

Although the question was meant sarcastically, you also know that you are always subject to the laws of the country where you are located. So you can also register in London at a casino licensed in the UK.

This post has been translated automatically

StarGames_Official wrote on 19.03.2024 at 17:21:

Although the question was meant sarcastically, you also know that you are always subject to the laws of the country where you are located. So you can also register in London at a casino licensed in the UK.

This post has been translated automatically

Stromberg wrote on 19.03.2024 at 20:34:
Even if mathematically both variants bring the same result for players and providers in the long run, I also have the feeling that the variant with high rtp is more likely to knock out big hits in a slot.

Basically, a slot with 90 percent rtp could theoretically simply pay out 90 cents for every €1. In the end, the RTP would always be reached but the player would never be in the black.
Of course, it's not that extreme in reality. But even if both variants bring the same result in the long term, the big hits for which you play slots and which also enable a payout sometimes seem to occur more with the slots with the high RTP.
In my experience, when I was still playing at dux with tax, I had hits of over x1000 on a fairly regular basis. In all licensed casinos since regulation only once...
But well, there are both options and you can play wherever you want...
And I hope, like you, that the problem will eventually disappear because the regulatory authority or politicians come to their senses😂

• Tax reduction for slots from 5% on bet to 3% or 4% on bet - that would help us increase the RTP. Maybe not to 96%, but even 92% would be a dream compared to 86-90%.
  


• Increase the maximum bet per round. Players are looking for the big hit. Even if it happens, the maximum win currently pays out 5-10-15-20,000 times the bet in most slots. It's clear that 15,000 euros from one euro bet is a cool win. However, if the maximum bet were not just 1 euro but perhaps 2 or 5 euros, a hit like this could bring 75,000 euros. That would be better for players and providers alike and would be one less reason to want to play on the black market.

This post has been translated automatically

StarGames_Official wrote on 20/03/2024 09:10:
What you're talking about is the volatility, not the RTP. The volatility is not changed when the RTP is lowered. With some slots, smaller wins come more often, but with others, bigger wins come less often. This is the case with an RTP of 96% and the same with an RTP of 86%. Lowering the RTP reduces the chance of winning at all levels - not just the chance of the biggest win.

If we're being completely honest, we've been arguing for months, if not years, for just two changes that should be reconsidered in the regulations. These are:

• Tax reduction for slots from 5% on bet to 3% or 4% on bet - that would help us increase the RTP. Maybe not to 96%, but even 92% would be a dream compared to 86-90%.
  


• Increase the maximum bet per round. Players are looking for the big hit. Even if it happens, the maximum win currently pays out 5-10-15-20,000 times the bet in most slots. It's clear that 15,000 euros from one euro bet is a cool win. However, if the maximum bet were not just 1 euro but perhaps 2 or 5 euros, a hit like this could bring 75,000 euros. That would be better for players and providers alike and would be one less reason to want to play on the black market.

This post has been translated automatically

Stromberg wrote on 20.03.2024 at 09:35:


And regarding the tax, I find any taxation per spin disproportionate... Why not just on the depositor?

This post has been translated automatically

eloquente wrote on 20.03.2024 at 10:04 am:

I think because the tax office wants to make money 😉


You don't have a fixed number of spins for each depositor. If you Deposit 50 euros and win 400 and keep playing, the number of spins the player plays increases the tax revenue accordingly. If a deduction is made directly upon depositing, the state loses 😉

This post has been translated automatically