What are Holland Casino’s actual practices regarding payout rates to players (RTP)? Why are the authorities remaining silent on this sensitive issue?
When a legal request becomes a revelation
At the heart of this case is a procedure known in the Netherlands as Woo-verzoek, a request based on the law on the obligation to disclose administrative documents. This request sought to obtain all correspondence between the Ministry of Justice and Security and the state-owned company Holland Casino N.V. concerning the RTPs applied to the games offered by the company, both in physical establishments and on its online platform.
The purpose of this request was not purely technical: it sought to show whether the state could influence payout rates and whether Holland Casino was more concerned with commercial imperatives than social missions. It also included communications between the ministry and other supervisory bodies, such as the Kansspelautoriteit (Gaming Authority) and the Ministry of Finance.
For many observers, this was a unique opportunity to shed light on an opaque aspect of the legal gaming industry: the calculations behind RTPs and how they can be adjusted in response to external pressures.
The Ministry’s verdict: nothing to publish
The Ministry’s response surprised many analysts: no relevant documents were found, despite several thorough searches of internal archives. According to the decision published on 29 December 2025, there is therefore no official communication between the Ministry of Justice and Holland Casino regarding RTPs.
Why such a lack of documentation? The authorities simply claim that nothing has been recorded on this subject in their systems. This means that no instructions, recommendations or exploratory discussions between the State and Holland Casino regarding payout rates have been documented or retained.
For some, this lack of documentation reflects a lack of a clear framework between the public company and the government on an issue that is crucial for player protection and gambling regulation. For others, it simply reveals that RTP policies have never been the subject of direct debate between the two parties.
Understanding the economic and social implications
The subject of RTP is not insignificant. The payout rate statistically represents the proportion of total bets paid back to players in the form of winnings. The higher this rate, the more likely players are to recover a significant portion of their bets in the long term, even though the results are still based on chance and certified random number generators.
For physical casinos such as Holland Casino, setting these rates is a balancing act. On the one hand, a policy that is too favourable to players reduces the house edge and puts pressure on the profitability of a business that already faces high costs (staff, security, infrastructure). On the other hand, RTPs that are too low may push players towards illegal or foreign operators, or cause them to limit their participation, with social and economic repercussions.
However, this debate is taking place in a difficult economic context for Holland Casino. The company recently recorded significant financial losses, including a loss of €3.5 million in the first half of 2024. In this context, certain measures have been taken to increase the casino’s advantage, such as adding a second zero to certain roulette tables in order to reduce the return to players.
A precedent revealed by another Woo request
The current case echoes another similar request, initiated earlier this year, which revealed some of the communications between Holland Casino and the Ministry of Finance. These publicly released documents revealed that the company had warned the government of the consequences of the increase in gaming tax and the potential impact on its RTP and business model.
In these exchanges, Holland Casino estimated that the tax increase imposed by the state would lead to increased financial pressure, estimated at tens of millions of euros, and that adjustments such as reducing the RTP or introducing entry fees could be considered, but at the cost of a less attractive gaming experience and a possible migration of players to unregulated offerings.