Book of Ra: Slot Whose Maker Keeps Its Figures for Operators
In short — our verdict: 4.0/10 — Greentube publishes no return, no ceiling and no bet limits for the game that defined this whole genre, and serves no demo a reader can open. The one figure it does print is a volatility band. Every percentage in circulation belongs to a named later version, and this page is about what that means.
Searches for this game run to 40,000 a month worldwide, and the one number its maker publishes is a volatility band. Greentube's own game page prints "Volatility 5" on a five-level scale and the game type, then closes the table that would hold the return, the licence and the certificate behind the line "Client login for more data". The figures that do exist belong to casinos — and where two of them run the same title, the returns differ.
4.0/ 10
- Return transparency1.0
- Ceiling clarity2.0
- Feature depth6.0
- Bet range5.0
- Documentation6.0
Table of contents
- Book of Ra Strengths and Weaknesses
- Every Book of Ra Attempt, and What It Returned
- The Game That Named a Genre Keeps Its Figures for Operators
- Why You Cannot Open This Book Slot's Demo
- Four Figures, One Family, No Document
- What You Can Still Check Before You Play
- Where That Leaves the Original
- Figures That Survive, Each with the Party That Published It
- Our Book of Ra Verdict and Rating
- Key Terms Used on This Page
- What Else Do Readers Ask
Book of Ra Strengths and Weaknesses
Pros: What Works Well
- Pro: Searches for it run to 40,000 a month, and casinos that are required to publish a return do publish one for its later versions
- Pro: The later Deluxe versions are documented well enough by licensees to be compared against each other
- Pro: Searching for it is easy: the name returns gambling results, which is more than can be said for Book of Shadows, Book of Oz or Book of the Fallen
Cons: What Holds It Back
- Con: Greentube publishes a volatility band and nothing else a reader can check: the return, the licence number and the certificate sit behind an operator login on its own game page
- Con: There is no demo a reader can open. The studio's page carries a demo button inside a container hidden from anyone not logged in, the launcher refused our anonymous request with a 401, and an aggregator's copy opened to a black screen
- Con: Third-party catalogues disagree with each other: we found 92.5%, 95.1% and a 95.03–97.4% range quoted for versions of this family, alongside the 94.26% a licensed casino actually published
- Con: Because nothing is published, there is no document to hold a casino to — the figure you get is whatever your operator chose and discloses
Every Book of Ra Attempt, and What It Returned
| Source | What we looked for | Result |
|---|---|---|
| greentube.com/game/book-of-ra/ | Return, licence, certificate, bet limits | Behind "Client login for more data"; game type and volatility band are public |
| Studio RGS (gameid 131) | Anonymous demo session | 401 Unauthorized — the session is issued by an operator |
| Aggregator demo copy | Playable client | Black screen, nothing loaded |
| Third-party catalogues | A return figure | Four different values across the family |
Figures current as of ; the operator's live terms prevail.
The Game That Named a Genre Keeps Its Figures for Operators
Its name became the label for the whole genre — Relax Gaming sells its own game as a "first-of-its-kind 99RTP 'Book of' slot" — and we have no release date for the original from any source. It is one of four games here whose maker publishes no return at all — the other three being its own Deluxe version, Book of Gold: Classic and Book of Oz. Greentube does publish a page for the game, and what it withholds there is specific. The Key Data block is replaced by "Client login for more data". Behind that line sit the licence number, the Game ID, the return, the bet limits, the maximum exposure, the release date and the certificate. A reader gets the game type, a volatility band and a description of the free-spins feature.
Compare that with Nolimit City. It publishes four figures for Book of Shadows on its own page, machine-readably: a return, a ceiling, a numeric volatility and a hit frequency, so the gap is not a matter of house style. One studio treats its figures as public, the other does not.
Why You Cannot Open This Book Slot's Demo
The demo exists, but not for you to open directly. It launches through Greentube's own remote gaming server, and that server expects a session issued by a licensed operator. Our anonymous request was answered with 401 Unauthorized.
That is a reasonable way to run a B2B platform and an unreasonable way to let a player check a game. The practical consequence is that nothing on this page comes from our own play. We would rather carry that gap openly than photograph someone else's lobby.
Four Figures, One Family, No Document
Third-party catalogues do publish returns for this family, and they do not agree with each other. The values we found range from 92.5% to 95.1%, with a 95.03–97.4% band quoted for the Deluxe 6 and Deluxe 10 versions. None of them cites a studio document, because there is not one a reader can open. The Key Data block that lists the return, the exposure, the specifications and the certificate is offered only behind an operator login.
Where the figures become usable is at the operator layer. UK casinos must publish the return of the game they run, and two of them do. Admiral Casino prints 92.13% for Book of Ra Deluxe on a page we read on ; Grosvenor printed 94.26% for the same title on a page we could only read in an archive snapshot of . The Book of Ra RTP page lays those side by side.
What You Can Still Check Before You Play
Even without a studio document, two checks are available. Your casino's own game information panel is required in several markets to state the return it runs — read it rather than a catalogue. And the licence number of that casino can be looked up in its regulator's register on the day you read it.
Neither settles what the original Book of Ra returns at any particular casino until you read that casino's own figure, which is the uncomfortable part. For this exact title we could not confirm a single figure from a party that publishes it.
Where That Leaves the Original
The honest summary is that this page documents an absence. The game is enormously popular, its maker publishes a page that stops at the game type, a volatility band and the free-games rule, and the numbers in circulation come from catalogues copying each other.
If you want a Book title where the maths is published and checkable, Book of Shadows and Book of 99 both qualify. Book of Dead publishes five RTP configurations in one table. If you specifically want this one, treat every percentage you read about it as belonging to a named later version rather than to the original. The table further down this page shows what that leaves: every published figure belongs to a named later version, and the row for the original says so.
Figures That Survive, Each with the Party That Published It
| Figure | Value | Published by |
|---|---|---|
| Return, Book of Ra Deluxe | 92.13% | Admiral Casino UK |
| Return, Book of Ra Deluxe | 94.26% | Grosvenor Casinos |
| Max win, Book of Ra Deluxe | x5010 | Admiral Casino UK |
| Return, original | Not published | Nobody we could verify |
Our Book of Ra Verdict and Rating
Key Terms Used on This Page
- RGS
- The remote gaming server that runs a studio's games for operators; Greentube's answered our anonymous demo request with a 401.
- 401 Unauthorized
- The HTTP refusal meaning no valid session — here, that the demo is only issued through a licensed casino.
- Licensee figure
- A return published by the casino running the game rather than by the studio that made it.
- Client-side catalogue
- A game list drawn by the browser rather than served as text, so a plain request returns none of it; the data sits in the page's own payload.
Deposits and identity checks stay on the operator's own secure site.
Related Reading
Elsewhere in this catalogue, from the same section first:
GamesBook of Dead
Five RTP configurations, 96.21% down to 84.18%
GamesBook of the Fallen
Two paid options: 10x per spin or 100x once
GamesBook of 99
99% return — three points above the catalogue norm
GamesBook of Gold: Classic
No return we could find, from studio or casino
GamesBook of Tut Megaways
1.25x ante buys a chance, not a feature spin
What Else Do Readers Ask?
Most questions about this game have the same answer, and it is not a number.
What is the RTP of Book of Ra?
Greentube publishes none at all. Every figure in circulation comes from a casino or a catalogue, and they differ by version and by operator.
Is there an official free demo?
No, not one a reader can open. The studio's own gaming server refused our anonymous request with a 401, because it issues sessions to licensed operators.
Why do catalogues disagree about the return?
Because no studio document a reader can open exists to check them against, so each one copies a different source and none of them can be ruled out.
Which figures can be trusted?
Only ones published by a named party — for example Admiral Casino UK printing 92.13% for Book of Ra Deluxe.
What do we do when a studio publishes nothing?
We look for a studio document and a studio demo first; when both are missing, we report the refusal and fall back to operators that must publish a return.