Quote:
Originally Posted by praytech
.... Lyndon suggests that it is set at 97%, therefore if it was 97% firm, then $13,000 divided by the return to player (which means the casino only takes 3%) should mean that the total amount wagered would be $433,333 on $13,000 spent.
|
Umm, have you ever heard of 'gambling'. That's where people offer money in a game of chance in the expectation that they might win but there's a non-trivial chance they'll lose too ... as in lose it all ... and in go-brokey and have nothing to show for it, like you.
I failed statistics (the first time) at Uni but even I know that (a) a few grand is no serious test of a game, (b) subsequent bets have nothing to do with previous bets, (c) if a $0 end-sum was any proof of rigged games then there are legions of gamblers past, present and future who are being fleeced at pretty much any and every game you'd care to name.
PT, you must see that your outrage is your only clear thought here. The rest of it is seriously botched.
PS. I find your request for the return of $1000 of your deposits proof that you're not quite with us on the planet Earth. Think how unbelievably unrealistic that is! If they even considered doing that they've have "me too!" requests flooding their inboxes of the next 100 years ... except they wouldn't last that long because they'd go broke long before that. In a nutshell, you're dreamin' in technicolor!