RTGs random jackpots-how random??

[silcnlayc]

I can assure you that the Jackpot is random and not dependant on Bet size

Just wanted to try out something tonight to see how "random" really works.

I haven't played at VIP Casinos in about 2 months, decided to give the "Rapid Fire" random jackpot a go at it and played for a solid 5 hours and would you believe it!??? Yes, I hit the "random" jackpot of "Rapid Fire" .THAT is what I call RANDOM.

Screen shot will be posted.

Now, I have played at the RTG casinos for many hours, months, years and NEVER had the pleasure of hitting one of those. Odd, maybe, random, I don't think so at all, after tonights play proved to me that it isn't so. I didn't even have to go OVERBOARD and play $9.00 a spin...just the normal $.90-2.25 as usual...go figure!

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by iNetBet Promos

You cannot apply your formulae to this small sample as it is not perfect data.

I ran a statistic analysis based on different values on the percentage of bets that is 10$ or more.
Out of 14 random picked spins made on the slot , what is the probablity that 9 of these (or more) was with total bet 10$ or higher?.
(In the sample 9 of the 14 jackpot wins was with bet 10$ or higher. If the jackpot does not depend on bet size, then this would be a uniform random sample on bet-size on that slot)

p= probablity of 9 or more (out of 14) of the spins was bet 10$ or higher
b=percentage of bets that is 10$ higher

For b=0.4 (40%) gives p ~ 1 to 16
For b=0.3 (30%) gives p ~ 1 to 120
For b=0.2 (20%) gives p ~ 1 to 2500
For b=0.1 (10%) gives p ~ 1 to 750000
For b=0.05(5%) gives p < 1 to 1000000000

So if the casino has a massive ammount of high rollers so 30% of all spins on the slot is 10$ or higher, then the data you provided seems reasonable.

However I do not believe that even 10% of the spins are with bet 10$ or higher, which means the data you provided are next to impossible if
jackpot does not depend on bet size.

Earlier in this thread I showed that the probabilty for hitting the jackpot each spin had to be less than 1 to 4M if the statement was correct(this did not use the data provided). So if we assume 30% or more spins on the RTG slots are with bet 10$ or higher then slot would have been feed more than 0.3*4M*10$=12M$. So 0.033% of the coinage is used to build the jackpot, which is just too low and so far from the standard. (and the estimate is a lower bound ignoring all the small bets!)

I can not do more mathematically sorry, but something is fishy here.

Jackpot wins DO depend on bet size, but the big issue I have been raising is that it is not liniear which would have been fair.

I hope INetBet will investigate this matter as I find it unetical that the casino give false information to the players (that jackpot win do not depend on bet size).

And if jackpot win do not depend on bet size, you realize that high rollers will face a lower payout% than lowrollers? I thought casinos would treat high rollers better than that.

Zoozie

[Casinomeister]

By the way, I've been provided a spreadsheet from iNetBet that covers the random jackpots they've incurred since January (56), and they do seem to be quite random.

The largest wins are from .20 cent bets ($13K to 25k). The larger bets don't seem to generate large wins, probably because most players are betting smaller (my guess). Kasino King - there is opportunity here .

If more information is needed, I can contact RTG if you'd like.

[Zoozie]

I would not mind having a look at the bet-sizes that won the jackpot.

The size of the jackpot is not important and I am sure that at least is uncorrelated to bet size.

Just a few more samples would help me.

However I still find it hard to believe RTG implemented it so jackpot win does not depend on bet-size, because that is screwing the high rollers.

Example to demonstrate:
Roll a dice. If you hit a 6 you win you money 1-5.
However lets say each roll has a 1 to 100 (does not depend on bet size) chance to win the jackpot that is 100$

If you bet 2$ and roll the dice, then you AVG win will be 2$ (from the dice game) + 1$ (from jackpot) =3 $.

So EV from this game is 1$.

However if you instead roll the dice but only bet 1$ each time. Then the your average win each game will be 1$ (from dice game)+1$ (from jackpot) = 2$ So playing this game twice each with bet 1$ instead will give you average win = 4$. (which is higher than 3$ when you only rolled the dice only once but with bet 2$.)

The same mathematics applies to the RTG slots if jackpot does not depend on bet size. But if it was true then you could just bet 0.01$ to have same chance to hit it.. And I showed earlier than chance of hitting the jackpot then has to be less than 1 to 4M or the payout of the slot would be higher than 100%.

Zoozie

[GrandMaster]

I would find it very strange if these slots had a higher expected payout, possible over 100%, for low rollers.

There are two obvious way to make the slot "fair": the probability of hitting the random jackpot could be proportional to the player's stake, or the player could win an amount proportional to his stake, so that, for example, a $1 player could win the whole jackpot, and a 1c player could win 1% of the jackpot.

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by GrandMaster

There are two obvious way to make the slot "fair": the probability of hitting the random jackpot could be proportional to the player's stake, or the player could win an amount proportional to his stake, so that, for example, a $1 player could win the whole jackpot, and a 1c player could win 1% of the jackpot.

I could not have put it better.

So what do you think when INetBet claims that RTG slots has the same probability (constant) for hitting the jackpot? (Bet size does not matter)

My example when betting 0.01$ assumed that the payout (without jackpot) was as low as 90% which mean that even if hitting the jackpot(4K$) was a 1 to 4M shot; then the slot would have payout 100%. Some jackpots even are up to 10K$. So this constant will actually have to be a lot smaller than 1 to 4M. (1 to 20M is a rough estimate). This does not make any sense. No way it can be that low!!!!

So INetBet has the following options:

1) Admit payout on slots is over 100% for low bets.(would like to hear that!)
2) Admit the probablity for hitting the jackpot each spin is less than 1 to 20M and that they are also screwing high rollers with lower payout%.
3) Admit they made an error in their statement and the probability for winning the jackpot DOES depend on bet size.

The data sample provided earlier has nothing to do with the conclusions reached above. The data sample is a whole different story that also is fishy, but which mathematically also confirms
that size does matter! (Bet size..) Or the casino has a massive amount of highrollers so 30%+ of all bets on slots are at bet size 10$ or more.

I am not claiming RTG cheats in any way which I am sure it does not, I am just saying INetBet made a wrong statement in good faith. I really do appriciate the open and honest communication
from INetBet casino, I am just sorry I have to correct an important mistake.

Zoozie

[soflat]

If it depends on bet size then how do you explain the Caesars slot being hit more with bets under $1?

How can you draw the conclusion just from the Cleo slot? If you added in the Caesars data, then from what iNetBet said, it sounds like it would even out. Doesn't it?

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by soflat

If you added in the Caesars data, then from what iNetBet said, it sounds like it would even out. Doesn't it?

I have not seen the data. And even without the data I can conclude
winning the jackpot must be less than 1 to 4M or the slot would have payout
over 100% when betting 0.01$ and jackpot is 4K$. (easy math.)I dont believe that. If you read my note you will also see that it has to be less than 1 to 20M. (harder math). That fact alone should make all high rollers totally avoid playing there. If you are betting 1$ you have to wager 20M$ before you can expect to hit the jackpot once.

[iNetBet Promos]

Following the recent comments, by Zoozie, I feel that some points need clarification.

Firstly we object very strongly to any accusations of iNetBet being unethical and providing players with false information. These accusations are not warranted and are without any foundation. You have made a categorical statement that the ‘Jackpots are NOT random’. This is conjecture at best. Your analysis is based on incomplete data from one game in a short period of time. You have no information on how many bets were placed at given denominations, how many games were played etc.

With all of the current Real Series Slots the Jackpot increases in relation to the amounts wagered. Whilst high rollers, by the amount they wager, will contribute more per spin, this is irrelevant. One has to remember that a higher wager per spin player does so as a matter of choice, they will be rewarded with much higher Bonus and Top-Line Payouts on a dollar for dollar basis. Most players play to enjoy the game and hit the features and the Top-Line Jackpot, not to hit the Random Jackpot, this is an added random bonus.

If a player is only interested in playing for a Random Jackpot then they will get more return for their bet size playing at the lowest denomination. This is exactly what we have always told any players when asked “If I want to hit the Random Jackpot are my odds increased with bet size?

The facts here are that 1) All players contribute the same % of their bet to the Random Jackpot. That 2) All players on each spin, play with the same house advantage regardless of their bet size.

That is really all we have to say on the topic. The contribution size and the way that the Random Jackpots are awarded are fair.

We have posted this information previously. We also provided more completed data to Casinomeister with which he could make an informed reply to this thread. He too has commented that the information provided to him seems quite random.

We are pleased to answer any queries or questions on such highly respected forums such as Casinomeister, in order to assist with any concerns or issues that members may have. We have always been as transparent as possible in all of our responses and I would hope that our input has assisted many members in the past.

We have been posting for a number of years and would never post anything to misinform players. This, as I am sure many longstanding members will attest to, is not the way that we operate. I can categorically state that the information that we have provided in regards to the Random Jackpots is correct. Each player’s bet size does not affect the odds that they will win the Jackpot.

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by iNetBet Promos

the way that the Random Jackpots are awarded are fair. (1)

Each player’s bet size does not affect the odds that they will win the Jackpot. (2)

All players on each spin, play with the same house advantage regardless of their bet size. (3)

Thank you for responding!

I would like to comment these three sentences, since they conflict with each other. I will number them 1), 2) and 3).

First of all I just proved this mathemathically earlier:
If 2) is true then players will not play with the same house advantage as you claim in 3).
This is one of the core problems here.

I proved it by using a similar example, but it can be done formally as well. However I did assume that the 'base payout%' for the slot is the same for all bet sizes. By this I mean the chance for hitting 5 wilds ect. is the same ether you play 0.20$ bet or 20$ bet. (same number of lines). I believe that we can safely assume this is indeed the case since the alternative is very severe.

If you assume 2) then I would not say the jackpots are awared fair as you say in 1). They will favor the lower rollers, which I actually would prefer since I also am a low roller, but I would never call it 'fair'.

I would not mind seeing bet sizes that won jackpots from other slots as well and I will not use them
for what you probably thinks is my personal crusade against RTG, which it is not. I will just see if they
show the same and them I am forced to accept 30%+ of the spins made at the slots are 10$ or higher bet which is a surprise for me, but can it certainly be true.

Zoozie