I Surrender MG. And If I had a hat, I would take it off.

[vinylweatherman]

It can pay off to look beyond the simple deposit & lose, and play the various promotions and tournaments.
I was doing just this and had a couple of bonus rounds that were OK, so I flipped my bet up - to find the scatters dried up, then down - to find it was still no longer putting in the scatters, then flipped it up again to get the scatters back and then this brilliant bonus round, several retriggers, one with 4 boxes, a 5 reindeer win, several other lesser 5 in a line wins, and not too many naked spins.
I then proceeded to blast the tournament and was 1st with only 15 minutes to go, which is another £3000 (bonus chips though).

Sadly, the scoreboard was removed so I cannot confirm my closing score (VERY naughty - Casino Action). I had better get my prize, no BS about the score "changing" in the dying 15 minutes.
I do NOT like it when casino remove all trace of a promotion as soon as it ends, denying players the chance to check how they did if scores are live, or simply to double check the terms and conditions in case they need to query anything.

I also had some decent bonus rounds on Ho Ho Ho at Music Hall, so I was able to add £1600 to the £2000 I removed from Challenge.

I even had a half decent hit on Snow Honeys, but given that it was 5 in a line during the 25 spins which should have a higher multiplier, I was disappointed it was only around £400 from a £3.60 bet, given the huge number of naked spins this slot gives out, despite being 20 lines.
(This is another thing that looks odd - how can slots with so many winlines still manage to give out so many naked spins as seen from the 5 and 9 line variety)

[LeJoueur]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman;

(This is another thing that looks odd - how can slots with so many winlines still manage to give out so many naked spins as seen from the 5 and 9 line variety)

Is it because there are generally more winning symbols on 20-50 line slots that on the 9 line variety?

[kimss]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

(This is another thing that looks odd - how can slots with so many winlines still manage to give out so many naked spins as seen from the 5 and 9 line variety)

This one is even worse, and surely with real money ofcourse! I must add this on looser table! Chose 24 spins, that is 24 spins $50 worth...

I make better wins on $2.5 infact! I'm very happy I didn't choose 12 spins with 4 multiplier, since the 15 first was naked! This is kinda "cool" on Loaded don't you think... Ugh!

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by oyw7862

As only less than 7 days' records.
I did the analysis myself in Excel.
the result as attached.
In one game, 15000+ spin , can it explain sth? Only MG knows

Thunderstruck is a high variance slot and only 9 lines increases the variance compared to 25 lines slot. And 15000 spins sounds like a lot, but it really is not. I am certain it is not even a 2 sigma event you had there, but probably a 1 sigma event, which is of course still bad luck.

I did 1000 simulations each of 250K spins on Thunderstruck (playing 9 lines). And some of these still had only 91% payout.

See it here: Thunderstruck payout% simulation

[kimss]

Originally Posted by Zoozie

I did 1000 simulations each of 250K spins on Thunderstruck (playing 9 lines). And some of these still had only 91% payout.

What is "funny" with this is alot of people thing 91% payout equals 91 euroes from 100. Saying you wagered 0.9 euro in your example, the losses would be astronomical!

A quick estimate and we are talking 20K in losses on one of those 91% payouts;

[Zoozie]

I did an identical simulation with only 15000 spins. (1000 simulations). And again freespins are not counting towards the 15000 spins.

Actually I did a few simulations and I took the one with the best total payout% which was 1.02%! (So overall this was again a 'lucky' simulation.)

What you experienced is not that far below the norm, not even 1 sigma.

As you can see a few has payout as low as 62-63% and really many are below 80%. The best was only at 218%, which is actually not a very big win out of 1000 attemps. And it was quite identical for all the other simulations of this of course.
Slot players should be more aware of this fact. Winning big on slots (except progressives) is a myth with just 15000 spins and same bet size.



Slot sucks, period. Trust the math and look at the simulations and save your money. (I guess I would not make a very good casino affiliate....)

Payout% data from the 1000 spins included.


EDIT: Sorry hehe! The simulation was a 'special version of thunderstruck'. 4 scatters awarded 20 spins and 5 scatters awarded 25 spins. However I am too lazy to run it again and even this 100% slot clearly shows my point.
(102% avg. payout not possible on normal Thunderstruck for this many spins). It is because I was implementing support
for 'Isis' in the slot simulation I had changed Thunderstruck.

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by kimss

A quick estimate and we are talking 20K in losses on one of those 91% payouts;

Yup! Before anyone decides to try anything stupid with slots you can ask me to run a simulation and save you a few K$.

[kimss]

Originally Posted by Zoozie

Yup! Before anything decides to try anything stupid with slots you can ask me to run a simulation and save you a few K$.

Well, it then becomes very hard to create the "perfect" tactic to wager at slots. If we assume it all is random (I won't go there now).

I would guess one tactic woul be something like, say we manage to spin 100 pretty much naked spins (that is, do not have any good wins at all). Then going for a reasonable wager where we are able to win some, how many spins would be "smart", and what x should we stop if hitting? I guess this is no good to do simulations on, unless you have really good time, or have a pretty smart simulator going there.

Typical:
1. If you manage 100 spins on 0.01 without any wins worth anything,
2. Do 35 spin on your wager, unless 1 single win is 10x wager.

That would be an interesting factor, sure we still need luck but we could sqeeze it a little.

Also, say a feature is at ~136 spins. The same would be interesting to know:

1. How many none-feature spins would I need to do before,
2. I have great odds of hitting feature in 30 spins.

Probably both simulations are worthless, but then again, if your wagering anyways it's always nice to belive you are trting to beat the house edge a little. (Oh, beat was a terrible word there, reduse was what i was looking for).

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by kimss

If we assume it all is random (I won't go there now).

My simulation is of course random and it is obvious you can not beat it. However if we take your belief that is it is rigged (for high bet size), it just makes matters worse of course. Therefore my simulation is the best possible situation and it still clearly shows my point.

[kimss]

Originally Posted by Zoozie

My simulation is of course random and it is obvious you can not beat it.

Looking at my bank account and past years experience this is easy to confirm,