SlotOCash, slot configured to 65% payout

[Zoozie]

Rival operators can absolutely NOT configure the payouts of any of its games. All the operator can change are the bet limits per a game.

To me, its obvious this is a typo/mistake, a slot actually paying out 65% is ludicrous and would not go un-noticed . I have seen it before with some of our games where there was a typo within the game description files and its just a matter of correcting the text..

Thanks for join the thread!
I am surprised you say that you can not change the slot payout% configuration? Maybe you can check up on that information again ?

I appricate the payout% in the help file that changes with the slot payout% configuration. I have seen both Scary Rich 1+2 at 93%,95% and 96%, so they change quite often. In the youth of the Rival software, the payout% was also published with 2 digits -like 94.23%. Why was this removed? Also the % was removed.

Current form: The expected payback for this game of chance is about 95
Why not at least: The expected payback for this game of chance is about 95%
or even better: The expected payback for this game of chance is about 95.04%.

I know this is controlled at Rival, but maybe you can bring it up next time you talk to them. I would appricate that

[LandowM]

I was reading through old threads and found this one. I'm curious if anyone ever got to the bottom of this, especially if SlotoCash was actually able to change the payout on Scary Rich between 93-96% at will. Given the recent problem with Tradition Casino, this issue seems to fit in and still be relevant, hence the bump.

[kakata]

93..96...?? you r dreaming

[nisosbar]

93..96...?? you r dreaming

I agree. Don't get me wrong - I play basically only on Sloto or Black Diamond/Box 24, but Sloto's slots have ALWAYS been set tighter than any other Rival, IMHO.

[LandowM]

The 93%-96% was referring to numbers stated earlier in the thread, where it was referenced SlottoCash had changed the payout listed in the help file several times in a short period of time. If they were able to do this, it contradicts Rivals' claims that the Tradition/BJ was an isolated issue...

[bernynhel]

I think that any player who is running on the assumption that every online casino operator does not have complete control over all of the settings covering every aspect of every game in every platform is running blind.

And if there exists a platform that does not give the operator this flexibility while there exists another which does, then the operator of the former is a fool for not having chosen the latter!

Therefore, as the above logic is not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination, what software manufacturer could survive their competition if they didn't build these setting options into their product? The obvious answer: none.

So every platform must include this flexibility for their operators.

[maxd]

I think that any player who is running on the assumption that every online casino operator does not have complete control over all of the settings covering every aspect of every game in every platform is running blind.

You are of course entitle to you opinion. However I respectfully suggest that the facts of the industry have somewhat greater weight than your dark forebodings.

Among other things the licensing requirements of some jurisdictions specifically requires that the casino operator NOT have this kind of "complete control". Where such access may have been an option in the past software providers wishing to operate within those jurisdictions have been required to modify their software so that such operator access is not possible.

[takethemoney]

You are of course entitle to you opinion. However I respectfully suggest that the facts of the industry have somewhat greater weight than your dark forebodings.

Among other things the licensing requirements of some jurisdictions specifically requires that the casino operator NOT have this kind of "complete control". Where such access may have been an option in the past software providers wishing to operate within those jurisdictions have been required to modify their software so that such operator access is not possible.

Thanks, but how does that mean it cannot be done in other jurisdictions where licensing is not available, such as the USA? Let me ask you this; if a casino is willing to provide business so people can gamble in places where gambling is supposedly illegal, what other compromises would they make? We already know they don't code credit card transactions properly, which is a bit fraudulent. Do you think casinos would suddenly hold themselves above being able to mess with settings that affect the return to player? I find it laughable, actually. We don't know anything to be absolute fact, except what we are told. With all due respect, I have never seen the backend of a casino.....have you?

Only the insiders know what is there. If an operator wants to do something other than tell us we are wrong and continue to deny that certain settings exist, then why not shut the rumors down for once and for all and give us a tour of the casino backend? As far as I am concerned it could only help matters and build up player confidence. If there is nothing to hide, then why not more tranparency? I don't think any of us are going to have a problem if we find out the casinos can adjust the RTP, as long as it doesn't go to outright rip off level, like 50% or something. Maybe there really is a takedown mode.......maybe that Oz guy behind the curtain really has something he hides....maybe he doesn't. How do we know?

[bernynhel]

You are of course entitle to you opinion. However I respectfully suggest that the facts of the industry have somewhat greater weight than your dark forebodings.

Among other things the licensing requirements of some jurisdictions specifically requires that the casino operator NOT have this kind of "complete control". Where such access may have been an option in the past software providers wishing to operate within those jurisdictions have been required to modify their software so that such operator access is not possible.

That the compliance arm of any juristiction licensing online casinos has any teeth in the sense of, let's say, the Nevada Gaming Commission is, at best, questionable. Given that software providers have actually modified their soft wear to comply with rules in said jurisdictions, what assurances are in place to guarantee that operators haven't retained older versions to operate on inspector's days off, scheduled holidays or any day other than scheduled inspection days?

Between Malta (335 sites), Netherlands Antilles (274 sites), the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (254 sites) , Gibraltar (222 sites), Costa Rica (217 sites) , UK (99 sites), Antigua and Barbuda (73 sites), Alderney (68 sites), Italy (57 sites) and Panama (41 sites), how many of these, the top 10 online casino licensing juridistions in the world, have inspectors worth a damn and not prone to bribery? Costa Rica, alone has 217 sites that CM can't recommend just on the basis that they're in Cost Rica! What about Panama, Netherlands Antilles, Antigua/Barbuda and for that matter any other?

How often do we hear of sites being shut down for crooked ops? If we had been hearing about enough of them, then I wonder at CM's PAB dept still being sufficiently relevant to continue to operate. Why wouldn't every site which falls under some type of licensing jurisdiction be required to post, clearly visible on every website page and on every gamescreen in their software: IS THE CASINO GAME YOU ARE PLAYING NOW CROOKED? IF YOU THINK IT IS THEN IT IS YOUR DUTY TO CALL THE PANAMA GAMING COMMISSION AT 1-866-555-5050 OR SIMPLY ENTER CTRL+! ON YOUR PC KEYBOARD FOR AN IMMEDIATE AUDIT AND SHAKEDOWN OF YOUR HOST ONLINE CASINO!!!

[bernynhel]

...With all due respect, I have never seen the backend of a casino.....have you? ;... If an operator wants to do something other than tell us we are wrong and continue to deny that certain settings exist, then why not shut the rumors down for once and for all and give us a tour of the casino backend?...

Better still - why doesn't someone from our esteemed peanut gallery simply attend the next big online gaming convention where prospective online operators surely must go to compare all of the possible platforms and licensing jurisdictions who have set up booths and hospitality suites to entice these future online casino big shots to choose them over the competition? It's not as if registration to these things are restricted to Steve Wynn and Donald Trump, after all!

They would have to explain, in detail, every nuance of these platforms in order to concvince prospects that theirs is the best choice. Then our spy(s) could return with brochures and ops manuals and post the whole shootin' match in a new section of CM - "The REAL POOP on Online Casinos and Poker Rooms"!