KasinoKing's SlotBeater Strategy

[vinylweatherman]

Remind me NEVER to try "advantage play" at 3Dice


Anyway, to add.

Whilst the KK method is nowhere near optimal, using the optimal strategies of max possible bet using the best bonuses is ONLY better IF THE CASINO DOESN'T VOID YOUR WINNINGS for trying it.
This would mean that every time you WIN, you get it confiscated for "bonus abuse", but when you LOSE, you don't normally get your deposit back, despite attempting the SAME strategy deemed as "abusive".

Flat betting with min bet on a low variance game, supposedly the WORST possible strategy, is ALSO considered "bonus abuse" by MANY casinos when it comes to table games, and a few even with SLOTS.

The KK strategy, whilst not optimal, does NOT set off too many of those "bonus abuse" flags, therefore he is offered MORE and BETTER bonuses, and for LONGER. This gives more time for his slim positive expectation to grow into a sizeable lifetime profit.

The party may end for him some time, as casinos get ever tighter with the rules. It already did at Intercasino, when they got rid of the regular monthlies, and replaced them with ones weighted to 25% up front, and 75% post wagering, meaning the FULL WR had to be completed to get the bonus, and it thus COULDN'T be utilised beforehand to "bust trying".

The Martingale aspect of the KK system comes into play when you get VERY, VERY UNLUCKY INDEED. I have known slots that are supposed to give bonus rounds go many SDs beyond the mean, and then give a "crap" one. That could "bust" a great deal of earlier profit, if not everything. This is the Martingale problem, there is a very low probability that you will embark on such a spectacular run of misfortune, but if you do, you are finished off completely because of the escalation of bets.

When I won so much at Spin Palace on Munchkins, I may well have used a Martingale type strategy, this time one of INCREASING bets after a bonus round, but MOSTLY, I was SPECTACULARLY LUCKY, that upon my FIRST spin at a DOUBLED bet of £67.50, I got one of those rare multiple retriggering bonus rounds. It would not have taken too many fruitless bets at £67.50 to have LOST more than the 10K I gained on that bonus round. I even tried it in "fun mode", and in the cases I tried, 10K went pretty quickly.

I also recall KK's responce to MY "strategy" for Treasure Ireland, posted ages ago one April 1st (He didn't pay too much attention to the date, did he). KK complained that he "did his ********" trying it with some of his profits, betting a STAGGERING (at the time) £2 per spin.
Funnily enough, my TI strategy was to start low, and step up a coinsize when a certain level of feature was showing, such as 50 winspins offered = move bet up a notch.
My TI strategy is probably just as useless as the KK Slotbeater one, because although it DOES work sometimes, as I have posted on "winner screenshots", it often FAILS MISERABLY, and it eventually pays a fraction of what, in total, it has taken.
Again, at 32Red I was SPECTACULARLY LUCKY, I had the HIGHLY IMPROBABLE event of SIX consecutive high paying feature rounds, the first FIVE of which paid WAY over the expected "mean" for similar selections of the same feature in the past. Since then, I have LOST on TI at 32Red, putting IN almost 4K, but getting OUT a little under 3K - and even that was a bit lucky, because the INITIAL win was boosted by a bit of "afterplay" that saw it rise another £800.

[GGW Laurie]

Laurie's Logic to gambling

(A)Put your money in

(B)Pick your game

(C) Cross your fingers

(D) Hope like hell you hit a decent run from the start.

If (D) should fail, repeat steps (A) (B) and (C) over and over again till you get it thru your head that there is no real formula to gambling , except cashing out while your ahead of the casino and thats if you get real lucky..................laurie

[jetset]

Really good to see an initially unpleasant and accusatory thread turned into a truly informative and deeply interesting discussion - thanks to the mature and courteous approach of all concerned.

And kudos especially to Enzo, who has shown me a different way to perceive things mathematical!

[gambblex]

I don't know anybody here personally.

I'm sure KK is a great guy.Maybe I've even downloaded couple Rivals from his site.

And it was a very wise decision to lock the thread for some time.

I thought it could contain only two posts:OP's and KK's.

Actually,it's typical JHV's thread:touching upon a serious issue,I would say,sophisticated.And REALLY LONG!!!(many people could hate him only for this).

He could expect a reply in similar tone or being ignored.

If someone could explain him why he is ... and...and...in original OP's style no doubt OP would become a devoted fan of this "someone"

And here are people who could do this easily.

And typical destiny of his threads: expecting some sort of discussion he receives a bunch of direct personal insults and not much about topic of thread.

I'm not sure if posts of many of his "opponents" are perfect in meeting forum rules.

Somebody takes OP's manner of speaking as an insult I guess.

Somebody may take posting a screenshot of slot pull at $10 or higher as an insult as well,I guess.

In this case he'd chosen a fake "letter from a fan" style and it was pure LOL, ROFL and ROFLMAO to imagine a person like OP doing things he "described".

Questionable? Oh yeah,it is.Could he PM KK before? Yep.

Do the positive answers automatically eliminate the problem(s) itself?

Maybe OP is a most vicious person in the world.I don't know.Do you?

I still think that despite(or thanks to) his manner along with criticism JHV deserves a lot of thanks.

[paulyt]

This is one of the best threads I've ever read. Thumps up to the OP and the brilliant replies from all involved.

[deucebag]

From having a look at KK's results log, it seems the vast majority, if not ALL his profits, come from Ladbrokes.

Ladbrokes has a lot of lucrative bonuses with very low wagering requirements, as little as 4x bonus. With the general increase in wagering requirements over the last few years, it would be interesting to know if KK would have made any profit at all lately, were it not for Ladbrokes.

[BingoT]

Amen to that type of strategy
And cash out and take it home with you.

Strategy
It's Pure Luck in my eyes.
Look at all them suckers that buy books on all this crap.

Laurie's Logic to gambling

(A)Put your money in

(B)Pick your game

(C) Cross your fingers

(D) Hope like hell you hit a decent run from the start.

If (D) should fail, repeat steps (A) (B) and (C) over and over again till you get it thru your head that there is no real formula to gambling , except cashing out while your ahead of the casino and thats if you get real lucky..................laurie

[zanzibar]

From a long time reader but very rare poster that feels so incensed at the treatment of the OP after reading through this that I could not resist throwing in my 2c...

JHV deserves an apology from many who attacked and insulted him personally without addressing the argument even after he repeatedly asked to keep discussion on topic. I have no idea why he attracted such hate, his first post was witty and hardly over the top with insults. He did go a bit far later but I thought he showed admirable restraint in the face of a barrage of unwarranted criticism. There is obviously some history there that I am unaware of and perhaps the critics entered the discussion with preconceived points of view.

JHV is correct that the KK "strategy" is garbage, and I am surprised that there are so many keen posters/players on this board of all places who could not understand that without being given an elementary maths lesson. Kudos to 3Dice for the explanations that should not have been necessary - you have admirable patience (and tolerance)!

Frankly after seeing KK say that 2/4 - 1/1 = 1/3, I am not convinced he was joking when he said he knows 2 + 2 = 5 ! But that being the case I am convinced that KK actually believes his "system" works and is unlikely to be a cunning scheme to extract commission from the stupid.

To KK and others who believe that the probability of gambling events change over time have a read about The Gambler's Fallacy and acquaint yourself with the concept of statistical independence of events (3Dice kind of explained this to you without naming it).

On the Monty Hall problem, the most interesting thing about it is not the answer that you should always change doors due to the probability of the other door having the prize being 2/3 (its easy to understand once you do the 100 or million doors exercise like someone mentioned). The real interesting bit is that this answer is only correct if you know that the game show host is deliberately picking a door without a prize behind it, and therefore revealing information. If he randomly picks a door without knowing what is behind it and it happens to have no prize, then the odds of your original door containing the prize do in fact change to 1/2 rather than 1/3! Bizarre and maybe unintuitive but true.

So here is another problem... you're playing Deal or No Deal. There's 20 suitcases with values ranging from 1 cent to $1 million in them. You choose suitcase #1 at the start then randomly eliminate the others one at a time until you have two left: suitcase #1 and suitcase #20. You know one of them contains $1m and the other contains 1c. Which one do you choose and why?

[KasinoKing]

Ladbrokes has a lot of lucrative bonuses with very low wagering requirements, as little as 4x bonus. With the general increase in wagering requirements over the last few years, it would be interesting to know if KK would have made any profit at all lately, were it not for Ladbrokes.

I'm sure I wouldn't have made so much - that is certain in my eyes.
I've made profit from Lads every month for years - definitely more to do with their low WR's than any 'strategy'.

Looking back at my logs, I started playing the Ladbrokes promos every month from October 2007. Up to then in 2007 I actually made a small loss at Lads (-$22). In 2006 I only played at Lads in 5 months - and lost in one of those. But I made profit in 10 months of that year. In the whole of 2005 I made a nett loss there (only -$20), but only had one losing month in the year.
So yes you are right that recently (since Oct 07) it has had a big influence, but then again, if I wasn't playing at Lads every single day I would have loads more time to play other places, so who knows?

Back to the original subject, I have read all the posts and taken it all on board and I will look next week to see if the wording on my site could give anyone the wrong impression. If I feel that is the case then I will tweak it for clarification.
The main problem here I think was JHV (and others) were concentrating too much on just one aspect of the strategy - the progressive betting part. I agree that this in itself is not a winning formula. If it was I would be a millionaire by now! The most important parts of the strategy are the use of bonuses and 'money management'.

KK

[big_mac]

Frankly after seeing KK say that 2/4 - 1/1 = 1/3, I am not convinced he was joking when he said he knows 2 + 2 = 5 !

I very much doubt that they were meant as fractions.
I'm sure that he means if there are two chances of red out of four, and you have seen a red, you can take away one red (the two becomes a one), and you can take away one of the unknowns (hence the four becomes a three)

The 'system' is not really a gambling system, it is primarily a system of taking all good-value bonuses. The progressive element is fairly minor and can realistically be ignored. There are also good reasons for playing low value bets (to reduce risk) and increasing bet sizes on low balances (minimum withdrawls etc.)

Although the reasoning is flawed, the 'system' actually isn't, although I wouldn't go so far to call it a system partly because of the connotations with other gambling 'systems' when it's mostly just bonus hunting .