Doubts about Vegas online casino

[Rusty]

Besides, it looks like DogBoy let one slip in another thread - could be worth a peek

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...ike-titan.html

He has now admitted that the "2 pear" variant on Fruit Frenzy is 91%, not 97.5% as it seemed from the pages at the RTG site, where a 91% setting for this game doesn't even exist.

He then goes on to justify the widespread and secret applications of RTP changes as "fair", perhaps an admission that this is a more widespread practice than even the "conspiracy theorists" thought.

I have delivered counter arguments to his 5 key points in favour of this being a fair practice, plus a general summary, and further arguments as to why this is NOT as "fair" online as it might be in B & M casinos.

I missed this thread unfortunately.

Of course it is not fair practice for operators to be able to change RTP at any time without notifying the player - it is why such practice is illegal in the UK, a fact not mentioned by Dogboy which really just throws a light on his attempts at obfuscation and disinformation regarding the matter.

It is not even fair practice for operators not to clearly display the current RTP/HE for any games and again this a legal requirement in the UK.

It is perfectly obvious why such practices are unfair to the player and even more obvious why software companies such as RTG refuse to incorporate them.
Do we really want to trust the unofficial RTG spokesman's protestations that the software is not rigged when he considers it fair that the player should be kept in the dark as to the odds of the game they are playing and that the operator should be allowed to change these odds at any time on a whim without the player knowing?
As I have said previously there is good reason the likes of RTG and Rival can not be found in whitelisted jurisdictions.

I agree with your counterpoints and have made very similar ones myself previously. For those that have missed them this is my take on it.

You caught Dogboy out in that thread but I suspect anyone who has played RTG for any length of time will understand that 91% is not now the new lowest RTG returning slot, there is nothing to say there are not much lower RTP settings and I firmly believe there are and as you know argued long hard that the old 93,95,97 settings only was complete fallacy. By the way it still makes me chuckle when people insist that all MG slots have only one RTP setting.
The truth is there should be no settings, I know this is accepted practice and Dogboy is right this how B&M slots operate (though they must publish RTP for fairness) but that doesn't make it right.

A slots theoretical RTP should be made up from a totalling a complete cycle of all possible combinations and dividing by the winning spin total according to the paytable. The RTP should be clearly published in the paytable and any future changes made known.
This is fair practice.

Imagine playing roulette whereby you place your bets and press spin then numbers 37 and 38 are added to the wheel? Sound fair?

Another perpetual lie about how the software operates is that Freespin and bonus rounds are not predetermined.
You are awarded a prize(determined but hidden) and that prize is revealed through a pick, freespin or other type of bonus game.
The freepins are not delivered as random individual events and this is true of other software just as the picks you make in the pick rounds will not alter the predetermined prize.
I understand the technical reasons for this and why it can be deemed fair by some jurisdictions with certain safeguards in place but it is the lie I object to.

A lot of these issues though are not RTG specific but I guess they see a lot of threads like this because a lot of their operators tend to be, how shall we say this, somewhat less than than shining beacons of the industry.

Another disingenuous argument that Dogboy likes to put out is that the software must be fair otherwise operators would offer potentially +ev bonuses but set the RTP real low.
Maybe he wasn't around when all the rogues were doing just that, offering to good to be true bonuses or maybe he would argue they didn't set the slots lower they just didn't pay winners - either way it is hard to see RTG in a good light.
Anyway such arguments are very patronising. I liken it to the argument that MG software is no longer weighted because after they were caught out their paytables and reel strips now match the perceived RTP so therefore they must no longer be weighted.
I mean you have to naive and blinkered to Nifty standards to accept that as a credible reassurance. Talking of Nifty his sycophantic ramblings in that thread made me queasy and there was me just recently suggesting that he sometimes came across as a shill. "Dogmeister"

On top of all this we have the fact that RTG still after all these years supply their software to operators who are known to have scammed players.

I have always said RTG make good games and I think they have helped raise the bar in slot design.
The problem is you can fancy a woman all you like but once you know she has raging syphilis it is sure to put you off.

[maxd]

Talking of Nifty ....

Not sure why you need to interrupt an otherwise unrelated thread to start taking shots at your fellow forum members but please don't.

Whether you like or dislike someone on the forums you're welcome to keep your personal insults to yourself, per the Forum Rules if you need to be reminded.

[funeral979]

You know I really have nothing against Nifty personally. He adds alot to the forum and makes alot of positive contributions. That being said, he does take cheap shots at other members quite often. Many members have decided to lurk rather than actively contribute due to this behavior. Most of the time the mods seem to turn a blind eye to this. Yet whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about Nifty or his posts, it seems as if Max comes running to the rescue...as if he can have run of the paddock. I don't really want to add any fuel to the fires....but you know if you can dish it out.....

[maxd]

You know I really have nothing against Nifty personally. ... he does take cheap shots at other members quite often.

Report it! How many times do we have to say this?

Report it! Report it! Report it! Report it! Report it!
Report it! Report it! Report it! Report it! Report it!
Report it! Report it! Report it! Report it! Report it!
Report it! Report it! Report it! Report it! Report it!

There, does that make it any clearer?

Here is how to Report a post:



Nifty reported the off-topic slagging above, I responded accordingly.
Other such things have apparently gone on but were un-reported, no response from us.

Report -> something is done if needs be.
No Report -> nothing done.

So yeah, Report it. Very simple. No mystery, no drama.

As to hoards of people lurking rather than post because Nifty, or whomever, might respond. Sure, easy to say, let them contact me privately to confirm their "forced into lurking" status and then we'll see just what significance there is to these "oppressed masses" stories. Been there, done that, it was BS then and I'll bet a precious part of my maleness that it's BS now.

I could say "anonymous persons love my collection of fetching hosiery" but that means basically nothing because there's no evidence, no burden of proof and no recourse for the disbelievers. Such things are groundless hearsay and who needs more of that?

Yet whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about Nifty or his posts, it seems as if Max comes running to the rescue....

Prove it! And since you can't, because it isn't true, I welcome you to keep insulting statements of that nature to yourself. If I slagged you off as freely as you seem to feel at liberty to slag me off I'd be fired, plain and simple.

Behave better, raise the bar a little. It's better for everyone.

[petro]

Wow, Max is like the Yoda of forum posting.
That post is like a work of art.

[funeral979]

Well I guess if saying "report it" 20 times in a row makes a post a work of art

Sorry Max I wasn't insulting you. I wasn't slagging you off. I was just making an observation. I don't see how me saying that you are coming to his rescue is an insult to you. But you are attacking me because I brought up Nifty again. It seems as if it strikes a chord in you whenever his name is mentioned. And I just don't get it. Im just asking for a little fairness. How would you like me to behave better Max? I don't really see how I misbehaved by me making an observation of the deteriorating sense of common decency being displayed by forum members. Other members RUDELY make observations and they get a pat on the back. My post pointed out Nifty's positive qualities as well. Just asking for a little FAIRNESS.

[jetset]

Just my personal view, but I think there is a little too much speculative commentary here at present - everything from 'many' members 'leaving' (when they manifestly have not) to 'gang warfare', unfair or biased moderating and thus far unsupported claims that members are so scared that they have gone into lurking mode.

Perhaps before tossing around such generalities members should reflect even briefly on their posts before hitting the submit button.

Sorry for the derail - unfortunately one of several in an otherwise very interesting thread. I have to say, however, that imo Rusty's attack on another member at post #11 is a provocative, insulting and unnecessary distraction from the otherwise useful perspective content in his post.

[maxd]

I don't see how me saying that you are coming to his rescue is an insult to you. .... Just asking for a little FAIRNESS.

Your statements state plainly or imply without much doubt that we lack fairness, that one of the mods here "comes running" whenever "anyone says anything remotely negative about him or his posts", etc. This is insulting and degrading whether you intended it to be or not. And, as I've already said, it is groundless because you can't show with actual evidence that any of it is true.

It's very easy to say "I'm being oppressed here!" or "how about a LITTLE fairness" but it's quite another to back any of it up with actual facts or to show specific instances of what you claim is happening.

Basically I'm saying the attitude expressed in some of your posts** -- aside from the actual direct accusations -- is negative and not constructive and you provide proof for none of it. This is pointlessly damaging, hence "behave better".

To be perfectly clear:

• if Nifty or anyone else is behaving badly towards other members, Report it.
• if you think one of the mods is giving Nifty or anyone else special treatment, Report it.
• if you find that you are being mistreated by one of the mods, Report it.
• if you've got generic, unsubstantiated grumbling or insults you want to post, don't! None of us needs that crap.

The point being that if you claim such-and-such bad thing is happening then Report it when you see it. If there are no such reports and no proof given that the thing ever happened then basically you are just making free-wheeling accusations because you feel like it. Like I said: behave better, raise the bar, everyone wins.

**Please note that I said 'some', as in 'a few, not all', as in 'on occasion'. You may not conclude from this that I am saying 'all of your posts', hence no need to throw up your arms, say 'everybody hates me and I'm leaving!' or the like.

[petro]

Well, I am pretty much a newbie at forum posting. And I haven't felt 'opressed' here yet.

Although, Casinomeister kind of scares me.

[Rusty]

Not sure why you need to interrupt an otherwise unrelated thread to start taking shots at your fellow forum members but please don't.

Whether you like or dislike someone on the forums you're welcome to keep your personal insults to yourself, per the Forum Rules if you need to be reminded.

Still got that boner on for me eh Max?
How sweet.
By the way I started the thread and I was responding to the link that VWM provided.

If you want to do something useful change the title of the thread as I suggested instead of following me around with a hard on.