NetEnt: Creature from the Black Lagoon (December)

[kktmd]

564.198 spins. Freeplay.

Bonus rounds count as 1 spin.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

LOL - one win over 1000x stake and fifteen over 500x in 564,000 spins

Dear Netent, please disappear back under your rock and don't come out until you remember how to make a decent slot again.

 

[kktmd]

Balance and wins over 250 x bet.
4 sessions - balance jumps to 500.000 when session resets.

 

[kktmd]

This slot is pretty brutal. Variance is a bit higher than DOA, but with far fewer big wins. Most "big" wins in 100-250 xbet range.

 

[dunover]

Balance and wins over 250 x bet.
4 sessions - balance jumps to 500.000 when session resets.

View attachment 44577

This is exactly what myself, Balthazar and Chopley were trying to put into words without any visual aids like your graph.
The sheer brutality of the Netent games is evident here - at only 2 or 3 points were you in a position of decent withdrawable profit from your 'deposit' and most crucially NOT at the start; you were well down before hitting a decent gain later on, which did not put you in overall profit, but just on that latest deposit.
As most players tend to hit casinos 'fresh' with their SUBs and over their stay at the casino play a fraction of the 500k+ spins you did, it demonstrates how clever (or nasty depending on your point of view) the Netent paytables are at raping the new player. I'm glad I don't play Netent any more.

This slot should be renamed 'Turd From The Unflushed Toilet'.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

It really is breathtakingly cynical design on Netent's part, it can't be an accident that they've managed to design a slot that's higher variance than DoA (which we can see thanks to kktmd's superb numbers and graph), and yet is almost inherently incapable of ever giving a player a decent win and getting them back into the game after a bad start. (A bad start which they will almost inevitably have.)

Is it possible to put an entire software onto the 'not recommended' list?

I'm being half serious as well! We all know that the idea of slots is we lose money over time, but at least other providers produce slots where the player has a decent chance of landing a decent win or two and cashing out, whereas Netent are IMO as close as you can possibly get to 'rigging' their slots whilst still maintaining T-RTP and randomness.

 

[lotusch]

I am glad more and more people start to question the slots from the Netent poop factory.
And the graphs show exactly what people try to say and explain in words.
The amount of money I lost in the last 18 months on Netent is ridiculous.
I dare to say I have never made a decent profit on any Netent slot over those months.
I make my winnings on WMS and MGS mostly,with having achieved multiple 1000x + stake wins but all this ended up in the neverending empty dark void called Netent slots.

Yet after giving out to them all the time I still try them sometimes,as said above,mostly when signing up at a new casino with a decent new player deposit bonus.
Good example is I deposited for first time at CasinoEuro this weekend and tried the slot mentioned in this thread and it took me over 700!!! spins from the start to hit the first free spins which then paid about 40x bet.
Worst part,I was 1 hit off to kill the creature and yet still no decent wins in the whole free spins session.

So yé Dunover,one thinks to really NOT play Netent at all anymore.
I actually might come out better on the end of the year balance wise as I do get nice hits but defo NOT on Netent slots.

They are so bad,beyond any imagination.

 

[Jazzbaz]

That graph might just as well describe almost every session I have ever had at Elements. It took a me a long time to realise that it was just not your basic variance that was screwing me over. I just could not figure it out why a seemingly pretty low variance slot had such long spells of dead spins. Way too many a time I started a session with less than 30% return over a couple of hundred spins and bust out before knowing what hit me.

 

[gokkie]

Thank you very much for the graph kktmd.
What forum members are saying about the latest netent releases is so so true and this graph is hard evidence.

There is one slot in particular I would like to see these stats on: secret of the stones.
I have played thousands of spins on this one and I cannot remember a win over 150x.
Brutal patches without free spins, almost impossible to hit a big win, no chance of a big win during normal spins (I think 50x is max)

I would love to see a graph of this slot, I think it would give even more evidence of the fact that netent has found the ideal slot layout to make constant profits and still reach the RTP%. It is so obvious what they are doing here, I even question the fact these netents slots should have 'accredited' status.

 

[Balthazar]

I'd not say that the variance is higher than DoA. Yes there are more wins over 100x, but they pretty much cap there so it sounds like medium variance to me, at best?

Either way, since it's the patented impossible-to-win NetEnt paytable, "variance" isn't even relevant.

 

[RichieRespin]

I'd not say that the variance is higher than DoA. Yes there are more wins over 100x, but they pretty much cap there so it sounds like medium variance to me, at best?

For correctness sake: There are also more wins in the "over 250x" section on Creatures vs DoA.

4,75 more spins were played on DoA, 83 x 4.75 = 394 wins over 250x , compared to 387 for DoA.

Not that that changes much, I suppose.

I loved those graphs over gaming rounds, as a visualization tool. Would be very nice to see similar graphs from other slots.

 

[Jory]

So I guess the only question that remains to be answered is...

What kind of fish do this?

 

[kktmd]

I'd not say that the variance is higher than DoA. Yes there are more wins over 100x, but they pretty much cap there so it sounds like medium variance to me, at best?

I was a bit surprised that the standard deviation was a bit higher than DOA (160 vs 150). Statistically speaking, this would make the variance higher (since variance=standard deviation*standard deviation), although I think DOA feels like a higher variance slot.

 

[kktmd]

So I guess the only question that remains to be answered is...

Evil pilot fish.

 

[wobble33]

Absolutely agree. Did you see my screenie of a 521x stake (normal spin) in FREEPLAY? Must've been an aberration. Their slots are a cross between Vlad The Impaler, The Yorkshire Ripper and Ronnie Biggs.

LMFAO

I agree totally about the new slots but this comment, well it made me spill my coffee

 

[dunover]

I was a bit surprised that the standard deviation was a bit higher than DOA (160 vs 150). Statistically speaking, this would make the variance higher (since variance=standard deviation*standard deviation), although I think DOA feels like a higher variance slot.

DoA feels like a Higher-variance slot, but it clearly isn't - for the simple fact it very regularly gives wins of 1-2x stake, and quite often 5 hats/whisky/boots etc. Your stake lasts a bit longer.

 

[Balthazar]

DoA feels like a Higher-variance slot, but it clearly isn't - for the simple fact it very regularly gives wins of 1-2x stake, and quite often 5 hats/whisky/boots etc. Your stake lasts a bit longer.

Well then its even more evil than I originally thought. On average it will eat your entire bankroll quicker (spin for spin) than DoA yet doesn't have the big wins. That's on the verge of being mathematically impossible.

I was boycotting NetEnt's recent releases but I might boycott the whole software now. For principles.

 

[dunover]

Well then its more evil than I originally thought. On average it will eat your entire bankroll quicker (spin for spin) than DoA yet doesn't have the big wins. That's on the verge of being mathematically impossible.

Yes, I concur with that. Most reel wins are pathetic on CFTBL and it has a seriously messed-up paytable that pays 'mediium' wins less often than DoA pays 2500x for 5 scatters. Netent really have hit the holy grail of almost guaranteeing the player loses while still paying somehow 95%. It's fiendishly clever and I'm glad it has been noticed.

 

[Balthazar]

Is it possible to put an entire software onto the 'not recommended' list?

Well, they have done it with Rival.

 

[zreb]

People really seem to be latching onto everything they possibly can here to blame NetEnt for their results, and most of it is pretty poorly founded. Having a bunch of data is useless if you don't know how to interpret it.

First of all, the variance of CFTBL is NOT higher than the variance for Dead or Alive. The variance kktmd measured for CFTBL, 160 coins, is based on a 20 coin bet - a variance of 8x the wager amount. The variance measured for DOA is 150 on a 9 coin bet - 16.66x the wager amount. 8x makes for a fairly high variance slot, but 16.66x is pretty enormous. Even if you were making 20 cent bets on CFTBL and 9 cent bets on DOA, the variance per dollar wagered on DOA would still be like 50% higher.

It's also really tough to say much from the graph kktmd posted. We're looking from a zoomed-out enough perspective that makes 500x wins look insignificant. If someone is looking at hundreds of thousands of spins, most slots are going to look like a depressing downward trend of losses. And the variance that kktmd did experience seems to be about 1% below the true RTP - about 100,000 coins. So unless we're accusing NetEnt of lying about the true RTP, we still don't have a representative sample. It's actually pretty hard to get 1000-2000x up on most slots, even over 10s of thousands of spins, and that would still only look like a small blip on the graph.

And some of the complaints here don't really make any sense. You can't simultaneously argue that:
1. The slot pays the true rtp (i.e., is not rigged, usually 96.5% or so)
2. The slot gives lots of dead spins.
3. The slot doesn't provide many reasonable sized wins.

These can't all be true at the same time for a random slot. Either it's high variance and gives you a chance at occasional wins - but little average playtime. Or the opposite - low variance, high playtime, but low chance of a substantial win. It can't both provide no playtime and no big wins. This is of course assuming the slots aren't compensated, which I also haven't seen much evidence for.

In my own opinion, some of the NetEnt releases have been pretty terrible (the low variance ones), but others are perfectly fine. I don't think there's anything wrong with CFTBL in particular - I think it's actually a pretty fairly designed slot. The casino makes its profit the more times you churn through your money - that means a slot with dead spins is actually good for you. It's just a bit on the high variance side, while not being as extreme as something like DoA. 1000x wins are actually an extreme rarity on most slots.

I think it's great that people here are looking into things and trying to make sure the games are fair and provide players a reasonable chance of winning, but let's take a little bit of care and not start shooting at everything that moves. There needs to be a clear idea that can be tested to find out anything useful. That's probably all I'll say on this though - NetEnt's got money to represent themselves if they felt like it, no reason I should defend them if they don't care.

 

[Balthazar]

the variance of CFTBL is NOT higher than the variance for Dead or Alive. The variance kktmd measured for CFTBL, 160 coins, is based on a 20 coin bet - a variance of 8x the wager amount. The variance measured for DOA is 150 on a 9 coin bet - 16.66x the wager amount.

If the standard deviation is expressed in coins then that's a good point.

It can't both provide no playtime and no big wins.

Starburst? Space Wars? Twin Spins? Eggomatic? Fisticuffs? Silent Run? MAGIC PORTALS?! REEL RUSH?

I don't think there's anything wrong with CFTBL in particular - I think it's actually a pretty fairly designed slot.

How would you know? You're Canadian and we can't play it.

 

[dionysus]

If the standard deviation is expressed in coins then that's a good point.




Oh, that it can!! Have you ever played starburst or space wars?




How would you know? You're Canadian and we can't play it.

don't be so sure about that

 

[Nate]

I wouldn't go as far as questioning the randomness of the slot but I assure you i have had pretty much enough of real money play to deduce the following:

1. Early hits are the best to get you ahead on this game.

2. The Slot is pathetically brutal and rips through 200 - 300x bet easily (the odd 20 - 50x here and there but never enough to bring you level)

3. 8 out of 10 times I never recovered at all.

4. Biggest feature hits were around 740x bet and 680x bet respectively - Both 4 Scatter triggers.

5. Lowest Feature wins were even lower than my trigger bet for the free spins on multiple occasions.

6. Biggest hits in the Base game were around the 100x to 200x not frequent but better than FS hits.

7. Overall I'm losing badly - My last 2 sessions (Start Balance of $500 with $2 bets) and (Start Balance of $700 with $2 bets) gone in a flash.

I tend to agree with the general thought. We are all LONG time gamblers and understand variance pretty well. Maybe the variance isn't as bad as DOA, maybe it is? The one think I can state is that the Slot does not pay well and actually reduces playing time significantly IMPO. Dead spells are horrendous but very common. For me, it doesn't justify playing the Slot. There WILL be a big hit or 2 but alas play it frequent enough and you'll see what im talking about .

Nate

 

[dunover]

The problems aren't necessarily the product of high/higher variance but gameplay which is a product of the paytable set-up. If we take into consideration the MG games kktmd ran (IR and TSII) the frequency of medium (100x-500x) and large (500x +) wins are greater, but also the 'stake maintaining wins' (i.e. 15-40x stake) are far more frequent and can often overlap and produce profitable sessions alone. Obviously the huge prizes on DoA will eliminate that possibility as the RTP is weighted for those wins. In between rewards of 1-2 x stake are very frequent to keep you playing for a sensible period which may yield one of those huge win multiples.
CFTBL seems to have a unique way of paying fractions of a stake or nothing for long spells, and doesn't have the huge multiple potential of DoA. As Zreb said, it can't be all of those things at once otherwise it couldn't meet the RTP, so it compensates with mostly low-yield bonus rounds of <250x stake and frequently less than the scatter trigger amount as Nate says. The end result is 8/10 times you are playing catch-up and soon realize that unlike DoA you are past the point where getting the potential 'mega' bonus round would refund your stake or put you in profit. Example, you only need (like I did) to be £70 down on 20p stakes very quickly, and soon realize that a very rare 300x plus will be necessary to redeem the situation. On DoA an equally rare hit would produce a profit.

 

[theapple]

If the standard deviation is expressed in coins then that's a good point.




Starburst? Space Wars? Twin Spins? Eggomatic? Fisticuffs? Silent Run? MAGIC PORTALS?! REEL RUSH?




How would you know? You're Canadian and we can't play it.

magic portals? really? i guess im the only one who think that slot is just one pile of %#($. and even reel rush is capped to 50ish x bets most of the time in free spins (not saying its impossible to hit higher, its just that my usual 'good' free spin session ends up with ~40x bet).