Am I being a muppet here?

[Simmo!]

I'd think about changing this thread title as well Simmo! to incorporate Intercasino/Slot discrepancy -- make sure people are sufficiently warned.

Not at this point: I really think this is a developer issue and that Intercasino's support don't really get - and probably shouldn't be expected to - the nuances of a 243 ways slot. This is an issue the developer needs to address and I'd like to see the explanation before casting aspersions. If it gets to an impasse then maybe I'll consider a new thread but now I have someone personally involved there, I'd like to give her a chance to sort it out.

Another potential issue for the casinos that carry this game is that the game is still available and now we have it in writing that this isn't a malfunction, confirmed by the regulator, that get-out isn't available. Unless there is some explanation we haven't considered, someone might be liable for a lot of money here.

Besides, it seems that against all logic and - on this single occasion - you are not being a muppet.

I might have to change my avatar

 

[quber]

It might be a good idea to add the game name to the thread title to alert people that do play this game.

 

[Simmo!]

It might be a good idea to add the game name to the thread title to alert people that do play this game.

You are right. I'd rather give it a couple of days and see what he official word is first but I will do something regards title or a new thread at the end of the week.

 

[InterCasino]

Hi all,

We would like to thank you for bringing this to our attention, your feedback is very important to us. We apologize for not responding sooner, we have been in communication with our game provider around this issue and wanted come to a resolution before posting a reply. The Blackbeard's Gold game is certified by the Lotteries and Gaming Commission of Malta and has been confirmed to function correctly. The game is designed to pay 243 ways, but not during a bonus round, which is why the payout was smaller than expected. We are continuing to investigate to ensure that the communication of pay lines and game rules within the game is clearer, to prevent confusion for our customers. We are committed to providing the best possible gaming experience to our players and have removed the game from InterCasino while our software provider improves the communication of the game payout tables. Thank you again for your feedback, we value your input and opinions.

Thank you

The InterCasino Team

 

[homerbert]

It took almost 3 weeks to remove this game. Yeah, you think about customers and do your job very fast...

 

[peezo13]

Hi all,

We would like to thank you for bringing this to our attention, your feedback is very important to us. We apologize for not responding sooner, we have been in communication with our game provider around this issue and wanted come to a resolution before posting a reply. The Blackbeard's Gold game is certified by the Lotteries and Gaming Commission of Malta and has been confirmed to function correctly. The game is designed to pay 243 ways, but not during a bonus round, which is why the payout was smaller than expected. We are continuing to investigate to ensure that the communication of pay lines and game rules within the game is clearer, to prevent confusion for our customers. We are committed to providing the best possible gaming experience to our players and have removed the game from InterCasino while our software provider improves the communication of the game payout tables. Thank you again for your feedback, we value your input and opinions.

Thank you

The InterCasino Team

What an absolute joke

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

Yeah shooting themselves in the foot here. 243 but not in bonus round......snip

 

[Slotster!]

Hi all,

We would like to thank you for bringing this to our attention, your feedback is very important to us. We apologize for not responding sooner, we have been in communication with our game provider around this issue and wanted come to a resolution before posting a reply. The Blackbeard's Gold game is certified by the Lotteries and Gaming Commission of Malta and has been confirmed to function correctly. The game is designed to pay 243 ways, but not during a bonus round, which is why the payout was smaller than expected. We are continuing to investigate to ensure that the communication of pay lines and game rules within the game is clearer, to prevent confusion for our customers. We are committed to providing the best possible gaming experience to our players and have removed the game from InterCasino while our software provider improves the communication of the game payout tables. Thank you again for your feedback, we value your input and opinions.

Thank you

The InterCasino Team

Thank you for the update.

As veterans of the online gaming scene - and graphic errors/issues aside - have you or any of your staff EVER come across a slot that ACTUALLY pays different lines that what is displayed on the screen and in the paytable?

I haven't.

That explanation, which I appreciate is from the software developer, is utterly absurd. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate this (in fact, only information to indicate the exact opposite).

I'm staggered that it's Intercasino we're talking about and not some dodgy rogue outfit firing out games from any old provider.

What a shame.

 

[quber]

I would say it is a 243 way slot even in the bonus round, when you spin the reels I believe it is 243 but when the wilds appear and expand that is the point that it stops being a 243 way game.

I have only tried it on demo mode and didn't get to the free spins so i am only going off what I've read in this thread but that is how it sounds to me.

The only game in the world where an expanding wild loses you money

 

[Dinahnana]

What I find absurd is this slot pays less in the bonus round then it would in the base game or am I wrong here? The whole point in playing a slot is to get to the bonus round but it seems that this slot penalizes you for that.

I have checked out a few of Amaya's games (think its the right software) and one game Gullivers Travel I think changes from a 25 line to a 40 line or a 243 way slot in the base game and that is marked clearly on the side. Who in their right mind would want to play a 243 way slot that is not 243 in the bonus game? I think at the very least all players who have wagered on this game (Blackbeard) believing that it was a 243 way slot should be compensated. That would only be fair.

 

[rshkrn]

Whether right or wrong payout info, fact is that this type of payout is totally against the norm - "243 line to 3 line when getting the stacked wilds in the bonus feature". , that's not just wrong design.... it's outright roguish

 

[Slotster!]

View attachment 45934

Check out the "Victory Feature" explanation. (Thanks Brianmon)

EXPANDING WILDS ARE ADDED.
FREE SPINS ARE PLAYED AT THE SAME CREDITS PER SPIN BET AS THE TRIGGERING GAME

Erm - no they're not - because the triggering bet gets you 243 lines - not 3.

There is no mention of lines being reduced - and IT SAYS 243 WAYS ON THE SLOT WHEN THE FEATURE IS PLAYING.

We are firmly in rogue territory...

 

[Slotster!]

I have checked out a few of Amaya's games (think its the right software) and one game Gullivers Travel .

Funny - Gullivers Travels is being proudly promoting as this week's "Game of the Week" at Intercasino - they just emailed me to make sure I check it out.

Didn't realise it was the same software provider. Will probably give it a miss - along with Intercasino completely from now on.

 

[Dinahnana]

Funny - Gullivers Travels is being proudly promoting as this week's "Game of the Week" at Intercasino - they just emailed me to make sure I check it out.

Didn't realise it was the same software provider. Will probably give it a miss - along with Intercasino completely from now on.

I believe the same software company created 300 shields. Maybe Blackbeard was a fluke?

 

[quber]

I believe the same software company created 300 shields. Maybe Blackbeard was a fluke?

300 shields was made by Next Gen and is available through Amaya and Microgaming, Blackbeards gold is also delivered by Amaya but i don't think it is by Next Gen as the loading screen and the button layout are different, Blackbeard has a spinning circle when loading, and most suppliers keep things the same Outdated URL (Invalid)

I could easily be wrong though

 

[AC7X]

I think the problem here, and the reason for the wishy-washy response from Intercasino, is that the exposure is too great. If the operator or software developers were to admit fault then they would be liable for players' losses on this slot and would have to either compensate potentially thousands of players or simply refuse to compensate affected players; neither of which are good outcomes for the non-player parties. It's a tremendous cock-up and coming clean about it is too expensive.

That's why I don't believe we'll see anything other than vague nonsense about the paytable being "unclear", and the slot operating as per its design.

 

[Slotster!]

That's why I don't believe we'll see anything other than vague nonsense about the paytable being "unclear", and the slot operating as per its design.

I just had a quick go on "Gulliver's Travels" (Free play obviously, they're not getting a penny out of me!)

The number of lines in play are VERY VERY Clear. Indicated down the right hand side in fact with a marker.

The reduced/increased lines are also indicated very clearly on the paytable.

That's not the case here, and the fact the casino can not just point at the slot and say "here's where you made a mistake", is frankly disgraceful. The slot might be operating as per it's design, but in that case, the design is clearly intended to be misleading at best and outright fraudulent at worst.

Please, everyone, make sure they are not allowed to brush this under the carpet.

I would be interested to know if this slot is live elsewhere.

As I said earlier, the more I think about this, the more I'm inclined to think it's an English Harbour-esque monumental f**k up. I.e - That IS what it is supposed to pay back for that outcome, but the display and information is totally misleading. I bet the back office were wondering why they were making so much edge on this bad boy -- no wonder they had it up there as 'featured slot'.

NO-ONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY IT PAYED SIMMO THREE LINES INSTEAD OF 243 WAYS - EXCEPT TO SAY "It's functioning correctly as per XYZ Gaming Authority"

Intercasino - other than quoting the supposed opinion/analysis of your governing body - why do you think this has performed this way? You are extremely experienced, previously trustworthy industry professionals - what gives?

Diabolical.

 

[Dinahnana]

I just had a quick go on "Gulliver's Travels" (Free play obviously, they're not getting a penny out of me!)

The number of lines in play are VERY VERY Clear. Indicated down the right hand side in fact with a marker.

The reduced/increased lines are also indicated very clearly on the paytable.

That's not the case here, and the fact the casino can not just point at the slot and say "here's where you made a mistake", is frankly disgraceful. The slot might be operating as per it's design, but in that case, the design is clearly intended to be misleading at best and outright fraudulent at worst.

Please, everyone, make sure they are not allowed to brush this under the carpet.

I would be interested to know if this slot is live elsewhere.

As I said earlier, the more I think about this, the more I'm inclined to think it's an English Harbour-esque monumental f**k up. I.e - That IS what it is supposed to pay back for that outcome, but the display and information is totally misleading. I bet the back office were wondering why they were making so much edge on this bad boy -- no wonder they had it up there as 'featured slot'.

NO-ONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY IT PAYED SIMMO THREE LINES INSTEAD OF 243 WAYS - EXCEPT TO SAY "It's functioning correctly as per XYZ Gaming Authority"

Intercasino - other than quoting the supposed opinion/analysis of your governing body - why do you think this has performed this way? You are extremely experienced, previously trustworthy industry professionals - what gives?

Diabolical.

That was my point. If they can make the paytable and rules of Gullivers Travels clear then why not Blackbeard. I think this mistake is very amateur on the part of the game developer. With all the people involved in the development of the game surely somebody must have said something? Players who have paid money to play this game should be compensated because in my opinion they were duped (not by the casino but the game developer).

Having said that I think the Intercasino should have spotted this before the game went live as surely they check out the games that they are going to be offering to players. I for one am glad that I have never played this game for real money.

 

[Jasminebed]

I would like Intercasino to provide us with the actual RTP of this slot since it's launch. If it's close to what the TRTP should be for a slot, I think we could agree that it is the paytable that is incorrectly explained. This does not mean to me that players should not be paid as per the paytable that played in the past however, the paytable should be adhered to as published IMO.

If the slot has not returned what might be reasonably expected across the casino, then the paytable is correct, and the slot has been underpaying, and player accounts should be reviewed and paid correctly.

I think the customer's contract is with Intercasino, and the casino is responsible for paying the game as published. If the slot design company is at fault, let Intercasino sue the game developer for their losses.

 

[Simmo!]

I would like Intercasino to provide us with the actual RTP of this slot since it's launch. If it's close to what the TRTP should be for a slot, I think we could agree that it is the paytable that is incorrectly explained. This does not mean to me that players should not be paid as per the paytable that played in the past however, the paytable should be adhered to as published IMO.

If the slot has not returned what might be reasonably expected across the casino, then the paytable is correct, and the slot has been underpaying, and player accounts should be reviewed and paid correctly.

I think the customer's contract is with Intercasino, and the casino is responsible for paying the game as published. If the slot design company is at fault, let Intercasino sue the game developer for their losses.

I am pretty sure it is paying according to it's RTP. I'd even hazard a guess that a slot's design is dependent on it's RTP.

But the RTP isn't published (afaik) and even it is is there is a crucial point: it has expanding wilds that don't pay out.

OK here's a parallel. I toss a coin, you bet $1 on Heads. You win! Woohoo! Here's your $1 back and your 25c winnings (because that's the RTP of my game). I'm pretty sure if you lodged a complaint to someone who could run as fast as me and had decent sized pecs that you would get your extra 75c.

 

[quber]

I am pretty sure it is paying according to it's RTP. I'd even hazard a guess that a slot's design is dependent on it's RTP.

I would say it is the other way round, it's RTP is dependent on it's design.

If i have a 3 reel 5 line slot with the normal fruits on it i can add a cherry to reel one to raise the RTP or remove a cherry from reel one to lower the RTP so by doing that I change the RTP by design, I can also change the payout of two cherries to to raise or lower the RTP. If it had a bonus round that was designed to play 5 lines but only played one line then the RTP would be drastically reduced.

 

[Slotster!]

I didn't realise Amaya were previously Chartwell. Looks like Intercasino are massively in bed with them -- their slots roster on the website is pretty much the same as the Intercasino home page.

That can go two ways I suppose. Either they'll be keen to come up with a decent explanation, or they'll bury their heads firmly in the sand until this thread goes away.

Place your bets!

Someone mentioned there's another thread on another site somewhere referencing this issue - anyone any ideas where that is?

 

[Dinahnana]

I didn't realise Amaya were previously Chartwell. Looks like Intercasino are massively in bed with them -- their slots roster on the website is pretty much the same as the Intercasino home page.

That can go two ways I suppose. Either they'll be keen to come up with a decent explanation, or they'll bury their heads firmly in the sand until this thread goes away.

Place your bets!

Someone mentioned there's another thread on another site somewhere referencing this issue - anyone any ideas where that is?

This site has a bad review of the slot

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Other sites reviewed the slot didn't mention the misleading bonus game. Hope this helps

 

[Slotster!]

This guy hits the bonus in question @ around 2 minutes in...

 

[Googobucs]

This guy hits the bonus in question @ around 2 minutes in...



Unless my math is really bad this early in the morning none of these pays on the bonus game make any sense that I can figure.
The first spin was 2 compasses with a full wild so that I 20 x 3 x 3 = 180 but it paid 300
I'm not going to attempt the second spin math.
the last spin was 5oak 10's with 3 full wilds so that is 100 x 27 x 3 = 5400 but it paid 1500

there is no way I can fudge the match to get those 2 figures on those 2 spins.

 

[byebyebaby]

This message was acually posted by me on my website a couple of weeks back.

I never played a game with such strange rules and paytables.

I also was supposed to be paid 27 times Jacks, 5-of-a-kind. Only got paid 1 5-of-a-kind.

There responds was it only paid out the highest payline? And the wild only counts for one symbol?
Very strange.

I always thought InterCasino was a very trusted online casino, being the oldest. But I guess I was wrong.

This site has a bad review of the slot

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Other sites reviewed the slot didn't mention the misleading bonus game. Hope this helps

 

[Mousey]

This message was acually posted by me on my website a couple of weeks back.

I never played a game with such strange rules and paytables.

I also was supposed to be paid 27 times Jacks, 5-of-a-kind. Only got paid 1 5-of-a-kind.

There responds was it only paid out the highest payline? And the wild only counts for one symbol?
Very strange.

I always thought InterCasino was a very trusted online casino, being the oldest. But I guess I was wrong.

Oh goody... a slot machine that requires a 20 page manual just to play....

 

[dunover]

This is mental. I watched the video, and the bonus round is clearly turning various reels wild in order make it more likely you'll get a SINGLE 5oak line during the spins. Clearly it's like getting 'a bye' through any reel with a stacked wild. This is utterly pointless considering you could have got a 10 or whatever anyway. Effectively with 3 reels wild you are playing a 9-WAY SLOT and not a 243-way slot.
Effectively 3 reels wild means the biggest win possible is 3 x 5-line wins IF the two spinning reels land with exactly the same 3 symbols on.

What a pile of crap.

 

[quber]

This is how the wins were worked out for the video above. load the game from here Outdated URL (Invalid)
Open the paytable and go to the payouts, put the number in the bottom left to 125, at a £0.05 coin this will give the £6.25 being spun.

On the first bonus round there is1 line of purple things @100 X3 multiplier =300

Second bonus spin 2xpirate lines @500 = 1000 X3 Multiplier =3,000
also 2 x 3 tens @25 =50 X3 Multiplier = 150

Total of 3,150 for second spin

Third bonus spin 1 line of tens @500 X3 multiplier =1500

So there it is all wilds pay once only.

The bottom of the paytable it states "All symbols pay once in any position on the reel, except substituted wins which may pay multiple times.

Due to the disclaimer at the bottom of all pages 'Malfunction voids all pays and plays' everyone should get back all monies spent on this game, nowhere does it say expanded wilds only pay once. Admittedly when it expands it is only one symbol and the machine sees it as one wild instead of a wild in each of the three positions but this is not stated and plenty of other machines use one symbol (Hitman Thunderfist etc.)and pay in each position so the expectation of the player is all 3 are wild.

Depending on the reels layouts with only one wild and the others all stacked it could be an 81 way if 4 reels all had the same symbol, with 2 wilds 27 ways and with 3 wilds a 9 way, as the paytable says you can have 4 wilds this would then be a 3 line game. The more wilds you have the less you win.

 

[Slotster!]

I always thought InterCasino was a very trusted online casino, being the oldest. But I guess I was wrong.

I can understand why they might not notice this error necessarily - and not realise that the game is flawed (either in the payouts or the paytable)

It's the subsequent complete lack of empathy and general brush off that's the issue once it has been brought to their attention.

Sure they removed the game (two weeks later after promoting it to 'featured') - but the terribly vague statement and complete lack of explanation is diabolical and. as you say, entirely the opposite of what you would expect from an outfit like Intercasino.

I reckon I've played there for well over a decade, on and off admittedly and nowhere near the £££££'s I used to put through the place - but never again.

Of course they won't miss my few quid every other month - but hopefully their actions in not resolving or even explaining this blatant error will cause them a much bigger hit in the pocket than just my account remaining dormant.

 

[ThePOGG]

Think everyone needs to take a deep breath here. Intercasino are a corporate entity and as such it will need to go up the hierarchy before things like the removal of a game will be sanctioned, hence the delay.

Intercasino were bought over by Amaya who used to be Chartwell a while back. They've since been bought again (I believe) by some of the people who were in charge of them when they were at the height of their exposure.

I haven't read all of this thread yet - it was actually brought to my attention by an Intercasino rep - but I can say that I've dealt with Intercasino on several issue; they're absolutely willing to listen to feedback and very good at actioning it. In fact they are easily one of the best groups to deal with when a complaint comes up, but you do have to show some patience. A game being pulled means that the issue is being investigated. The fact that the game's profile was raised before that happens simply means that one department wasn't in the loop and that the concern hadn't reached the right person to action it at that point - it's not a snub to players and thinking that way is a sure way of ensuring that no casino can ever live up to forum expectations.

 

[ThePOGG]

But the RTP isn't published (afaik) and even it is is there is a crucial point: it has expanding wilds that don't pay out.

Actually Intercasino have provided documentation on all their games for publication with our reviews. They don't yet publish it on their own site, which is something I've been meaning to raise, but you can find HE/RTP figures for all Intercasino slots here

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

Blackbeard's Gold specifically has an RTP range of 90.04-92.98%. Not what I'd call good figures, but not everyone pays as much attention to RTP figures when choosing slots games as I do.

 

[dusky]

Sorry but two weeks for a response is disgraceful for a matter like this, regardless of how nice they may be to you.

It's hard enough online with flawed games having no comeback to the customers (Betfred / Spielo / G2) and all the various other troubles in the industry that when something as serious as this is flagged up it should be dealt with straight away, instantly. Them having switched hands a few times doesn't negate this.

The further response of a brush off is even more disrespectful to their players (of which I am no longer one).

 

[ThePOGG]

Sorry but two weeks for a response is disgraceful for a matter like this, regardless of how nice they may be to you.

It's hard enough online with flawed games having no comeback to the customers (Betfred / Spielo / G2) and all the various other troubles in the industry that when something as serious as this is flagged up it should be dealt with straight away, instantly. Them having switched hands a few times doesn't negate this.

The further response of a brush off is even more disrespectful to their players (of which I am no longer one).

This isn't a card game performing outside of real probabilities, it's a slots game that's not been advertised clearly. I agree that the preferable strategy should be quick, but ignoring reality doesn't help the situation in any way. Of course a big company take time to respond. Frankly the VAST majority of player reports of cheating - even on reputable websites - are utter rubbish. I actually pursue investigations where I think there's grounds to, but I still have to turn away the majority of player reports of issues as baseless. As such the cries of wolf really make it difficult to hear the rare real issue.

The Spielo G2 issue was very very different and I was - and still am - one of the most vocal critics of how that situation was handled. It involved games with defined performance expectations operating out with those standards. A slots game that doesn't pay out quite as expected isn't the same at all. I agree that this issue needs looked at and I'm confident Intercasino will take the appropriate action, but drawing comparisons between a slots game that may not have paid out correctly (that's still to be totally established from what I've seen - though I still haven't read the full thread and am a few beers worse for wear right now) and card games where the probabilities do not match those which cards would naturally create is spurious at best. One was clearly defined long before any operator had to look at it where the other is being judged by the standards of other software providers. I'd agree that if there were differences in how the Amaya games operated to the way other providers offer the 243 pay games this should be clearly represented, but howling for operator blood at this stage just seems ridiculous. Over and above everything, this is an Amaya game not Intercasino. Like Betfred, they offer games from a provider based on the certificates the provider offers. If a fault exists it exists with the provider. It's a flawed system, but as I said time and time again with the Spielo G2 issue, it's how the entire industry operates so crucifying one casino for it is nonsensical.

Yes the situation requires looked at and should obviously be treated seriously, but statements questioning the reputation of an otherwise very reputable group because of a two week delay shows a lack of understanding of how the industry works and are far from helpful, only serving to drive operators off the boards when these situations arise. Ultimately nothing they can say while the investigation's ongoing can suffice and anything they do say gets ripped to shreds. And I say that acknowledging the mistakes I've made in the past.

Smaller groups where the owner is directly involve can react very quickly (I'd give BETAT as a fantastic example), but expecting instant response from a more corporate entity is simply an unrealistic expectation and if that's what you're looking for you won't find it from any medium to large sized casino (and most of the small ones won't understand/care enough to give you what you want). Even BETAT would have to communicate with their software provider after conducting their own investigation, which leads to delays out with their control.

Bottom line is that this needs to be kept in perspective.

 

[Simmo!]

I concur that this to me is a developer issue, not a casino issue. More than one casino has this game and it has been authorised by the regulator and certified. The game is behaving as would be expected but what has been missed is that the game design is flawed.

To me, that is perfectly understandable and personally I don't expect every operator to check every game that is given to them (TST, aggregators and regulators are there to do that for them) and even if they did, I suspect that this design flaw would have only been spotted by an experienced player anyway.

I think this is a very unusual case because it is not a game error. So I can see why my initial report was rejected: after all, they must get a lot of players moaning about how a slot is rigged In fact it was so odd, that's why I came to you guys with it first because even I wasn't sure what I was seeing was true.

Then there was the 243 ways thing which Dunover pointed out is not the same as 243 lines just to confuse things

The bottom line is that Intercasino have removed the game and I am told are awaiting a comment from the developers. Until we have that, Intercasino won't know how to act and nor will the other casinos with the game plus anything beyond what we know is speculative right now.

 

[maphesto]

Until we have that, Intercasino won't know how to act and nor will the other casinos with the game plus anything beyond what we know is speculative right now.

Are other casinos with this game aware of the situation? How many casinos have this game?

 

[tryme]

Are other casinos with this game aware of the situation? How many casinos have this game?

I don't know exactly how many casinos have this - it's not many. In fact, I can only think of MyBet and DoxxBet that currently offer it.

 

[Dinahnana]

Looks like Ultimate Gaming New Jersey will be getting Amaya's games. Lets hope they don't use Blackbeards Gold.

Old / Expired Link

 

[maphesto]

This isn't a card game performing outside of real probabilities, it's a slots game that's not been advertised clearly.

I think you have to read this thread carefully and really understand how the game works, then you see that it's not about how the game is advertised that is the real problem. You have the skill and knowledge and you will think exactly as Simmo! when you have read it through:

The game is behaving as would be expected but what has been missed is that the game design is flawed.

I feel sorry for those casinos who have this game and don't understand the problem.

 

[ThePOGG]

I think you have to read this thread carefully and really understand how the game works, then you see that it's not about how the game is advertised that is the real problem. You have the skill and knowledge and you will think exactly as Simmo! when you have read it through.

Agreed, though I'm confident that I have a fair idea of what I'm going to find when I read through the whole thing later today. But overall that wasn't really the point of my posts - I wasn't trying to pass comment on the technicalities of the issue but rather trying to say that over-reacting and lashing out at the casino a potential error was found at wasn't the best way to approach this situation.

 

[rshkrn]

To me, that is perfectly understandable and personally I don't expect every operator to check every game that is given to them (TST, aggregators and regulators are there to do that for them) and even if they did, I suspect that this design flaw would have only been spotted by an experienced player anyway.

Don't entirely agree with this,one of the many things the operator should do (or even the least) is to verify the game against such basic flaws rather than just throw them open to the public and start earning $$$....it's like someone giving you a great eal on a ferrari but hiding the fact that it has only a 3 liter tank....you'd be mad at the the maker AND the salesman!!!

 

[ThePOGG]

Don't entirely agree with this,one of the many things the operator should do (or even the least) is to verify the game against such basic flaws rather than just throw them open to the public and start earning $$$....it's like someone giving you a great eal on a ferrari but hiding the fact that it has only a 3 liter tank....you'd be mad at the the maker AND the salesman!!!

That analogy doesn't work - the salesman would presumably be aware of the issue and intentionally obscuring it from the customer whereas the casino weren't aware of the issue, so no misrepresentation took part on their part. Unless we're saying the salesman didn't know about the small tank.

If we want to stipulate that every casino should test every game they offer - btw testing likely wouldn't pick up this kind of error as it's simply generating a large sample size of play to see if the results are falling within expected parameters - then you're talking about a massive money sink hole for every casino which would directly impact on the promotional budgets that they have available to offer you bonuses.

Even in the offline sector this doesn't happen. Every casino having to run their own tests on every gaming machine they add to their floor would create a massive workload and huge duplication of work that could be performed by a centralised agency/company. I have a lot of problems with the industry's approach to testing, but I don't think requiring each casino to do their own testing's a good way forward.

 

[rshkrn]

That analogy doesn't work - the salesman would presumably be aware of the issue and intentionally obscuring it from the customer whereas the casino weren't aware of the issue, so no misrepresentation took part on their part. Unless we're saying the salesman didn't know about the small tank.

Looks like you are quite sure or believe that no one in Intercasino knew about this feature payout, but I highly doubt that or definitely do not believe it, hence the analogy....

 

[ThePOGG]

Looks like you are quite sure or believe that no one in Intercasino knew about this feature payout, but I highly doubt that or definitely do not believe it, hence the analogy....

There's no logical reason to believe that anyone at Intercasino had any reason to think there was anything wrong with this game. Where's the incentive? A slots game can to all intents and purposes be set up to return whatever the designer wishes it to return. Unlike other casino games there's not a physical representations to which the games have to conform. As such there's no reason to use intentionally misleading features that have the potential to create negative publicity to generate extra revenue. The game designer can simply change the payouts or the frequency of occurrence of certain symbols to tailor the game to the profit they want to make.

 

[rshkrn]

There's no logical reason to believe that anyone at Intercasino had any reason to think there was anything wrong with this game. Where's the incentive? A slots game can to all intents and purposes be set up to return whatever the designer wishes it to return. Unlike other casino games there's not a physical representations to which the games have to conform. As such there's no reason to use intentionally misleading features that have the potential to create negative publicity to generate extra revenue. The game designer can simply change the payouts or the frequency of occurrence of certain symbols to tailor the game to the profit they want to make.

When IR came out on 32red and for quite some time the max win showing in the game was equal to the 5 wild reels (WD win) and max was 6$ a spin, sometime ago they changed the max to 30$ per spin and so did the display for winning the max amount. Even if the game design doesn't show it, casinos are always aware of the max $$ hit a slot can have including during features.

I really want to believe that it was unintentional just like you say cos intercasino is very reputable (even after the new ownership)...just feel that someone in the operating casino pretty much knows the games and features in and out.

FWIW this particular slot could easily be a case of "Let a player get lucky and hit 3 wilds and realize this feature is designed so shitty.....we'll deal with it then!"........

 

[Simmo!]

Are other casinos with this game aware of the situation? How many casinos have this game?

I know the casino manager at MyBet so I will drop her a line this morning just so she is aware of this thread.

Looks like you are quite sure or believe that no one in Intercasino knew about this feature payout, but I highly doubt that or definitely do not believe it, hence the analogy....

Nah... there is absolutely no way Intercasino were aware of this IMO. Not least because they literally just changed hands and the new owners would not have had a clue.

 

[rockycatt]

we don't want to beat the horse else we pull the wagon ourselves

 

[dunover]

Irrespective of false or misleading paytables and game information, the designer of this game should be confined to a padded cell.

Simmo! plays it and spots that the 'bonus' round is actually a handicap which REDUCES the way-variations but increases the chances of a single way.

It's like the classic comedy scenario of the tree surgeon sitting on the branch and cutting between himself and the tree....

Maybe in Amiya world April Fools day comes early.

 

[Blathaon]

After reading this thread and being curious i actually went over to Intercasino last week to try this messed up thing out for myself in real play

The feature itself pays pretty good even though it doesn't pay 243 ways, but it doesn't make any sense to put a feature like this into a 243 way slot.

They either have to make it be one guaranteed wild reel like Girls with Guns or it could be like the Wild night feature in playboy. Maybe it could distribute single wilds instead, as it stands now it is so incredible illogical.
To me it seems like it was shoehorned in, maybe this was the idea of the lead guy and he insisted on having it in the slot, and the math guys had to gimp it to make it conform to the TRTP.

I suppose the slot pays correctly in terms of TRTP but it's clearly misleading and nowhere in the rules does it say that you don't get paid 243 ways in the Victory feature, when you play the feature a few times it becomes pretty obvious that there is no way in hell that it could pay 243 ways with all those wilds flying around. IMO it has to be redesigned because even if they explained it properly it still doesn't make any sense to have a "bonus feature" in a 243 way slot that isn't 243 ways.

Anyway here is a video of a few features.

 

[Slotster!]

but statements questioning the reputation of an otherwise very reputable group because of a two week delay shows a lack of understanding of how the industry works and are far from helpful, only serving to drive operators off the boards when these situations arise. Ultimately nothing they can say while the investigation's ongoing can suffice and anything they do say gets ripped to shreds. And I say that acknowledging the mistakes I've made in the past.

Smaller groups where the owner is directly involve can react very quickly (I'd give BETAT as a fantastic example), but expecting instant response from a more corporate entity is simply an unrealistic expectation and if that's what you're looking for you won't find it from any medium to large sized casino (and most of the small ones won't understand/care enough to give you what you want). Even BETAT would have to communicate with their software provider after conducting their own investigation, which leads to delays out with their control.

Bottom line is that this needs to be kept in perspective.

No, I'm sorry, I'm not having that.

And this issue is being kept in perfect perspective.

Intercasino are far from a "corporate entity" and if you want to talk about "far from helpful" - how about completely refusing to engage with the community here whilst investigating - and in fact promoting the slot to the homepage "featured" in the meantime.

Communicating with the software provider is one thing - absolving themselves of all blame because the regulatory body says it is OK is another - whilst still not being able to offer any sort of insight or opinion from their years of experience in the industry.

We are not idiots. No one buys the "corporate" or procedural BS in this day in age.

Of course any sort of in-depth investigation takes time (if in fact that's what is happening) - but that's completely missing the point. More is expected from previously trustworthy, accredited casinos.

And rightly so.