Ask me anything (about slots)!

[Masquerade67]

My bad assumption. IT is very devolved now. I based my comments upon your videos TBH and your Python example. Maybe a boring corporate-style one about the management surrounding the evolution and operation of slots ??

No - just kidding. I enjoy the raw analysis and facts from Trance and yourself. Thank you

 

[4048]

TranceMonkey, the game Pirate's Plenty from Red Tiger boasts 96% RTP, but includes a feature where you unlock multiplying stacked wilds and a sixth reel after aprox 2-300 spins.

Is it legal/possible that the RTP for the first few hundred spins are significantly lower, since the billions of test spins are made on the six-reel game, basically nullifying the first few hundred spins?

Say it is 80-90% for 200 spins then it's 96.01% after unlocking reel 6, after a few billion spins it would be closer to 96% I imagine, but most players might never unlock reel 6 at all.

How is a game like this even tested? Do they test a few billion on both the 5 reel game and the 6 reel game?

 

[trancemonkey]

TranceMonkey, the game Pirate's Plenty from Red Tiger boasts 96% RTP, but includes a feature where you unlock multiplying stacked wilds and a sixth reel after aprox 2-300 spins.

Is it legal/possible that the RTP for the first few hundred spins are significantly lower, since the billions of test spins are made on the six-reel game, basically nullifying the first few hundred spins?

Say it is 80-90% for 200 spins then it's 96.01% after unlocking reel 6, after a few billion spins it would be closer to 96% I imagine, but most players might never unlock reel 6 at all.

How is a game like this even tested? Do they test a few billion on both the 5 reel game and the 6 reel game?

That's an interesting question... my understanding is that it must run at 96% regardless. I.e the aiming percentage must be the same before and after the unlock, unless otherwise stated in the help screens

 

[4048]

That's an interesting question... my understanding is that it must run at 96% regardless. I.e the aiming percentage must be the same before and after the unlock, unless otherwise stated in the help screens

This tells me that the game looks gimped in 5 reel mode by having extra useless symbols and not offering multiplying wild reels and 6oaks, but actually is gimped in 6 reel mode because even with all the extra features it actually plays worse to compensate.

Let's say the game is far higher variance with the sixth reel unlocked, why would a provider give a game to a player that changes math model completely with no way to return it to the original after a few hundred spins?

 

[The Reel Story]

This tells me that the game looks gimped in 5 reel mode by having extra useless symbols and not offering multiplying wild reels and 6oaks, but actually is gimped in 6 reel mode because even with all the extra features it actually plays worse to compensate.

Let's say the game is far higher variance with the sixth reel unlocked, why would a provider give a game to a player that changes math model completely with no way to return it to the original after a few hundred spins?

I think it would be the opposite. 5 reels would have the lower rtp with 6th reel being slightly higher than 96%. So you wouldn't ever want it to go back. Also, it only takes a few hundred spins to unlock that last reel, pre unlock will have much leas effect on the rtp than post unlock. This could theoretically mean that 5 reels has a really low rtp (70 percent) and 6 reels has only slightly higher (96.5 or something) as the 500 spins at 5 reels is offset by the 5 million at 6 reels when simulating for rtp.

It's an interesting mechanic and I'd guess it is designed to take advantage of the fact that most players only play a game for a few hundred spins and then move on. In this case, you'd rinse a much higher return off those players and not really lose much more off those players who keep playing.

I'd love to see the launch stats of the game actually.

 

[trancemonkey]

I think it would be the opposite. 5 reels would have the lower rtp with 6th reel being slightly higher than 96%. So you wouldn't ever want it to go back. Also, it only takes a few hundred spins to unlock that last reel, pre unlock will have much leas effect on the rtp than post unlock. This could theoretically mean that 5 reels has a really low rtp (70 percent) and 6 reels has only slightly higher (96.5 or something) as the 500 spins at 5 reels is offset by the 5 million at 6 reels when simulating for rtp.

It's an interesting mechanic and I'd guess it is designed to take advantage of the fact that most players only play a game for a few hundred spins and then move on. In this case, you'd rinse a much higher return off those players and not really lose much more off those players who keep playing.

I'd love to see the launch stats of the game actually.

Which would, in theory, be illegal...
It is a grey area, but not one I particularly like.
Also why in hell would you make the most important session (your first) much more likely to be shit by having a 70% game. It makes no logical sense

 

[The Reel Story]

Which would, in theory, be illegal...
It is a grey area, but not one I particularly like.
Also why in hell would you make the most important session (your first) much more likely to be shit by having a 70% game. It makes no logical sense

Because of the high turnover of players. I know a couple of people who run game studios (smaller ones though) who are increasingly of the opinion that making low rtp games en masse, designed to rinse players early while the game is being promoted and then drop in to obscurity once it falls off the front page. Games do (or did) make most of their money in the first month after all.

Interesting that it would be illegal though. What part of the regulation would it breach? (i don't know it well enough anymore)

 

[trancemonkey]

Because of the high turnover of players. I know a couple of people who run game studios (smaller ones though) who are increasingly of the opinion that making low rtp games en masse, designed to rinse players early while the game is being promoted and then drop in to obscurity once it falls off the front page. Games do (or did) make most of their money in the first month after all.

Interesting that it would be illegal though. What part of the regulation would it breach? (i don't know it well enough anymore)

It depends on your testing methods, but also remember that casinos must monitor the RTP of games and report games that run under target to the UKGC. Of course for individual players RTP can be wildly off, but en masse it shouldn't be...

So a game running at 70% for the first 300 games should, in theory, trigger that. Because everyone would get that RTP. And you would then need a lot of people to carry on playing to get that back up.

And even if it wasn't strictly illegal, it would absolutely draw the ire of the UKGC. I hope the people you know don't do it, although I undertand the reasons for considering it.

I know WH, in retail, ask for RTP to be proved not only over long sessions but also over short ones. For example, you run 1 session of 10m games and check the RTP. Then you run 1m sessions of 10 games. The RTP should be the same... but in your example it would be miles off.

I don't know if online providers do this, but the moment one company gets caught doing what you are saying (and either UKGC, GLI or the more reputable casinos may well find this and report it), some people are getting huge fines.

There is no way that is "within the spirit of the Act"

 

[4048]

I think it would be the opposite. 5 reels would have the lower rtp with 6th reel being slightly higher than 96%. So you wouldn't ever want it to go back. Also, it only takes a few hundred spins to unlock that last reel, pre unlock will have much leas effect on the rtp than post unlock. This could theoretically mean that 5 reels has a really low rtp (70 percent) and 6 reels has only slightly higher (96.5 or something) as the 500 spins at 5 reels is offset by the 5 million at 6 reels when simulating for rtp.

It's an interesting mechanic and I'd guess it is designed to take advantage of the fact that most players only play a game for a few hundred spins and then move on. In this case, you'd rinse a much higher return off those players and not really lose much more off those players who keep playing.

I'd love to see the launch stats of the game actually.

That was my original post, this one was the reply to TranceMonkey saying both 5 and 6 reels would need to have identical RTP

 

[The Reel Story]

It depends on your testing methods, but also remember that casinos must monitor the RTP of games and report games that run under target to the UKGC. Of course for individual players RTP can be wildly off, but en masse it shouldn't be...

So a game running at 70% for the first 300 games should, in theory, trigger that. Because everyone would get that RTP. And you would then need a lot of people to carry on playing to get that back up.

And even if it wasn't strictly illegal, it would absolutely draw the ire of the UKGC. I hope the people you know don't do it, although I undertand the reasons for considering it.

I know WH, in retail, ask for RTP to be proved not only over long sessions but also over short ones. For example, you run 1 session of 10m games and check the RTP. Then you run 1m sessions of 10 games. The RTP should be the same... but in your example it would be miles off.

I don't know if online providers do this, but the moment one company gets caught doing what you are saying (and either UKGC, GLI or the more reputable casinos may well find this and report it), some people are getting huge fines.

There is no way that is "within the spirit of the Act"

That's a good point. I hadn't considered the fact of continual reporting of RTP. Unless they calculated it exactly to sit within the Margin of Error, it'd throw a red flag.

The people i know aren't talking about having a changing rtp. Just literally making lots of rubbish 90% rtp games in order to maximise short term profit. They haven't done so yet (to my knowledge).

 

[The Reel Story]

That was my original post, this one was the reply to TranceMonkey saying both 5 and 6 reels would need to have identical RTP

Sorry, yes. I missread.

Maybe a psychological thing. Players will think the game has improved whereas it hasn't (but as you say, maybe variance has changed) and so they see the unlocking as an 'investment' and therefore want to continue. Also those first few hundred spins at a low variance may get players hooked (as they get some wins) whereas some players get turned off high variance games early as they lose too much too quickly?

 

[CasinoNinja]

Which would, in theory, be illegal...
It is a grey area, but not one I particularly like.
Also why in hell would you make the most important session (your first) much more likely to be shit by having a 70% game. It makes no logical sense

Like... Cleopatra Plus? (and the the other "level" up slots from IGT?

 

[trancemonkey]

Like... Cleopatra Plus? (and the the other "level" up slots from IGT?

The difference in RTP was negligible and also stated in the rules screens (I hope!)

 

[4048]

snip



I know WH, in retail, ask for RTP to be proved not only over long sessions but also over short ones. For example, you run 1 session of 10m games and check the RTP. Then you run 1m sessions of 10 games. The RTP should be the same... but in your example it would be miles off.

snip

Never heard of or considered this but to me that sounds like something every licensee should be doing. Would shatter games that build up bonus though. Reading "This game has a lifetime RTP of 96.4%, and an RTP of 63.5% over 10 spins" in the help file would probably turn off a few players.

 

[VismundCygnus]

That's a good point. I hadn't considered the fact of continual reporting of RTP. Unless they calculated it exactly to sit within the Margin of Error, it'd throw a red flag.

The people i know aren't talking about having a changing rtp. Just literally making lots of rubbish 90% rtp games in order to maximise short term profit. They haven't done so yet (to my knowledge).

Whether this would work or not depends a lot on the casino. Some casinos (ie the good ones) wont take a <95% RTP game, unless there is some really good reason to. This is because they want players to have a decent amount of fun for the money the first they come in, to increase the chance of them coming back. Then there are others, often sportsbooks like bet365, that try to push as much low RTP crap as they can, and wont take on certain providers cus the RTP is too high.

 

[firsly]

Hello, I have a question. I've been recently searching for some profit and found this article Outdated URL (Invalid)[/URL]. So, my question is which slots are really profitable from your point of view and if it is reasonable to find such information anywhere excepting casinomeister?

 

[dunover]

Hello, I have a question. I've been recently searching for some profit and found this article Outdated URL (Invalid)[/URL]. So, my question is which slots are really profitable from your point of view and if it is reasonable to find such information anywhere excepting casinomeister?

LOL...this tosser was just banned by Bryan under the name 'Erika' or something....

 

[trancemonkey]

Hello, I have a question. I've been recently searching for some profit and found this article Outdated URL (Invalid)[/URL]. So, my question is which slots are really profitable from your point of view and if it is reasonable to find such information anywhere excepting casinomeister?

Try those at spammingcasinobastards.com

 

[BeardyGuts]

The new rhino mega ways game seems to have an inordinate amount of teases before bonusing. By teases I mean 3 diamonds in the reels.

Magic mirror is similar where you get 2 with that 1 scatter on the reel above many times.

How does that sit within the rules? I can say from a player perspective the amount of times I plan to leave at a set balance then the above happens I will keep on playing... I have no willpower....

Similarly what’s the the thoughts on the bonus buys plague? Do you think they will step in on that? It’s a disaster extra chilli can’t say the amount of times I have lost a fortune.

 

[trancemonkey]

The new rhino mega ways game seems to have an inordinate amount of teases before bonusing. By teases I mean 3 diamonds in the reels.

Magic mirror is similar where you get 2 with that 1 scatter on the reel above many times.

How does that sit within the rules? I can say from a player perspective the amount of times I plan to leave at a set balance then the above happens I will keep on playing... I have no willpower....

Similarly what’s the the thoughts on the bonus buys plague? Do you think they will step in on that? It’s a disaster extra chilli can’t say the amount of times I have lost a fortune.

With regards to teases... there are some jurisdictions with rules, but to be honest, normally players decide with their wallets... if you tease too often, then players will get annoyed. If you dont tease often enough, players get bored... so a balance is important.

Raging Rhino is without doubt one of the worst games I've ever played in terms of game design and maths. Sure it has some big wins, but it is just shockingly bad.

In terms of buying a bonus - I would personally like to see that situations where you can buy a bonus and then gamble and lose everything be removed. Whether this will be through legislation of players avoiding them, I don't know - again no one is forced to gamble.

I have no real issue with buy a bonus... no one is forced to use it.

 

[BeardyGuts]

With regards to teases... there are some jurisdictions with rules, but to be honest, normally players decide with their wallets... if you tease too often, then players will get annoyed. If you dont tease often enough, players get bored... so a balance is important.

Raging Rhino is without doubt one of the worst games I've ever played in terms of game design and maths. Sure it has some big wins, but it is just shockingly bad.

In terms of buying a bonus - I would personally like to see that situations where you can buy a bonus and then gamble and lose everything be removed. Whether this will be through legislation of players avoiding them, I don't know - again no one is forced to gamble.

I have no real issue with buy a bonus... no one is forced to use it.

Thanks for the reply.

Agree no-one is forced i just feel with the bonus buys people are far more likely to gamble higher than they would normally feel comfortable. I reckon far more players are willing to chuck £100 on a bonus buy than they would 10x £10 spins. And that doesnt help those problem gamblers.... probably like myself. I will start a game eg extra chilli with the best intentions but if the bonus doesnt land in 100+ spins feel compelled to buy. Then gamble and that insta loss is a sickener. The ability to chase the loss is so much easier in a way since you can just buy the bonus again rather than load up another 100 spins and wait.

 

[trancemonkey]

Thanks for the reply.

Agree no-one is forced i just feel with the bonus buys people are far more likely to gamble higher than they would normally feel comfortable. I reckon far more players are willing to chuck £100 on a bonus buy than they would 10x £10 spins. And that doesnt help those problem gamblers.... probably like myself. I will start a game eg extra chilli with the best intentions but if the bonus doesnt land in 100+ spins feel compelled to buy. Then gamble and that insta loss is a sickener. The ability to chase the loss is so much easier in a way since you can just buy the bonus again rather than load up another 100 spins and wait.

I agree, and I have been vocal in my dislike for them. But the trend for them is clear... so if I try one in one of my games I'm going to trysomething a bit different with it and see what happens...

 

[joerdj]

We know that BTG slots do a rng call for every spin in the bonus. Does that mean that if a trigger a bonus and play 1 spin of that bonus for every hour/day , the result will be totally different than when I played them all back to back?

 

[Kroffe]

We know that BTG slots do a rng call for every spin in the bonus. Does that mean that if a trigger a bonus and play 1 spin of that bonus for every hour/day , the result will be totally different than when I played them all back to back?

Im no trancemonkey, but i think your first sentence answers your question.
If they indeed do a rng call for every spin, then waiting a bit between each spin would produce a different result than if you played them all back to back.

 

[joerdj]

Yeah that is what I was thinking , but that feels off for some reason. Cause then you have (a feeling) there is some control in the sense ; " I don't like the rng today, maybe tomorrow "

 

[dionysus]

Yeah that is what I was thinking , but that feels off for some reason

as I understaand it, there's slots that grab the FS in bundles (en masse) and ones that grab each independently

if the machine is legit, it shouldnt really matter a whit when it grabs them from the pool if its A or B

 

[joerdj]

Yeah it's probably a stupid question

 

[dionysus]

Yeah it's probably a stupid question

no such beast
there's always new players reading in

 

[joerdj]

I was thinking about a hypothetical situation that the current date and time had something to do with the rng call made, and so you could "influnce" the result ( like old Novo cabinets that worked on a rng loop)

Edit : it was aristocrat cabinets who where targeted

Edit2: also novomatic cabinets

 

[dionysus]

I was thinking about a hypothetical situation that the current date and time had something to do with the rng call made, and so you could "influnce" the result ( like old Novo cabinets that worked on a rng loop)

nah
if they were a trick, someone would have sussed it and have made hand over fist moolah

random be random be random

 

[Kroffe]

What does the regulations say about for example the claims thunderkick slots are making.
Midas golden touch claims you can win over 11000x (i think it was 11000)
And Carnival queen says you can win over 22 000x stake. But despite millions and millions of spins during the videoslots freerolls, i have never seen either of those games ever pay out even 1500x stake.

Is it legal to make those kind of claims even if the slots just in theory can produce those results, or do they actually have to implement bonuses with those kind of wins to be allowed to make those claims?

Same with the "infinite retriggers" and "infinite multiplier" thats all the rage now.
Inifinite my ass.. By now we would have heard about someone being stuck in a bonus a couple months due to these infinite retriggers i think.

 

[joerdj]

What does the regulations say about for example the claims thunderkick slots are making.
Midas golden touch claims you can win over 11000x (i think it was 11000)
And Carnival queen says you can win over 22 000x stake. But despite millions and millions of spins during the videoslots freerolls, i have never seen either of those games ever pay out even 1500x stake.

Is it legal to make those kind of claims even if the slots just in theory can produce those results, or do they actually have to implement bonuses with those kind of wins to be allowed to make those claims?

Same with the "infinite retriggers" and "infinite multiplier" thats all the rage now.
Inifinite my ass.. By now we would have heard about someone being stuck in a bonus a couple months due to these infinite retriggers i think.

I think these claims are all true, just the probability is really really really really small. If let's say in book of dead in the bonus getting a retrigger has a 1 % chance . Then the chance of 10 retriggers = 0.01*0.01....*0.01= really small

 

[Kroffe]

I think these claims are all true, just the probability is really really really really small. If let's say in book of dead in the bonus getting a retrigger has a 1 % chance . Then the chance of 10 retriggers = 0.01*0.01....*0.01= really small

But

I think these claims are all true, just the probability is really really really really small. If let's say in book of dead in the bonus getting a retrigger has a 1 % chance . Then the chance of 10 retriggers = 0.01*0.01....*0.01= really small

Yeah, but still. We are talking several millions of spins.
You would think carnival queen would produce atleast a 2000x win during one of all the battles, and thats still only 10% of the potential they claim.
Maybe it will happen someday. =)

edit: Doublequoted for some reason.

 

[joerdj]

Well there is a chance it will happen, but this is not a guarantee that it will. The probability is probably so small that I might not happen in 100.000.000000 spins, but it still can

 

[Siohmy]

Mmm, whilst I rarely look at a maximum JP as being realistic I would be a little concerned if a slot as mentioned above, does not even seem to get within 10% of the claim. We all know true jackpots are a likely as rocking horse poo but when manufacturers claim a slot "can" pay out an amount which would mean something like 10 full screens of top symbol in a free spins bonus then that is pretty much misleading in the extreme. You could make some very attractive claims based on an almost infinitesimally unlikely event and back it up because "it's possible, the maths say so".

Main culprits I guess are BTG and the unlimited multiplier, although not the only one using this now. Microgaming make some pretty impressive claims as well. GoT 243 ways claims win up to £121,000. I think my maths is correct but a full screen of wilds in the 5x free games pays £60,750 @ £3 which is the max stake at Leo Vegas. I know you can get re-triggers and minimum of 8 spins but when the most unlikely (has it ever been done in free spins?) full screen of wilds only barely makes 50% of this then that is a pretty flakey claim. Would love to know what the max x times win GoT has achieved.

I guess, when all is said and done, it is not really much different to staggeringly unlikely progressives. Was there not a slot in Vegas a short while back which finally paid its progressive after something like 20 odd years?

 

[joerdj]

But if the odds are there it's not misleading imo , just highly unlikely

 

[brianmon]

Main culprits I guess are BTG and the unlimited multiplier, although not the only one using this now. Microgaming make some pretty impressive claims as well. GoT 243 ways claims win up to £121,000. I think my maths is correct but a full screen of wilds in the 5x free games pays £60,750 @ £3 which is the max stake at Leo Vegas. I know you can get re-triggers and minimum of 8 spins but when the most unlikely (has it ever been done in free spins?) full screen of wilds only barely makes 50% of this then that is a pretty flakey claim. Would love to know what the max x times win GoT has achieved.

MGS always quote the max win at the max stake. Max stake on GOT is £30 and the max win would be £607,500.
Although it's odd that they quote the max as £605,000.
The max win quoted is part of the graphics of the paytable, and fixed. Unlike the wins in the paytable which are dynamic, so change, based on stake.
But at least it is possible, from a specific combination of symbols from one spin during the free spins, rather than the claim being based on re-triggers or multiple big wins, etc
Maybe LV are limiting the stake. Have you tried changing the coin size (click on the word bet, above the stake display)

 

[trancemonkey]

I was thinking about a hypothetical situation that the current date and time had something to do with the rng call made, and so you could "influnce" the result ( like old Novo cabinets that worked on a rng loop)

Edit : it was aristocrat cabinets who where targeted

Edit2: also novomatic cabinets

They were badly coded RNGs that Russians managed to hack.

And to answer your question, yes you would get different results. But it makes no statistical difference at all.

 

[joerdj]

And to answer your question, yes you would get different results. But it makes no statistical difference at all.

It was pretty much what I was thinking. Found it funny to think about, indeed it would not make any statistical difference.

 

[trancemonkey]

Mmm, whilst I rarely look at a maximum JP as being realistic I would be a little concerned if a slot as mentioned above, does not even seem to get within 10% of the claim. We all know true jackpots are a likely as rocking horse poo but when manufacturers claim a slot "can" pay out an amount which would mean something like 10 full screens of top symbol in a free spins bonus then that is pretty much misleading in the extreme. You could make some very attractive claims based on an almost infinitesimally unlikely event and back it up because "it's possible, the maths say so".

Main culprits I guess are BTG and the unlimited multiplier, although not the only one using this now. Microgaming make some pretty impressive claims as well. GoT 243 ways claims win up to £121,000. I think my maths is correct but a full screen of wilds in the 5x free games pays £60,750 @ £3 which is the max stake at Leo Vegas. I know you can get re-triggers and minimum of 8 spins but when the most unlikely (has it ever been done in free spins?) full screen of wilds only barely makes 50% of this then that is a pretty flakey claim. Would love to know what the max x times win GoT has achieved.

I guess, when all is said and done, it is not really much different to staggeringly unlikely progressives. Was there not a slot in Vegas a short while back which finally paid its progressive after something like 20 odd years?

In theory, Bonanza is unlimited multiplier, unlimited free spins. As long as a reteigger is available on every spin, and a win is possible on every spin, then it is a true claim. Remember, as mentioned elsewhere here, just because something is POSSIBLE does not mean it is likely. A one in a trillion chance is possible, it is just very very unlikely.

That said, some jurisdictions have rules about what you are allowed to say when it comes to maximum prizes. For example, if I advertise a maximum win, then the chance of that in some jurisdictions cannot be worse than 1 in 17m. (This is not including some progressives).

 

[Smithyy]

Hey Trance, I've got a question.

I've noticed that NetEnt's Spinata Grande and Blueprint's El Jackpotto share many of the same sound effects. Like, the music is identical.

Would this mean they're just sourcing this music from the same libraries? Seems strange though as I thought most developers would want unique music and sound effects

 

[trancemonkey]

Hey Trance, I've got a question.

I've noticed that NetEnt's Spinata Grande and Blueprint's El Jackpotto share many of the same sound effects. Like, the music is identical.

Would this mean they're just sourcing this music from the same libraries? Seems strange though as I thought most developers would want unique music and sound effects

Check out unippm.com - that is a great source of sounds, amongst quite a few sound libraries. Some smaller companies almost certainly source music from libraries.

Sound FX are almost all from libraries, whereas tunes are more commonly written from scratch.

I admit I am surprised if they have both used the same music...

 

[goatwack]

In theory, Bonanza is unlimited multiplier, unlimited free spins. As long as a reteigger is available on every spin, and a win is possible on every spin, then it is a true claim. Remember, as mentioned elsewhere here, just because something is POSSIBLE does not mean it is likely. A one in a trillion chance is possible, it is just very very unlikely.

That said, some jurisdictions have rules about what you are allowed to say when it comes to maximum prizes. For example, if I advertise a maximum win, then the chance of that in some jurisdictions cannot be worse than 1 in 17m. (This is not including some progressives).

What have I told you about Class-C drugs Trance

 

[trancemonkey]

What have I told you about Class-C drugs Trance

Well, you said try Class A as Class Cs are boring...

 

[BosjeR]

Blueprint also uses Quickspin FX from Wild Chase in titles with the same feature.

 

[joerdj]

There was another slots that used the Robot sounds from that old netent game . Can't remember which slot that was

 

[misstrouble]

Ask anything. Shouldnt the J’s jn attached screenshot also be a win And disappear?

 

[joerdj]

Visual bug probably

 

[misstrouble]

Visual bug probably

I got an error message in game, reloaded, it finished like this. Also didnt get the 0.45 though o they investigating it.

 

[pinnit2014]

I got an error message in game, reloaded, it finished like this. Also didnt get the 0.45 though o they investigating it.

Think Luckyscouser on the Bonanza thread posted a few of these.

BTG are not only the masters of potential, seemingly, but also the all too frequent error messages/graphical glitches recently.