Baptism by Fire - success Bet-at.eu - giving it a try

[Jasminebed]

Awesome hit on Adventure Palace DeBeuker. Saw your name on winner's wall, was hoping it was on a smaller bet, but I didn't think it would be that small!

 

[dunover]

The odds of hitting wins are nowhere near that good, and the formula isn't that simple. You have to consider each and every win as part of the RTP, if you considered them all separately you would end up with an RTP way above 100%. You can't get a 100x line win once in every 104 spins and a line win of 10x once in every 10.4 spins (and a 1000x win in every 1040 spins and a 10,000x win in every 10,400).

EDIT TO ADD: The slot can remain random, and each spin independent from the last, because the odds of hitting x1000 are way longer than 1000/0.96.

I must admit I was about to launch into a VWM-style epic post on why Igor's collusion argument is so full of holes, but you've done it in a few sentences.
Igor almost assumes that a group of colluding players would hit a monster and thus abuse the bonus and cashout. If he knew how rare these wins are, then a colluding group of players (even if he was right about their intentions) would certainly not factor such into their calculations. They would literally need tens or hundreds of player in their group to 'guarantee' one. There are no guarantees. All they can hope for is a good peak of RTP over the 96% flatline for a sustained period, whatever win values this consists of.
In fact, I'm sending him a foil hat now....

 

[De Beuker]

Nice one



PM with the list of the docs you don't think you are able to provide so we can work through it. As long as your bank statement is being sent to your registered account address it serves as proof of address as much as your utility bill does

Thanks!

Docs sent, screenshot, bankstatement and ID card front/back, so no need to PM.

 

[dunover]

It's nice to see kktmd lurking.......... Come on in again my friend, I eagerly await your next batch of stats.....

 

[Igor82]

I must admit I was about to launch into a VWM-style epic post on why Igor's collusion argument is so full of holes, but you've done it in a few sentences.
Igor almost assumes that a group of colluding players would hit a monster and thus abuse the bonus and cashout. If he knew how rare these wins are, then a colluding group of players (even if he was right about their intentions) would certainly not factor such into their calculations. They would literally need tens or hundreds of player in their group to 'guarantee' one. There are no guarantees. All they can hope for is a good peak of RTP over the 96% flatline for a sustained period, whatever win values this consists of.
In fact, I'm sending him a foil hat now....

Wrote an absolute essay debunking that

Will post as a blog and link up. You assume that minor wins don't feed back the bankroll when they do occur. Assumption above is made that it would take original bankroll to sustain the probability of all minor wins and a major one while no return wins are fed back into the bankroll.

It got me scratching my head last night I'll admit, but above is as incorrect as my original calculation was.

While my calc would create a slot that has a payout of a few hundred %, above creates the opposite.

On my phone - glad to get into it soon though

 

[sparkz]

Wahoo some more luck yesterday

$65 deposit.... Nearly right away hit this (Forgot to include date in picture so cant enter in winagram :/):



Had a while of ups and downs, Playboy paid over $50 on free spins @ 30c a spin. I think I was somewhere along the lines of $400, then played that hockey game @ 50c a spin, 4 scatters for $50, then more than $50 from 20 free spins.

I think profit was something like $460 and withdrawal has been processed in a few hours TY guys

 

[dionysus]

Wahoo some more luck yesterday

$65 deposit.... Nearly right away hit this (Forgot to include date in picture so cant enter in winagram :/):

View attachment 41289

Had a while of ups and downs, Playboy paid over $50 on free spins @ 30c a spin. I think I was somewhere along the lines of $400, then played that hockey game @ 50c a spin, 4 scatters for $50, then more than $50 from 20 free spins.

I think profit was something like $460 and withdrawal has been processed in a few hours TY guys

may still qualify - pm Igor, let him know when you hit it, submit it, include date of when you hit it - if you arent sure, check your game logs

 

[vinylweatherman]

I must admit I was about to launch into a VWM-style epic post on why Igor's collusion argument is so full of holes, but you've done it in a few sentences.
Igor almost assumes that a group of colluding players would hit a monster and thus abuse the bonus and cashout. If he knew how rare these wins are, then a colluding group of players (even if he was right about their intentions) would certainly not factor such into their calculations. They would literally need tens or hundreds of player in their group to 'guarantee' one. There are no guarantees. All they can hope for is a good peak of RTP over the 96% flatline for a sustained period, whatever win values this consists of.
In fact, I'm sending him a foil hat now....

They (colluders) don't just rely on hitting one rare big win, but work on the principle of a decent run of moderately big wins, which is why you will see big stakes betting. This reduces the number needed per group, and this makes it viable, and clearly so as Igor has caught some of them.

Of course, a single player with a single account can also do the same, taking the best loyalty boni on offer till they hit that big win. Such APs are no less a drain than colluders and multi account players, but they don't do so much damage to the cashflow in a short time.

KYC only takes place on the account that wins, so the losing accounts might not get linked to the winning one until it's too late.

It shows that even though the SUB bonus is listed as "negative EV" at beatingbonuses, and the software itself guards against AP by adding WR, the APs and fraudsters are still seeing a +EV opportunity. They are clearly not being scared off by the statements in the terms about APs not being welcome.

 

[dunover]

Wrote an absolute essay debunking that

Will post as a blog and link up. You assume that minor wins don't feed back the bankroll when they do occur. Assumption above is made that it would take original bankroll to sustain the probability of all minor wins and a major one while no return wins are fed back into the bankroll.

It got me scratching my head last night I'll admit, but above is as incorrect as my original calculation was.

While my calc would create a slot that has a payout of a few hundred %, above creates the opposite.

On my phone - glad to get into it soon though

You could sum that bold sentence up in one word - 'recycling'.

I remember posting a table of how RTP will affect gameplay durability on a 100 unit deposit a while back, at 1 unit a spin. There was a massive difference between the endurance of a deposit on a slot at 96% and one at 90%. We know from running trials on many slots (kktmd) over million+ spins that these 1000x wins will appear once, or in most cases not at all in that 1 million plus. So, including recycling wins, it would take a very sizeable collusion of players on a 96% slot to get anywhere near the amount of spins that would not actually guarantee the big win(s) but give the player(s) even a 50-50 chance of getting one.
I accept that you tried to simplify the figures to make your point and that some may not have realized this and called you out for it, but I can't see mathematically how colluding players could guarantee their ev+ run and therefore profit overall every time. If they did profit, it would be like everything else - a straightforward gamble they could just as well lose.

 

[Igor82]

I remember posting a table of how RTP will affect gameplay durability on a 100 unit deposit a while back, at 1 unit a spin. There was a massive difference between the endurance of a deposit on a slot at 96% and one at 90%. We know from running trials on many slots (kktmd) over million+ spins that these 1000x wins will appear once, or in most cases not at all in that 1 million plus. So, including recycling wins, it would take a very sizeable collusion of players on a 96% slot to get anywhere near the amount of spins that would not actually guarantee the big win(s) but give the player(s) even a 50-50 chance of getting one.
I accept that you tried to simplify the figures to make your point and that some may not have realized this and called you out for it, but I can't see mathematically how colluding players could guarantee their ev+ run and therefore profit overall every time. If they did profit, it would be like everything else - a straightforward gamble they could just as well lose.

you have a group invitation pending where i listed some spin odds. I also took a real game and took a a real bonus and for that reason it's not ok to post publicly as it's competitor bonus.

I started running probability figures. A 1000xbet should not take a million spins on a high variance game and i've seen the 'proof in the pudding' as they say so many times at high bet value; the probability of groups winning much higher frequency in comparison to "averge joe" is way too frequent to ignore.

Just philosophically speaking, why do you think the max bet cap is becoming more prominent in T&C's and systems throughout - if it doesn't make a difference, why implement it, even on large operators? 32red for instance, I'm sure they have enough float to take big hitters, but it's still there at very low value. Why alienate a big depositor if it bears no influence... Seems to me that no pros to that decision, and all cons - if you are right.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I accept that you tried to simplify the figures to make your point and that some may not have realized this and called you out for it, but I can't see mathematically how colluding players could guarantee their ev+ run and therefore profit overall every time. If they did profit, it would be like everything else - a straightforward gamble they could just as well lose.

I don't think it works at all, however many colluding players you have.

We've all served our time on the kinds of slots that can deliver the monster hits that you'd need to 'guarantee' occurring to theoretically make this sort of venture worthwhile, the IRs, the BDBAs, the DoAs, the Bruce Lees and so on, and therefore we all know how damn rare even a 1000x stake hit is, let alone the real monsters of 1500-2000x and better. You can easily go tens of thousands of spins without seeing one.

Now what none of us know is what the actual odds are of hitting (for example) the five sapphires on BDBA are (and more so in free spins), but what I'm sure we can all agree on is that the standard SUB at most online casinos (and TBH I think Igor's example was unusually generous for the player), played at the sort of stakes required for the 'monster hit' that the cartel is after, will almost guarantee a bust out for the player and provide very little chance of achieving the monster hit required - what it will almost certainly do in fact, is allow the casino to keep the player's deposit.

So this is where the concept of collusion enters the equation, let's say we have five players in on the deal. They all do the same thing, and yes A7's idea that this increases their chance of hitting the win increases because collectively they have more spins does work, but it's still a very rare win, on balance we'd still expect all the players to bust out if they're chasing a single monster hit, THE PLAYERS' INVESTMENT REQUIRED IS INCREASED BY 500%, THE 'PAYOUT' FOR EACH PLAYER IS REDUCED BY 80% ('cause it's getting split five ways even if they do get the monster hit), and the casino still gets to keep all the money at the end of it.

So how many players do we need? 50, 100, 500, 1000? Seriously how many players do you think it'd take playing IR on a standard SUB at £6 spins to start to even think about 'guaranteeing' a four wild Wild Desire feature, for example? Or a five wild DoA bonus round that kicks out 2000x stake?

And the thing is, every single player needs to put £100 into the mix to get in on the deal, and the more players you have the more chance one of them will just walk away with the money and scam the rest, and the more obvious it will become to the casino that they're all doing the same thing - seriously, how damn near impossible would that be to organise, and by the time you get to 50 players, the loot is being split 50 ways. Let's say DoA coughs 2000x stake on a £10 spin, divide that fifty ways and everyone gets a £400 return on a £100 investment, but I still say that by far and away the most likely outcome is they all just bust out. A standard SUB bankroll just doesn't buy enough spins to be even close to confident of hitting a 1000x or better win on any slot at big stakes.

The only other way you could look at it is one single person, or perhaps a tight knit group of a handful of people all work together to create multiple accounts each, all take the SUB, all play as outlined above, and get lucky, but TBH I don't think it matters, because here's the thing.

You can't make an EV- situation EV+ just by adding more samples to the mix, this is why there never has been, and never will be, any 'system' that can 'beat' any random game with an inbuilt house edge - ever. And an EV- bonus offer is an EV- game just like any other.

(Stuff like Martingale creates the illusion of a 'system' quite impressively, but even then it needs a very low variance game with a small house edge and exactly known adds for it to even come close to working.)

The idea that you can apply 'Martingale-esque logic' to insanely high variance video slots where you don't even know the odds of what you want to happen actually are, and then create some sort of mythical group of players who can beat it just flat out doesn't work for me - sorry, I'm not buying it.

For Igor's plan to work you'd need hundreds of accounts to even come close to having a 'good chance' of getting the required monster hit, by which time the player(s) have invested so many deposits that they're still in an EV- position overall, 'cause every account requires a deposit to get the SUB.

I still think we're talking about variance here, and that colluding players can potentially inflict a massive hit on a casino, I suppose for the players the risk is worth it, and the casino wants to mitigate that risk, which is fine.

But sorry chaps, from where I'm standing this doesn't magically make an EV- bonus turn into an EV+ bonus.

 

[dionysus]

why not move these into their own thread, and invite other reps to chime in with their opinions? just a thought

 

[Igor82]

I don't think it works at all, however many colluding players you have.

will send an invite to a group where some of these are laid out. You aren't completely right nor you are completely wrong - but the assumption that you cannot calculate some of the elements isn't true - you have all the information an the tools needed to deduce the probability of each outcome independently.

 

[dionysus]

hey Igor, you can credit me (oh, and whichever other 10 players you choose) $100 to test it out

 

[kktmd]

.....We've all served our time on the kinds of slots that can deliver the monster hits that you'd need to 'guarantee' occurring to theoretically make this sort of venture worthwhile, the IRs, the BDBAs, the DoAs, the Bruce Lees and so on, and therefore we all know how damn rare even a 1000x stake hit is, let alone the real monsters of 1500-2000x and better. You can easily go tens of thousands of spins without seeing one...

8.409.294 spins=28 spins with win>x1000



EDIT: just noticed that some of the Break da Bank Again spins are from the same bonus round (so they are showing up too many times on the list). I'll create an updated list.

 

[Igor82]

based on above BDBA hits an average of 60 times (took your lower figure) on x2000 bet across 2million spins.

that's a modest hit rate of 35,000 odd spins for x2000 bet. That makes sense on a highly volatile game. i know you said you'll correct it, but s it way off, or marginally there - as based on past experience - your post above rings pretty true to me.

 

[kktmd]

BDBA is a bit special - the spins dont have unique numbers like the other games (where each spin has a unique, increasing transaction number) - I have to modify my SQL query to get the correct freespin stats.

 

[Igor82]

BDBA is a bit special - the spins dont have unique numbers like the other spins (where each spin has a unique, increasing transaction number) - I have to modify my SQL query to get the correct freespin stats.

am i reading the left table correctly: xBet and then number of occurrences (after comma) and right table: total number of spins?

If so: TS2 over x1000 bet hits are at 17,000 spin average; Playboy is running at a wild 8,000 spin average for X1000+ bet (is that right?), finer reels of life a bit more modest but in there...

Honestly, this is much closer to to reasonably achievable quantity of spins across a dozen players than few x1000 hits in 8 million spins or the frequency Chopley's post is based on.

This is achievable at a glance to me, just looking at those figures - how many players here would have done 30-40-50,0000 spins on a single game in their lifetime? And then think how long do you think 10 players can push this volume through at high bet value with multiple SUB instances added to their accounts each with their individual tiny WR in comparison to the overall bankroll awarded?

unless of course im reading your table wrong, .. but otherwise, the figures speak FOR the case, if anything, not against it.

 

[dunover]

you have a group invitation pending where i listed some spin odds. I also took a real game and took a a real bonus and for that reason it's not ok to post publicly as it's competitor bonus.

I started running probability figures. A 1000xbet should not take a million spins on a high variance game and i've seen the 'proof in the pudding' as they say so many times at high bet value; the probability of groups winning much higher frequency in comparison to "averge joe" is way too frequent to ignore.

Just philosophically speaking, why do you think the max bet cap is becoming more prominent in T&C's and systems throughout - if it doesn't make a difference, why implement it, even on large operators? 32red for instance, I'm sure they have enough float to take big hitters, but it's still there at very low value. Why alienate a big depositor if it bears no influence... Seems to me that no pros to that decision, and all cons - if you are right.

Ask Chopley
Just don't mention the Arctic B!tch

 

[kktmd]

Sadly no ;-(

I've done a bit over 8 mio spins, freeplay. I've gotten wins over 1000xbet 28 times - so one hit per ca. 300.000 spins. This corresponds pretty well to my real life observervations.

 

[Igor82]

Sadly no ;-(

I've done a bit over 8 mio spins, freeplay. I've gotten wins over 1000xbet 28 times - so one hit per ca. 300.000 spins. This corresponds pretty well to my real life observervations.

Oh i see... so each row is the win itself? what is the ",9 - ,5 - ,87) for after the 4 digit number which i assume is xBET win?

Also, not each game completes it cycle at the same time. For example on IR you're nowhere near completion, while some other games you've done twice over. Likewise, i can see some medium some high variance in there.

It would be interesting to know how many X1000 wins you get on say 300 shields over 2-3 million spins, or mad mad monkey? This is a good overall indicator, but the case group is mixed and cant be so easily aggregated to produce an average IMHO.

 

[Igor82]

Ask Chopley
Just don't mention the Arctic B!tch

LOL! sorry to hear

 

[kktmd]

So I've removed BDBA spins until I get the freespins sorted out.

This table shows the result of 6.537.336 spins (freeplay, bet: 0.30). It shows ALL the spins with wins over 1000xbet, 22 in all. Playboy is the highest variance of the bunch, so thats topping the list. My highest hit was 3.542,9xbet.

My database uses the scandinavian number format: using a comma to seperate decimals (so 3542,9=3542.9).

Wins over 1000xbet occur every 300.000 spins (average).

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Thanks kktmd, as ever it's nice to get some real numbers behind this stuff

So in over six and a half million spins we see just 22 wins of over 1000x stake, and TBH I can believe those numbers, after all, 1000x stake or better is a memorable hit, and how many of them can most of us remember?

I stand by my original assertion, the idea that a group of players (either large or small) can collude to 'guarantee' themselves a hit of 1000x stake or better at a large stake on a very high variance slot with an RTP of around 96%, all playing on a standard SUBs, and somehow put themselves into an EV+ position, rinsing a casino in the process, is a complete nonsense. (Remember, we're talking about 300,000 spins on average to hit 1000x stake or better, how many of those spins does the average SUB bankroll get you at the large stakes that are being talked about here.....)

In fact, if I were running a casino, and assuming I had enough cash in the bank to weather me through a bad run of luck (i.e. very good luck from the players' perspective), I'd be offering a hundred subs per player until the end of time.

You can't turn EV- into EV+ by magic, an EV- game (and an EV- SUB is basically an extended EV- game) is no exception to that rule, nothing can break that.

 

[kktmd]

....You can't turn EV- into EV+ by magic, an EV- game (and an EV- SUB is basically an extended EV- game) is no exception to that rule, nothing can break that...

I concur 100%.

 

[Igor82]

Beauty of a forum - we each can voice an opinion you both have a pending invite into a group with my findings on a specific game with a real, current bonus on offer. It's a friendly invite for a friendly discussion

 

[dunover]

We're going in circles here....

Right, Igor please look at my post here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rtp-heres-how-it-affect-your-play.56164/

As you can see, you'll last 2418 spins on a 100 deposit at 96% TRTP slots ON AVERAGE. That's the exact maths my friend. So, for example, if you gave me a 20xD only 100% bonus it would be an EV+ bonus and NO need to collude. Like JPP.

Give me 35x bonus only and at 100% bonus it would be EV-, as you would expect to run out of spins before playing 2418 times at one unit BUT only half the deposit of 100 is needed due to bonus added.

You mention a 200% bonus and at 35x this would be a likely bust out but at only a 33.33 real money stake.

So, let's say we don't reduce the cash but always deposit 100 cash so we have 300 to play with. You get about 7200 spins. So, with a five colluders, we can achieve on average 36,000 spins.
We know that (thanks kktmd) that we have about an 11-12% chance of hitting 1000x stake or over, assuming a one unit stake. IF we hit that it is quite likely to happen BEFORE we are near completing the WR so the chances are we would lose some/all of it back. IF we raise stakes and want to hit it on say 5 units, then the spread of spins taken reduces from 36k to 7200 across FIVE players and thus reduces that chance to around 2.3%.

If we wanted to speculate about this on many different slots we would be here all week. Igor mentioned the 1k+ times stake and you only see this on higher variance slots. IMO any collusion of a few players on HV would be suicidal mathematically. To collude so you covered 300,000 spins on average would take over 50 colluders acting in unison to have a 1/1 chance of a 1k+ hit in 300,000 spins (not guaranteed of course!) which would mean combined deposits (assuming 200% SUB is limited to 100 deposit) of 5k. It just doesn't add up, and even if it was done, the gains per colluder would barely get them a MacDonalds....

PS. IN 5 years of online gaming I've played hundreds of thousands of spins and hit 1000+ x stake 3 times. Once on (S)Hitman and twice on BDBA freespins. kktmd's stats sound exactly right.

 

[kktmd]

I certainly understand your worry about being "hacked" or having statistical weaknesses exploited!!

Note: in this table, freespins only counts a 1 spin - the spincount is therefore lower than in the previous table.

 

[Igor82]

I certainly understand your worry about being "hacked" or having statistical weaknesses exploited!!

Note: in this table, freespins only counts a 1 spin - the spincount is therefore lower than in the previous table.

View attachment 41295

Free-spins are pre-integrated in the game variance engine so in reality should only count as a single spin IMO - they are an aggregate result to a single bet. The data is amazing and it's really admirable you had the patience code the macro (im assuming?) to ping the game, but without the game cycle knowledge whcih is reserved for game providers your assumption that 1 million spins is sufficient tell is close but not complete.

I'd try doing 2.5M spins for an individual game and calculate all x1000 wins. This will give you a pretty strong indication of individual game variance and you will see that on some games the average goes down to as slow as 50-130,000 spins.

Since we award for IR and TS2 in-game achievments i know the required spin count for each of the wins (and their proportional xbet payout)- so while this is great, we do get it "from the horses mouth" so to speak.

max bet impositions by the likes of 32red, betfred, us, etc. are by no accident in the least. You may think it's invalid (or consider it absolute nonsense) based on your knowledge and your statistics which are nothing short of amazing to see, but i would stake everything dear to me that under 6 months of running a casino your view would whole-heartedly change on collusion and how "impossible" it is to create a +EV payout through it.

i guess it'll remain one of those topics that not all see eye-to-eye on but fair play to that as well

@dun > i get you - & agree (saw the group thread?)


EDIT: Just to throw a curve ball lol > how many x300 bet wins did you have? we are concentrating on x1000 bet wins, but colluders generally (read: always) stake MASSIVE hands in comparison to their bankroll. Pull that on TS2 for example: how many x300 wins did TS2 generate Or Playboy (or Loaded, or avalon - gamble feature in there), then run the figures on a 15 bet.

 

[kktmd]

I actually believe that MG slots are fair but (to some extent) non-random (it says so...right in my profile!). I believe they do this to control RTP and to provide a more exciting experience.

"Non-random" might not be the right word, but I think their engine is much more advanced that just randomizing the 5 wheel positions.

I believe that spins are pregenerated in series - if this is the case, collusion could be an issue. If (for example) it would be possible to identify "hot" or "cold" periods (if the exist), collusion could be a real threat.

I know that I would need 100's of millions of spins to "cycle" through a machine.

 

[Igor82]

IF we hit that it is quite likely to happen BEFORE we are near completing the WR so the chances are we would lose some/all of it back.

your WR was x35 "the little bonus" only relevant to the portion of the spins that hit it.

If 5 of you took (research - easy to find) currently available 200% SUB at 30x bonnie, then every 200 you got free had the WR of 6k. if 4 of you lost their 100 dep and the fifth won the 1000xbet they would now only have 6k to grind which means they dont lose all of it, not even close actually.

also try introduce more frequent but also very rewarding x300+ wins in there on 2-5euro coin size.

 

[Jasminebed]

It is only 32Red's sign-up bonus that has a max bet attached.

Also, not each game completes it cycle at the same time.

Also, not each game completes it cycle at the same time. Igor, unless you are talking fruit machines, you are implying that MG games are not random. If that's not what you meant, please clarify. Slots are not a deck of cards or a box of pull tabs where once a result is gone it's gone until a new deck or box.

As for withdrawing after bonus wagering is done, a lot of players like to do that. At Bet-at, we can see that at all times with the progress bar. In fact, if you read the threads about bonus lovers and bonus haters, there are a lot of us that like bonuses exactly because they give us a cashout point. And when you've had a decent balance and lost a couple of hundred of it or more finishing wagering, you are usually happy to cashout. I really hate going to bed with wagering remaining myself, especially if I have a day that won't let me return to it in the morning, so that's often my cashout point if I have stayed up too late.

If you don't like players like that, well, bonus ban them after a cashout.

 

[albrco123]

Hi All,

I,ve just been reading thru this thread as part of my daily CM fix and i may be way off base here as i've never given the subject any thought until reading this thread but FWIW:

It sounds like the Casino's definition of "colluding" is a number of players pooling money to increase chances of winning, well surely then just think of all those Lottery syndicates in businesses, social groups etc, "colluding" by combining their money to give them a better shot at the elusive Jackpot, or what about the Horse racing Syndicates heck what about the group of pensioners on a bus trip to the Hard Rock who each put $20 into a slot and split the winings.

I read in an earlier post that the Casino considers colluding "Illegal" does that mean everyone participating in one of the above activities is breaking the law.

JMHO

Al

 

[kktmd]

EDIT: Just to throw a curve ball lol > how many x300 bet wins did you have? we are concentrating on x1000 bet wins, but colluders generally (read: always) stake MASSIVE hands in comparison to their bankroll. Pull that on TS2 for example: how many x300 wins did TS2 generate Or Playboy (or Loaded, or avalon - gamble feature in there), then run the figures on a 15 bet.

I hit a LOT of mid range hits. This table shows number of hits in the 100xbet - 400xbet range.

 

[Igor82]

It is only 32Red's sign-up bonus that has a max bet attached.

the % bankroll T&C's (cant be over 10% or 20% of awarded bonus in single hand) are prominent elsewhere too. Max bet is just a 'cleaner' more player friendly way to do it, rather than punish them afterwards.

Also, not each game completes it cycle at the same time. Igor, unless you are talking fruit machines, you are implying that MG games are not random. If that's not what you meant, please clarify. Slots are not a deck of cards or a box of pull tabs where once a result is gone it's gone until a new deck or box.

As for withdrawing after bonus wagering is done, a lot of players like to do that. At Bet-at, we can see that at all times with the progress bar. In fact, if you read the threads about bonus lovers and bonus haters, there are a lot of us that like bonuses exactly because they give us a cashout point. And when you've had a decent balance and lost a couple of hundred of it or more finishing wagering, you are usually happy to cashout. I really hate going to bed with wagering remaining myself, especially if I have a day that won't let me return to it in the morning, so that's often my cashout point if I have stayed up too late.

If you don't like players like that, well, bonus ban them after a cashout.

No no, i'm not implying the lack of randomness at all. In fact each spin is uniquely random irrelevant of the result of any other spin. Technically, you COULD hit 2-3-4 consecutive x1000 wins on a machine that is volatile enough, but that doesn't mean it's in any way probable - but it IS possible over an infinite number of spins (as infinity is limitless).

What i am saying is that for a game to 'complete' it's cycle and by that i mean achieve every possible payout it can at least once - it may take a variable number of spins based on the game provider and game type: number of paying combinations designed, its volatility, ec.

9-line isn't going to have the same completion cycle as 25-line. a game that has 30 paying combinations ranging from 1x10 to x100 isn't going to have the same cycle as a game that has a few payouts of x7000 or x300,000 (300 shields) integrated in there. meaning some games may hit in all probability every payout once in under 1 million spins, some may take more or less. Randomness of outcome will always stay perfectly random.

As for turnover + cash-out - hey, that what the bonus is for! That's not in question here at all. turn it real, cash out - go to sleep. if anything, if real balance hits before the bonus is used, invalidate bonus and cash out anyway if that was your aim (cashing out when up). i have no issues with that which is apparent from the in-game metric bar we designed.

If we wanted players to keep playing after turning a bonus, we wouldn't have designed a feature that lets them know exactly when they turned it

 

[Igor82]

I read in an earlier post that the Casino considers colluding "Illegal" does that mean everyone participating in one of the above activities is breaking the law.

It's only Illegal if you fake identification or use someone else identity - than its identity theft and that IS illegal. Otherwise it's just not allowed - like multi-accounting.

On that note:

Would you Agree or Disagree with a multi-accounting ban on casino part and why?

 

[dionysus]

what, one player having more than one account?
of course

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I
Would you Agree or Disagree with a multi-accounting ban on casino part and why?

I'd only agree with a multi-accounting/collusion ban whereby a number of players can actively collude for an advantage, such as in a live poker game.

But if you've just got a number of players 'colluding' to combine a number of EV- minus bonus offers playing independent random slots, then I'd say just leave them to it and let them lose their money - which is what will happen.

You should check out binary128's posts on this subject here on CM (he's the CEO of Galewind Software), where he's said on many occasions that players are free to use whatever betting systems take their fancy, as often as they want and at whatever stakes they want, because he understands the maths that says you can't beat a game that's EV- for the player over an infinite number of samples, however much they might be able to increase the variance in the short term.

At the end of the day the player will still lose and the casino will still win. An EV- bonus is no different, once enough players have lumped away it, whatever spikes in the variance their strategies might introduce in the short to medium term - the casino wins and the player loses.

 

[albrco123]

It's only Illegal if you fake identification or use someone else identity - than its identity theft and that IS illegal. Otherwise it's just not allowed - like multi-accounting.

On that note:

Would you Agree or Disagree with a multi-accounting ban on casino part and why?

Hi Igor,

I was only quoting from your earlier post below on page 23 of this thread which got me thinking

1. Collusion is illegal. Factually, regulatory, legally - it's fraud for many reasons; and admittedly so even noted in the casinomeister philosophy. If we can prove you are connected to another customer and playing the game with the aim or sharing profits we will bar you.

Fake ID, Identity Theft is of course Illegal

As for multi-accounting i absloutely agree the Casino has every right to ban any user for this especially when done intentionally, FYI it can just be an honest msitake, i did open a 2nd account myself at a casino once by mistake but immediately realised and e-mailed CS who cancelled the duplicate.

I have to say i have really enjoyed your threads on this post, a great insight to the "behind the scenes" world of Online Casino's

Al

 

[Andy Walker]

Money for nothing but still in Dire Straits

Collusion cannot work in normal play on a slot, the odds are random and each spin is a new event, it could take one spin to hit a big win or many thousands and the pool of money however big is still split between the players. One player may hit big but a dilution from the others that fair less well levels out the hit to both the Casino and the other players.

Where collusion is possible but not guaranteed is when a welcome bonus deal is involved edging the odds with free money to soak up the loss on the rtp.

General mathematics would calculate spins from the highest rtp slot over a given spin cycle to the lowest with a division roughly divided by taking the assigned number of the rtp’s of all slots avertible lol I mean available and dividing them by their number to possibly play, simple excel spread sheet work.

Wagering requirements would be calculated to offset the combined possible rtp by a few percentages to give the house edge and it would work most of the time, but not all that’s the gamble for either the Casino or the player.

A good Casino makes a profit at the end of the day and when they don’t get their maths right and tear their head out and claim fraud they really need to rethink their business model.

When a player does well and hits big and then thinks I’ll be careful and lowers the bet to achieve a cash out to buy a treat for the family that they had been thinking about they can be regarded as an advantage player but a player that suddenly ups their bet in order to chase the treat because they are losing would not be and I would imagine fall under the profit radar and not get a helpful email reminding them of their play I suspect?

My online friends don’t gamble by the way lol

 

[Igor82]

Hi Igor,

I was only quoting from your earlier post below on page 23 of this thread which got me thinking

1. Collusion is illegal. Factually, regulatory, legally - it's fraud for many reasons; and admittedly so even noted in the casinomeister philosophy. If we can prove you are connected to another customer and playing the game with the aim or sharing profits we will bar you.

Fake ID, Identity Theft is of course Illegal

As for multi-accounting i absloutely agree the Casino has every right to ban any user for this especially when done intentionally, FYI it can just be an honest msitake, i did open a 2nd account myself at a casino once by mistake but immediately realised and e-mailed CS who cancelled the duplicate.

I have to say i have really enjoyed your threads on this post, a great insight to the "behind the scenes" world of Online Casino's

Al

Legally, betting syndicates have been dismantled (Hong-Kong case) and poker syndicates prosecuted - in Casinos, since it is individual player against the house scenario it's a questioned topic that not many are willing to enter into and expose themselves to. I still believe that with sufficient game volatility knowledge, segmenting the bonus awarded in 'sections' each with their own WR while taking the total bonus sum as a single bankroll can lead to advantageous play. It's harder to prove because the game engine design isn't disclosed to operators, let alone players but we see the results and the way the money flows on daily basis.

it's a case where proving the proof that's in the pudding is hard due to lack of game performance transparency - and id rather have it that way personally. once the curtain on a game is lifted to its most intricate detail it removes the element of fun and is used as a tool by the right kind of people to find an exploit.

I personally just enjoy a good dialogue and since its my job/career i have no other outcome but to learn from it - so my tanks either way

 

[Andy Walker]

When an entity creates a bonus scheme that seemingly lowers the house odds but use the math to negate that through wagering requirements that balances out and / or defers possible big loss it comes with value to both parties.

When a virtual kid brings the ball to the field but then decides they don’t want to play anymore it leaves an impression of if they can’t win then no one can.

 

[Jufo]

Like others have said "collusion" doesn't turn a negative expectation prospect into a positive one. If player A loses his deposit at the casino, then player B is not "due" to win player A's losses back unless the software is compromised (which of course might be the case if the software forces certain overall RTP).

It's also worth remembering that it is natural for players to know other players who live in the same area and play at the same casinos. I once visited my friend's home who had never gambled in his life so I logged to a Microgaming casino from his computer, played a bit and we had fun together - much more fun than I would have had by myself. He got inspired by having watched my play and joined the same Microgaming casino a few months later. The casino closed both of our accounts due to "linked accounts" accusation but we sent e-mail to this casino explaining that I had simply visited my friend's home and we were both allowed to keep our accounts. In other words you cannot expect players to live like hermits but they share experiences, hints and strategies with each other, like where they should play today. It doesn't mean that they share their bankrolls though and you would need to have extremely solid evidence to accuse them for that.

As for Igor's worries that his bonuses can be played in a +EV manner, well that's what bonuses are there for in the first place. The meaning of word Bonus is supposed to mean something good for the player, not something bad. The idea of bonuses is to attract customers to play and the casino should expect to lose some money in the process as a "promotional expense". So offering a bonus should be seen as a cost like any other advertising cost. If Igor doesn't agree with this then it would be better for him to not offer any bonuses at all as you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Jufo]

I noticed that Break Da Bank Again probabilities were discussed. Here are some stats based on 20 million simulated spins. I am able to generate 20 million spins and calculate the statistics in a matter of minutes.

Distribution of payouts: 
------------------------
Frequency of payout >= 1000x bet: 6.4E-4 % = 1 / 156260
Frequency of payout >= 100x bet: 0.067 % = 1 / 1492.5
Frequency of payout >= 10x bet: 1.84 % = 1 / 54.35
Frequency of payout more than bet: 15.17 %
Frequency of payout zero: 77.35 %

One in 1000 spins pays 83.33x bet or more
One in 10000 spins pays 410.0x bet or more
One in 100000 spins pays 836.11x bet or more

The 1000x+ payout frequency is a bit inaccurate. I made a few sets of 20 million simulated spins and the probability varied between 1/130 000 and 1/160 000 from one 20 million simulation to next due to there being only a relatively small number of these hits in 20 million spins.

 

[Igor82]

No, but it's worth nothing that 10 players get 10 times higher bankroll. There are other elements at play that arent jsut connected to the possiblity of payout - it starts with those and ends with what choice of game at what bet.

When working together AS IF A SINGLE ENTITY (meaning 10 working as one, acting as one) on a game, with an aim (same deposit amount, same bet, same game) players manage to:

1. Receive the 10 times the maximum awardable "free" bankroll per player. Meaning if max was 200, 2000 was now assigned to group that thinks in sync, acts in unison.

If casino wanted to give up to 2000 per person, they would - however the chose not to, they opted to the personal limit as they thought was healthy for their business model. Finding a way to get 10 of the same offer, while emulating the behaviour of a single individual, is trying to exploit the system to bypass its limitations.

2. When you do get that 10xbanroll, it's not given with the same T&C conditions of a 2000 bonus. That bankroll isn't "locked-in" as a single WR amount to be unlocked at say 80,000 - it in fact get's unlocked in "segments" of 8,000 each so across your 10 spinning bankrolls (budgets), one does win big (irrelevant if the EV changed) now that one, or those few individuals will have a fraction of the WR they need to complete

ADD: If we are to talk fair, then the FAIR way would be to group the 10 "self registered, honest about their connection pre-signup" individuals and give them MERGED bonus T&C, by which:

If one of the individuals only meets 1000 WR out of stipulated 8,000, the remaining balance of 7,000 WR is carried over onto the rest of the group.


Now you can add or deny game volatility to that and increased bankroll potential, but fact remains, acting in unison as a single individual while benefiting from multiple instances of an offer reserved to be issued ONCE without registering your intentions is an exploit to a system where a single individual busting out before the WR is completed is effectively cutting the overall WR requirement of the group, as a single 2000 bonus would impose (80K)

Side note: By decreasing the over WR imposed to protect the bonus from +EV, a group can in fact change the expectancy from -EV to +EV
> aka if 5 guys bust out after 1k wagered due to their enormous bets, the other 5 guys continuing to play the game at same bet value with same starting bankroll now have only 40K WR to complete on a total bonus of 2000, making that bonus X20B

 

[Igor82]

The 1000x+ payout frequency is a bit inaccurate. I made a few sets of 20 million simulated spins and the probability varied between 1/130 000 ... 1/160 000 due to there being only a small number of these hits in 20 million spins.

Thank you - that's what i got on LOADED in my group post

 

[Andy Walker]

Like others have said "collusion" doesn't turn a negative expectation prospect into a positive one. If player A loses his deposit at the casino, then player B is not "due" to win player A's losses back unless the software is compromised (which of course might be the case if the software forces certain overall RTP).

It's also worth remembering that it is natural for players to know other players who live in the same area and play at the same casinos. I once visited my friend's home who had never gambled in his life so I logged to a Microgaming casino from his computer, played a bit and we had fun together - much more fun than I would have had by myself. He got inspired by having watched my play and joined the same Microgaming casino a few months later. The casino closed both of our accounts due to "linked accounts" accusation but we sent e-mail to this casino explaining that I had simply visited my friend's home and we were both allowed to keep our accounts. In other words you cannot expect players to live like hermits but they share experiences, hints and strategies with each other, like where they should play today. It doesn't mean that they share their bankrolls though and you would need to have extremely solid evidence to accuse them for that.

As for Igor's worries that his bonuses can be played in a +EV manner, well that's what bonuses are there for in the first place. The meaning of word Bonus is supposed to mean something good for the player, not something bad. The idea of bonuses is to attract customers to play and the casino should expect to lose some money in the process as a "promotional expense". So offering a bonus should be seen as a cost like any other advertising cost. If Igor doesn't agree with this then it would be better for him to not offer any bonuses at all as you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I’ve always wondered if a Casino could do a deal with a software provider to give an exclusive bonus for newcomers to them, thus offsetting risk and encouraging the use of a particular provider’s slots?

 

[Igor82]

As for Igor's worries that his bonuses can be played in a +EV manner, well that's what bonuses are there for in the first place. The meaning of word Bonus is supposed to mean something good for the player, not something bad. The idea of bonuses is to attract customers to play and the casino should expect to lose some money in the process as a "promotional expense". So offering a bonus should be seen as a cost like any other advertising cost. If Igor doesn't agree with this then it would be better for him to not offer any bonuses at all as you can't have your cake and eat it too.

And that's how it started in the industry, until a realisation by a group of players that "free 100% match" at 5x turnover (im oversimplifying) is a guaranteed profit, and then the group started picking one SUB by one, at one casino after another, not returning: not looking at it as an incentive to come and check out a place of entertainment for a long term enjoyment, but as a fairly easy way to make money.

At which point bonuses started ensuring they "eat themselves" by turnover values and simply added to game play duration by increasing a the number of rounds and with that of that hit after real money has been depleted. This is why until this day bonuses get turned to real money even at x30,40,50 and x60 requirements.

i answered the problem in regard to receiving multiple instances of the bonus reserved to be given once two posts above, that completely removes the game payout discussion from the equation.

 

[Jufo]

No, but it's worth nothing that 10 players get 10 times higher bankroll. There are other elements at play that arent jsut connected to the possiblity of payout - it starts with those and ends with what choice of game at what bet.

When working together AS IF A SINGLE ENTITY (meaning 10 working as one, acting as one) on a game, with an aim (same deposit amount, same bet, same game) players manage to:

1. Receive the 10 times the maximum awardable "free" bankroll per player. Meaning if max was 200, 2000 was now assigned to group that thinks in sync, acts in unison.

If casino wanted to give up to 2000 per person, they would - however the chose not to, they opted to the personal limit as they thought was healthy for their business model. Finding a way to get 10 of the same offer, while emulating the behaviour of a single individual, is trying to exploit the system to bypass its limitations.

2. When you do get that 10xbanroll, it's not given with the same T&C conditions of a 2000 bonus. That bankroll isn't "locked-in" as a single WR amount to be unlocked at say 80,000 - it in fact get's unlocked in "segments" of 8,000 each so across your 10 spinning bankrolls (budgets), one does win big (irrelevant if the EV changed) now that one, or those few individuals will have a fraction of the WR they need to complete

Yes, I agree with the above, BUT what you describe above is mathematically no different to if ONE player simply claims similar bonus at 10 DIFFERENT casinos which he is allowed to do. It's not hard to find 10 similar SUBs. So whether

1) There is a syndicate and they repeat the same SUB at your casino 10 times in a row

or

2) One legitimate player plays the similar SUB as you have at 10 different casinos

the end result is mathematically the same. This means that it does not require a syndicate or collusion to turn -EV situation into +EV one. If your bonus is profitable for a syndicate of 10 accounts then it's also profitable for a single person.

Side note: By decreasing the over WR imposed to protect the bonus from +EV, a group cn in fact change the expectancy from -EV to +EV
> aka if 5 guys bust out after 1k wagered due to their enormous bets, the other 5 guys continuing to play the game at same bet value with same starting bankroll now have only 40K WR to complete on a total bonus of 2000, making that bonus X20B

Yes correct, but once again to pull this off does not require a syndicate as an invidiual can do the exact same thing by claiming SUB at 10 different casinos.

 

[Igor82]

Yes correct, but once again to pull this off does not require a syndicate as an invidiual can do the exact same thing by claiming SUB at 10 different casinos.

Well it does - to the casino. It may not to the player, and he is free to find other 9 casinos - but to the casino, it is relevant as his/their offer is condensed to my wallet and my marketing costs in its entirety.

Following your logic, casino has a full right to bar collusion since the players can just choose 10 different casinos and they don't "need" to swarm one, hence no damage to the player in the end by that imposition. Effectively, from above i would say players should/could try their luck on an identical sub at 10 places playing the same game in exactly the same way

EDIT: we started skirting the benefits of MA here, multiples of same offer taken with above end benefit which you agreed to and thanks for that. I think the main difference here is that yes, one player can freely choose 10 places of entertainment - that's the beauty of a competitive market, but one player should not aim to exploit 10 of the same 2for1 offers at the same shop, on the premise that they can get 10 2fo1 offers at 10 shops anyway and it saves them the walk