Pragmatic Play, under their old name, were caught cheating players.You seem to be well versed in the industry so I will not refute you or argue especially if you can't be arsed about it .
I just have a hard time to find hard evidence in MOST of these claims especially since it often comes from frustrated addicts who try to find any way possible to confirm their bias in automatically thinking I lost all my money so this is rigged or a scam and that by itself is annoying and something I see in this forum on a daily basis.
You seem to be well versed in the industry so I will not refute you or argue especially if you can't be arsed about it .
I just have a hard time to find hard evidence in MOST of these claims especially since it often comes from frustrated addicts who try to find any way possible to confirm their bias in automatically thinking I lost all my money so this is rigged or a scam and that by itself is annoying and something I see in this forum on a daily basis.
Fair enough, that's definitely true in a lot of cases, but indeed being an ex-affiliate and long time player and software-reviewer/freelance writer on the subject, and thus having a few 'insiders' in my circle, i am confident enough to be beyond skeptical
Note that i am not saying anything is proven, but over the past two/three years i've read, heard and seen enough for my taste to be turned off.
I still watch some streamers i deem legit, but that's basically down to a handful (barely) and i can confirm they hate to play Pragmatic in general
Saying that in response to above interaction between you and dunover, who hit the nail on the head re: the old topgame, and whiffs of a certain nature...
It's the whole thing really - the sum of it's parts, if you will - that seems fishy. The expression 'Look! - you can tell when he's lying...his lips move when he does it' is kind of the feeling most of these blokes incur in me, and the fact that the bulk plays on very dodgy casinos, and for some reason all have tons of dosh, and play Pragmatic Play for like 90% of the time, and also started popping up very shortly after the launch of Pragmatic's 'freeplay' site, is just all too much coincedence in my book..
That is why the provider is included in my 'dodgy combo'.
Read up on Topgame's shady history, then perhaps Sherrif Gaming and/or Betsoft..
You'll probaly see why some of us older farts are a bit more skeptical in some cases. It used to be a cowboy world, and despite all the good developements over the past 10 years or so, there's always that little voice in the back of my head...
Also, most big scandals that were found out over the years, were a direct result of players questioning integrity and fairness.
Just saying
It is is tiresome sometimes to sift through the disgruntled gambler/addict-bollocks, but i'm afraid that's part of the game..
And i salute you for being skeptical, either way
I can agree with this, even though my techie knowhow is limited I think I understand. But it is strangely coincidental that it happens for a streamer - if this is indeed the first time the developers learn of it, what the game can do in the 'wild' as it were.So my take on this. I don't believe it was a rigged spin or 'set to maxcap' or whatever, and I do believe it was a legitimate win, however I believe it was an unintended legitimate win.
What I mean by that is, games (especially cluster games) have all sorts of weighting and logic that makes the distribution of the symbols more interesting and more likely to offer good balances of wins etc (all standard stuff). I believe what happened here is that those algorithms got into an incredibly rare situation where they put themselves in a loop of results. It's a legitimate win because it's what the game engine produced, but it's unintended because if the developer had realised such a scenario was possible within their logic, they certainly wouldn't have left it there.
This kind of stuff happens in code more often than you'd think, especially when multiple complicated systems are interacting with each other and it's simply impossible to know every single scenario that might occur.
So yeh, I would consider it a 'bug' in the code, but clearly Pragmatic considers it a legitimate win (but I bet their developers looked at it and went 'Jeeze, that's an oversight, how the hell did it get in that situation'.)
So yeh, I would consider it a 'bug' in the code, but clearly Pragmatic considers it a legitimate win (but I bet their developers looked at it and went 'Jeeze, that's an oversight, how the hell did it get in that situation'.)
I think we are all on the same page here that the pragmppl went like ‚oh shit this was not supposed to happen‘.As a programmer I agree with this. I also bet the devs went like "oh shit this was not supposed to happen"
But after all maybe andym the super programmer knows better
I think you have a slight misconception about how slots work. The display method and the value outcome are intrinsically linked.I think we are all on the same page here that the pragmppl went like ‚oh shit this was not supposed to happen‘.
but not regarding the value outcome. Just regarding the displaymethod…
I think you have a slight misconception about how slots work. The display method and the value outcome are intrinsically linked.
Slots don't choose a value outcome and then decide on a display method to show it, the gem matches, tumbles etc is what determines the value outcome. So the engine will randomly populate the grid with fruits (with some weighting algorithms), then see what matches, add them to the total, tumble them, randomly generate some more fruits, see what matches, add them to the total etc.
What I'm pretty sure happened here is that algorithm for determining the fruits got itself into some very rare situation where the weighting was causing it to select the same pattern of fruits each time, and so kept tumbling forever. Once the max win cap was reached, the code will have stopped the tumbles. If the max cap was 10000x, it would have carried on to that, if there was no max cap, the server would have just crashed in an infinite loop
It depends on the game provider, but often the whole result is generated upfront and then passed to the front end, but it is generated start to finish, not finish to start (some providers, like BTG, do request a result spin by spin).How does that work then?
When you have many slots that update the balance before the spin or feature has been played out.
We have been told that the value is known from the press of the button, the display is just eye candy, you seem to be contradicting this.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><GDMRESPONSE><OGS_RC>0</OGS_RC><SUCCESS>true</SUCCESS><PAYLOAD><![CDATA[&MSGID=BET&B=99724&VER=2.6.27-2.6.12-2.6.3-2.6.1-69-4&RID=0&NRID=0&BPR=5&RB=6&RS=43|109|64|68|59|42|&TW=135&WC=2|0|0|&WS=0;125;2;3;0;-1;-1;-1;|1;10;3;2;3;-1;-1;-1;|&WM=1|1|&IFG=0&MUL=1&SUB=0&GA=1&AB=99724&FRBAL=0&SID=Free:hrio8hl64tn6p99dmqh0bram5pb&]]></PAYLOAD></GDMRESPONSE>
I think you did not understand my post.I think you have a slight misconception about how slots work. The display method and the value outcome are intrinsically linked.
Slots don't choose a value outcome and then decide on a display method to show it, the gem matches, tumbles etc is what determines the value outcome. So the engine will randomly populate the grid with fruits (with some weighting algorithms), then see what matches, add them to the total, tumble them, randomly generate some more fruits, see what matches, add them to the total etc.
What I'm pretty sure happened here is that algorithm for determining the fruits got itself into some very rare situation where the weighting was causing it to select the same pattern of fruits each time, and so kept tumbling forever. Once the max win cap was reached, the code will have stopped the tumbles. If the max cap was 10000x, it would have carried on to that, if there was no max cap, the server would have just crashed in an infinite loop
Your post implied that the display method was separate and unrelated to the value outcome, but sorry if I missreadI think you did not understand my post.
no one here says that the frontend decides on the displaymethod.
Thanks for the additional detail! Makes sense. So every reel is identical? That's surprising, wouldn't have guessed that (primarily because it can cause this problem hehe)Hi all,
So I have now personally spent some good amount of time with the game developers to understand what happened exactly and how this spectacular win is possible. So the critical thing to understand is that the Random Number Generator (RNG) generates the position of the reels with respect to each other once for each spin. This includes the visible part of the reels for which the slot pays, but also the non-visible part for which the slot doesn’t pay. When a tumble happens some of the non-visible part of the reels falls into the screen and pays if there is a win, and so on. It’s not the case that the RNG generates new reel positions for each tumble. So for the particular game round we are discussing, the reels positioning was generated in a way that reels 2 to 6 were perfectly aligned, resulting in a tumble that keeps going forever. The chance of this happening is of course very rare, but it does happen. I have included a simplified example in a picture to make it more clear. The yellow and red part is what you see as a player, the red part keeps tumbling.
View attachment 155526
Hope this clarifies.
Br,
Daniel
Thanks, but it's crap programming - no slot done right should or could produce a perpetual spin. For obvious reasons. GameArt would have been proud of that....Hi all,
So I have now personally spent some good amount of time with the game developers to understand what happened exactly and how this spectacular win is possible. So the critical thing to understand is that the Random Number Generator (RNG) generates the position of the reels with respect to each other once for each spin. This includes the visible part of the reels for which the slot pays, but also the non-visible part for which the slot doesn’t pay. When a tumble happens some of the non-visible part of the reels falls into the screen and pays if there is a win, and so on. It’s not the case that the RNG generates new reel positions for each tumble. So for the particular game round we are discussing, the reels positioning was generated in a way that reels 2 to 6 were perfectly aligned, resulting in a tumble that keeps going forever. The chance of this happening is of course very rare, but it does happen. I have included a simplified example in a picture to make it more clear. The yellow and red part is what you see as a player, the red part keeps tumbling.
View attachment 155526
Hope this clarifies.
Br,
Daniel
how did you get the URL or the replay and can this replay any play done?btw here is the entire replayYou do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Hi all,
So I have now personally spent some good amount of time with the game developers to understand what happened exactly and how this spectacular win is possible. So the critical thing to understand is that the Random Number Generator (RNG) generates the position of the reels with respect to each other once for each spin. This includes the visible part of the reels for which the slot pays, but also the non-visible part for which the slot doesn’t pay. When a tumble happens some of the non-visible part of the reels falls into the screen and pays if there is a win, and so on. It’s not the case that the RNG generates new reel positions for each tumble. So for the particular game round we are discussing, the reels positioning was generated in a way that reels 2 to 6 were perfectly aligned, resulting in a tumble that keeps going forever. The chance of this happening is of course very rare, but it does happen. I have included a simplified example in a picture to make it more clear. The yellow and red part is what you see as a player, the red part keeps tumbling.
View attachment 155526
Hope this clarifies.
Br,
Daniel