- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
Well clearly as they have already admitted the game pools from a huge pool of patterns / results then clearly the answer is yes...
Jammin Jars
- Thread starter sledge13
- Start date
Well clearly as they have already admitted the game pools from a huge pool of patterns / results then clearly the answer is yes...
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
well, no worries, dont break your back trying to understandI don't know that you mean but l will like the comment anyway
It's another well-constructed video with some interesting tidbits, but I'm still not getting your take on it
On the one hand you state that freak events can occur with random numbers, and that there is a chance two streamers shared a one-in-1.4 million-hit within days of each other, but then you'll say that 'tis the season to be buying Lottery tickets because stupendous hits are in vogue
So which is it? I'd hazard a guess you're 80% unconvinced of what's transpired, going by the overall tone, but who knows
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Location
- UK
Nice video, the only issue I'd flag up is the 1 in 1,690,000 figure quoted.
Consider Streamer A, who has hit an event (in this case, the 1600x)
Take Streamers B through Z (we don't care which) who are playing the slot afterwards - and have wagered say 100,000 spins between them.
If, for simplicity, we assume they all take a unique result from the pool and all results are equally likely - that would be 1 in 13. The real result isn't going to be too far away from that.
Similar to the Birthday Paradox, where 23 people will give you a 50-50 chance of a common birthday.
TheresNoDInBonanza
Non-Gambler
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Location
- Australia
Thanks for the response however I don't believe it would be impossible to run the feature normally at all. Coding in predetermined wins is going to be more complex, not less.
Plenty of large tile array cascaders don't predetermine features, as far as I know.
The only logical reason to do so is you're worried about potential monster wins and you either: 1. Saw them during testing and so went to the curated pool method or 2. Decided your testing wasn't adequate to guarantee they wouldn't likely occur based on lack of computational power/simulation time, which doesn't really make sense since like I said earlier you can just rent enormous amounts of computational horsepower from Amazon for a few hours.
Or as I said earlier:
TheresNoDInBonanza
Non-Gambler
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Location
- Australia
And @dunover I wish you'd address our actual arguments instead of tying yourself into knots ranting at strawmen.
Absolutely no one was saying this. If anything we were all saying the complete opposite.
This is arguing in bad faith.
Sounds like you would prefer National Lottery scratchcards whereby the pays, number of each of them, number of total cards and odds against each pay are listed. Nice and simple when you've only got 10 permutations of prize and a finite number of chances. Shame they pay 50% as opposed to 96% though. Then again, they can get away with it as people still buy them regardless.
Absolutely no one was saying this. If anything we were all saying the complete opposite.
This is arguing in bad faith.
Last edited:
One thing that people forget to mention is how many spins all those streamers combined played on all the same slots during the last year or so and nothing like that happened before? It's very possible that an event like that was mathematically bound to happen soon or later.
Confirmation bias is real, you all need to be careful with that.
Confirmation bias is real, you all need to be careful with that.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
Actually it's much much easier to code predetermined wins... But remember they aren't coding them by hand.
You set up the game and the rules and then you do exactly what you say... Run billions and billions of spins. Then you store the results for all of them.
Now naturally you might have a very low win frequency and a very low RTP, so you have to throw away a shit load of losing games. Then you take all the remaining ones and you keep changing the pool until you have the win frequency you want and the RTP you want and the win distribution you want.
So yes plenty of large array tile cascaders can run randomly... But it's much harder to allow that when you are trying to curate game play experience.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
Cheers jason, so what are the correct odds for this?
Calculating probability isn't my strongest suit but I ran the numbers past a couple of other people who came up with the same result as me.
The question posed is, if Person A makes 1000 samples of something that has a 1 in 1,300,000 chance of happening, and Person B also makes 1000 samples of something that has a 1 in 1,300,000 chance of happening - what is the probability that both of them will hit the 1 in 1,300,000 chance during their 1000 samples?
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2018
- Location
- Helsinki
I know is not related to the post but since it's been discused here maybe somebody can illuminate me
so, is he "fake" or not
and what fake means ?
thanks!
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Location
- Republic Of West Yorkshire
If he isnt fake then he is rich himself now with the withdrawals he has had the past couple of months
He is allowed so many 300% deposits daily with a max 2000 euro deposit, so 8000 euro start balance with a max bet of 100 euro I believe.
TBH, I dont believe he is fake, I think he was a bit suspect in his early days with Multilotto though.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2018
- Location
- Uk
I’m a newbie to CM but have been playing a fair while online and work in land based so thought why not have my 2 pence worth.
It certainly doesn’t look great but just a couple of things I’d say on the matter.
I could be being naive but I just can’t see that a provider or casino etc would risk their foothold in such a lucrative market for casino streamers to get favourable outcomes. Of course they attract many customers and whilst they must surely generate good revenue for all concerned, it must be a drop in the ocean when you look at the bigger picture.
I’m not saying it doesn’t look suspect because it obviously does, and the fact it’s streamers hasn’t helped the cause either, but could this really happen? It’s certainly interesting to follow.
My apologies if this has been mentioned already, but if I were either the casino or provider involved I don’t think I would settle at just making a statement. When you have a platform such as CM to interact with people who play regularly and view online matters such as this extremely seriously, then why not invite somebody from CM and give them a complete tour of what goes on, then there could be no more misinformed comments and transparency would be there for us all to see.
It certainly doesn’t look great but just a couple of things I’d say on the matter.
I could be being naive but I just can’t see that a provider or casino etc would risk their foothold in such a lucrative market for casino streamers to get favourable outcomes. Of course they attract many customers and whilst they must surely generate good revenue for all concerned, it must be a drop in the ocean when you look at the bigger picture.
I’m not saying it doesn’t look suspect because it obviously does, and the fact it’s streamers hasn’t helped the cause either, but could this really happen? It’s certainly interesting to follow.
My apologies if this has been mentioned already, but if I were either the casino or provider involved I don’t think I would settle at just making a statement. When you have a platform such as CM to interact with people who play regularly and view online matters such as this extremely seriously, then why not invite somebody from CM and give them a complete tour of what goes on, then there could be no more misinformed comments and transparency would be there for us all to see.
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Location
- Finland
Personally I really don't have issues with the way this game is designed. Its a grid game and personally I always treat them as graphically enhanced scratchcards. At least this game isn't teasing every fifth spin or constantly showing near misses like so many tend to do nowadays.
Somewhat similar to Moon Princess were the girl powers are obviously "scripted" as certain wins are impossible to get and in many cases you know the moment it starts if you will get trinity or not. That game also gave me 3 identical Star features in 5 "attempts", although the visual presentation was different but the multiplier was the same. So better designed in that regard.
But that is assuming only 2 streamers played the game. To get the true odds you would have to know how many games were played by "all" streamers.
Somewhat similar to Moon Princess were the girl powers are obviously "scripted" as certain wins are impossible to get and in many cases you know the moment it starts if you will get trinity or not. That game also gave me 3 identical Star features in 5 "attempts", although the visual presentation was different but the multiplier was the same. So better designed in that regard.
But that is assuming only 2 streamers played the game. To get the true odds you would have to know how many games were played by "all" streamers.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- midlands
Got to agree it is far easier to use preditermined sequences esp on a game like this.You also have the advantage
of showing more juicy near misses that would not show up if truly random.I think Bonanza and Chilli would look
very different without the feature near miss sequences that seem occur much more that they should.
of showing more juicy near misses that would not show up if truly random.I think Bonanza and Chilli would look
very different without the feature near miss sequences that seem occur much more that they should.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
Exactly - the chances are not as ridiculous as some people think!
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
But that's not what we're examining, we're looking at the chances of these two streamers hitting the same 1 in 1.3M RNG call with a sample size of 1000 game rounds each.
Of course if we make the sample size bigger and bigger, the chances of it happening increase.
If I get my Gran to put a couple of thousand game rounds through it, can I add her into the stats as well?
Of course if we make the sample size bigger and bigger, the chances of it happening increase.
If I get my Gran to put a couple of thousand game rounds through it, can I add her into the stats as well?
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
Well that's come full-circle. So now random isn't random, win potential is capped with certain combinations unattainable, and seeing doctored mini-movies is all the rage!
Yep, its obviously quicker and cheaper to develop like this so I reckon its the way forward.
How ethical it is is a differant matter. If you put this way of doing things to a layman with no vested interest in the industry I think you might get a pretty negative view of it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
But you're not though are you... because there may have been many other streamers playing the game, streaming it live. So to be statistically accurate you have to take these in to account.
What you're asking is for the odds of ANY two streamers to have hit the same 1600x within a week (or whatever the time difference is). You can't look at these two in isolation because that is an unfair comparison and statistically misleading.
The chance of only these two streamers having the same result is of course quite low, but you can't discount all the other games played live on stream because if the same had happened to them then you would also have included them in the discussion.
Sorry ChopleyIOM but you're wrong on this.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
The way forward on extremely complex games like this, yes... but certainly not all games.
lockinlove
Editing my post so I dont get in trouble
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
- Location
- Canada
People can argue they are fake but I agree both these streamers play all day everyday for years on end. Something like this happening isnt that mind blowing to be honest. Rare..but so is getting 5000x on bod..1:1.5 million I believe is that ratio.
Id be curious about the dreamcatcher wheel glitch that happened the other day. We were told its just a wheel with no mechanisms but how can the wheel just spin to no end bets canceled people left like wtf.
Id be curious about the dreamcatcher wheel glitch that happened the other day. We were told its just a wheel with no mechanisms but how can the wheel just spin to no end bets canceled people left like wtf.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
Would be very easy to do the maths and work out if that wheel can even be a true spin or not....
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
I'm running with the information we have, which is of the two streamers we've seen the footage of hitting identical calls from the RNG, live on their streams.
Were there other streamers playing this game last week? Possibly, probably, maybe - I have no information one way or the other and I'm not just going to invent some.
But yes, clearly the odds will change if we add more streamers into the mix, maybe we'd end up at 1 in 1.2M, or 1 in 900K, or 1 in 500K, or even 1 in 50K.
Whatever the case, it's a pretty unlikely event.
Thing is, it doesn't really make any difference, because my conclusion on this would be the same, as explained in the video I uploaded last night. Random numbers do really weird shit sometimes, and in the absence of evidence or proof of shenanigans, we are forced to conclude that, however unlikely, these two guys really did pick the same 1 in 1.3 million RNG call from the game's backend, live on their streams.
That's not even the main issue here (as I also covered in last night's video), the real issue IMO is that games of this style are visually deceptive, create player expectation that can never be fulfilled, and are arguably bad for everyone because we can end up with what we saw on those two streams, which immediately (and understandably) leads to cries of 'rigged'!
1.3M possible results for the base game isn't nearly enough IMO, and speaks of lazy game design on Push Gaming's part - which is why we've ended up where we have.
(On a 32 stop 5 reel slot for example, there are 33 million possible combinations for the reels to land in.)
- Joined
- May 22, 2013
- Location
- Cumbria
The game may be legal. But you're, unknowingly, just playing a bunch of scratchcards. WITHOUT even knowing what the maximum prize is.
So if the win sequences are predetermined and limited, but the RNG true and random and able to pull any result, how is the game supposed to visually display this?
And yes that would surely negate a good proportion of winnable situations. By being unavailable to the player!
And yes that would surely negate a good proportion of winnable situations. By being unavailable to the player!
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
Push Gaming indicated there are 1.3M possible results in the RNG pool for the base game, so it could be as simple as each of those 1.3M results has a pre-determined animation sequence associated with it.
Or, they could have been lazy, (well, lazier), and used the same animation for multiple RNG results. (So for example, there might be two 1600x results in the RNG pool. but only one animation for it. In that scenario, the two streamers could have hit two different 1600x RNG calls, but there's only one animation for 1600x, so two different RNG results resulted in the same animation.)
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Yes, but these aren't mechanical slots with 5 or 6 random reels stops necessarily, as we've said many a time although the maths is built as if they were. The TRTP (all possible reels combinations at level stake, once) is 96% say. This breaks down in your example to possibly 26 million combos at zero return, 200 combos at 1000x plus whatever. Those 200 combos or RNG results of 1000x may only have 10 visuals allocated to them rather than 200, therefore although the maths, chances etc. are all identical, for ease and speed there is often limited graphics built in to represent them. You can see this as I said on TS2 where if you look at the reel maps and work out the tens of thousands of 0.16x win combinations for say 3x9's, you'll notice that you only see limited variations of it.
On online slots there's no need to have 5 different RNG picks for one spin, as all the possible results are already programmed into the pool of outcomes; selecting a single result then rendering the graphics is all that is necessary. I assume this makes the games run faster and helps any issues you could get with server disconnects because everything is black-and-white - either the result was picked, or it wasn't, rather than the game picking 2 reel stops then cutting out before the third.
As for the slot being a 'scratchcard' you could say the same about any cascading game, even Bonanza then. Then you should remember that cascading grid slots are little different to normal ones - they still have reel maps for each column but are represented as individual tiles for cosmetic reasons and you see more positions on the screen. Think an expanded screen of 6-rows on Gonzo's Quest for example instead of the 3 it has, so you could see the tiles above before they fell as opposed to being in view already.
To be honest, the more I read of this the greater my belief that it's almost a 'non subject'! Firstly the chances of what we saw are far greater than say those 5k+ x bet Bonanza and Donuts wins and especially the 14k Bonanza hit AND the recent 729-ways of Rhinos yet those raise little comment even though those spins are just as predetermined as RNG values. Secondly, it's been established how the win is represented in the graphics and thirdly, it's all been confirmed as kosher by the casino and Push Gaming.
Yes, the rules could have a minor amendment as we all agree but isn't the proposition simple? If you don't trust it, don't play it!
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Location
- Republic Of West Yorkshire
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Location
- UK
It isn't though... that's the point we are trying to make. The odds change much faster than you expect.
As you say, for Streamer A and Streamer B to hit the same nominated RNG call in 1000 spins - each has approximately 1 in 1300 chance, which gives the 1 in 1.69m quoted previously.
Now, if we had 25 streamers who had each done a 1000 spin block, you now have 300 block comparisons (25 blocks x 24 blocks / 2) and approximate odds of 1 in 5,633 (or 300 / 1690000)
The number of comparisons would explode quickly as the streamers pile on the spins - by 100 streamers (and 100,000 spins total) you'd have 4,950 block comparisons and approximate odds of 1 in 341
That is still considering a nominated RNG call - if we then expanded that out to consider any big win (and there could be hundreds in the paytable) - our lottery-busting odds are well into roulette territory.
If we take the original assumptions at face value, then yes it's a one in a million shot. However, given any two streamers hitting any identical big win would have triggered this debate - I feel that we have to correct those assumptions accordingly.
TheresNoDInBonanza
Non-Gambler
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Location
- Australia
I'm not sure why people are worried about the odds of the hits occurring, when, to me at least- the bigger issue is that we've found that features can be completely scripted.
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Location
- UK
Both have their merits.
From the discussion that @trancemonkey and I had above, for the sheer volume of streaming that now occurs, these events are inevitable (and people will rightly get suspicious because it is a "random" game that has scripted outcomes)
They wouldn't be the first operator to "script" features or bonus rounds though - anyone who has played a Blueprint will know that in some games there is no freedom because the balance has updated before you've even picked anything! If you are offering a choice or degree of freedom, it should be there in my opinion.
From the discussion that @trancemonkey and I had above, for the sheer volume of streaming that now occurs, these events are inevitable (and people will rightly get suspicious because it is a "random" game that has scripted outcomes)
They wouldn't be the first operator to "script" features or bonus rounds though - anyone who has played a Blueprint will know that in some games there is no freedom because the balance has updated before you've even picked anything! If you are offering a choice or degree of freedom, it should be there in my opinion.
Last edited:
TheresNoDInBonanza
Non-Gambler
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Location
- Australia
There's a big difference between a game round being sent in it's entirety before it's played out visually and one being selected from a predetermined and curated pool of possibilities.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
Sorry for the quick reply, I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but I'm pushed for time at the moment.
However, I really do wish you'd stop trying to conflate 'having issues with how a game works and/or its rules' with 'not trusting it'.
I trust that the backend RNG calls for Jammin' Jars are fair and random, and that the game runs to its stated RTP over the long term, but I still have issues with its structure as a game and believe that the rules as currently worded are both factually incorrect and misleading for the player.
- Joined
- May 22, 2013
- Location
- Cumbria
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Location
- London
Not to cast aspersions, but maybe its harder to maintain a truly honest objective view when you begin to have personal/business relationships with developers in the industry.
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Location
- Wolverhampton
I said features were pre-scripted (but still random) when I first joined CM back in 2014.
Can't recall if I was laughed off the stage or totally ignored being new and all that at the time.
Either way.........
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Location
- Wolverhampton
Top, top man!
I just knew it would be you to get my weekend off to a flyer by being the first to reassure me buddy!
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Location
- UK
Apologies, my previous post went through before I'd finished writing it and as written was a little too subtle.
From my experience with Blueprints, it feels like they are guilty of both of those - game rounds are completed regardless of user interaction (so predetermined pick-em rounds) and you get a vibe in the bonus rounds that do not involve a reel set that they are scripted (they like to kill you off on rounded prize values, they will tease excessively before triggering events and so on) rather than a fair representation of the game board.
I guess the UK crowd will be more aware of this given we'd been through an era of bent ("compensated") gambles and features on fruit machines where you literally couldn't win.
A lot of this will come down to the game rules and slot design - is it inferring or explicitly stating an event is randomly going to happen (primary RNG) or are you uncovering the result (secondary RNG, like a scratchcard). In the case of Jammin Jars the vibe is very much the first, so rather disappointing for it to be the second.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Location
- Lincoln UK
As far as you know? Well I know different, and most if not all large tile array cascaders do predetermine the results for the exact reason Push gaming explained, its most likely other games have just hid it from the player better.
However, this method should not be confused with all tumbling reel games, for example standard 5x3 grid games as these can use the standard reel strip method.
There is no actual difference to either way as once the initial dropped symbols have dropped the rest is all a predetermined sequence of events, one scripted like in the case of jammin jars and the other following the drop pattern of the reel strips.
As stated by everyone in the know, either way is legal, random and fair.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
OK let's make a slot. It's really simple. There are 2 reels, like a pair of dice with 1-6 on each. The game only pays if you spin in any combination of 7. So there are 6 ways to do it, 1-6, 2-5, 3-4, 4-3, 5-2 and 6-1.
We represent them in the 'pot' so-to-speak with the first 6 spectrum colours, Red, orange, yellow, green , blue and indigo. The rest of the balls in the pot are losing white ones.
If you pull the 'red' out you get 1-6 on the reels. You pull orange out, you get 2-5 showing for the same win amount. And so-on.
To make things quicker and simpler, I make all 6 winning balls red. So every time the RNG selects 'win' for 7, the reels will ALWAYS show 1-6. You simply wouldn't see 2-5 or 3-4 on the reels.
The RNG results pool in values is exactly the same, the odds exactly the same and the RTP too.
It simply isn't necessary to have the reels stop separately when the equivalent result range is set in the pool of RNG values. Transpose that idea to complex online slots and you then get it - I hope.
I'll just make sure not to say 'each reel stops randomly' in the rules lol.
If I make this slot please don't start a thread "Dunover's Dice slot pays 2 streamers the same 1-6 win within 2 spins - aarrgghhhhh!"
We represent them in the 'pot' so-to-speak with the first 6 spectrum colours, Red, orange, yellow, green , blue and indigo. The rest of the balls in the pot are losing white ones.
If you pull the 'red' out you get 1-6 on the reels. You pull orange out, you get 2-5 showing for the same win amount. And so-on.
To make things quicker and simpler, I make all 6 winning balls red. So every time the RNG selects 'win' for 7, the reels will ALWAYS show 1-6. You simply wouldn't see 2-5 or 3-4 on the reels.
The RNG results pool in values is exactly the same, the odds exactly the same and the RTP too.
It simply isn't necessary to have the reels stop separately when the equivalent result range is set in the pool of RNG values. Transpose that idea to complex online slots and you then get it - I hope.
I'll just make sure not to say 'each reel stops randomly' in the rules lol.
If I make this slot please don't start a thread "Dunover's Dice slot pays 2 streamers the same 1-6 win within 2 spins - aarrgghhhhh!"
This is The Chewbacca Defence again, isn't it 
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
I'm not racist, but...……..
Kinda like if someone's missus told them grass was green it would be less credible if they repeated it.
