My online slots videos (plus UK AWPs)

[dunover]

Bonanza is indeed a high variance game over all, but to compensate as Balt says the base game is unusually high in RTP terms at around 71%. The second clue to its volatility is the 6OAK pays - you have one standout pay of 50x for 6OAK diamonds which is 6.67x the second-highest, the rubies at 7.5x. This spread is always indicative of a 'two tier' pay structure, as it makes the colossal pays very rare. I have a ball park figure of the player seeing 1 or more ways of 6OAK diamonds once in about every 25,000 spins and that's just in the base game. Factor in to that you are playing on average 12-17 spins with a multiplier every 460 spins and you can see how incredibly rare it is to see 6OAK diamonds in the bonus. This is why those 10k x bet wins have little effect on the RTP generally as they are paid for with a tiny fraction of turnover, almost like Chopley said a form of 'jackpots' built in.

Take another example of a HV game, Dead On Arrival - it's very similar to Bonanza as far as the base game goes with decent balance maintenance but structures the bonuses differently with them being just over 3x more frequent but with a 3x less average return. So two variations of a game with high volatility but a different bonus frequency and that volatility is applied in main to the bonus. Bonanza has a more volatile base game than DoA too, as DoA cannot pay 500-2500x bet in its base game. Out of the two Bonanza is more volatile overall but the player's perception of that volatility is tempered with base game performance. If we add Novo's Book Of Ra Deluxe in to the equation, it's actually less volatile in bonus terms than either of the two aforementioned games but because they like to give free spins that are both regular and decent-paying the base game has only around 50% of the RTP and therefore to the player the impression of volatility is far greater than DoA or Bonanza due to the battering you often take when features aren't arriving. That's why I call it 'Book Of Robbery'....

 

[jasonuk]

First, Bonanza is not a crazy high variance slot and I've no idea why you keep implying that. ... You make it sound like it's DOA variance and people keep playing a shitty boring slot with the hope of hitting a 10,000x win to get their money back.

I would agree with Bonanza being high but not crazy high variance. Some people have suggested it as a wagering slot - I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly not in DOA territory.

BWP had an article about Dead or Alive with some numbers:
* Base RTP: 53.7% lines + ~12.8% non-triggering scatters = 66.5%
* Bonus RTP: ~4.6% triggering scatters + 25.7% free spins = 30.3%

* Bonus Frequency: 1 in 152 spins
* Retrigger Frequency: 1 in 45 bonuses

Compare that with Bonanza Jr (Extra Chilli):
* Bonus Frequency: 1 in 230 spins
* Bonus Buy: 50 x stake, 96.82% RTP (optimal, 96.26% assuming no gambles) = 48.41x return

* Bonus RTP: 48.41x / 230 = 21.0%
* Base RTP: ~75.4%

If anyone has the Bonus RTP for Bonanza itself (with the 1 in 460 spins bonus frequency), would be an interesting comparison.

Yes I was prepared to accept it wasn't that high variance but dunover expressed the opinion that any slot with the hit potential of Bonanza has to be considered a HV slot.

I don't think anyone would consider it a medium variance slot - but there are other slots imho more suited to the very/crazy/ultra high variance tag - Dead or Alive we've already mentioned, Donuts would be one, I think Book of Gods (also BTG) would be another, some of the Merkur offerings may also be in that category.

 

[mack341]

If 71 % rtp is for bonanza's base game with a 460 spin average for the bonus to occur, do the following maths make sense: 460 x£2 stake = £920 -71% = 653.2 returned to player = 266.8 loss, then minus from this the 100x average win* for the bonus round £200 =66.8 profit for the casino. 4% house edge = £8 per 100 spins x 4.6 = 36.8; so there's £30 extra taken from somewhere which equates to 3% rtp

I would be interested if btg could have played with the figures to make a more player friendly version with a higher bonus frequency, or maybe brought out a version where you could play 10p a spin.

* this figure is based on hearing dunover mention it in his vids

 

[dunover]

Basically Bonanza has around 25% RTP allocated in the feature. It pays an average long-term of just over 100x bet. At an average of >400 spins @ 96% blah blah (Mack already broke this down above) the figures do tally, although they are rounded up and down which accounts for the 'missing 3%'.

For example if it was 71.41% in the base and 24.59% in the feature you would find most of that missing 3%.

Those figures Jason quotes are usually provided by people pulling say a million or two spins with a bot from the RNG (unless provided directly from the developer's testing and compliance auditing) - I used to have the programme myself and tried it on DoA although I got slightly different results than above.

As you can see EC is like a 'half' Bonanza in essence. I have always called Bonanza 'HV' myself, if you want very high go to games like BDBA or Magic Mirror etc.

As for a 'player friendly' version of Bonanza, Mack - isn't that exactly what they've done with EC? Bonanza is a brutally honest slot: you get a decent feature return and a decent base game but the caveat is you don't get the feature often, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Netent decided not to have a rare feature on DoA so gave you a more frequent one, same potential but with far more disappointing outcomes.

The WORST thing any developer can do with games like Bonanza is 'pad' the game out, i.e. due to feature rarity they make it appear more often but with a wheel or something that gives you either free spins or usually some crappy coin prize. If nothing else, Bonanza is a brutal but very honest slot!

 

[mack341]

As for a 'player friendly' version of Bonanza, Mack - isn't that exactly what they've done with EC?

Aye it is kind of, but I hate the bonus gamble which is more btg gerrymandering , 8 spins is over in a flash but who wants to gamble and lose a bonus it's just taken an hour to land , talk about removing the 'fun'.

 

[Balthazar]

There are multiple screenshots of it doing 1500x stake and more, and it routinely does that in the VS races.

View attachment 94247

That's the end result of a bunch of cascades (which is essentially a mini bonus round), where someone hit the high paying stuff on many of them. That's no different than hitting twice a 5OAK on Arctic Adventure during the same bonus, for example.

Max pay is 15+ pink monsters for 750x.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

That's the end result of a bunch of cascades (which is essentially a mini bonus round), where someone hit the high paying stuff on many of them. That's no different than hitting twice a 5OAK on Arctic Adventure during the same bonus, for example.

I thought that was a given TBH. I wouldn't describe a 100 spins 10x Arctic round as 200x + 350x + 100x etc etc, I'd just describe the round total as the pay.

Same principle applies to Reactoonz, and in the case of Bonanza those mega-hits are going to be the result of building up the multiplier and many wins.

 

[Balthazar]

I thought that was a given TBH. I wouldn't describe a 100 spins 10x Arctic round as 200x + 350x + 100x etc etc, I'd just describe the round total as the pay.

Same principle applies to Reactoonz, and in the case of Bonanza those mega-hits are going to be the result of building up the multiplier and many wins.

When talking about hit potential and variance, we're usually not talking about the result of a bunch of independent successive wins.

 

[SpinUk]

That's the end result of a bunch of cascades (which is essentially a mini bonus round), where someone hit the high paying stuff on many of them. That's no different than hitting twice a 5OAK on Arctic Adventure during the same bonus, for example.

Max pay is 15+ pink monsters for 750x.

Couldnt you hit 15 pinks and, say 12 greens simultaneously on the same “spins” (not bonus module) to increase the spin win?

 

[Balthazar]

Couldnt you hit 15 pinks and, say 12 greens simultaneously on the same “spins” (not bonus module) to increase the spin win?

Maybe, I don't know. I guess in theory you could get a full screen of pinks, too. The volatility on that game is strange. There are very little balance-maintaining wins with a very large part of the RTP in the Gargatoon bonus round (so I'd say usually between 100-1000x for the bonus). So you get a game where nearly the whole RTP is in wins below 5x and over 100x. That's a very tough slot.

 

[SpinUk]

Maybe, I don't know. I guess in theory you could get a full screen of pinks, too. The volatility on that game is strange. There are very little balance-maintaining wins with a very large part of the RTP in the Gargatoon bonus round (so I'd say usually between 100-1000x for the bonus). So you get a game where nearly the whole RTP is in wins below 5x and over 100x. That's a very tough slot.

I think the max win is 15+ pinks, so more wouldnt make any odds, but other wins more so. Had the Gargatoon about 25 times, top win so far 700x. Usual is 150 ish to 300x

 

[Jono777]

max pay is 15 pinks but doubled if there is a 2x2 block of them so 1,500x stake for one "collection"

 

[ChopleyIOM]

When talking about hit potential and variance, we're usually not talking about the result of a bunch of independent successive wins.

But surely the overall profile of a slot in terms of hit potential and variance, as far as the player is concerned, is what does any particular feature, or free spins round, or chain event etc actually pay?

So whilst the chains in Reactoonz and the 10x 100 spins round in Arctic are a load of independent events chained together, (well, we know they are in Arctic, but who has any idea how Reactoonz actually works under the hood?), as far as we're concerned they're a single round and we think of them as a single pay.

If anything, the way video slots are designed (and even more so in the case of modern slots like Reactoonz and Bonanza), it's impossible to think about hit potential and variance any other way?

 

[Balthazar]

But surely the overall profile of a slot in terms of hit potential and variance, as far as the player is concerned, is what does any particular feature, or free spins round, or chain event etc actually pay?

So whilst the chains in Reactoonz and the 10x 100 spins round in Arctic are a load of independent events chained together, (well, we know they are in Arctic, but who has any idea how Reactoonz actually works under the hood?), as far as we're concerned they're a single round and we think of them as a single pay.

If anything, the way video slots are designed (and even more so in the case of modern slots like Reactoonz and Bonanza), it's impossible to think about hit potential and variance any other way?

In case of Bonanza the massive wins (let's say 2000x +) that take a chunk of the TRTP aren't grinded over the length of a bonus round, they appear as single hits once in a blue moon. (I'd be guessing at about the same rate of a 4 wild reels Wild Desire on IR?). I'd even go as far as saying that you're more likely to hit 5 Wild Reels on IR than getting a 10,000x win on Bonanza.

Take DHV for example, a game that you brought up in the Donuts thread. Sure there's this massive 20,000x hit on Youtube but I've watched several hundreds of bonus rounds on that game and I can count on one hand the number of times that I've seen it break 1,000x and I can't remember seeing 2000x or more once. It's super, super rare for it to go over 1k stake and likely on par with most 3Dice games. So if people lose money quickly on that game (and I'm one of them!) it's not because of the ultra high variance of the slot (just like Reactoonz or Fat Rabbit). Back when I was playing NetEnt games I remember losing money lightning fast on shitty low potential games like Wonky Wabbits or Fistycuffs... and it sure wasn't because of the high variance of those slots but because of how the paytable was built.

The point I'm trying to make here is you overstate the case of those massive wins in the paytable of modern games. I fully understand what you are trying to explain to people but it's just not accurate (IMO). If people would play Queen of Riches or Star Quest all the time and complain that their money don't last then you'd be 100% correct.

 

[09237653]

That's the end result of a bunch of cascades (which is essentially a mini bonus round), where someone hit the high paying stuff on many of them. That's no different than hitting twice a 5OAK on Arctic Adventure during the same bonus, for example.

Max pay is 15+ pink monsters for 750x.

On Reactoonz a square block makes it x2 for 1500x it can also drop multiple big wins in one go, heres a screen of my 1500x +750x (2362x)

*ninja edit: added a x2 shot as well.



x2

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So if people lose money quickly on that game (and I'm one of them!) it's not because of the ultra high variance of the slot (just like Reactoonz or Fat Rabbit). Back when I was playing NetEnt games I remember losing money lightning fast on shitty low potential games like Wonky Wabbits or Fistycuffs... and it sure wasn't because of the high variance of those slots but because of how the paytable was built.

The point I'm trying to make here is you overstate the case of those massive wins in the paytable of modern games. I fully understand what you are trying to explain to people but it's just not accurate (IMO). If people would play Queen of Riches or Star Quest all the time and complain that their money don't last then you'd be 100% correct.

As best I can recall I don't think I've specifically insisted on a regular basis that it's the massive wins that are buggering up modern slots in terms of delivering awful playtime, shit feature frequency, and bankroll destroying behaviour with the player feeling like there's never any hope of recovery. I remember we were talking about 'NetEnt Variance' years ago whereby they started churning out slots that would take your balance apart on sensible stakes with a decent bankroll, and yet be missing much in the way of potential to deliver hits that explained their behaviour.

I have gone on about wins of 5000-15000x stake being a waste of RTP for most people (however small that amount of RTP is), because it's borderline lottery odds to actually hit them so you may as well just play a progressive.

The very fact wins of 1000x and 2000x are so incredibly rare on the likes of Bonanza and DHV is kind of my point, since 3Dice's slots can (and do!) generate those hits but also manage to deliver excellent playtime and a really good solid range of hits in the 100-500x range. (If Bonanza and other BTG slots had delivered the kind of run for someone I had at 3Dice earlier in the week, people would be shouting from the rooftops about it.)

Tangentially, I don't like the way slots get so many updates these days either. They should be launched 100% functional and should never need to be dicked about with IMO.

 

[mack341]

I was just going to look at jimbo casinos win on dead or alive, iirc over £40,000 at £7 stake, to query whether huge stake wins could affect the base game rtp performance on netent games for low rollers [I know this foil theory was discussed in the trance monkey thread] but it looks like jimbo's been terminated.

 

[Jory]

Does anyone even remember how 6-7 years ago most people complained about how 3Dice was too volatile? It was the modern day BTG.

A lot of the complaints were about people depositing and getting no game time and switching back to microgaming download casinos. Oh boy how things have changed....

I truly do enjoy the high volatile modern day slots. The "Hit big or bust" mentality. It means you can make a minimum deposit of £10 and cash out £1000. It means triggering a bonus round is something to genuinely get excited about, and not just preloading your spreadsheet ready to enter "16X".

Triggering the bonus round on Bonanza will always give a nice endorphin rush because with a 100X average payout you know anything can happen and, within a fair degree of regularity, it does. It never is about hitting the progressive of RTP, but simply about getting those 200x+ wins.

But what I hate more than anything else when it comes to gambling, is depositing for a nights entertainment and while your first beer is still cold, your balance has hit £0. My attitude to combat this while still making small deposits and playing high volatile games, is to simply play as slow as possible.

You can easily triple your "game time" by simply avoiding things like quick spinning and auto play. Instead you should treat each and every spin as it's own unique event. Many people wait days after buying a lottery ticket despite the odds being in the millions, waiting a few extra seconds for a 450/1 event can still be enjoyable if you start from the beginning with that approach.

Notice how no casino has a "slow play" feature. It's always about playing as fast as possible as that's what makes them money and makes you lose and decide to redeposit.

Many times simply playing slow has given me a nights entertainment without the need to redeposit. I know to most people it will seem so boring that they would rather just lose, but I try to look at gambling as a long term thing rather than single sessions.

 

[goatwack]

I remember Thunderstruck (& other MG 9-liners) would allow the user to customize the gap between spins, quite a good feature I thought!

I'd even do manual spins on that game for a while with 3-4 second interludes, almost analysing each spin in great depth. Just to give the illusion of play time if anything, so I get the 'slow play' point all too well

Developers would do well to slow their games down a notch, the likes of Bonanza would benefit greatly from this, because worse than watching £30 go up in smoke without a feature is the time it took doing so. Getting an hour's 'entertainment' is more pleasing than 20 minutes of Blitzkrieg Busting

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I think the problem people had with 3Dice is not matching their stakes to their bankrolls, you could deposit £100 and play MG slots like Boogie Monsters and The Osbournes at £1 per spin and probably be alright, do that at 3Dice and you'll get your pants taken down and spanked on the arse more often than not. Enzo himself made several posts to that effect here at CM as I recall.

Playing slow wouldn't work for me, I mean, let's be honest here, a lot of online slots aren't exactly a riveting experience if you bring them down to brass tacks, so I'll also use an autoplay and fast spin options where available. (In fact, if I feel I can't get a slot running at what I feel is a satisfactory speed I'll probably just not play it.)

Not saying my way is 'right' and others are 'wrong' - each to their own!

 

[JGslots]

Here's an interesting idea, would you consider taking up a BIG bonus if the slot RTP was set lower?

Lets take an example:-

Bruce Lee standard RTP of 96%.
If the casino offered the game to be played at 86% RTP with a 300% bonus, would this tempt you?

You know that the house edge is higher, but would the bonus money give you the sweetener of a lot of extra playtime with the kicking of a 10% drop in RTP.
Would you severely notice the reduced RTP in regular play? I would probably be up trying it at least, mind you the problem with most bonuses is that they -EV

Rob

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Depends what the bonus terms and WR are. Let's assume we have two bonuses, one is 100% up to a maximum of £100, and one is 300% up to a maximum of £300, so in both cases a £100 deposit yields the maximum bonus, and let's say that both are on a 20xB WR (which is rather optimistic these days.....).

On the 100% bonus we have a £200 bankroll, with a £2000 WR. Average cost to wager would be £80 so we'd make £20 profit. (80/0.04=2000.)

On the 300% bonus we have a £400 bankroll, with a £6000 WR. Average cost to wager would be £560 so we'd bust out before we made wagering. (560/0.14=6000.)

The size of the bonus doesn't nearly compensate for that massive drop in RTP!

 

[Balthazar]

Most of us have short memory. I remember years ago when I joined 32Red I got their signup bonus (which I believe was 100% match up to $100) and played the whole $100 on Immortal Romance at $0.60/spin and got killed in minutes, it was almost exclusively dead spins (no kidding). It was so insanely bad that I couldn't believe that the slot was acting normally and contacted the 32RED rep on CM and asked him to take a look at what happened...he said that my RTP was very bad indeed (28% IIRC) and gave me another $100 bonus for free.

I also remember playing Starburst when it came out, a game with virtually no potential, at a sensible $0.50/spin and going through several deposits with no play time at all (that was before the Chopley Starburst experiment).

So yeah...catching a slot in a bad mood is nothing new it's just that when it's a bad run we think it's the worst ever and we tend to forget that it happened before (I'm guilty of this, too).


Edit: One more thing...I think that watching a ton of streamers and Youtubers play on big stakes influenced some people to raise their stakes too much for their bankroll, which isn't good for play time. Playing £3 spins on DHV and the likes is not "healthy" stakes for the vast majority of people.

 

[Jory]

Playing slow wouldn't work for me, I mean, let's be honest here, a lot of online slots aren't exactly a riveting experience if you bring them down to brass tacks.

Absolutely, it's why my non-gambling friends can't even understand for one moment why people would play such boring games. They don't look at the slot the same way we do, but look at it almost like a video game or some crappy facebook game.

I think most of us regular players simply follow the path of least resistance based on our previous experiences. If you are one of the people who just happened to win a lot, it doesn't matter how boring the game is (Gemix) you will keep going back to it because it worked before. It's a good example of how superstitions are born and "If only I do ABC, XYZ will happen"

If during your testing on bonanza you just happened to hit frequent bonuses while raising your stakes slightly after each big win and go on to cash out thousands, then most likely your opinion on modern slots would be a positive one. You may be agreeing with how the industry has changed as it allows minimum stake players to win big and cursing low volatile slots as simply being an egg timer before it eats your money.

Ultimately, just like you said, there is no correct strategy. A truly random game does not behave like a fruit machine were knowledge can help you win in the long run. What they do well is giving you positive reinforcement to the decisions you did make when you won and a false belief that if you stick to what worked before, you will win again.

 

[JGslots]

Choppers, do you have any plans to make another tour of pubs with a few bandits on there? Would love to see you rowing a B3 and moaning like a bitch about how bad the RTP's are compared to online. I would also like it to be a full blown monsoon again too also There must be some absolute gems in the pubs knocking about over there, also the arcades must have some nice bits in too.

They are really good videos as I can just feel how much you hate modern pub fruits in that video. Could you also do a video on the Fair Play campaign, that would bring some memories.

Rob