Online gambling has become a disgrace for UK players

I have posted quite a few times, showing 86% after doing enough spins to be relevant. I have had over 5,000 bonuses and I really wish that I had recorded the stats. I do have the vast majority screenshotted but it would take a lifetime to trawl back through.

Of the hardcore Bonanza players on the forum that stood the test of time, I would say @pinnit2014, Fruitpro, Kenny, a couple I don’t remember and myself (Dunover but we don’t know what version he plays), have done the most spins. Why is it, that we all played for 5 or 6 years (admittedly a whinge here and there) but never felt the need to close accounts or abstain from the game and then if by magic, we all thought, what’s going on here? And felt that playing that hard was no longer sustainable. Did we all just imagine it at the same time?

I’ve been around slots a long long time. I have seen things happen that seem unexplainable. Most people are not observant enough to even notice what goes on but I always make connections and look to see what’s going on if something doesn’t look right.

A little bit of a tangent but does everyone remember the FOBTS? Corals and Hills used to run promotions. Things like, £50 virtual money loaded onto the machine and each player had to play the chosen game. The player with the highest amount in 2 minutes (or whatever the designated time was), won £50 in real money that had to be played through the game at least once.

I used to watch players and observe what happened as the totals were ridiculously high in virtual play but shocking when the prize money was being played. It didn’t take long to work out that when the virtual money was loaded by the manager, a key was turned in the side of the machine, which obviously changed the rtp to about 500% or something ridiculous.

When the real money was being played, it was the normal, shitty, 70% or whatever those heaps of shit were set to pay. I won at least 50% of the contests by realising what was happening. When it came to my go, I couldn’t guarantee hitting a big enough win to steal the comp outright so I played on max stake and kept gambling every win until I either lost or hit a total that was likely to win it.

I remember going into Hills about 5pm one Friday and asked what the leading score was. The manager laughed and said £485, you’re not winning this one. I have to admit, I thought he was probably right. He loaded me up the Rainbow Riches with the virtual £50 and after about £25, a win of £125 dropped in. Straight on the gamble, doubled it twice and left the time run down with £525 on the clock. Say no more.

Like I say, I won good knows how many of the them, with totals you could only dream of………BUT, and here’s the thing. Out of all the times I won, I only once won more than £20 off of the real £50. That was on some fruit repeater, where I played £1 spins. I kid you not, the first 49 spins were completely dead. On the last spin, I hit a £30 win and it repeated 3 times and that was the 1 and only time I made more than the £50 I started with.

With regards to FOBTS, I watched them an awful lot. Hours and hours I will never get back and I can say with 100% confidence, they were not random. Online gambling is an exact replica of the FOBT. Same companies, same shenanigans.

I know a lot more about what went on than a lot may be aware of. I am not going to post on here, as it would be obvious to some undesirables who I am but I promise you it was all far from legit. I have even named a Company in a couple of PM’s to members that I trust, naming and shaming prior to a couple of incidents that occurred. I don’t feel that I have to prove anything. I’ve been there and got the T-shirt. People can either trust what I say or laugh and completely ignore me. I don’t care, I am too thick skinned to be bothered by all that crap.
As for the FOBTs they were once demonstrated to be pseudo random in a video on YT, iirc a bloke covered all numbers but one or two and lost 3 times on the bounce at odds of thousands to one against. I vaguely remember that stake played some kind of role as when it was dropped the gamble went almost 'fair' odds. All the indicators of internal monetary 'accounting' within defined parameters, as you get with compensated AWPs. I've never trusted them, never played one and from what I hear, that decision has been thoroughly vindicated.
 
Click here for our review on the UKGC
While not the video that @dunover is referring to above, I remember a BL4K video from a couple of years ago demonstrating some G-Squared games...

A "random" B4 (£400 jackpot) roulette, with "at least 85%" payout 🤡, plenty of lifted novomatic sounds, and the pie gamble steps from £50 to £400 jackpot with nothing in between.

I'm not going to suggest all providers are bent, but that one must be - how on earth can a traditional single zero "random" roulette pay 85%? The other games are similarly awful - and a far cry from what G-Squared claimed they wanted to be in the AWP era... from more of the same Betcom dross, to some of the worst randoms in the market!

Capture.PNG
 
Last edited:
While not the video that @dunover is referring to above, I remember a BL4K video from a couple of years ago demonstrating some G-Squared games...

A "random" B4 (£400 jackpot) roulette, with "at least 85%" payout 🤡, plenty of lifted novomatic sounds, and the pie gamble steps from £50 to £400 jackpot with nothing in between.

I'm not going to suggest all providers are bent, but that one must be - how on earth can a traditional single zero "random" roulette pay 85%? The other games are similarly awful - and a far cry from what G-Squared claimed they wanted to be in the AWP era... from more of the same Betcom dross, to some of the worst randoms in the market!

View attachment 199398

If it depicts a true roulette wheel with one zero then there has to be some kind of compensation for it to pay at 85%+. Some fiscal management. It cannot play at the same odds as a real wheel. Plus, due to the volatility of roulette and the type of bets allowed, you couldn't guarantee 85% in the short or medium term either. Even long term, if you picked one number and bet on it consistently, you could have big deviation from expected returns.
 
You only had to watch players that were stupid enough to bet the max £100, black or red. It left no doubt whatsoever that the game was not random.

I will always believe these games are not random. They are all compensated in some or other form. The compensation may not seem as obvious as an old AWP, where you knew, x amount of £’s played through would guarantee the jackpot. That’s because these games play on massive swings (just like the FOBT). They are capable of taking the necessary amount before paying anything out. For example, the swing could be, take 10k, pay out 4k. Take another 5k, pay out 6k. Take 7k, pay 4k or any permutations it likes for that matter.

This seems much more probable than trying to claim spins are random. It explains why, when the pot is empty, you can throw the kitchen sink at it and you will hit nothing at all. It explains why after 3 days of not seeing a bonus, you suddenly see 4 or 5 in an hour and then not see another for 3 days.

If games were truly random, these sessions from hell would be virtually impossible. Doing 2,000 spins without a win above x20 would be a super rare occasion. But no it happens as regular as clockwork.

Do people really believe that if you were about to press spin but actually wait a second longer before doing so, that you would get a different outcome? Do people really believe that? Believe that there are thousands of numbers being generated every second and you get that exact result, from a certain mini timeframe? Because I don’t believe it for a second (no pun intended).
 
If it depicts a true roulette wheel with one zero then there has to be some kind of compensation for it to pay at 85%+. Some fiscal management. It cannot play at the same odds as a real wheel. Plus, due to the volatility of roulette and the type of bets allowed, you couldn't guarantee 85% in the short or medium term either. Even long term, if you picked one number and bet on it consistently, you could have big deviation from expected returns.
I'm not going to use the word compensation here because I don't think there is ("compensation" would be defined between spins, the same-spin equivalent would be "weighting") - but this is clearly not a "true random" (i.e. what most people think of as random) game either. Looking at the technical standards for B4 machines (similar for B1 and B2), I don't see how this is compliant (emphasis added):

5.2 Random number generator (RNG) requirements
...
If a gaming machine offers a game which is recognisable (e.g. Poker, Blackjack, Roulette) and is described as such by title or visual presentation, and the chances of winning differ from an equivalent real game, then this must be made plain to the player either via the artwork or help menus. In any event the rules of the simulated game must be transparent to the player.
The only clue that this isn't legit roulette is the 85% RTP - I doubt many people would say this was transparent in any meaningful way.

When it comes to bent games, poor or malicious game design answers the question a lot more than compensation, fake random number generators or other conspiracy theories.

It would be possible for one machine to slip under the radar, but for the entire industry to be complicit and nothing leak? The UKGC couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, never mind something that elaborate...

(edit: I appreciate this is a bit of a detour from the original thread, but given many of the same companies and regulators participate, the conduct - or misconduct - is likely to be similar)
 
Do people really believe that if you were about to press spin but actually wait a second longer before doing so, that you would get a different outcome? Do people really believe that?
Yes, so much so that early generation Novomatic and Aristocrat machines were both hacked because their pRNG algorithms of the day didn't stand up to modern cryptographic standards - and the randomness could, with source code and sufficient real-time computation, be predicted and exploited.

Thankfully cryptography has come a long way in the past 30 years - and nature-based RNG (based on physical phenomenon) is common for higher value transactions.
 
I'm not sure that we are missing something here. If you spin £1 and lose 10 in a row then you are down £10. Spin 10 and win once getting £10 then you are up by £1. Or win twice and you are up £12. So the size of the wins is very relevant. It is perfectly possible to be up overall without having to string together a large number of consecutive wins.
 
While not the video that @dunover is referring to above, I remember a BL4K video from a couple of years ago demonstrating some G-Squared games...

A "random" B4 (£400 jackpot) roulette, with "at least 85%" payout 🤡, plenty of lifted novomatic sounds, and the pie gamble steps from £50 to £400 jackpot with nothing in between.

I'm not going to suggest all providers are bent, but that one must be - how on earth can a traditional single zero "random" roulette pay 85%? The other games are similarly awful - and a far cry from what G-Squared claimed they wanted to be in the AWP era... from more of the same Betcom dross, to some of the worst randoms in the market!

View attachment 199398



His playstyle reminded me of a game at Hippodrome Casinos in London. It has all the same payouts as European roulette, with the only difference that there is no wheel. Instead, they have a bingo-type setup with 37 numbers. You place a bet, click a button, it starts spinning, and then a ball drops.


1234.jpg

Believe it or not, from experience, this game just wipes your balance. I rarely saw people playing it at all, and recently the casino got rid of it.

You could cover 18 numbers, which gives you almost 50/50 chances to win a spin, and this thing throws you 8-10 losing numbers in a row, lol.

In regular live roulette, such typically doesn't happen. There, you usually lose 3-4 times in a row and then get a couple of wins, and then it goes in a similar way until you lose all, or if you're lucky, hit some decent number and leave the game.

But the best way i found to play it was just betting £1 on one number for 30 spins, and if it didn't hit, then i added £0.5 on top (often i didn't have to). After the number hit, I used to pick a different one. It was best when it hit as early as possible, of course.

Overall It was quite fun - just like playing a slot machine at £1 a spin to win some money for drinks and food while hanging there. £100 was enough to play like this.
 
All-time Community on SlotTracker stats for Bonanza.
Although only 208,000 spins, still quite interesting

 2539.jpg
 
All-time Community on SlotTracker stats for Bonanza.
Although only 208,000 spins, still quite interesting

View attachment 199407

We've covered that before already :) It's been proven to record junk stats.

Bonus frequency 1/8572 (actual is 1/460) is a bit of a clue!
 
We've covered that before already :) It's been proven to record junk stats.

Bonus frequency 1/8572 (actual is 1/460) is a bit of a clue!
When Slottracker upgraded/updated (a downgrade in my opinion) about 4 years ago and losing all rhe previous millions of stats, it was tracking bonuses correctly initially, then just suddenly registering them. Adding credence to Bonanza gameplay changing :p!

Just kidding, it had changed well before this.

IIRC before the global stats reset bonus frequency was just over 1/490 on slottracker from over 2 millions spins. Is the 1/460 an official BTG stat?

It was annoying it stopped tracking bonuses properly (at all) cos I'd just gone over 9000 spins to get one and wanted to see how spins it would take to converge back on expected bonus frequency.
 
IIRC before the global stats reset bonus frequency was just over 1/490 on slottracker from over 2 millions spins. Is the 1/460 an official BTG stat?

The 1/460 was from dunover, who I believe has seen some backend game sheets at some point.

From my own stats collection on Bonanza, 1/460 seems bang on correct to me.
 
We've covered that before already :) It's been proven to record junk stats.

Bonus frequency 1/8572 (actual is 1/460) is a bit of a clue!
Indeed @Kroffe . So the biggest win is 1152x. That must have come in the base game, as the total bonus wins of 18 @ 57.5x adds to about 1035x. Now a base game win of 1152x is rare beyond belief, I have had one over-1000x base game win in over 7 years and millions of spins. Yes, I have made millions of spins as it's almost all I played in those years, average of 2-3 times a week.

To get that in 208k spins is fucking fortunate, I tells ya!

Also, 18 bonuses in 208k spins means the bastard is bonusing at average of 11,555 spins instead of just over 450. (according to the slottracker stats it's a 'mere' 8572 spins) so practically and metaphorically, the data just doesn't add up.

That is such a colossal deviation that even @snorky510238 wouldn't claim it for himself and exceeds my worst ever in 7 years of once in just over 3k spins.

The slottracker sheet is absolute bollocks. The RTP is just about believable at 94.7% as that could include 94 and 96% play.

The average win if you extrapolate from the pay out figures, spins and win frequency stats provided, is, including bonus rounds, 2.3x bet. Just about believable.

The only effing system in history that could churn out such unreliable contradictory bollocks was the Horizon one used by the poor sods in Post Offices, and look where that ended.
 
Indeed @Kroffe . So the biggest win is 1152x. That must have come in the base game, as the total bonus wins of 18 @ 57.5x adds to about 1035x. Now a base game win of 1152x is rare beyond belief, I have had one over-1000x base game win in over 7 years and millions of spins. Yes, I have made millions of spins as it's almost all I played in those years, average of 2-3 times a week.

To get that in 208k spins is fucking fortunate, I tells ya!

Also, 18 bonuses in 208k spins means the bastard is bonusing at average of 11,555 spins instead of just over 450. (according to the slottracker stats it's a 'mere' 8572 spins) so practically and metaphorically, the data just doesn't add up.

That is such a colossal deviation that even @snorky510238 wouldn't claim it for himself and exceeds my worst ever in 7 years of once in just over 3k spins.

The slottracker sheet is absolute bollocks. The RTP is just about believable at 94.7% as that could include 94 and 96% play.

The average win if you extrapolate from the pay out figures, spins and win frequency stats provided, is, including bonus rounds, 2.3x bet. Just about believable.

The only effing system in history that could churn out such unreliable contradictory bollocks was the Horizon one used by the poor sods in Post Offices, and look where that ended.
Ah, so its just you and Choppers feeling that its wrong and not actual proof.
And im supposed to believe your feelings over a program created for the sole purpose of collecting data.
7.gif
 
Ah, so its just you and Choppers feeling that its wrong and not actual proof.
And im supposed to believe your feelings over a program created for the sole purpose of collecting data.
View attachment 199415
Are you serious? Check the image yourself! It contains contradictions and inaccuracies before I even checked them! Now I must have a faulty calculator, as when dividing 208k spins by 18 features, it came out at 11,555 spins per feature.

Perhaps your calculator (and slottracker's) coming out at 8572 spins per feature for the same calculation is correct.

Damn Microsoft to hell for placing a dodgy calculator in their Windows desktop package. Wankers. Made a right fool of me. :mad:
 
Are you serious? Check the image yourself! It contains contradictions and inaccuracies before I even checked them! Now I must have a faulty calculator, as when dividing 208k spins by 18 features, it came out at 11,555 spins per feature.

Perhaps your calculator (and slottracker's) coming out at 8572 spins per feature for the same calculation is correct.

Damn Microsoft to hell for placing a dodgy calculator in their Windows desktop package. Wankers. Made a right fool of me. :mad:
Dont worry, i believe that you believe the numbers are wrong.
We cool.
 
Are you serious? Check the image yourself! It contains contradictions and inaccuracies before I even checked them! Now I must have a faulty calculator, as when dividing 208k spins by 18 features, it came out at 11,555 spins per feature.

Perhaps your calculator (and slottracker's) coming out at 8572 spins per feature for the same calculation is correct.

Damn Microsoft to hell for placing a dodgy calculator in their Windows desktop package. Wankers. Made a right fool of me. :mad:
Pretty much. The idea of slot tracker is a good one, but the implementation has to be functional and - ideally - some way to audit the underlying data.

It is the kind of tool that is capable of bringing a problem to light - but quickly undermined if it can't do a simple division correctly :laugh:

Speaking of calculators that don't work... Wolfram Alpha crunched the numbers for me, and the odds of that data being correct as presented (1 in 460 spins per bonus vs those results) would be something like a 1 in 1 decillion decillion decillion decillion decillion (short scale, or 165 zeros) shot - or winning the current national lottery jackpot 21 draws in a row.

Even if we didn't believe BTG, at 1 in 4600 spins - you would still be expecting 45 bonus rounds at average luck... so yea, it's complete nonsense. (I shouldn't need to spell it out that explicitly, but basic facts seem to be disputed when conspiracy theories are abound)
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    38.7 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Dont worry, i believe that you believe the numbers are wrong.
We cool.
Do you not have calculators in Sweden?

If you do, check for yourself and then you can say "i believe that you know the numbers are wrong."

A stuffed bear could do a better job than those stats posted. :) With the stuffing falling out, an eye missing and patchy fur.
 
Do you not have calculators in Sweden?

If you do, check for yourself and then you can say "i believe that you know the numbers are wrong."

A stuffed bear could do a better job than those stats posted. :) With the stuffing falling out, an eye missing and patchy fur.
I checked just now and i must admit that you were correct, the reality was far worse than the numbers seen in the picture.
11,555 spins on average between bonuses is crazy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top