Online gambling has become a disgrace for UK players

[ChopleyIOM]

If they didn't say it was randomly moving - then it would be the same as the hundreds of other scripted grid slots that didn't cause an uproar. The line is crossed when the game rules are wrong...

And yes, it's exactly to implement absurd volatility - way beyond what natural mechanics will. So much dopamine to get people to believe these wins are genuine and achievable... until they see the rather large hole in their wallet.

Yes that was my objection to Jammin' Jars, I'm sure it's operating within the regulations, but the rules as written remain, to this day, entirely dishonest IMO.

So in essence, the game is constantly presenting to the player, things that the rules tell you can randomly occur (i.e. is entirely possible), that in reality, is entirely impossible.

It's still there in the rules, and it's still telling lies.

 

[snorky510238]

It’s no different to a lot of other games to be honest. The operator creates the illusion and hopes that the public can’t see through it. Take our old favourite Bonanza. Unlimited multiplier in the bonus round, yet after 5,000 rounds, personally, I have only got above 30 twice! The way the game is laid out would lead you to believe that 32 ways of 6oak diamonds on a x20 multiplier with a £4 stake can happen. It obviously can’t!

 

[jasonuk]

The difference is those are done visually or in marketing - we are talking explicitly about the game rules which are supposed to be gospel.

If you look at a lot of the three pot faux-builder games, they will explain in the game rules that the pots are for "entertainment" or "visual" purposes and have no actual impact on the game.

Providers have used game rules to get away with a lot - namely under the "odds are not representative" tagline... but they have, on the whole, been truthful in the game rules. Why Scammin' Jars was an alarming development because if providers start lying in the game rules as well, then we have no clue what is going on!

 

[snorky510238]

I think games should come with clarification of the true odds of hitting wins. In pretty much every other industry, the customer has rights and is protected but not so with Conline gambling. Buy a product and if it doesn’t meet standards or perform to expectations, the customer gets a new one or their money back. In this industry, you have to believe that what you are paying for is fit for purpose and if something feels amiss, there’s not a lot you can do about it.

P.S. I think there’s a good reason why this information isn’t given. That being, if the true odds were know, nobody would play the games.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I think games should come with clarification of the true odds of hitting wins. In pretty much every other industry, the customer has rights and is protected but not so with Conline gambling. Buy a product and if it doesn’t meet standards or perform to expectations, the customer gets a new one or their money back. In this industry, you have to believe that what you are paying for is fit for purpose and if something feels amiss, there’s not a lot you can do about it.

P.S. I think there’s a good reason why this information isn’t given. That being, if the true odds were know, nobody would play the games.

4ThePlayer managed to do it

 

[satchnz]

I think games should come with clarification of the true odds of hitting wins. In pretty much every other industry, the customer has rights and is protected but not so with Conline gambling. Buy a product and if it doesn’t meet standards or perform to expectations, the customer gets a new one or their money back. In this industry, you have to believe that what you are paying for is fit for purpose and if something feels amiss, there’s not a lot you can do about it.

P.S. I think there’s a good reason why this information isn’t given. That being, if the true odds were know, nobody would play the games.

I’ve actually see this info around the traps for some Prag and NLC slots, but it’s generally from 3rd party sites and not the providers sites. But I agree this info should be stated up front as @ChopleyIOM pointed out above for 4theplayer.

EDIT: NLC do actually show this info on their site. Should be on the splash screen of each game though…

 

[Lemon]

Yes that was my objection to Jammin' Jars, I'm sure it's operating within the regulations, but the rules as written remain, to this day, entirely dishonest IMO.

So in essence, the game is constantly presenting to the player, things that the rules tell you can randomly occur (i.e. is entirely possible), that in reality, is entirely impossible.

It's still there in the rules, and it's still telling lies.

How do you know that for sure though? It's entirely possible that when they run a bonus off they do it enough times to cover all the permutations of the jars moving in each direction (North, East, South or West) - 256 permutations each time (NNNN, NNNW, NNNS... WWWW). So maybe the fruits that drop in around the jars might be the same each time, but the jars' movement isn't, and that's where the different return values come from. And then there's an equal chance of any of those bonuses to be picked.

They could be doing it like that, in which case you're looking for something to complain about that's based on your perception, not what's actually happening.

It's also entirely possible that the whole bonus is random, including the movement of the jars, apart from a very small number of 'pre-scripted' bonuses that pay the rare huge wins. And because of that 'issue' raised a few years back where two big bonuses on Youtube were identical, you're assuming every bonus is pre-scripted, when it might just be a handful of rare bonuses that needed a bit of care and attention that are like that, and the jars' movement on non-huge bonuses are left to run completely randomly. In which case you're worrying over nothing...

Who knows eh? Interesting topic though

 

[jasonuk]

I think games should come with clarification of the true odds of hitting wins.

I agree, it's something I've been wanting to see for years. I applaud 4ThePlayer for doing that - a few other providers have dabbled with it, but not really seeing widespread adoption for the obvious reason (which is how awful these new games play). Even the push to have RTP on the loading screens didn't get enacted, and we obviously know why given sites like WH are now running 96% games at 88%...

It's obviously not helped by the monopoly streamers either - we've seen people talk about old games "not playing the same way" even though the RTP and maths model hasn't changed, so what they're inferring is they're not seeing the big wins (on forums and social media) namely because less people play that game now. It gets worse when those streamers are happy to talk about the "same games" when they're running at 88%

That lack of knowledge spreads quickly - some of these modern streamer slots are essentially 80% games with a jackpot feature on top to make 92-94%... so yes, you are going to lose significantly faster than a traditional 96% medium to high variance game.

My slot play still has a bunch of traditional 96% games in (occasionally I'll play it at 94%) and I still get similar sessions to years ago - the occasional nice hits, the occasional kickings. The main difference I experience is the lack of bonus funds - that "free" playtime really added up.

 

[jasonuk]

How do you know that for sure though? It's entirely possible that when they run a bonus off they do it enough times to cover all the permutations of the jars moving in each direction (North, East, South or West) - 256 permutations each time (NNNN, NNNW, NNNS... WWWW). So maybe the fruits that drop in around the jars might be the same each time, but the jars' movement isn't, and that's where the different return values come from. And then there's an equal chance of any of those bonuses to be picked.

We know because two streamers had identical game rounds - which is what sparked the scandal (it has been a few years, but iirc in the first instance the outrage was aimed at the streamers that their game rounds were faked). It was later confirmed by the provider the game rounds are scripted in full.

Having a game tree is a valid implementation of a more elaborate scripted model - and it would also satisfy the "random" part mentioned in the game rules, but does not apply in this case.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

We know because two streamers had identical game rounds - which is what sparked the scandal (it has been a few years, but iirc in the first instance the outrage was aimed at the streamers that their game rounds were faked). It was later confirmed by the provider the game rounds are scripted in full.

Having a game tree is a valid implementation of a more elaborate scripted model - and it would also satisfy the "random" part mentioned in the game rules, but does not apply in this case.

This!

Push Gaming literally confirmed the game's behaviour here at CM. I'll dig out the thread/post.

 

[Lemon]

It’s no different to a lot of other games to be honest. The operator creates the illusion and hopes that the public can’t see through it. Take our old favourite Bonanza. Unlimited multiplier in the bonus round, yet after 5,000 rounds, personally, I have only got above 30 twice! The way the game is laid out would lead you to believe that 32 ways of 6oak diamonds on a x20 multiplier with a £4 stake can happen. It obviously can’t!

In a lot of jurisdictions, especially ones in the US, the largest prize available to be won has to be proven to occur within a certain hit frequency - such as 1 in 50 million spins. Similarly, the least frequent win in the game also has to occur within a certain number of spins, or the slot won't pass certification.
So technically you can't just say 'win up to 66666x bet' on the loading screen if that advertised win isn't possible...

 

[Lemon]

This!

Push Gaming literally confirmed the game's behaviour here at CM. I'll dig out the thread/post.

Yeah I remember reading the thread and I may even have commented on it, I just couldn't be bothered to dig it up to see what Push Gaming said, because I'm lazy

 

[jasonuk]

In a lot of jurisdictions, especially ones in the US, the largest prize available to be won has to be proven to occur within 1 in 50 million spins. Similarly, the least frequent win in the game also has to occur within a certain number of spins.

We have the same - I believe it is 10 billion spins though.

In the case of Lil Devil, the declared "max win" (because BTG love streamer nonsense, it's actually a guideline "win up to") was changed because there was a 100,504x win in live play which exceeded what they had seen in testing (around 50,000x).

Which is why traditional slots talk about "win up to", because they can't quote the theoretical maximum (imagine Immortal Romance quoting "win up to 200,000x" ) as it's unrealistic and deceptive - and there's a configurable liability limit (by money) rather than a rigid win cap (by multiplier).

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Yeah I remember reading the thread and I may even have commented on it, I just couldn't be bothered to dig it up to see what Push Gaming said, because I'm lazy

Push Gaming entered the thread with this post:

Jammin Jars - Page 9 - Casinomeister Forum

 

[TheSchwad]

Reactoonz is known to work on pre-scripted sequences, as do all games of that type. There was much controversy about this with reference to Jammin' Jars here at CM when Push Gaming had an active rep.

Turned out they'd only put 1.3m sequences into the 'bag of balls' so streamers were showcasing the game with entirely real funds on their streams and getting very excited about their entirely real wins, with sequences that were playing out identically.

Push Gaming confirmed that the game uses pre-scripted sequences, and confirmed that they only put 1.3m results into the pool.

Do you have the reference to the Push Gaming response, or know whether this is 1.3m winning spins or total possible sequences?

Cos I've got a stupid plan (a potentially dangerous and costly plan, but love a challenge), having done ove a million spins on many spins on other games, I want to see if I can get the Bandits 18k x win, I know I'll probably get some of the same sequences more than once, but should in theory see that win if I do 3 million spins.

 

[TheSchwad]

Ha, was responding somewhere else in the thread, now see that response is directly above

 

[justdoit]

Do you have the reference to the Push Gaming response, or know whether this is 1.3m winning spins or total possible sequences?

Cos I've got a stupid plan (a potentially dangerous and costly plan, but love a challenge), having done ove a million spins on many spins on other games, I want to see if I can get the Bandits 18k x win, I know I'll probably get some of the same sequences more than once, but should in theory see that win if I do 3 million spins.

I thing he was talking about Razor Shark

 

[TheSchwad]

Thinking about this deeper, the chance of hitting each sequences cannot be equally weighted cos that would mean max win probability would be 1/1.3m and we'd have seen loads.

 

[Reelsoffun]

There probably has been, but not everyone posts max wins, in fact probably less than 1% of people do….

 

[TheSchwad]

There probably has been, but not everyone posts max wins, in fact probably less than 1% of people do….

But surely when other providers have max win probability for 5000x is in the billions, surely JJ 19k x max win cannot be 1/1.3 million probability.

This year alone I've done over 1 million spins on Cazino Zeppelin Reloaded and biggest win is 3.7k x. I'll happily do 2 million on JJ for a good chance of 19,000 x

 

[TheSchwad]

Look at a low volatility game CFBL, if these stats are to be believed

 

[Reelsoffun]

Quite believable tbh, 150 ish feature hit rate, dismal max win of 1250x and a mission to even get that? What’s not to believe?

 

[TheSchwad]

Quite believable tbh, 150 ish feature hit rate, dismal max win of 1250x and a mission to even get that? What’s not to believe?

I really believed Max Wins were much rarer, never had one, but seems they're not.



Shocked at these 2 - I've done close to 1 million spins on ZvH, and best win so far is 6,500x, didn't realise they were this common, but Gates makes sense, seen loads of screenshots of max Win on that. Maybe I'll go after that

 

[Reelsoffun]

Oh don't be fooled, some are extremely rarer than the ones you have posted some max wins on PnG slots are horrendously low chance of a max win.

But the reason the ones are much higher to win in your last two examples are purely because there is so little in the base games that the max win can be far more frequent, so it really does depend on each individual slot, and can vary immensely.

 

[jasonuk]

Thinking about this deeper, the chance of hitting each sequences cannot be equally weighted cos that would mean max win probability would be 1/1.3m and we'd have seen loads.

For Jammin Jars, we did see a considerable amount of massive wins (15000x+) at launch... that was what sparked the controversy when people started getting the same scratchcard results.

Look at a low volatility game CFBL, if these stats are to be believed

View attachment 203162

Yea, I'm not believing that either...

Traditional NetEnts don't have a "max win", and a full screen of wilds in the bonus appears to be 750x per spin. Also, NetEnt quote Creature as "high" variance - which seems about right, maybe medium-high variance at a push.

The mistake you are making is confusing a reel-based slot with a scratchcard slot. The former will constrain the volatility curve by the natural reels, the latter can do exactly what they want using one RNG call. Additionally the streamer-focused slots put significantly more RTP into those monster pays... instead of sub-0.1% they can be putting 5%, 10%, even 20%...

So taking three examples:

• Bonus Buy Parody - "max win" every 148k spins... it's a scratchcard slot so it can put that winning ball in the bag with that frequency, something like 6% of the RTP just for that one scenario.
• Traditional slots - to hit a theoretical maximum pay (because it doesn't have a max win cap, just a liability limit) it would need to hit that one-in-a-billion full screen potentially 10, 15, 20 times... that is a lot of zeros. That's why they talk about "win up to" one full screen and then keep paying the rest.
• PlayNGo - the weird middle ground, because it feels like they chain together screens - which means the theoretical maximum pay (which they cap) is chaining together lots of rare events (hence the astronomical odds) but really they should say "win up to 1000x" (e.g. the best single screen) rather than "win up to 5000x" (the win cap).

People need to stop falling for the "max win" hype, because it's complete nonsense... if a pre-determined (scripted) game round needs to apply a win cap, then someone is lying to you...