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.webp
 
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

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.webp
    Capture.webp
    20.3 KB · Views: 122
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.
 
@jasonuk, how do you think the number of ways shown is chosen/calculated?
I haven't really looked into it myself, but I recall previous threads mused about weighted tables of possible combinations. Given the "max megaways" mechanic, that would make a lot of sense - otherwise you would have too many ways to deal with gracefully (lots of 5, 6 or 7 depth) or astronomically small odds (e.g. 1/10 x 1/8 x 1/8 x 1/8 x 1/8 x 1/10 = 1 in 409k)

The alternative would be the Red Tiger approach where it's all window dressing and there's little evidence of any reels at all - but BTG do use traditional reelsets (plural) so that wouldn't work for them.
 
That’s the strange thing. If it was based on all possible combos being a available, which I think they are, then the odds of seeing the max ways is about 22,500-1 (worked it out once, it’s around there). The fact that I have seen it 3 times in 4 spins would be next to impossible, if every combo had an equal chance of dropping.
 
That’s the strange thing. If it was based on all possible combos being a available, which I think they are, then the odds of seeing the max ways is about 22,500-1 (worked it out once, it’s around there). The fact that I have seen it 3 times in 4 spins would be next to impossible, if every combo had an equal chance of dropping.
It would make for a problematic slot design - because you would have hundreds of high ways (as in 20k+) balls in the bag. Similarly you wouldn't be able to market "max megaways" properly if it was a 1 in 22500 shot (6 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 6 combinations).

So you have three options - weighted megaways balls, lower the pays into oblivion, or introduce some kind of ante bet / pre-gamble to get rid of the paint-drying spins (of which there are many). I have no idea what that would need to cost though, but it wouldn't be cheap!
 
I haven't really looked into it myself, but I recall previous threads mused about weighted tables of possible combinations. Given the "max megaways" mechanic, that would make a lot of sense - otherwise you would have too many ways to deal with gracefully (lots of 5, 6 or 7 depth) or astronomically small odds (e.g. 1/10 x 1/8 x 1/8 x 1/8 x 1/8 x 1/10 = 1 in 409k)

The alternative would be the Red Tiger approach where it's all window dressing and there's little evidence of any reels at all - but BTG do use traditional reelsets (plural) so that wouldn't work for them.

No way on this planet mate.

DHV and similar maybe yes, sure it's been discussed in depth on here in the past.

Bonanza, Chilli, WWTBAM etc no way hozay. Just displays the necessary symbols together with the correctly random chosen MW to "look like" a reel.

With all the permutations possible, they would wrap around the planet several times.
 
Seems like you are pushing the same conspiracy that you did four years ago - I've a BTG/Bonanza Randomness Theory - Casinomeister Forum

BTG even responded to that thread saying they don't use a "tacky tombola" and that it is pure math. Amusingly the person who was trying to discredit Bonanza in that thread actually did the opposite, by demonstrating that the reels are real.

They even explained how the XML output works - so a suitably minded person would be able to build the reels and prove they are genuine.

The whole point of the "blocking reels" design (to use the language of the OP in that thread) is to naturally temper the variance - unless you get the tail-end of the block in view, the next ones are going to cascade down and probably block subsequent wins.

With all the permutations possible, they would wrap around the planet several times.
Correct, BTG have some of the largest probability models used in modern slotting.

As has been discussed in previous threads, players have uncovered wins that exceeded their in-house testing... that's why traditional slot design uses a liability limit (e.g. £250k), because that one-in-a-quadrillion shot can genuinely happen and businesses really don't want undefined liabilities.

Not to be confused with "max win" scratchcard slots (the "tacky tombola") - that's just straight up dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
No way on this planet mate.

DHV and similar maybe yes, sure it's been discussed in depth on here in the past.

Bonanza, Chilli, WWTBAM etc no way hozay. Just displays the necessary symbols together with the correctly random chosen MW to "look like" a reel.

With all the permutations possible, they would wrap around the planet several times.

So you saying my SIM i posted about on here don't use reel strips either?

Mine use similar sets to bonanza they are 177 long, more than 1 set is used, random position stops and the reel heights each spin are random too, although they are weighted eg a 7 high is not the same chance as a 3 high for example.

Just the 177 stops per reel gives 30.7 Trillion different outcomes, before you start on anything else eg drops lol

Mine also has a "forced" max ways spin which is also a random call, and uses its own set.

I strongly expect the real games do it the same way or very similar to it.
 
Last edited:
So you saying my SIM i posted about on here don't use reel strips either?

Mine use similar sets to bonanza they are 177 long, more than 1 set is used, random position stops and the reel heights each spin are random too, although they are weighted eg a 7 high is not the same chance as a 3 high for example.

Just the 177 stops per reel gives 30.7 Trillion different outcomes, before you start on anything else eg drops lol

Mine also has a "forced" max ways spin which is also a random call, and uses its own set.

I strongly expect the real games do it the same way or very similar to it.

No mate, I'm saying I cannot get my head around it having reel strips in the sense we know them, such as the 16 symbols on an AWP or the approx 80 - 200 symbols on some of the older fixed line and 243 mechanic games. (Bonanza / BTG not your game)

I don't doubt your slotting knowledge or skills for a second but I do doubt what we're told by providers, sad but true on how I feel about the more modern games we see.
 
Well even the 16 stop reels on AWP's were almost always likely weighted to more on a virtual reel that mapped the the physical 16 stop one. Not everything is as it seems on slots since computer chips got involved LOL I would say the only slots you can trust are the pull handle ones but even they were easy to manipulate if you had the know how.
Anyway back to another comment, I believe they do use strips, and weight the 2-7 reel height on individual spin basis.

@snorky510238
Just because the true odds of a max ways "appears" to be 1 in 22,500 don't mean the real odds are that as they not, they appear way more than that so its logical that there is other extra chance in play but that will still be on a random chance. Wether that be down to a pure random "forced" 1 in 800 max ways or higher chance of a 7 high than the 1 in 6 and the 1 in 5 ( middle 4 ) we "see" as being logical
 
Well even the 16 stop reels on AWP's were almost always likely weighted to more on a virtual reel that mapped the the physical 16 stop one. Not everything is as it seems on slots since computer chips got involved LOL I would say the only slots you can trust are the pull handle ones but even they were easy to manipulate if you had the know how.
Anyway back to another comment, I believe they do use strips, and weight the 2-7 reel height on individual spin basis.

@snorky510238
Just because the true odds of a max ways "appears" to be 1 in 22,500 don't mean the real odds are that as they not, they appear way more than that so its logical that there is other extra chance in play but that will still be on a random chance. Wether that be down to a pure random "forced" 1 in 800 max ways or higher chance of a 7 high than the 1 in 6 and the 1 in 5 ( middle 4 ) we "see" as being logical
I kind of get that but in fairness, this has always been my rant, regarding randomness. The second you start messing with natural odds or “forcing” things, it isn’t random.
 
Check the true definition of random and it’s obvious that slots cannot be classed as random.

made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

Most of them are scripted, having done hundreds and thousands of spins across the Reactoonz series games I can provide commentary for the outcome as I see the scripted sequence happening and be correct with almost 100% accuracy, the most blatant is Elk games 99.9% of bonuses is 10 free spins 7 or 8 of them dead spins with 1 paying hit and thats it, the same goes for their 5 free spins it usually gives 3 or 4 dead spins off the bat in a row with 1 paying hit time and time again.
 
Most of them are scripted, having done hundreds and thousands of spins across the Reactoonz series games I can provide commentary for the outcome as I see the scripted sequence happening and be correct with almost 100% accuracy, the most blatant is Elk games 99.9% of bonuses is 10 free spins 7 or 8 of them dead spins with 1 paying hit and thats it, the same goes for their 5 free spins it usually gives 3 or 4 dead spins off the bat in a row with 1 paying hit time and time again.

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.
 
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.
The game rules to this day still claim the jar movement is random - even though they have admitted there is zero randomness to it. The whole point of the game rules is that they are law... once that breaks down then we're into full wild west territory (which I guess we are now, so many dishonest slot providers).

Check the true definition of random and it’s obvious that slots cannot be classed as random.

made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.
That would apply to the input stream - and the RNG is heavily regulated for that reason. Those random numbers have to be mapped somehow, and that behaviour should be somewhat transparent to the player.

The problem was certain vocal parts of the industry (no prizes for guessing) talked about traditional slot design being "boring"... perhaps because they couldn't dopamine-trap people with an endless stream of just missed scenarios and impossibly big wins that will never be paid (literally - there's a reason they call it "max win" rather than a "win cap") regularly... remember Avalon 2 was 2.5 billion to one, where-as bonus buy parody is 1 in 150k... 17,000x more likely from previous discussions.

If you tried to design that as a true odds game, it would look as awful as it plays... hence why progressive jackpots became a thing (which is what it basically is - a 6% winner takes all fixed jackpot).
 
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.

BUT, they only admitted it once they’d been caught out. Not upfront.
 
BUT, they only admitted it once they’d been caught out. Not upfront.

According to the regulations they were operating under, they weren't doing anything wrong, the game is fair and random, it just chooses to show the results the RNG picks using pre-scripted sequences.

The rules were, and are, dodgy as hell though, as was well discussed at the time and jasonuk notes again above, the jars cannot move in 'any' direction like the rules say, so in essence the game constantly implies things that can never, ever happen, as being possible.

I've still got the videos I made about it for my old channel, and I called it out as dodgy behaviour back then, can do a reupload if anyone's interested.

This is why I'm a big fan of older style 'proper reels' type games.
 
According to the regulations they were operating under, they weren't doing anything wrong, the game is fair and random, it just chooses to show the results the RNG picks using pre-scripted sequences.

The rules were, and are, dodgy as hell though, as was well discussed at the time and jasonuk notes again above, the jars cannot move in 'any' direction like the rules say, so in essence the game constantly implies things that can never, ever happen, as being possible.

I've still got the videos I made about it for my old channel, and I called it out as dodgy behaviour back then, can do a reupload if anyone's interested.

This is why I'm a big fan of older style 'proper reels' type games.
What tends to happen here, and it's not limited to grid games (it could be any game with complicated mechanics or persistence in the bonus for example) is that they blast off millions of bonuses that play out entirely randomly, save the results and RNG sequence to a database, filter out the ones that don't look very nice to the player and then make a weighted look-up table that chooses a bonus to play when you trigger it - and then that same RNG sequence is played back to you, returning the same value. It will feel random because you shouldn't have seen that exact sequence before if there are enough entries in the database to pick from.

So technically it's not quite 'pre-scripted'; that bonus was conjured up randomly once upon a time, and they're just reusing it because it meets certain criteria. I suppose you could take the RNG sequence and modify it by hand to make it as attractive as possible, but that would take ages.

With Jammin' Jars I agree that the movement of the jars in the bonus is already known in advance, but to most players it will appear to be random. The only way you won't see it that way would be if you've seen that same bonus database entry before.

For those with a very literal interpretation of the word 'random' this method might seem shady in some way but it's very often the best way of ensuring complex mechanics in bonus rounds look as good as possible, and it also helps a lot when hammering the maths profile into the shape you want, something that is often very hard to achieve on certain games. You can make the rare events that might randomly occur 1 in 1000 bonuses happen much more often so the player at least achieves what they're aiming for before they give up.

I don't see it as being dodgy; more being creative within the set guidelines. 25 years ago people were using one set of reelstrips for the base game and then the same one for Free Spins. Nowadays we have base games that pick one of several reelsets per spin via a weighted table, and the same in Free Spins. We also have rejection chances in a lot of slots which again help shape the maths. I haven't got a problem with any of it quite frankly. The more complex slots become, the more you need to look in different places for solutions.
 
So technically it's not quite 'pre-scripted'; that bonus was conjured up randomly once upon a time, and they're just reusing it because it meets certain criteria.
Good post overall, although I would disagree with the above - the term "scripted" or "pre-scripted" is precisely for such a scenario. It is a game round were there is a suggestion of randomisation at the time of play but there is actually little or none - hence it's pulling a ball (or script) out of the bag.



For those with a very literal interpretation of the word 'random' this method might seem shady in some way but it's very often the best way of ensuring complex mechanics in bonus rounds look as good as possible, and it also helps a lot when hammering the maths profile into the shape you want, something that is often very hard to achieve on certain games. You can make the rare events that might randomly occur 1 in 1000 bonuses happen much more often so the player at least achieves what they're aiming for before they give up.
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.
 
I am not sure what the feeling is in other countries because for 1, I obviously don’t play there and 2, we don’t see a lot posted but as UK player, I am beyond disgusted at what is happening.

I happily played for 6 years. Admittedly having the odd whinge when I hit a bad patch but other than that, I took the rough with the smooth and NEVER once felt the need to go to “chat” to complain about the way a game played.

In the past two and a half years, that’s a completely different story and particularly the past 6 months. In all honesty, it gets worse by the day. I can’t imagine for a second that this industry is being regulated properly. If it was providers (and let’s not forget, they are the main culprits but Casinos are hosting them), wouldn’t not be getting away with the blatant, filthy cheating that is happening right now.

In the early days of gambling online, if I hadn’t hit a bonus after depositing £60, (40-60p spins) I would think that was the session from hell. That was consistent for years, it genuinely felt that you were getting a fair crack of the whip.

Fast forward 8 years and the experience feels nowhere near the same. People will say volatility has changed etc. Yes it has but I still had some amazing wins and regularly playing these games.

Not now though, no sir, you can easily deposit £300-£500 without even seeing a bonus. That is quite simply disgraceful. Yes, okay, once in a while that might happen but for it to become the norm, no way, not a chance, unless you are playing against a slot that is programmed so the odds are ridiculously against you.

I could write pages but there’s little point, as whatever goes against the grain on this forum is quickly brushed under the carpet. If you’re a UK player and you’ve been thinking hang on a minute, am I being screwed over here? The answer is yes you are. It’s FOBT GATE all over again.

Accredited UK Casinos:
Your concerns are valid, and the issues you're describing touch on important aspects of fairness and transparency in online gaming. Delving deeper into the subject:

True Randomness vs. Adaptive Algorithms​

True Randomness:

  • True randomness means that each outcome is independent of previous outcomes, as with a fair dice roll.
  • In an ideal RNG, each spin of an online slot machine should have the same probabilities, regardless of past results.
Adaptive Algorithms:

  • Some games might include features that adjust based on player behavior, but this should be disclosed and regulated.
  • Adjusting the game’s difficulty or outcomes based on player actions without clear disclosure can be considered unfair.

Legal and Regulatory Standards​

Regulation:

  • Reputable online casinos are regulated by authorities such as the UK Gambling Commission, Malta Gaming Authority, and others.
  • These regulatory bodies enforce standards to ensure games are fair and random.
Fairness and Transparency:

  • Casinos are generally required to use certified RNGs to ensure randomness.
  • Any adaptive features or non-random adjustments should be clearly disclosed to players.
Return to Player (RTP):

  • RTP is a theoretical percentage that indicates how much of the wagered money a slot machine will pay back to players over time.
  • While RTP can vary over short periods, it should be consistent in the long run and not manipulated in real-time based on individual player actions.

Addressing the Issue​

  1. Understanding and Evidence:
    • Gather concrete evidence of the patterns you’re experiencing (e.g., recordings and logs of gameplay).
    • Research the specific game and casino for any known issues or similar player experiences.
  2. Contact the Casino:
    • Raise your concerns with the casino again, providing the evidence you’ve gathered.
    • Request detailed information about the game’s mechanics and RNG usage.
  3. Regulatory Complaints:
    • If the casino’s response is unsatisfactory, file a complaint with the relevant regulatory authority.
    • Provide all your evidence and documentation to support your claim.
  4. Public Forums and Reviews:
    • Share your experiences on public forums and review sites. This can help other players and might attract attention to the issue.

Steps for Moving Forward​

  1. Choose Reputable Casinos:
    • Ensure you play on well-regulated platforms with good reputations for fairness and transparency.
    • Check for certifications and third-party audits that verify the casino’s fairness.
  2. Understand the Terms:
    • Read the terms and conditions of the games and the casino.
    • Look for any disclosures about adaptive algorithms or non-standard RNG practices.
  3. Stay Informed:
    • Keep up to date with industry news and player experiences.
    • Join communities of online gamblers to share insights and stay informed about reputable and fair gaming practices.

Conclusion​

Your expectation for true randomness in online gaming is entirely justified. Reputable and regulated online casinos should adhere to strict standards to ensure fairness and transparency. If you suspect unfair practices, taking the steps outlined above can help address the issue and potentially improve the standards in the online gaming industry.
 
Got to love ChatGPT - garbage in, garbage out.

Since we're talking about online rather than AWPs, nobody has really touched on adaptive algorithms and there's no real reason to - in many (if not most) jurisdictions that would be illegal for a random slot to behave in such a way. We could fill a 100 page thread talking about AWP stuff - in fact a number of us have on DIF :laugh:.

Additionally, that is a pretty awful definition of true random. There would be two definitions we might use here:
  • In terms of RNG, "true" random would use natural phenomena as a hardware-RNG (hRNG) rather than an algorithmic RNG (psuedo-RNG, pRNG).
  • In game design, a "true random" slot would use natural odds for all devices provided to the player (such as reels and dice). If the RNG is mapped to a different scale (e.g. balls in the bag) it would be considered weighted random, and otherwise it would be compensated.
    • So the probabilities should be the same given the same start condition - linked spins do not prevent a slot from being true random or weighted random, as long as the game rules are clearly defined and rigid in nature.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top