Paridise8 Casino

[soflat]

To echo some of the opinions above, these I-slots are pretty decent in theory and could be very attractive to certain players as they're very different from anything out there but in my opinion the numerous software hangups, missing winning pays, and jacking of a players wagers midgame will definately not wash with most for long. Peace !

a) Thanks for the warning. I've never heard of a slot raising a player's wager without consent.

b) You can't expect to win while playing slots with a 20x bonus.

c) I messed around with one of the I-Slots a little and finished with a profit. I think I'll cash out until they get things straightened out.

d) The i-slot payouts are very confusing. It sort of flashes a 'last win' amount along with a multiplier but I never knew what it meant exactly.

 

[Pinababy69]

I tried this casino out when they were offering the free $20 and didn't like it at all. This morning my wife decides she's going to deposit at a sister site Cocoa Casino. She deposits $25 and claims the 200 % bonus for a starting bankroll of $75.
She goes to one of the I-slots called Bank Heist and starts wagering 75 cents a spin. Within 20 spins her entire bankroll is gone. How is this possible you might ask ? Well it turns out that if you get one of the numerous (so called) bonus rounds your wager gets jacked up to $3.75 a spin until the round is completed. Did she want to wager $3.75 a spin, no. Was there any way to avoid this, no. Did she even know the game had increased her bet, I doubt it. (she's a woman...lol)
In any event during this bonus round she gets a "last win, $100" message. I seen it myelf. Upon completion of the round it goes back to the regular slot and her bankroll is at $22. She then switches games and loses her remaing balance without a win. The entire session lasted no more than five minutes.
She then emails support asking what just went on and gets the following reply:

Dear Joyce,

I am currently looking into your issue but in the meantime I would like to refund your deposit back to your playing account. I am pleased to announce a lower slot limit in Real Crime:The Bank Heist. You can now bet $0.75 throughout the entire game!
Best regards,
Reviews department

Hahaha ! That's what she thought she was doing when she set her wager at 75 cents to begin with. Too funny! Of course we all know the rest of the story, she redownloaded the software and lost the $25 on some other slot without ever winning more than a free spin ($1.50) If she wagered more than $200 total out of the $25, $50,and $25 I'd be in total shock.
This entire session from start to finish was under ten minutes of gameplay.
To echo some of the opinions above, these I-slots are pretty decent in theory and could be very attractive to certain players as they're very different from anything out there but in my opinion the numerous software hangups, missing winning pays, and jacking of a players wagers midgame will definately not wash with most for long. Peace !

Since when does it cost you to play a bonus round. Thought that was the whole meaning of "bonus". When you get 15 free spins on Thunderstruck, they don't charge you per spin? I'm sitting here lmao, cause I've never heard of anything so ridiculous. Bad enough you have to pay for your "bonus" spins, but to have to pay 5X your original bet?

Rob, could you enlighten us? Is this normal, or was this another glitch?

And the highlighted part there, that's classic. I thought that's what she was betting? Wow!!!

 

[RobRival]

iSlots

Hello All,

Islots are the newest slots developed for the Rival gaming software. They have bonus rounds, freespins, sub games and stories interwoven. When a player enters a bonus round, of course it doesn't cost them anything to play that bonus round! They win the amount displayed in the winning screen, or the freespins with the multiplier. We always appreciate comments as to how to better display wins and are commited to responding to players' needs and requests.

When a player enters a fixed bet round, a screen is displayed where the player can select their bet. This bet is displayed next to the spin button at all times. The minimum bet was inadvertently set to 3.75 for one of the iSlots. This has been updated to 0.75. The player of course can choose whether or not to place any of the bets, and can reset the round to a smaller bet size by clicking Reset Round/Change Bet. This starts the round over, using a new bet size selected by the player.

Cheers,

Rob

 

[Pinababy69]

Thanks Rob for clarifying that and for elaborating on the slots in general. And I must say, you have been most gracious under what must seem to you to be unfriendly fire, lol.

 

[spike38]

That sounds great, Rob but it doesn't do my wife a bit of good to make things right after the fact. This "glitch" cost her any chance she'll ever have to try these games as they are quite pricey even at 75 cents a spin and I surely won't be letting her deposit again after this. Also, there still is the "last win,$100", missing pay issue which she is awaiting a reply from the reviews department on.
In any event, kudos to you for coming on here and attempting to weed through all these new software pains. It shows you guys are attempting to go in the right direction and hopefully you get the bugs ironed out.

 

[spike38]

I'd just like to add an aside. At the time this happened my wife COULD NOT choose to:
1. change her bet size
2. whether or not to place any bets
3. exit the bonus game (without ctrl+alt+del out of the casino)
Even though she was wagering the game minimum of 75 cents the bonus wager was raised up to $3.75 and there was absolutely nothing she could do to change it.

 

[bonustreak]

When I tried that slot last week I went into the bonus round, I did get a pop up asking if I agreed the 3.75, I did not so I lowered it, I am not being rude but maybe your wife was not paying attention and just clicked off the pop up

 

[spearmaster]

In my testing last week, the lowest amount that was allowed during the "chase" spins was $3.75. CocoaRob says that this has now been corrected and the lowest amount is 75 cents. So it is entirely conceivable that Mrs. Spike did not have any choice.

 

[Sodax77]

In my testing last week, the lowest amount that was allowed during the "chase" spins was $3.75. CocoaRob says that this has now been corrected and the lowest amount is 75 cents. So it is entirely conceivable that Mrs. Spike did not have any choice.

I almost said that, yes you can change bet-size.
But actually this is not only bug i found.

They have really nice games, but i hope they will upgrade some features, like:
"Free Spins"/"bonus feature" total win-screen.
Better "last win"-screen,
and if example zone alarm or any program need to access net, etc.
I hope i can change back to Full screen.... without closing casino
(not sure, if this my graphic card issue). But always same thing

 

[dominique]

Well, I played the slots, which I love, and cashed out and had my money in 24 hours.

 

[gfkostas]

I don't like the fact that you can't get more than 2 grand a month from them. That's a major restriction especially if you win a jackpot. That clearly shows that they haven't got the financial strength to cover any major wins. Many bugs, some questions from jetset unanswered and questionable finances hm.... Won't give them my money am afraid until they get themselves sorted.

 

[Sodax77]

I don't like the fact that you can't get more than 2 grand a month from them. That's a major restriction especially if you win a jackpot. That clearly shows that they haven't got the financial strength to cover any major wins. Many bugs, some questions from jetset unanswered and questionable finances hm.... Won't give them my money am afraid until they get themselves sorted.

Yuo

and i'm glad that some players got paid.

However i have now more facts, but i do judge them at puclic forum.
I hope they keep their "ok"-reputation. Good luck everyone with this group

 

[RobRival]

I don't like the fact that you can't get more than 2 grand a month from them. That's a major restriction especially if you win a jackpot. That clearly shows that they haven't got the financial strength to cover any major wins. Many bugs, some questions from jetset unanswered and questionable finances hm.... Won't give them my money am afraid until they get themselves sorted.

gfkostas,

From the terms and conditions of the casinos:

"A player is permited to withdraw a maximum of $2000 USD of their winnings per 24 hour period."

Cheers,
Rob

 

[jetset]

Thanks for the clarification on that, Rob - it's an important point imv.

We're still digging on these companies, because my last few questions regarding those involved remain unanswered by Justin Kelly and that is an unfortunate reflection on the transparency of this outfit, the quality of its software notwithstanding.

More when we have it....

 

[gfkostas]

We're still digging on these companies, because my last few questions regarding those involved remain unanswered by Justin Kelly and that is an unfortunate reflection on the transparency of this outfit, the quality of its software notwithstanding.

More when we have it....

Jetset,

Did they give you any understandable reasons as to why they are unable or unwilling to provide you with further info about their outfit?

It's important to say that the scepticism expressed by some in this thread isn't cynical but only a concern which is justifiable given the notorious history of many casinos and their victims. Guilty until proven innocent!

From the terms and conditions of the casinos:

"A player is permited to withdraw a maximum of $2000 USD of their winnings per 24 hour period."

Cheers,
Rob

Thanks for the clarification Rob. I was wrong to say that it was 2k a month but still the restriction cannot be justified on the grounds we have at hand. Of course 80%+ of the player wont have any problem with such a restriction. What about the players who win a major jackpot? Do they have to log in once a day just to take out 2k?

 

[Simmo!]

It's important to say that the scepticism expressed by some in this thread isn't cynical but only a concern which is justifiable given the notorious history of many casinos and their victims. Guilty until proven innocent!

Sadly true in this industry. Its a shame so many shady individuals and organisations have been allowed to ply their trade in it as the knock-on effect is now felt by good and honest start-ups also Thats why I feel transparency is very important. Stories like that Bet Royale fiasco recently really bring it home how important it is to be vigilant.

Although I would add that some of the software providers have done a good job in protecting the player with stricter licensing and it certainly seems in better shape today than it ever has been.

 

[dominique]

Did they give you any understandable reasons as to why they are unable or unwilling to provide you with further info about their outfit?

From what I understand many of the involved individuals have been working for other software companies prior to splitting offf and developing this, and have a non disclosure agreement to contend with.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE: Originally Posted by gfkostas: Did they give you any understandable reasons as to why they are unable or unwilling to provide you with further info about their outfit? UNQUOTE

No - Kelly simply declined to disclose details of the management team at 400Group "...because they wish to remain anonymous." And you will recall from earlier posts that Rival said it was still recruiting a CEO, who would then nominate his executive team.

Another question that remains unanswered is why initial emails coming from Justin Kelly carried a CMPO.ca address, when he denies any connection with this company whatsoever, as does Rival's spokesperson Scott Geisbrecht.

Here's another anomaly - look at the email addresses that Kelly has used so far. One is at Gaming Solutions, which Geisbrecht says is an independent Canadian software consultancy that Rival used in the past. And of course CMPO.ca, which no-one is owning up to so far:

Justin Kelly
(support@gamingsolutions.ca)
(affiliates@400affiliates.com)
(justin@400group.net)
(jkelly@cmpo.ca)


These are not commercially sensitive issues and anomalies, and as Simmo and Gf point out they raise historically based industry fears that something may not be quite right here despite the quality of the software (temporary glitches aside) and so far happy player payout experiences.

Added to the anonymous domain registrations, unfinished websites and the apparent absence of professional and identified management teams it is natural that this should prompt further questions.

QUOTE: From what I understand many of the involved individuals have been working for other software companies prior to splitting offf and developing this, and have a non disclosure agreement to contend with. UNQUOTE

Can you give us your source for this information, Dom? Because these guys have ignored my last probing emails on the above questions.

Frankly I don't see the logic behind this "non-disclosure" reasoning, especially going into a business where trust is so important. Let's hear more detail and clarity - that works for Rival - 400Group as well as the players and affiliates

 

[gfkostas]

....and so far happy player payout experiences.

I want to see how they deal with huge payouts though.

 

[largeeyes]

I want to see how they deal with huge payouts though.

Define Huge.

 

[Slotster!]

From the slots at least, I don't think 'huge' payouts are that easy!

I was in fun mode betting $75 a spin, and even five high paying symbols only hit me $2000. Sure you could one in a million hit them in the (five) free spins, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. The payouts are regular, and the slots are fun - but there's no "Ladies Nite" or "Thunderstruck" monster payout potential!

They're definitely the play longer type slots where you don't lose a great deal, but you don't win a great deal either.

 

[gfkostas]

Define Huge.

$5,000+

 

[Pinababy69]

Frankly I don't see the logic behind this "non-disclosure" reasoning, especially going into a business where trust is so important. Let's hear more detail and clarity - that works for Rival - 400Group as well as the players and affiliates

I don't get it either. Non-disclosure in relation to where you worked? They won't even elaborate as to what experience they hold in what aspect of online gaming. Developing software, running/managing a casino and heading up an affiliate/marketing team are three very different areas of expertise. It makes no sense to me why they can't say well...this person worked for this casino, this person has experience in marketing with this affiliate company, this person worked for this software company. It's not like they were CIA operatives, is it?

 

[winbig]

I worked for an ISP once that required me to sign a NDA. It basically said that I could not give out any "trade secrets", as well as not being able to work for/start up my own ISP within X amount of miles for X amount of time after I left the company.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I am assuming most NDA's are pretty much the same when it comes to employment. If this is the case, there's no reason for them to remain 'anonymous', unless in fact they were trying to bypass the NDA that was signed.

 

[Pinababy69]

I can totally understand an agreement to not share trade secrets, especially when it's something as high-tech as software development. But it seems that most people simply want some assurance that the people in charge do indeed have some past experience in at least some aspect of online gaming. If I were a millionaire I could go and start up an online casino, but that doesn't mean that I am qualified to run it. And if someone were to ask me what experience I had in the industry, what would I say? Well....gee, I posted on Casinomeister alot. As I said before, I won't be playing there until I learn more, and as an affiliate, I wouldn't be comfortable directing players there either. JMO.

Totally different scenario as it was an existing software that had legal issues attached...but does anyone remember Largo Casino?