As stated Im not a lawyer but would assume this might be your best angle to explore. The statement re rtp doesnt make sense to me. Isnt rtp an outcome dependent on the parameters of the game rather than a programmed outcome. Quite often when rtp is quoted it will say the figure was determined from the results of x number of games. So how can you say it deviated from the rtp? And how could such a small sample be an altered rtp rather than variance? So what does a glitch that affected rtp actually mean? Do they actually mean that there was a glitch which affected the programming? If so what was this? What actually happended? Was it a deviation from the programmed code or a programming error? In my opinion the fact that rtp and expected rtp differ is not a malfunction ( again im not a lawyer ) . Isnt the quoted rtp an expected rather than a guaranteed outcome ? If actual rtp is lower than advertised/expected rtp can players demand a refund - I assume not.
I think its crucial to understand what this glitch was. Computers do glitch and suffer errors and deviations from programming. They work fine then suddenly have an error. Question is was it a deviation from programming in which case I would assume you dont have a leg to stand on ( again to be clear Im not a lawyer so may be wrong ) unless the term is deemed unfair or was it a programming error meaning the programme worked correctly its just they made a mistake. For that I think youd have to speak to a lawyer as to whether thats a mulfunction or not under the terms. Lets say you programme an rng to produce the results of rolling a dice. You programme it so that there are 6 possible results but a mulfunction means a 6 can never land. To me thats a malfunction. However if you make a mistake when you programme the rng such that only 1-5 are the possible results is that really a malfunction? The rng worked exactly as it was supposed to. What legally constitues a malfunction? These are questions for a legal expert. I have heard of an error where a £4000 jackpot machine was erroneously programmed to think it was a £500 jackpot machine and thus paid out the jackpot way too often. To me thats not a malfunction but a programming error but as Im not a lawyer I dont know how the law views it.
But I do think you need a fuller explanation of what the glitch supposedly was.
One thing you may want to look into is the free spins they have offered. If you accept and use these is that a full and final settlement? Dont know as Im not a lawyer but if it was me and I was considering challenging the outcome I would refuse the free spins.
They pushed an update, which included a modified mathematic model. There was a mistake by a developer and it must have affected outcomes very very very significantly.
One of two things happened, R Franco found the issue internally and contacted Play Ojo
OR
Playojo was getting a very disproportionate number of wins on the slot and contacted R Franco. (Alternate version, another casino found this and contacted R Franco who then contacted all casinos/aggregates)
I lean towards outcomes being affected significantly brcause if the mistake has only increased the average return by a few % then it would have been harder to detect unless raised internally by R Franco. It would also be a bad move to void balances which were only slightly affected by a little bit extra RTP. Not worth the bad press/player reviews imo
Thanks for this. That is more detailed than the t&c i found. Weird! They said glitch.
They said malfunction in the email. The glitch mention was limited to the providers maths stuff. It's more likely that a mistake was made which borked the maths and calling it a glitch is a way of dressing it up nicely.
They also cited the term. The screenshot I uploaded was from going to the bottom of their website and clicking terms and conditions then going to malfunctions.
Did they reinstate the initial balances? The proper thing to do would be to reset to the net position prior to playing the slot. If balances were voided and only spins given then I think initial deposits should be fought for but that's all.
The only situation in which I feel the players have been screwed over is if the mistake resulted in a minimal difference. I feel like this is less likely to have happened but still possible.
Wow i had no intent on being accused on here. I was simply playing a game that showed up as hot early one day. I had no idea there was any issues. I played, won, left, played other games and so on. It is what it is i thought mabee once in my life i got lucky and won some money but i was wrong. As for joining here i was just desperate to find answers after my account was locked and was looking for people to talk to about it and see if anyone else had info. Nothing more than that.
I already walked back my comments somewhat after being provided more context and looking into some analytics myself.
With further context of the type of malfunction (broken mathematics model), it makes it far less likely this involved bad actors.
Unless the maths were so borked it was extremely obvious, it would be hard to realise the slot was targetable.
I hope you understand that the only reason I have to be suspicious of these things is because people have tried to take advantage of forum and the PAB system while committing fraud so it's always a possibility and without the additional information, there seemed to be too many coincidences which made it look like something else.
saaaamme could've really used that. Was hoping it wasn't something dumb like that. I did notice it wasn't there.
