Question for the industry guys (RTP)

andym

Experienced Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Location
germany
Hi guys,
i have one question for you and would be happy if someone can answer that.
Lets assume there is only one online casino out there. This online casino licensed only one slot. This one slot has a theoretical RTP of 96%.
In that online casino only two players are playing the whole time.

Player1 made a really good win on the slot and get an RTP of 104%. Then Player1 stopped immeadiately playing.
Now whats the most likely real-RTP-outcome for Player2 who still continues playing with a very lot or unlimited spins:

1. Player2 will end up at 96% RTP
2. Player2 will end up at 88% RTP

Thanks
Andy
 
Last edited:
Solution
You are talking about the concept of compensation if you're thinking Scenario 2 is the answer, online slots are random and are not compensated. therefore Player 1's results and Player 2's results are entirely independent of each other.

Eventually Player 1 and Player 2 will, given a sufficient number of spins, reach the T-RTP of the slot, but their results along the way do not influence the other at all.

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
I still dont think that 'negates' the upside of reducing liability with gimped math models on the biggest betsizes on popular slots.
Sure, you may have no problem paying out that 500k (or whatever the limit is) but surely it would be better if that 500k hit never happened in the first place?

Im not likely to hit any payout limits anytime soon.
Even a max win on doa2 would probably be paid the same day with the stakes i play at.
=)
Big wins are good advertising, and the person that won it is likely to put it all back, so Casinos don't worry that much.

Also, I believe even when different math models are used for different bet sizes, hmthey still have to maintain the same RTP as all the others. Trance can correct me if I'm wrong on that one tho as he'll know for sure
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
Big wins are good advertising, and the person that won it is likely to put it all back, so Casinos don't worry that much.

Also, I believe even when different math models are used for different bet sizes, hmthey still have to maintain the same RTP as all the others. Trance can correct me if I'm wrong on that one tho as he'll know for sure
Yeah, it has to maintain the same rtp, or else it has to be stated in the helpfile that different models are being used and how the rtp differs.
But removing those 1000x+ bonuses and instead give back that rtp in 1-5x hits in the basegame means the person playing is not very likely to make a withdrawal and instead slowly see their balance being grinded down to zero, so even tho the rtp turns out to be the same, the amount of withdrawals you see will be very different.

You dont have to change much to make a big difference imo.
Making the bonus twice as hard to hit on the highest stakes means you have alot of less big payouts to worry about.
Just let them grind their balance to zero in the basegame instead, cheaper that way.
=)
 

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
Yeah, it has to maintain the same rtp, or else it has to be stated in the helpfile that different models are being used and how the rtp differs.
But removing those 1000x+ bonuses and instead give back that rtp in 1-5x hits in the basegame means the person playing is not very likely to make a withdrawal and instead slowly see their balance being grinded down to zero, so even tho the rtp turns out to be the same, the amount of withdrawals you see will be very different.

You dont have to change much to make a big difference imo.
Making the bonus twice as hard to hit on the highest stakes means you have alot of less big payouts to worry about.
Just let them grind their balance to zero in the basegame instead, cheaper that way.
=)
Certainly could be done, but it would do more harm than good as it would likely come to light and reputation ally be damaging. And as Trance said, a lot of additional cost. Just easier to cap the win or just not let people play at that stake hehe.

I don't believe there is any game that does it. But maybe we'll see one in the future and find out.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
Certainly could be done, but it would do more harm than good as it would likely come to light and reputation ally be damaging. And as Trance said, a lot of additional cost. Just easier to cap the win or just not let people play at that stake hehe.

I don't believe there is any game that does it. But maybe we'll see one in the future and find out.
You have more faith in people than i do i guess.
I would be more surprised if things like this were not being done in a industry involving so much money and greed.

And technically this is not even anything shady/dirty, since its allowed.
No need to bribe testing facility or whatnot to get it done.
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
You have more faith in people than i do i guess.
I would be more surprised if things like this were not being done in a industry involving so much money and greed.

And technically this is not even anything shady/dirty, since its allowed.
No need to bribe testing facility or whatnot to get it done.
But the point still remains that there is very little reason to do it OTHER THAN where you have progressives, when you HAVE to have different maths at every single bet. Btw, in land-based there are many machines that use different maths as you bet up (or denom up). Lightning Link is a great example where, as you go to higher denoms, the number of lines decreases - which in theory INCREASES the volatility, not decreases. Although of course the maths may actually be lower volatility, i'm not 100% sure.

I've not come across this being done online yet, but it may well be out there already for sure. But firstly, if a game DID become less volatile at higher bets, why is this a bad thing? And secondly, there are very, very few people who a) notice and b) care.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
I've not come across this being done online yet, but it may well be out there already for sure. But firstly, if a game DID become less volatile at higher bets, why is this a bad thing? And secondly, there are very, very few people who a) notice and b) care.
Its a bad thing because it can be used to trick players, since there is no way for the player to know its happening.
Someone sitting down to play Doa2 does not want to play a 'less volatile' game.
They want that 100 000x bonus.
If that bonus is five times harder to hit for someone doing max bet, that is not a good thing.
That player will not think 'oh neat, my balance lasted for hours slowly grinding down to zero in the basegame, much less volatile than when i played using 9p spins'
He would probably think, 'why does it feel like its impossible to bonus on this stake'

And if he asks about it, instead of being told the game is shit on higher stakes, he would probably be told 'its random and you were unlucky' because in a twisted way that is kind of true.
Thats one way this kind of thing can be a bad thing.
;)
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
Its a bad thing because it can be used to trick players, since there is no way for the player to know its happening.
Someone sitting down to play Doa2 does not want to play a 'less volatile' game.
They want that 100 000x bonus.
If that bonus is five times harder to hit for someone doing max bet, that is not a good thing.
That player will not think 'oh neat, my balance lasted for hours slowly grinding down to zero in the basegame, much less volatile than when i played using 9p spins'
He would probably think, 'why does it feel like its impossible to bonus on this stake'

And if he asks about it, instead of being told the game is shit on higher stakes, he would probably be told 'its random and you were unlucky' because in a twisted way that is kind of true.
Thats one way this kind of thing can be a bad thing.
;)
But you're assuming that less volatility means wins are not available, which is not true...
Whenever i have done games which have required different maths with different bets (due to progressive jackpot rules), i have never affected the feature or the "high wins". I nearly always adjust the base game slightly. Why would we change the feature or remove the "unicorn" wins - it makes no sense. Casinos know what the wins are, if they don't like them, don't have higher bets (some casinos don't run DOA2 on more than €1.80)
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
But you're assuming that less volatility means wins are not available, which is not true...
Whenever i have done games which have required different maths with different bets (due to progressive jackpot rules), i have never affected the feature or the "high wins". I nearly always adjust the base game slightly. Why would we change the feature or remove the "unicorn" wins - it makes no sense. Casinos know what the wins are, if they don't like them, don't have higher bets (some casinos don't run DOA2 on more than €1.80)
Not that they are not available, just more rare.
Like berryburst vs berryburst MAX for example, im pretty sure the max win is the same, fullscreen of wilds, but hitting it on the non max version is more rare.
You could make make the highest stakes on a slot be the 'non max' version of the slot, without letting the player know they are playing a version where the biggest hits are harder to come by.
They are still available of course, they just wont happen nearly as often.

Imo things like volatility should not be allowed to change without letting the player know.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
And as for 'people dont care'
I think its more like 'people have no idea it can even happen'
And imo thats the problem.

The majority does not even seem to know that rtp is a thing, so how many do you expect to know that a slot can turn into a completely different slot when they change stake?
Im probably in the category of people 'more informed' about about things like rtp volatility etc, but i had no idea that changing volatility depending on stake was allowed before i randomly learned it from asking you.

So i dont think its fair saying 'people dont care' because i bet they would if they knew.
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of business. It's just not really worth it for the Casinos/game devs to do this. The 'benefits' just don't outweigh the cost, faff, potential downsides.
Is it really that expensive testing two math models instead of one for a slot?
A high volatile one that applies to betsizes under €5 and one low volatile for bets over €5.

To me it just seems like a weird thing to allow if its never used.
 

CasinoNinja

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Location
UK
There are many sites which don't have a max win limit, if you are a high roller you would be smart to avoid those anyway. Imagine betting £9 on doa2 with max win (111kx) just to say, sorry mate. Max win is 50k. That's shit.

If casinos are afraid of max win, they should do so by lowering the max bets. Videoslots already do this and I don't think they have a "max win" on the site.

Some sites do, most common one is around £250k or so. But "good" ones don't.
 

abuyang

Registered User
Joined
Aug 5, 2019
Location
Lanna, Thailand
I think he was trying to explain what CasinoNinja said above but maybe English isn't his first language or he phrased it in a way that made it come across wrong, or it is possible he completely understands how online slots work.

The answer to the question is indeed 'no', at least as far as random online slots work. Compensated games do exist (UK AWPs/fruit machines for example), but they're a completely different beast to random online slots.

It's not even like there's any benefit to coding online slots to be compensated, quite apart from the fact it'd be completely busting the licensing terms for the games, it's a massive ballache for no benefit. Just design the maths of the game correctly, chuck a few billion simulated spins at it, certify the T-RTP, and let random numbers do the rest.
What prevents you from thinking that slots like Jammin Jars are using a compensated model? The advantage of the compensated model for the operator is quite clear: they get fully predicted results in the given timeframe thus avoiding any negative impact of the volatility of their games on their balance sheet.
 
Last edited:

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
What prevents you from thinking that slots like Jammin Jars are using a compensated model? The advantage of the compensated model for the operator is quite clear: they get fully predicted results in the given timeframe thus avoiding any negative impact of the volatility of their games on their balance sheet.
I believe it is against the terms of all the major licenses to use compensated models in online slots. So it'd be illegal, the casino would lose their license and then go out of business. Not really worth the risk for pretty minimal benefit.

I believe the only reason it was acceptable to UK fruit machines is because they literally had to use the money people put in to pay out, so you didn't want the machine to be in a situation where it didn't have enough in it to pay. Not 100% sure on that though. Plus UK fruit machines are very old and probably prior to any major regulation.
 

trancemonkey

Ueber Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
I believe it is against the terms of all the major licenses to use compensated models in online slots. So it'd be illegal, the casino would lose their license and then go out of business. Not really worth the risk for pretty minimal benefit.

I believe the only reason it was acceptable to UK fruit machines is because they literally had to use the money people put in to pay out, so you didn't want the machine to be in a situation where it didn't have enough in it to pay. Not 100% sure on that though. Plus UK fruit machines are very old and probably prior to any major regulation.

Nailed it
 

Sasukdcf

Full Member
PABnorogue
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Location
Norwich
Interesting how a thread starting off about compensation ends up on the aged old discussion on stakes vs payout argument.


As a high stakes player I have argued this for years ... with trancemonkey a few times I believe, and initially ( going back years now ) he argued couldn’t happen, then progressed a little to... could happen but RTP would still need to be the same so complicated... or it would need to be stated in the rules... and I believe he was involved in the sky is the limit game which had this ....


I have played high stakes and medium stakes for years... had countless big hits on medium stakes (500x plus)

And since last arguing with trance about 5 years ago, I think maybe 3 at higher stakes maybe 4


Why do I play higher stakes I’m sure someone will ask... well it’s more exciting and always chasing the dream hit...

And so many times feel like you have hit it only to be gimped off by the worst feature ever seen!!

Examples that remain fresh in the mind ( oh and posted on another thread recently )

5 enhanced features on wild flower from £5 to £8 ... best one paid £65

27 spins on bonanza at £10 stake £880

22 spins Wwtbam 9x

But no matter how much I argue all you get is jokes about tin hats and don’t play then...

Whereas with many people saying the same thing and years and years of experience re-enforcing this, maybe something should be done...:


Then I had an idea, if there are people out there that enjoy a gamble and are adamant 100% no question that stake is irrelevant to how a game plays then why not a competition.....


A live stream session...:

I’ll have say a starting balance of £1000 and play £5 stakes

Player 2 ( the 100% staunch all slots play the same on any stake ) plays 20p with a start balance of £40

And then we have a points system.

Something like this...
Points for

Hitting a feature
Value of feature
Base wins
First to bust out
Number of consecutive spins with less than 1x return.

( not thought too much about the above yet )

And my theory would be he will score
More point than me.....

Now in theory that should work out 50/50.

So therefore.... If I offered the player 2/1 on a £100 bet

That should be taken up by anyone that believes slots all play the same as they are getting 2/1 for a 50/50 shot....

And happy to play it out 5 times

Now if we did this and it showed the £5 stake being at a disadvantage all 5 times for instance

Would that offer any credence to the argument if the nay sayers saw it live or would the usual argument “ not a big enough sample just be thrown around as that’s all I have ever been given when trying to document anything ...

Would be interesting
 

aceking123

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Location
uk
Interesting how a thread starting off about compensation ends up on the aged old discussion on stakes vs payout argument.


As a high stakes player I have argued this for years ... with trancemonkey a few times I believe, and initially ( going back years now ) he argued couldn’t happen, then progressed a little to... could happen but RTP would still need to be the same so complicated... or it would need to be stated in the rules... and I believe he was involved in the sky is the limit game which had this ....


I have played high stakes and medium stakes for years... had countless big hits on medium stakes (500x plus)

And since last arguing with trance about 5 years ago, I think maybe 3 at higher stakes maybe 4


Why do I play higher stakes I’m sure someone will ask... well it’s more exciting and always chasing the dream hit...

And so many times feel like you have hit it only to be gimped off by the worst feature ever seen!!

Examples that remain fresh in the mind ( oh and posted on another thread recently )

5 enhanced features on wild flower from £5 to £8 ... best one paid £65

27 spins on bonanza at £10 stake £880

22 spins Wwtbam 9x

But no matter how much I argue all you get is jokes about tin hats and don’t play then...

Whereas with many people saying the same thing and years and years of experience re-enforcing this, maybe something should be done...:


Then I had an idea, if there are people out there that enjoy a gamble and are adamant 100% no question that stake is irrelevant to how a game plays then why not a competition.....


A live stream session...:

I’ll have say a starting balance of £1000 and play £5 stakes

Player 2 ( the 100% staunch all slots play the same on any stake ) plays 20p with a start balance of £40

And then we have a points system.

Something like this...
Points for

Hitting a feature
Value of feature
Base wins
First to bust out
Number of consecutive spins with less than 1x return.

( not thought too much about the above yet )

And my theory would be he will score
More point than me.....

Now in theory that should work out 50/50.

So therefore.... If I offered the player 2/1 on a £100 bet

That should be taken up by anyone that believes slots all play the same as they are getting 2/1 for a 50/50 shot....

And happy to play it out 5 times

Now if we did this and it showed the £5 stake being at a disadvantage all 5 times for instance

Would that offer any credence to the argument if the nay sayers saw it live or would the usual argument “ not a big enough sample just be thrown around as that’s all I have ever been given when trying to document anything ...

Would be interesting
All I would say is your get the small numbers syndrome people would jump to say you haven't spin it enough.
I'm more than willing to help you with playing I could match play same deposit level & we could then do this at same level)
 

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
Interesting how a thread starting off about compensation ends up on the aged old discussion on stakes vs payout argument.


As a high stakes player I have argued this for years ... with trancemonkey a few times I believe, and initially ( going back years now ) he argued couldn’t happen, then progressed a little to... could happen but RTP would still need to be the same so complicated... or it would need to be stated in the rules... and I believe he was involved in the sky is the limit game which had this ....


I have played high stakes and medium stakes for years... had countless big hits on medium stakes (500x plus)

And since last arguing with trance about 5 years ago, I think maybe 3 at higher stakes maybe 4


Why do I play higher stakes I’m sure someone will ask... well it’s more exciting and always chasing the dream hit...

And so many times feel like you have hit it only to be gimped off by the worst feature ever seen!!

Examples that remain fresh in the mind ( oh and posted on another thread recently )

5 enhanced features on wild flower from £5 to £8 ... best one paid £65

27 spins on bonanza at £10 stake £880

22 spins Wwtbam 9x

But no matter how much I argue all you get is jokes about tin hats and don’t play then...

Whereas with many people saying the same thing and years and years of experience re-enforcing this, maybe something should be done...:


Then I had an idea, if there are people out there that enjoy a gamble and are adamant 100% no question that stake is irrelevant to how a game plays then why not a competition.....


A live stream session...:

I’ll have say a starting balance of £1000 and play £5 stakes

Player 2 ( the 100% staunch all slots play the same on any stake ) plays 20p with a start balance of £40

And then we have a points system.

Something like this...
Points for

Hitting a feature
Value of feature
Base wins
First to bust out
Number of consecutive spins with less than 1x return.

( not thought too much about the above yet )

And my theory would be he will score
More point than me.....

Now in theory that should work out 50/50.

So therefore.... If I offered the player 2/1 on a £100 bet

That should be taken up by anyone that believes slots all play the same as they are getting 2/1 for a 50/50 shot....

And happy to play it out 5 times

Now if we did this and it showed the £5 stake being at a disadvantage all 5 times for instance

Would that offer any credence to the argument if the nay sayers saw it live or would the usual argument “ not a big enough sample just be thrown around as that’s all I have ever been given when trying to document anything ...

Would be interesting
Well being that the last few days I've burned through £40 or £50 deposits on 20p stakes with no features or only gutter features I'd be pretty confident of losing this scenario haha.

But the reality is it would be a few thousand spins at most (if you did it 5 times). Which simply isn't enough to be statistically significant. I know you'll say that's an excuse, but it's unfortunately true (see my video for proof of the varience you can get at even 10000 spins on a really simple game). So whatever the results were would be useless.

Simple fact is, at high stakes, you get less spins so you are likely to see a more statistically outlying behaviour than doing the same balance on low stakes.
 

Sasukdcf

Full Member
PABnorogue
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Location
Norwich
Well being that the last few days I've burned through £40 or £50 deposits on 20p stakes with no features or only gutter features I'd be pretty confident of losing this scenario haha.

But the reality is it would be a few thousand spins at most (if you did it 5 times). Which simply isn't enough to be statistically significant. I know you'll say that's an excuse, but it's unfortunately true (see my video for proof of the varience you can get at even 10000 spins on a really simple game). So whatever the results were would be useless.

Simple fact is, at high stakes, you get less spins so you are likely to see a more statistically outlying behaviour than doing the same balance on low stakes.


Thank you Aceking 123... we don’t have to to do it for money ( as in the bet, although happy too ) but could do it just to see ...

As for this response... I get that it’s a low number of spins and only 5 attempts ...

But firstly I must argue one point ...

Your last comment about high stakes less spins .... surely with the figures I quoted £1000 @ £5 and £40 @ 20p

The number of spins should be the same statistically speaking ...

That would be another column to add tho as I would g/tee I would bust out quicker than the 20p player ...

Thank you for a reasonable response tho rather than the tin hat bullsh*t I have had before!!

I’m gonna progress one step further to ask something else I have noticed which has become more and more prevalent over the last year or so and wonder if anyone else has commented or noticed the same ...

The amount of times I’m down ( and it can be £50 or £500 and I hit a feature or run of features and suddenly I’m back to almost exactly my starting balance ...

I noticed this a year or so back and commented on it...

But now it’s almost daily...

And when I say back to starting balance I mean within a few pence ... time after time after time after time ....

Yesterday for instance put on 200 lost

Put on 300 got down to around £170

Hit a plus 5 on bonanza £2

Balance after feature 499.68

And this happens so so so so often now...

It’s another point I have argued on here and someone asked me ... if it was linked to something ... what is that something ....

I don’t know ... all I do wonder is, they can give away a decent win which helps RTp etc and keeps all figures as they should be , but they know from previous play that I won’t withdraw at that point because I always try to get £200 ahead and the withdraw my initial deposits ... if there was a conspiracy then a site knowing that would know that as long as I was kept under that figure they have no liability as it were ...
 

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
Thank you Aceking 123... we don’t have to to do it for money ( as in the bet, although happy too ) but could do it just to see ...

As for this response... I get that it’s a low number of spins and only 5 attempts ...

But firstly I must argue one point ...

Your last comment about high stakes less spins .... surely with the figures I quoted £1000 @ £5 and £40 @ 20p

The number of spins should be the same statistically speaking ...

That would be another column to add tho as I would g/tee I would bust out quicker than the 20p player ...

Thank you for a reasonable response tho rather than the tin hat bullsh*t I have had before!!

I’m gonna progress one step further to ask something else I have noticed which has become more and more prevalent over the last year or so and wonder if anyone else has commented or noticed the same ...

The amount of times I’m down ( and it can be £50 or £500 and I hit a feature or run of features and suddenly I’m back to almost exactly my starting balance ...

I noticed this a year or so back and commented on it...

But now it’s almost daily...

And when I say back to starting balance I mean within a few pence ... time after time after time after time ....

Yesterday for instance put on 200 lost

Put on 300 got down to around £170

Hit a plus 5 on bonanza £2

Balance after feature 499.68

And this happens so so so so often now...

It’s another point I have argued on here and someone asked me ... if it was linked to something ... what is that something ....

I don’t know ... all I do wonder is, they can give away a decent win which helps RTp etc and keeps all figures as they should be , but they know from previous play that I won’t withdraw at that point because I always try to get £200 ahead and the withdraw my initial deposits ... if there was a conspiracy then a site knowing that would know that as long as I was kept under that figure they have no liability as it were ...
Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant high stakes play in general, not in relation to your experiment. As you say, the relative values there are the same :)

I've addressed the other part somewhere else before, but broadly that is what you would expect, statistically. 96% RTP means for every £100 you put in, you would expect £96 back on average, so dropping down and coming back to near where you were is kind of normal.
 

Sasukdcf

Full Member
PABnorogue
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Location
Norwich
I get your point re high stakes play in general but its just a solid fact that high stakes features seem way more gimped than lower staked ones....

maybe you can relate to this a little if you ever happen to have played a game called 6 appeal.... it used to be one of my go to games but they gimped it totally and made it less volatile (which is a whole new can of worms as many say they cant change games... thats bullshit!!! just look at new limit games, they play TOTALLY differenty after being out a few weeks... so either they get 2 variations tested and then switch over the version on the sly or they just change it....

I cant be the only one that found it way harder to hit a feature on san quentin after a few weeks


or harder to hit a east coast 2 wheel feature nowadays ..... (did hit a 14K one though last month !!)

but on 6 appeal I hit the holy grail of features on £20 stake.... 3 blue dice 6x6x5 with a 5 x multiplier so 180 spins

followed by a run of retriggers to a point where i had 250 spins at 27x mutliplier....

so thats the equivilent of £540 a spin....

I had jackpotted that game loads of times on smaller stake it has a max win of 40,000 line bet ( which equates to 2000x, realistic had a weird way of expressing it )

and i had hit JP loads of times on way way way way way less spins and multis than that!!!

I was shall we say a tad excited as my mental maths told me I was about to watch this feature unfold to a rather nice £40,000 TYVM!!

in the base game 3 tens (lowest symbol) pay 0.10x of stake 4oak10s (1 x) 5oak10s (5X)

at that multiplier in the feature they paid £54 for 4oak 10s £540 for 4oak and £2700 for 5oak 10s

so with any win being crazy..... we were guessing that we would hit JP (40K with 170 spins remaining) bear in mind we had both played this game for years so knew how it played...

Me and my friend watched it play out as it spun... spin after spin after spin after spin after spin for nothing

and more nothing

and more nothing

and a bit more nothing

and nothing

after 250 spins it had LIMPED to 8K

I know features are worked out slightly differnently to base games but 250 Spins at equivilent to £540 a spin.... to total 16x is just well... we had no words....




ive never hit anything like it again and never had anything close to replicating it.... by that i mean any other large feature i had, Jackpotted as normal or close too....


as for my comments about getting back to level..... im not talking after cycling through once tho... of a few times.....

im saying and in fact happened AGAIN today

put on 200

played for ages up a little to start eventually down to bust out...

300 back on .... down to about 150.... couple of features ....balance 499.40 after end of second feature.... its literally like it calculates feature value to restore parity !!!
 

Mouse75

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Location
Southport
It's not even like there's any benefit to coding online slots to be compensated, quite apart from the fact it'd be completely busting the licensing terms for the games, it's a massive ballache for no benefit. Just design the maths of the game correctly, chuck a few billion simulated spins at it, certify the T-RTP, and let random numbers do the rest.
Not to mention that SO many compensated games can be manipulated.........
 

The Reel Story

Experienced Member
Joined
May 5, 2019
Location
United Kingdom
I get your point re high stakes play in general but its just a solid fact that high stakes features seem way more gimped than lower staked ones....
It most certainly isn't 'solid fact' :p It is entirely the opposite. It is your conjecture. I can say with certainty that, on the majority of games (I don't know any that this isn't true for) stake has no impact on the features.

Randomness and statistics have a weird way of producing results that seem unbelievable, but are, in fact, totally normal. I can't really share any more insight beyond that. Your experiences will colour your opinion. That's natural and I can't stop it. All I can do is re-iterate that no kind of compensation or 'management' of money takes place because it's illegal and it doesn't need to. Maths does the same job legally and the Casino still makes their money :)
 

Mouse75

Experienced Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Location
Southport
It most certainly isn't 'solid fact' :p It is entirely the opposite. It is your conjecture. I can say with certainty that, on the majority of games (I don't know any that this isn't true for) stake has no impact on the features.

Randomness and statistics have a weird way of producing results that seem unbelievable, but are, in fact, totally normal. I can't really share any more insight beyond that. Your experiences will colour your opinion. That's natural and I can't stop it. All I can do is re-iterate that no kind of compensation or 'management' of money takes place because it's illegal and it doesn't need to. Maths does the same job legally and the Casino still makes their money :)
I dont believe that online casinos are rigged... BUT your last sentence is incorrect... throughout the entire history of gambling there have been many "shady" operators improving odds already in their practise. Be it running machines at illegal percentages, sharp practises with packs of cards and all the other swindles gaming operators have offered, your last sentence is valid in principle - but sadly not in reality
 
Top