Random jackpots on RG

[taximania123]

Hi , I was just wondering if anyone has much experience of the random jackpots at RTG casinos.
I guess I have been playing these slots for 5 years at least , average spin value maybe £1- £2 max , in that time ive had 2 in in total one for $1000 and one the other day for just short of $5,000 , problem is that finally having hit a decent one I cant help looking at the total and thinking I might hit again ....have you caught many of these jackpots ? Does the stake value make a difference ?
TIA

 

[pmutts]

This topic has been posted dozens of times

By many members--including myself. Personally, I estimate I have Millions of spins to the tune of at least $200,000 in the hole and I have yet to hit ANY random Jackpot. If you search the Forum you will find MANY threads.

Presumably, the size of the bet does not matter--but you need to be playing all the lines. It is supposed to be completely random. I sure wish that random would run my way.

Good luck!

 

[akrus88]

By many members--including myself. Personally, I estimate I have Millions of spins to the tune of at least $200,000 in the hole and I have yet to hit ANY random Jackpot. If you search the Forum you will find MANY threads.

Presumably, the size of the bet does not matter--but you need to be playing all the lines. It is supposed to be completely random. I sure wish that random would run my way.

Good luck!

I think the bet size does matter. If you bet 1€ against 0,25€ you have four times better the chance of hitting the jackpot. It would be unfair for the high rollers if it wouldn't matter.

 

[mattsgame]

By many members--including myself. Personally, I estimate I have Millions of spins to the tune of at least $200,000 in the hole and I have yet to hit ANY random Jackpot. If you search the Forum you will find MANY threads.

Presumably, the size of the bet does not matter--but you need to be playing all the lines. It is supposed to be completely random. I sure wish that random would run my way.

Good luck!

Sorry but both of these points are not true at all. The higher your bet the better your chance, but that does not mean you should go crazy and bet out of your means as they are still random and you are not guaranteed to win it even at $125 a spin. Also the amount of lines you play is irrelevant, we have seen them hit on 10 lines and less.

OP I have been playing RTG for almost 6 years and are yet to hit one with an average bet similar to yours, my advice would be to not go chasing them and spend your win on something nice.

 

[Nifty29]

The bet ABSOLUTELY matters.

The higher your bet, the higher your chances. You do not have to play all lines at all....I have seen players hit them on less lines.

The chances of hitting a RJ are incredibly BAD. Hitting 2 in 5 years is actually pretty good.

 

[KasinoKing]

I believe the odds to be 1 in every $300,000 worth of bets - that's HELL of a lot of spins, even at $125 a go!

I am also in the "Never won an RTG RJ" club...

KK

 

[albrco123]

I have hit a couple over the years and usually play between $2 and $6.25 per spin, have to admit to chasing them sometimes when they approach 10K but the ones I've it have been less than5K and never while chasing.

Al

 

[chuchu59]

I am proud to say I hit one RJ at0.20 at Diamond Dozen 3 years ago. It paid slightly more than $1k. At Lucky Red I got a minor JP at 0.25@Basketbull. Worst of all was a free chip , won the JP on 3 Stooges 2, paid $3k but only walked away with $125. Just don't expect to hit anything and play as if there is no RJ.

 

[polli123]

Hit the RJ one time in my life at Jackpot Capital. Too bad that it was during a free chip. But at least i made the WR and cashed out 100 Bucks.

 

[ereynard]

I hit one once for 500 ish but never again since. I don't pick games by looking at those now, chances of hitting are too slim . . .

 

[MisterBJ]

Hasn't this topic been discussed a zillion times LOL? OP search the search engines here. This topic has been well explained, including by a well informed RTG insider.

 

[Deanna]

Wow, I have hit 5 Minors and 1 Majors in the past 1.5 years and never on a bet of more than .25 - .50. Oh, wait, I take that back, the Major was $2,300 and it was on a $1.00 spin. I guess I should count myself super lucky! I too find myself always looking at them though which can be annoying!

 

[bsilva028]

i hit 0 random jackpots in 5 years lol

 

[taximania123]

thanks

thanks , sorry for asking a well addressed question I will search for the insiders comments !
sounds like I should be happy with my two jackpots .
My first one was also on a free chip ....

 

[Novemberlady1]

RANDOM JACKPOTS

By many members--including myself. Personally, I estimate I have Millions of spins to the tune of at least $200,000 in the hole and I have yet to hit ANY random Jackpot. If you search the Forum you will find MANY threads.

Presumably, the size of the bet does not matter--but you need to be playing all the lines. It is supposed to be completely random. I sure wish that random would run my way.




Good luck!

I have won 3 times, 2 at CLUB WORLD and a big one at INTERTOPS on a .40 bet. I was surprised because I thought the bet had to be bigger

 

[slotplayer]

I'm not playing online these days but when I played count spectacular about 18 months ago I hit two minor randoms in the same game session. I think the casino was sloto.

 

[rena35]

I've never hit a RJ. before except for playing slot tournaments.

 

[philleze]

Just won Random Jackpot at ClubWorldCasino

Just won random jackpot this morning at ClubWorldCasino - Enchanted Garden 11k. Won this RJ on Enchanted Garden at High Noon Casino last month ($2,900) - very weird luck

 

[zreb]

In case anyone was curious, from my own testing it seemed like the jackpot contribution from a few different games I tried was about .3%, ie, $3 per $1000 wagered. Some of the games say something a long the lines that they will contribute "up to 1.5%," which is some misleading wording, as I think .3% is more accurate. It could depend on the slot or the site.

Since it looks like the average on the shared jackpots - like the city jackpots in CWC, is about $4500, and are seeded at $1000, that means in order to hit one of these "$4500" jackpots you need to wager an average of

(4500-1000)/.003=$1.16 million. Yay.

 

[slotmaster]

Ya it's nowhere close to 1.5%. I would love to know how it would get to 1.5% or how that's figured out.

 

[Nifty29]

Ya it's nowhere close to 1.5%. I would love to know how it would get to 1.5% or how that's figured out.

Awesome.

Can we have the data you base this on please?

It has been confirmed here from an RTG developer that the RJ accounts for around 1.5% of TRTP...but if you know better, then let's have the evidence.

 

[zreb]

Awesome.

Can we have the data you base this on please?

It has been confirmed here from an RTG developer that the RJ accounts for around 1.5% of TRTP...but if you know better, then let's have the evidence.

I tried checking this again a few hours ago with a simple test. I went to a slot machine with a small jackpot, for 2 reasons:

1. Probably no one else playing (and the jackpot wasn't moving at all prior to my test)
2. In case there's anything weird where the jackpot contribution is greater when the jackpot is smaller, like the recent William Hill thing.

The results:

$10 wager, one single spin.
Exit game. Re-enter game.
$0.05 increase in jackpot size.

Total of .5%, and that's assuming no one else played in the meanwhile (which is unlikely), in which case it would be lower.

It's possible that the jackpot RTP is configurable, maybe the 1.5% is the number for the "high RTP" setting. Test was done at CWC, which claims to have a 94-97% RTP, assuming that's true, puts them in the mid range.

I don't know if any casinos actually use the "high" setting for RTP. It may be true that 1.5% is the case under certain conditions, but I haven't seen any evidence that those conditions exist, while I have directly seen a much smaller contribution taking place.

 

[slotmaster]

This! Hopefully the great Nifty can read this post Do you even play on RTG Nifty?

EDIT:

Ok back, what I was saying in my 1st post is I would love to see the evidence of the 1.5%, cause for years now the jackpots barely go up even if you hit something good or have been playing a long time on a slot. I have seen casino's use the server is slow and no doubt they will say over a certain number of spins will it actually be 1.5%, I am asking for evidence or a good explanation like others on here.

I am going by my many years playing on RTG and wondering this myself and have kept testing this issue and keeping track of jackpot totals.

I tried checking this again a few hours ago with a simple test. I went to a slot machine with a small jackpot, for 2 reasons:

1. Probably no one else playing (and the jackpot wasn't moving at all prior to my test)
2. In case there's anything weird where the jackpot contribution is greater when the jackpot is smaller, like the recent William Hill thing.

The results:

$10 wager, one single spin.
Exit game. Re-enter game.
$0.05 increase in jackpot size.

Total of .5%, and that's assuming no one else played in the meanwhile (which is unlikely), in which case it would be lower.

It's possible that the jackpot RTP is configurable, maybe the 1.5% is the number for the "high RTP" setting. Test was done at CWC, which claims to have a 94-97% RTP, assuming that's true, puts them in the mid range.

I don't know if any casinos actually use the "high" setting for RTP. It may be true that 1.5% is the case under certain conditions, but I haven't seen any evidence that those conditions exist, while I have directly seen a much smaller contribution taking place.

 

[Cleveland]

I tried checking this again a few hours ago with a simple test. I went to a slot machine with a small jackpot, for 2 reasons:

1. Probably no one else playing (and the jackpot wasn't moving at all prior to my test)
2. In case there's anything weird where the jackpot contribution is greater when the jackpot is smaller, like the recent William Hill thing.

The results:

$10 wager, one single spin.
Exit game. Re-enter game.
$0.05 increase in jackpot size.

Sorry to dissent but it's not that simple and your method is flawed. I'm sure someone else more articulate and well versed than me will come explain but there's a few fairly recent threads on this, including a "conspiracy" thread.

edit: Just to add when a casino is using wording such as "no more than" or "up to", it's not a simple matter of "insert your quick test" then "yay I disproved them."

 

[BMWSTACK]

I tried checking this again a few hours ago with a simple test. I went to a slot machine with a small jackpot, for 2 reasons:

1. Probably no one else playing (and the jackpot wasn't moving at all prior to my test)
2. In case there's anything weird where the jackpot contribution is greater when the jackpot is smaller, like the recent William Hill thing.

The results:

$10 wager, one single spin.
Exit game. Re-enter game.
$0.05 increase in jackpot size.

Total of .5%, and that's assuming no one else played in the meanwhile (which is unlikely), in which case it would be lower.

It's possible that the jackpot RTP is configurable, maybe the 1.5% is the number for the "high RTP" setting. Test was done at CWC, which claims to have a 94-97% RTP, assuming that's true, puts them in the mid range.

I don't know if any casinos actually use the "high" setting for RTP. It may be true that 1.5% is the case under certain conditions, but I haven't seen any evidence that those conditions exist, while I have directly seen a much smaller contribution taking place.

I could care less how slow they move, just like people said the chances of hitting are not in your favor. I have hit 1 for 11k in 4-5 years.

I used to always get pissed that the randoms were not moving but now I don't even pay attention.

The best advice I have seen is don't play the slots for the Random Jackpots. That's is good advice

 

[albrco123]

I tried checking this again a few hours ago with a simple test. I went to a slot machine with a small jackpot, for 2 reasons:

1. Probably no one else playing (and the jackpot wasn't moving at all prior to my test)
2. In case there's anything weird where the jackpot contribution is greater when the jackpot is smaller, like the recent William Hill thing

Someone please correct me if i am wrong but i understood that in CWG several slots are linked to the same RJ, if you click thru the various slots in the lobby, you will find that certain groups of slots sit on the same RJ amount and rise together so it would be difficult to judge the allocated RTP from 1 slot.

Al

 

[KasinoKing]

Someone please correct me if i am wrong but i understood that in CWG several slots are linked to the same RJ, if you click thru the various slots in the lobby, you will find that certain groups of slots sit on the same RJ amount and rise together so it would be difficult to judge the allocated RTP from 1 slot.

Al

That's correct - slots are "grouped" at most RTG casinos.
But the OP went on to explain (in the post you truncated) that his test showed a worse-case scenario; i.e. if other players had been playing the other slots then the contribution would be an even LOWER % than his figure.

IMHO I think he makes a very good point - saying "up to 1.5%" could well mean on some games it could be as low as 0.0001% - it wouldn't be a lie!

KK

 

[zreb]

Sorry to dissent but it's not that simple and your method is flawed. I'm sure someone else more articulate and well versed than me will come explain but there's a few fairly recent threads on this, including a "conspiracy" thread.

edit: Just to add when a casino is using wording such as "no more than" or "up to", it's not a simple matter of "insert your quick test" then "yay I disproved them."

I am not sure I see any such "well versed and articulate" person coming to the thread to provide this information, so care to give it a shot? I'm sure you'll do just fine. If I am truly wrong, it would be appreciated. Alternatively, if someone has provided this information elsewhere, you could provide a link.

Without knowing exactly how a jackpot works, it's always going to be theoretically possible that the contributions will add up in some incredibly bizarre and convoluted matter, but generally I don't think that's likely. I've tested with two different methods on both a low total jackpot and 2 different high total jackpots, with two different methods, getting a number well under 1% each time. The only other info I've seen is "he said, she said, I once heard from a reliable source," etc., that isn't really very useful.

As for the "yay I disproved them": who is the "them," we are referring to? I already provided a possibility of how the 1.5% could be true, I didn't say RTG is lying. It may just be that no reputable casinos use the setting which gives 1.5%. RTG slots paybacks are generally known to be configurable to a few different payback settings. (On that note, it would be nice to know if any of the accredited RTG casinos do use the high setting, because I like the games aside from the fairly high house edge.)

It could also be that the chance of hitting the jackpot+jackpot contribution varies by the slot played, perhaps I'll test that more another day.

Someone please correct me if i am wrong but i understood that in CWG several slots are linked to the same RJ, if you click thru the various slots in the lobby, you will find that certain groups of slots sit on the same RJ amount and rise together so it would be difficult to judge the allocated RTP from 1 slot.
Al

Yes, and when the jackpot is hit, the corresponding jackpot is reset for all of these slots. If you are implying that the contribution appears smaller because it is actually split up between separate jackpots for each slot, that doesn't really make sense because they all function as one combined, single jackpot.

Additionally, the possibility that others are playing at the same time, screwing up my testing just means that my estimates are the MAXIMUM possible value, other players adding their own wagers would mean the value is even lower.

 

[albrco123]

I am not sure I see any such "well versed and articulate" person coming to the thread to provide this information, so care to give it a shot? I'm sure you'll do just fine. If I am truly wrong, it would be appreciated. Alternatively, if someone has provided this information elsewhere, you could provide a link.

Without knowing exactly how a jackpot works, it's always going to be theoretically possible that the contributions will add up in some incredibly bizarre and convoluted matter, but generally I don't think that's likely. I've tested with two different methods on both a low total jackpot and 2 different high total jackpots, with two different methods, getting a number well under 1% each time. The only other info I've seen is "he said, she said, I once heard from a reliable source," etc., that isn't really very useful.

As for the "yay I disproved them": who is the "them," we are referring to? I already provided a possibility of how the 1.5% could be true, I didn't say RTG is lying. It may just be that no reputable casinos use the setting which gives 1.5%. RTG slots paybacks are generally known to be configurable to a few different payback settings. (On that note, it would be nice to know if any of the accredited RTG casinos do use the high setting, because I like the games aside from the fairly high house edge.)

It could also be that the chance of hitting the jackpot+jackpot contribution varies by the slot played, perhaps I'll test that more another day.



Yes, and when the jackpot is hit, the corresponding jackpot is reset for all of these slots. If you are implying that the contribution appears smaller because it is actually split up between separate jackpots for each slot, that doesn't really make sense because they all function as one combined, single jackpot.

Additionally, the possibility that others are playing at the same time, screwing up my testing just means that my estimates are the MAXIMUM possible value, other players adding their own wagers would mean the value is even lower.

Thanks, this makes perfect sense, sorry i did not mean to imply anything just wondered if you had taken the RJ grouping into account.

Al

 

[Cleveland]

I am not sure I see any such "well versed and articulate" person coming to the thread to provide this information, so care to give it a shot? I'm sure you'll do just fine. If I am truly wrong, it would be appreciated. Alternatively, if someone has provided this information elsewhere, you could provide a link.

I'll keep it simple as I'm a fairly simple guy.

You stated on page 2:

Some of the games say something a long the lines that they will contribute "up to 1.5%," which is some misleading wording, as I think .3% is more accurate. It could depend on the slot or the site.

That implies RTG is being misleading on that particular issue. If you read the flow of thread it's clear the tone is there. However using your "test" which some seem to agree with doesn't make your statement correct. As RTG states "up to." The only part of your statement that makes it somewhat true is the fact that you state in a portion of it "I think" but then you go on to state things and speak as if they are facts. You haven't offered any facts only opinions presented as facts.

As for as presenting this information, I truly meant others here are better versed. Unlike some I'm well aware of the things I know or "think" I know. I have no problem admitting others are better than me when it comes to this topic. If they choose not to post, that's well within their right.

 

[Cleveland]

Just a quick addition. If you notice many things in life use the same terminology as it's almost no other way to say it. Read the punishment info for a crime. It would typically say "a fine up to" and or to include imprisonment "up to" or "no more than."

Nothing misleading about it.

 

[Bower50]

RTG Randoms

I hit the random twice.Both times on a free chip.I know a few players who did the same.Happens too often for my liking.

 

[zreb]

I'll keep it simple as I'm a fairly simple guy.

You stated on page 2:

Some of the games say something a long the lines that they will contribute "up to 1.5%," which is some misleading wording, as I think .3% is more accurate. It could depend on the slot or the site.

That implies RTG is being misleading on that particular issue. If you read the flow of thread it's clear the tone is there. However using your "test" which some seem to agree with doesn't make your statement correct. As RTG states "up to." The only part of your statement that makes it somewhat true is the fact that you state in a portion of it "I think" but then you go on to state things and speak as if they are facts. You haven't offered any facts only opinions presented as facts.

As for as presenting this information, I truly meant others here are better versed. Unlike some I'm well aware of the things I know or "think" I know. I have no problem admitting others are better than me when it comes to this topic. If they choose not to post, that's well within their right.

Thank you for the clarification. To clarify my own opinion, I do think stating "up to 1.5%" is potentially misleading if it's not actually present anywhere, but misleading does not mean false - I could tell you that you've won a prize up to $1000, then give you a quarter, and I haven't really lied. As I've already said, they may have designed the software so that it could be set to 1.5%, but it could also be the case that no casino actually does this, making 1.5% a misleading figure. Just one of your standard online casino ethical grey areas.

But more interesting than the semantics would be if my test is, in some specific way, flawed. Particularly, a feasible way a jackpot could function such that my result could occur, but the contribution really is at the 1.5% figure, or evidence that in some cases the figure is higher. As I've said before, I've yet to see any contrary information.

As far as I can remember, I'm the only person who has actually presented any contrary possibilities to my own test, that the contribution would vary from slot to slot. This could be done as a potential way to even out the RTP from different game setups/reel configurations, but I don't know whether something like this is the case. Might give testing it a try next time I feel like blowing some money on RTG slots.


Edit: To reply to your addendum, I consider an "up to" statement misleading if, in practice, it never actually occurs, and does not have any realistic chance of occurring, to any close approximation of the maximum.