Random my ****

[snorky510238]

Well just did a bonus buy for £750 and it paid £28.95 so you might not want to play it after all LOL I didn't say it wasn't brutal at times because it is!

TRTP is 96.03%
Current = 91.63%

Think bonanza had a baby with a hacksaw

Edit: Just hit a base hit on a max

View attachment 193944

Don’t let BTG see that. They might have a heart attack before they realise it wasn’t their liability.

 

[Reelsoffun]

TBH in testing its hit way higher, but its currently capped to 5000x anyway

But since that pic its took a bad turn current is now 87.19% over 1000 spins no bonus the sod of course while on £5 stake typical rigged to f**k ! obviously!

 

[Reelsoffun]

TBH in testing its hit way higher, but its currently capped to 5000x anyway

But since that pic its took a bad turn current is now 87.19% over 1000 spins no bonus the sod of course while on £5 stake typical rigged to f**k ! obviously!

Note to self don't reduce bet after a shit run because this crap happens, glad its not real as that would have been a new laptop moment!

Unreal !



Anyway enough of this derailing, continue your discussion...... random my arse think your on to something!

 

[snorky510238]

Note to self don't reduce bet after a shit run because this crap happens, glad its not real as that would have been a new laptop moment!

Unreal !

View attachment 193945

Anyway enough of this derailing, continue your discussion...... random my arse think your on to something!

Wow, that’s amazing! I haven’t seen at hit like that on Bonanza in 7 years. Never will either!

 

[Jono777]

Wow, that’s amazing! I haven’t seen at hit like that on Bonanza in 7 years. Never will either!

This is the thing that pisses me off the most.

Reels of Fun game would make money for the "house" even with hits like the screenshots he has shown us, along with keeping players playing, stop the naysayers and generally give bang for our buck most sessions.

Bonanza which this game is heavily based on, along with a similar RTP (lololololol) does nothing like this, not even close, never has and these days most certainly never will.

Its all down to seeing a popular product and thinking "Ah, we can make a lot more out of this" IE: GREED! - Fuck customer satisfaction and retention, lets just rely on the addictive nature of most gamblers.

 

[Reelsoffun]

Yes I hear ya but like most modern slots the base game is brutal, those hits have to be paid for. In its current state I wouldnt play it for real way too HV for me and most likely most low rollers.

 

[Lemon]

Reel sizes are weighted - you've made the mistake of thinking that reel height of the six reels is randomly decided, per reel, per spin. The result is simply eye candy, you can get a zero result on the game and any number of ways to represent it from 324 to 117649. Same with a 32x win. The number of ways displayed is almost irrelevant, the win result including any tumbles is already selected. Look how many spins on max ways 'fail' to tumble after any initial win, yet you get these stoooopid spins of say 1440 ways whereby you get about 5 or 6 winning tumbles because the single symbols necessary are all conveniently lined up for you both on the top scroll and tumbles above visible reel columns.

If you think Bonanza, or the vast majority of Megaways games for that matter, is picking the result first and then choosing how to display it, then you're very much mistaken. It would be more difficult to develop the game like that, and it would be even more atrocious to play. You have, with the greatest respect, a very rudimentary and often cynical perception of how slots are put together server-side.

On each spin I think you'll find that the number of ways is randomly determined first, for example either by selecting the 'height' of each reel window (and therefore the number of symbols that will be show inside it), or by choosing one of a number of reel array combinations from a table - 233332, 333332... miss a few out to reduce the permutations... 777777.

Then it is likely that one of a number of different reelsets is chosen for the spin, again from a weighted table, depending on the number of ways in the spin. This is why you often don't win much from a 'max ways' spin - the game is selecting a low-paying reelset a lot of the time, otherwise you'd probably get 40 cascades every time that number of ways is selected.

Of course it's going to use a more generous reelset when the reels are 324 ways for example - otherwise you'll only ever get base game wins when a high number of ways is chosen and it will play like shit. You don't want the hit rate per spin to be too heavily-reliant on the number of ways chosen - it's all about making the game play nice.

 

[MahoneyKnows]

Note to self don't reduce bet after a shit run because this crap happens, glad its not real as that would have been a new laptop moment!

Unreal !

That would be under the assumption that the reels are going to land regardless of bet amount… Too many times I’m getting a thumping in the woodshed and the moment I lower the bet suddenly amazing things start to happen. Conversely raising the bet when I feel I’m on a hot streak just to see the game turn into Mr. Hyde is more than frequent or coincidence in my humble opinion.

 

[jasonuk]

Of course it's going to use a more generous reelset when the reels are 324 ways for example - otherwise you'll only ever get base game wins when a high number of ways is chosen and it will play like shit. You don't want the hit rate per spin to be too heavily-reliant on the number of ways chosen - it's all about making the game play nice.

It's also a clever - if potentially deceptive - way of playing into the "just missed" scenario (perhaps not for Bonanza, but for other games that flash the next symbol) - if only the reel had been one higher... even though a larger array may have used a different reelset entirely and thus may or may not be possible.

 

[jasonuk]

That would be under the assumption that the reels are going to land regardless of bet amount… Too many times I’m getting a thumping in the woodshed and the moment I lower the bet suddenly amazing things start to happen. Conversely raising the bet when I feel I’m on a hot streak just to see the game turn into Mr. Hyde is more than frequent or coincidence in my humble opinion.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, put it into numbers - if you're playing streamer slots, the sample size is going to be so astronomically small as to be meaningless. In which case you just have an emotional take on the situation - which is what you've presented above.

At the moment this thread is trending in two directions

• The analytical side - true random v weighted random, true odds vs scratchcard mechanics
• The emotional side - people making assertions based on little or insufficient data.

Do I think modern slotting is on the level? At this stage, no... but people need to come at it with more than anecdotes and conspiracy theories.

 

[Kroffe]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, put it into numbers - if you're playing streamer slots, the sample size is going to be so astronomically small as to be meaningless. In which case you just have an emotional take on the situation - which is what you've presented above.

At the moment this thread is trending in two directions

• The analytical side - true random v weighted random, true odds vs scratchcard mechanics
• The emotional side - people making assertions based on little or insufficient data.

Do I think modern slotting is on the level? At this stage, no... but people need to come at it with more than anecdotes and conspiracy theories.

Im pretty sure Trance (may have been reels of fun) confirmed that changing the math model depending on what betsize is used is allowed, and the real sneaky part is that as long as the rtp remain unchanged you dont even have to tell the player that its happening.

So you could if you wanted to make those 1000x+ hits much more rare on say £2+ betsizes to avoid having to make big payouts when highrollers get lucky.
Put them on a math model that slowly churns away at their balance with minimal risk of them hitting a big win instead.

The lack of transparency makes it impossible to say for sure if a slot is doing that or not.
That its legal to even do it kind of shows how much the odds (and rules) are stacked against the player.

 

[Guntis]

In case anyone doesn't know, here is what the UKGC requires of providers.

RTS aim 7: To ensure that games and other virtual events operate fairly.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

: Random number generation and game results must be ‘acceptably random’. Acceptably random here means that it is possible to demonstrate to a high degree of confidence that the output of the RNG, game, lottery and virtual event outcomes are random through, for example, statistical analysis using generally accepted tests and methods of analysis. Adaptive behaviour (that is, a compensated game) is not permitted.

 

[jasonuk]

Im pretty sure Trance (may have been reels of fun) confirmed that changing the math model depending on what betsize is used is allowed, and the real sneaky part is that as long as the rtp remain unchanged you dont even have to tell the player that its happening.

I wonder if that is where the "denomination" trick in the US comes from - because those appear to be the same game but often behave differently. I would expect there to be a delimiter somewhere (whether it be game rules, a pre-selection of high/low stake) otherwise it would risk falling foul of regulations.

They certainly exist though - one of the later Barcrest/WMS "innovations" was two-tier RTPs, where you only got the full-fat 96% RTP at £2+ bets, otherwise you got 94%.

In the case of the poster, I did have a look at their other contributions being a new member and there was a lot of conspiracy talk - so I'm inclined to believe they are angling for that rather than your accurately described edge case.

 

[jasonuk]

In case anyone doesn't know, here is what the UKGC requires of providers.

RTS aim 7: To ensure that games and other virtual events operate fairly.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

: Random number generation and game results must be ‘acceptably random’. Acceptably random here means that it is possible to demonstrate to a high degree of confidence that the output of the RNG, game, lottery and virtual event outcomes are random through, for example, statistical analysis using generally accepted tests and methods of analysis. Adaptive behaviour (that is, a compensated game) is not permitted.

The whole of section 7 is a good read, and particularly relevant to this discussion (a number of my previous observations relate to it)

In short:

• 7A - the random number generator must be "acceptably random" - not compensated, uniformly distributed, unpredictable.
  • It clarifies that this does not exclude bonus or special features, as long as they are similarly based on random events.
  • Remember, this only applies to the source of randomness, not the whole game - it is not requiring the game mechanics to be "true random".
• 7B - games should implement their game rules as described. *cough* Scammin' Jars *cough*
• 7C - games should not mislead customers about the likelihood of results occurring (the "real devices" principle).
  • This is the primary reason to move away from reels to drops - reels are heavily regulated, drops are not. Perhaps this one needs a booster given the amount of bullshit going on now-a-days.
• 7D - Rules and payouts should not change while it is available for gambling, except as permitted in the rules. Any changes must be clearly advertised.
• 7E - Any game result should be displayed for a sufficient amount of time.

 

[dunover]

If you think Bonanza, or the vast majority of Megaways games for that matter, is picking the result first and then choosing how to display it, then you're very much mistaken. It would be more difficult to develop the game like that, and it would be even more atrocious to play. You have, with the greatest respect, a very rudimentary and often cynical perception of how slots are put together server-side.

On each spin I think you'll find that the number of ways is randomly determined first, for example either by selecting the 'height' of each reel window (and therefore the number of symbols that will be show inside it), or by choosing one of a number of reel array combinations from a table - 233332, 333332... miss a few out to reduce the permutations... 777777.

Then it is likely that one of a number of different reelsets is chosen for the spin, again from a weighted table, depending on the number of ways in the spin. This is why you often don't win much from a 'max ways' spin - the game is selecting a low-paying reelset a lot of the time, otherwise you'd probably get 40 cascades every time that number of ways is selected.

Of course it's going to use a more generous reelset when the reels are 324 ways for example - otherwise you'll only ever get base game wins when a high number of ways is chosen and it will play like shit. You don't want the hit rate per spin to be too heavily-reliant on the number of ways chosen - it's all about making the game play nice.

I think you misunderstood me there. The pool of results as we know has many similar amounts, a favourite is 1.2x bet for example, a very common win on Bonanza as is say 0.1x for the 3@9s on one way. Of course the most common result is zero. I am suggesting that the result or spin yield is single entity attached to x amount of ways it will be displayed in according to the reel set. In other words it's a single RNG pull. As for eliminating some reel height permutations, I'm not sure it does. Once I had 100,842-ways, i.e. one symbol short of max ways. Exceedingly rare, only ever had it once in 7 years. I will say though that those combinations in excess of 60k ways are very seldom seen, but they're certainly there.

Another thing I've noticed is that in the base game the reel sets are consistent and don't appear to vary. I would say they are pretty long reels in terms of positions too, considering you can get 10 or 11 consecutive queens or other royals on them. Any weighting would occur in the pattern and construct of the reel strips which is why the same win amount can be produced by countless reel combinations/positions so the chances of getting say a thousand or more ways of a royal are vanishingly small.

As for the max MW spin, I would dispute your 'likely' suggestion because otherwise 40 tumbles would occur. Think about it - the art, the whole construct of the MW formula is the large and very clever reel strips. You don't need 'weighting' in the way you suggest. We already have evidence of this on other BTG MW slots, where for example on MAX Megaways slot there is paucity of Queens on reel 1, Kings on reel 2 etc. therefore ensuring certain vast combinations of ways pertaining to a single symbol are next to impossible on a random basis - without any ways weighting. Another classic is the Rasputin game and Royal Mint where when I posted the intro videos before release, the comments and observations were cynical regarding the visually frustrating and very obvious prevalence of stacks of any particular symbol type on alternate reels.

Your comment regarding the 40 tumbles made me laugh because it had me thinking of the Thor free games round on Thunderstruck 2 where on about every tenth feature, the reel symbols would line up resulting in about 10 consecutive wins at 5x; you had hit the 'special' bonus lol. The reels trips on Bonanza for example would simply not allow that to happen.

I would love to see a genuine reel map for Bonanza, in fact I wonder if it's worth me trying to make one by playing it and putting the jigsaw together to see if my theory (same as your logic, I merely think it's 'likely' rather than knowing for sure) holds water.

Finally, it's worth considering the fact you can get a straight-in win of 4.8x on a poxy 1080-way spin with no winning tumble after removal, the rest being dross. The exact same win can occur on the max MW spin, just with far more dross in the picture. The real art of MW is that you can get a flat single-hit as just described, or the same win total but on more ways, this time constructed from 2 or 3 separate wins via tumbles. Megaways is just a visual illusion, almost a tautology in slotting terms.

 

[MahoneyKnows]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, put it into numbers - if you're playing streamer slots, the sample size is going to be so astronomically small as to be meaningless. In which case you just have an emotional take on the situation - which is what you've presented above.

How would you suggest going about minus the emotion and able to present it analytically?

 

[Kroffe]

I am guessing some of it has to do with the intellectual property of the slot design. If you for example take the megaways engine that was designed by BTG, why would they make the math model behind it available for all to use, when it can easily be marketed and sold?

I half agree, but isnt it mostly the name that other providers are paying for?
There are already what is essentially clones of the Megaways mechanic out there, but they obviously go by other names since they dont have the license to use the Megaways name.

Even if full transparency would be too tricky to pull off, im sure there could be a lot more than we see today without it impacting things such as copyrights.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Also, and slightly at the risk of stating the obvious here, but as players we all have the ultimate decision to choose to play, or not to play, to deposit, or not to deposit. If you think the shenanigans that online casinos are getting up to (evidenced or otherwise) is getting beyond what you're prepared to tolerate, you have the option to walk away.

I don't even remotely buy into any of the more..... ahem.... 'imaginative' theories as to some of the dark skulduggery that's allegedly going on in the world of online slots, however there's enough going on that's absolutely and irrefutably the case (discussed already at length in this thread) that's tipped me over into walking away.

Even 3Dice, which never put a foot wrong as a casino, I made the decision to call it a day with, thanks to the increasing faff and expense of crypto, and if I'm entirely honest, a string of uninspiring new cluster game releases (and a clone of a not brilliant old PnG game called Fire Joker, at a lower RTP!), that I wasn't remotely inclined to play after an initial session or two. Yes their old classics like Enchanted Spins, Arctic Adventure, Berrini's Fortune etc were still on the books there - but how long are you supposed to plug away at games that are a decade old or more with no indication whatsoever that those glory days will ever return?

(And Kyoko's Quest never did get a re-release on the new platform, I wonder if the people who knew how to make the 3D style games left 3Dice or something, because it just didn't seem to be used on any of their new releases - we had flying 3D pigs in Medieval Moolah over a decade ago for god's sake, and now we have low effort 95% clones of crappy PnG slots.)

As for the 'mainstream' casinos, I'd made my peace with playing at VS again, despite their past scummy behaviour over RTP nerfing (and general destruction of bonuses, perks and so on), and whilst this did require careful checking of the RTPs before playing any games, I put up with it. However when they nerfed Double Fancy 7s right underneath my feet (after the game had been live for years at 97%, but once mentioned here at CM in a thread that I saw the VS rep reading, the game was coincidentally nerfed down to 94.xx%.....) - something just clicked over inside me and I thought, 'You know what, I just can't be bothered with this shit anymore'.

Other pastimes are available, read a book, play a videogame, watch something on the telly, go for a walk, if you think online casinos are diddling you, and/or just aren't fun anymore, you can stop giving them your money any time you choose.

 

[jasonuk]

How would you suggest going about minus the emotion and able to present it analytically?

I don't want to rehash the topic in full (because that's the premise of the thread, and we're already on 7 pages), but ideally you would be looking for data-driven analysis ("the numbers"):

• Does something deviate from its own game rules?
• For a suitable sample size, does a mechanic behave in the way it should?
  • e.g. for a reel based slot - does each reel have a equal(-ish) distribution of stops?
  • e.g. for scatters - do you have a meaningful ratio of on-screen to off-screen scatters (e.g. 3 to 2, 4 to 2) for a given reel

Even with the data, operators and providers alike are quick to hide behind "not enough sample size" or "just unlucky". Or from other threads around this topic, the regulations don't necessarily regulate providers and game design in the way you expect them to be - e.g. lying non-selected pie gambles on FOBTs.

The additional problem is scratch card slots (of which there are many, and include most modern releases) - you only have one thing that you can verify, and that is the balls in the bag (and potentially a single RNG call). To be able to verify the contents of the bag you either need to look (audit), or you need a suitable sample size which is a substantial multiplier of the size of the bag - which is billions of spins.

As chop says above, if it doesn't look or feel right then stop giving them your money.

 

[goatwack]

It's perfectly normal to have other pastimes whilst gambling, it's not a revolutionary concept, nor mutually exclusive.

It's also perfectly acceptable to query the fairness and transparency of any product, whether it be before, during, or post-use....gambling isn't beyond criticism or analyses.

Citing balls in a bag or billions of spins, before neatly tying it in a bow by telling people not to give them any more money, doesn't invalidate their products' misrepresentation or sub-par results. This wouldn't fly in any other industry of course, yet here it's a given!

...and still, no explanation as to the peculiar goings-on with slot behaviours in old and new games alike

"Don't ask questions. Consume product. Get excited for new product"

Only question remains: shill-bot infestation, or just Stockholm Syndrome?

 

[Reelsoffun]

I would love to see a genuine reel map for Bonanza, in fact I wonder if it's worth me trying to make one by playing it and putting the jigsaw together to see if my theory (same as your logic, I merely think it's 'likely' rather than knowing for sure) holds water.

Haha I like your optimism but that would take you forever and would almost certainly contain errors.

Im with @Lemon on this one, I’m 99% sure bonanza does not work in the way you describe.

Im sure they were posted here before, ( the reel story? ) I have/had them somewhere but from memory bonanza used 7 reel sets, 3 for base game, 3 for bonus in bonus eg no scatters and 1 set exclusive for the MW spin. It think a member here extracted them from the network traffic of the game.

I did do some basic analysis at the time, one of the sets seemed to struggle to award bigger than 3 or 4 OAK etc so it’s plausible that, that set is used on possibly the bigger ways spins where you need 5 and 6 OAK wins to be harder on higher ways or maybe just any size board it just produces mostly 3 or 4OAK wins, I didn’t dig into it.

I would expect each set would be weighted to each scenario eg one of the 3 bonus spin sets would be more likely after the multiplier hits a certain point, which also fits with the behaviour people notice. Eg harder to get a win or only small 3/4 OAK wins, see above. It could just as easily have one set for each multiplier band, eg set 1 from 1x to 8x set 2 9x to 15x set 3 16x upwards….. anything is possible.

Back to the 1 set for the MW, which some people might think well I doubt it just has one, well its possible it could use more than one but from a design point of view it’s easier to use one to calculate RTP and the fact that one board has over 30 trillion different ways it can land, 1 set is probably enough LOL

We will never truly know all the workings of bonanza, but we certainly have enough info to fairly easily rule out the way you described it works out.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

It's perfectly normal to have other pastimes whilst gambling, it's not a revolutionary concept, nor mutually exclusive.

It's also perfectly acceptable to query the fairness and transparency of any product, whether it be before, during, or post-use....gambling isn't beyond criticism or analyses.

Citing balls in a bag or billions of spins, before neatly tying it in a bow by telling people not to give them any more money, doesn't invalidate their products' misrepresentation or sub-par results. This wouldn't fly in any other industry of course, yet here it's a given!

...and still, no explanation as to the peculiar goings-on with slot behaviours in old and new games alike

"Don't ask questions. Consume product. Get excited for new product"

Only question remains: shill-bot infestation, or just Stockholm Syndrome?

I broadly agree with you, it's always a good idea to remain inquisitive and ask questions about stuff, be it online slots or anything else. What I was getting at is the sense of grinding misery with the pursuit that some folks are conveying, (snorky has compared it to various forms of what would literally be described as torture), whilst also continuing to invest their own money and time into said pursuit.

I get it, gambling can be very addictive and moreish (there are five 'Gambling Low Ebbs' videos on my YT channel, I've been there and got the t-shirt), and therefore perhaps sometimes the most rational of thought processes might not prevail.

One thing pretty much everyone seems to agree on is that online slots have gone down the shitter (for whatever reasons), and we're never going to get to the full truth behind how a lot these games work, all I'm throwing into the mix is the notion that there's no obligation on our part to continue to play these things, and that throwing the proverbial good money after bad probably won't end well.

It's already a mathematical certainty that the player will lose, on average, ~5% of their stake every single time they press the SPIN button, if the games aren't at least delivering entertainment in a fashion that feels fair and above board as part of that transaction, then the smart thing to do, surely, is not do it any more?

 

[goatwack]

I broadly agree with you, it's always a good idea to remain inquisitive and ask questions about stuff, be it online slots or anything else. What I was getting at is the sense of grinding misery with the pursuit that some folks are conveying, (snorky has compared it to various forms of what would literally be described as torture), whilst also continuing to invest their own money and time into said pursuit.

I get it, gambling can be very addictive and moreish (there are five 'Gambling Low Ebbs' videos on my YT channel, I've been there and got the t-shirt), and therefore perhaps sometimes the most rational of thought processes might not prevail.

One thing pretty much everyone seems to agree on is that online slots have gone down the shitter (for whatever reasons), and we're never going to get to the full truth behind how a lot these games work, all I'm throwing into the mix is the notion that there's no obligation on our part to continue to play these things, and that throwing the proverbial good money after bad probably won't end well.

It's already a mathematical certainty that the player will lose, on average, ~5% of their stake every single time they press the SPIN button, if the games aren't at least delivering entertainment in a fashion that feels fair and above board as part of that transaction, then the smart thing to do, surely, is not do it any more?

I'd imagine the cessation of gambling varies per person, as does their threshold towards sadomasochism in pursuit of getting what they had before.

When it's implicitly stated that slot fortune corrects itself based on math, then it's only fair to assume many will read that as fact, and put that to the test.

Throw in the addiction factor, like with many vices, simply breaking off from it is easier said than done, especially when it's become routine.

With smoking, most would be aware of its harms. Tar, nicotine et al, with some cyanide thrown in for good measure. People can read what's in their poison of choice when drinking. Even simple products like video games are often sold in an unfinished state, only to be 'fleshed out' over the following years, but even then, consumers can rest easy as it becomes the complete package (Cyberpunk).

So the real question ought to be: why are casino software developers allowed to release cloaked products with impunity, rather than critiquing consumers' struggles with said product? I've always maintained if something's bad for you, stop doing it, and we've all had a hearty moan about bad sessions, stretching back years.....but this transcends that by far, and companies' saying it's just variance, or bad luck, or been tested over billions of spins means very little if the end-product's a tad shonky.

But I will agree that neither 'side' will ever know the full truth of how these slots work, with people choosing to believe the bits they're given. And that's fine too

 

[snorky510238]

My main gripe is that as a customer, I am not getting the goods that I have paid for.

I used to get that, in the main. My gripe is that the product has been changed without myself being informed. In short, it’s a bloody ripoff. In pretty much every other walk of life, I would have legal rights and in the majority of cases, there are systems in place to protect me.

Consumer protection, fair trading standards, This is in place to protect the customer, to see that you are getting what you paid for.

My gripe is that no governing body worth a shite is overseeing this abomination of which is nothing short of theft. This industry is a law unto itself and always has been. It’s not about the money, it’s about the product I have paid for not being fit for purpose and this industry right now and the supposed governing bodies both fit right in at no 1 in that category.

We have supposedly upstanding people such as politicians, of which some aren’t happy with the enormous salary they get so pull flankers to make it even sweeter.

Some judges, who sit there and sentence others whilst having committed far worse themselves.

The police who are supposedly there to protect the public but use and abuse their privileges far too often.

So you can’t for a second, expect to tell me that an industry that in its very nature is immoral and unethical, is going to be squeaky bloody clean.

 

[Nate]

My main gripe is that as a customer, I am not getting the goods that I have paid for.

I used to get that, in the main. My gripe is that the product has been changed without myself being informed. In short, it’s a bloody ripoff. In pretty much every other walk of life, I would have legal rights and in the majority of cases, there are systems in place to protect me.

Consumer protection, fair trading standards, This is in place to protect the customer, to see that you are getting what you paid for.

My gripe is that no governing body worth a shite is overseeing this abomination of which is nothing short of theft. This industry is a law unto itself and always has been. It’s not about the money, it’s about the product I have paid for not being fit for purpose and this industry right now and the supposed governing bodies both fit right in at no 1 in that category.

We have supposedly upstanding people such as politicians, of which some aren’t happy with the enormous salary they get so pull flankers to make it even sweeter.

Some judges, who sit there and sentence others whilst having committed far worse themselves.

The police who are supposedly there to protect the public but use and abuse their privileges far too often.

So you can’t for a second, expect to tell me that an industry that in its very nature is immoral and unethical, is going to be squeaky bloody clean.

Oh this industry is tainted alright. You need not look far.

A short trip to most Curacao casinos and a little investigation into some of the people and networks owning theses entities will make you shudder. 60 to 80% of these casinos and their owners are laundering money - quite literally.

The regulatory bodies are an absolute joke. They are more concerned in punishing the very people they were meant to protect.

They enable their licencees to steal from both Players and Partners (affiliates). In which world is this normalised and accepted? ONLY the gambling industry...

These useless mugs arm casinos with tools to legitimise not paying winning players. Players have no recourse.The scary part is that the real criminals are in plain sight. Sources of wealth actually need to be conducted with Casinos and providers. The criminals are there, not in the form of a 10p a spin slot player.

It's a circus out there. It really is. Anyone who thinks the industry is clean and above board needs a reality check.