Random my ****

[Nate]

Let's not forget winners...

Money Launderers
Money Borrowers
Document Forgers
Bonus Abusers
SOW Dodgers

And losers...

Everything is cool. Even if Pablo Escobar loaned you 200k... As long as you have lost, they need nothing further from you...

 

[goatwack]

Gambling's always been a money- laundering utopia, has it not? It's been the first port of call for criminal enterprise, and I doubt governments and regulators have let this fact slip them by. All the more baffling then that gamblers are being scrutinised this way based on flimsy pretexts, when seemingly managing just fine before.

Corruption's always been rife, and anyone of the belief that regulators' punishing players with SoW, bet limits and monthly £200 gambling caps is for the betterment of gamblers, or to make gambling 'safer', ought to really give their head a wobble!

I don't think modern slot design is particularly in touch with actual slotters, having given up the ghost in regards to adhering to any 'big' jurisdiction. Games 'design' is becoming more brazen in its disregard to transparency, with games almost becoming tailored towards the 'less stringent' operators, where bonus buys abound, mood ring RTPs on rotation and with customer care but a myth.

Like I opined previously, I don't believe some of these modern games are anything but actual money-laundering software, even if not just for the user themselves, but for the 'operators' in question. But then, if one slaps an arbitrary RTP percentage on it and releases it, it must be legit......right?

You can be sure then that those propelling users to find solace in funky offshore jurisdictions are the ones set to gain most from it, and the evidence towards a concerted effort to ruin UK gambling is becoming clearer by the day. It ain't no accident

 

[jasonuk]

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.

Corruption's always been rife, and anyone of the belief that regulators' punishing players with SoW, bet limits and monthly £200 gambling caps is for the betterment of gamblers, or to make gambling 'safer', ought to really give their head a wobble!

Which is weird because AML is often used as the argument (rightly or wrongly - some providers are absolutely taking the piss in this regard) for CDD and EDD checks. But as we know, the AML legislation applies to all parties - which would include:

• Crypto Exchanges - why some exchanges actively block accounts sending money to casinos, they want plausible deniability (they gave you the crypto, it's your problem now)
• Customers - we already get screwed with endless CDD+ requests
• Operators
• Providers - this is the big question mark, we know the smaller / less honest providers can be more than willing to facilitate shady acts - but almost every provider is available now in Curacao. When many of these are based in highly-regulated jurisdictions, it's incredible that everyone turns a blind eye to it (provider greed + regulators asleep).

And of course, some of the rogue operators are now big enough they can start to "legitimise" their dishonesty through sponsorships of sports teams and other marketing.

 

[dunover]

Which is weird because AML is often used as the argument (rightly or wrongly - some providers are absolutely taking the piss in this regard) for CDD and EDD checks. But as we know, the AML legislation applies to all parties - which would include:

• Crypto Exchanges - why some exchanges actively block accounts sending money to casinos, they want plausible deniability (they gave you the crypto, it's your problem now)
• Customers - we already get screwed with endless CDD+ requests
• Operators
• Providers - this is the big question mark, we know the smaller / less honest providers can be more than willing to facilitate shady acts - but almost every provider is available now in Curacao. When many of these are based in highly-regulated jurisdictions, it's incredible that everyone turns a blind eye to it (provider greed + regulators asleep).

And of course, some of the rogue operators are now big enough they can start to "legitimise" their dishonesty through sponsorships of sports teams and other marketing.

The providers who now supply Cup-o-cocoa sites were forced into it (aside from dodgy ones like Betsoft) by the endless supply of fake games from which they got no revenues. So better to deal with the devil and make a cut than ignore him and see his mates make money from your creations.

 

[Nate]

Which is weird because AML is often used as the argument (rightly or wrongly - some providers are absolutely taking the piss in this regard) for CDD and EDD checks. But as we know, the AML legislation applies to all parties - which would include:

• Crypto Exchanges - why some exchanges actively block accounts sending money to casinos, they want plausible deniability (they gave you the crypto, it's your problem now)
• Customers - we already get screwed with endless CDD+ requests
• Operators
• Providers - this is the big question mark, we know the smaller / less honest providers can be more than willing to facilitate shady acts - but almost every provider is available now in Curacao. When many of these are based in highly-regulated jurisdictions, it's incredible that everyone turns a blind eye to it (provider greed + regulators asleep).

And of course, some of the rogue operators are now big enough they can start to "legitimise" their dishonesty through sponsorships of sports teams and other marketing.

Who is conducting checks on Operators and Providers? How deep does it actually go. Let's assume it's a Task at the UKGC for a small specialised team.

Do they police their licencees to ensure they are not engaging in illegal activity once a licence is granted? Illegal activity like withholding player funds without just cause or retroactively changing terms to steal income from partners?

No court would rule it was legal for them to retroactively change terms in order to with hold money from partners. It's Fraud... and on a f**cking massive scale. Stealing MILLIONS right under the nose of the UKGC.

The UKGC doesn't care that their licencees like Kindred, Paddypower, Boylesports and Sky Vegas are thieving under their noses. Their continued suitability means nothing, unless they can benefit.

Only where they are able to levy fines to line their own pockets, is the cause for them to act justified.

The sad reality is that rogue operators and groups like Kindred Et al. actually pay the UKGC with ill gotten gains, stolen from players and partners alike.

Just like politics, those on top line their pockets to the detriment of the general population. All masquerading as champions of the people. Nothing different here.

 

[jasonuk]

Just like politics, those on top line their pockets to the detriment of the general population. All masquerading as champions of the people. Nothing different here.

Fully agree, another example that is somewhat more blatant is the KSA (Netherlands).

For years, they were fighting casinos in EU courts because they operated "without a licence" (and the KSA repeatedly got their backside handed to them).

They finally decide they want to implement a regulated market - and immediately start using it as a protection racket to attack the sites that have "wronged" them in the past (despite not breaking EU law), and indeed many of them pay the fines not because they've done anything wrong, but because they want to operate in the new market.

Two years later, they have issued just 15 more permits (25 in total), GGR is already plateauing (€1.3bn GGR/year), and they are continuing their crusade against other EU-based casinos, such as the absurd €9.8m fine levied against Videoslots last year because the KSA signed up using a VPN...

Meanwhile, players are having some alarming issues with getting their complaints resolved. So naturally the KSA step in right? Nope... they've got their gravy train, job done. ?

 

[satchnz]

Let's assume it's a Task at the UKGC for a small specialised team.

And today’s oxymoron is…

 

[Schind]

To be fair that's because the chance of each reel landing in a position and reel height needed to deliver said ways of diamonds could be billions or trillions to 1 so its not unreasonable for it to

a) not happened yet
b) not going to happen in our lifetimes
c) not happened to someone that's actually a member here
d) happened but wasn't caught on camera, or by anyone here
e) the list goes on

Just saying

Its like the pic i posted on here months ago of the sim of the game i coded ( bonanza ish clone ) on here where it hit a massive win, 6 months later of me running millions of spins its still not hit anything close.

I might let a few members here have a copy of it if they want to play around with it, anyone can PM me if interested.

You really do not seem to grasp just how rare some events are going to be on these types of games.

That's not right. BTG themselves say the max win is 26,000x.
It's not possible for there to be a winning line with more than 520 ways of diamonds in the base game unless they're lying but why would they lie and say the max win is lower than it really is?
As for the bonus - well, for a start how can they advertise 'unlimited multiplier' whilst having a set max win? If they were in the UK that's be a case for the ASA. Besides that, say you're on a multiplier of 20 in the bonus, that means you can't have more than 26 ways of diamonds without breaking the max win on that one spin alone.

 

[jasonuk]

That's not right. BTG themselves say the max win is 26,000x.
It's not possible for there to be a winning line with more than 520 ways of diamonds in the base game unless they're lying but why would they lie and say the max win is lower than it really is?
As for the bonus - well, for a start how can they advertise 'unlimited multiplier' whilst having a set max win? If they were in the UK that's be a case for the ASA. Besides that, say you're on a multiplier of 20 in the bonus, that means you can't have more than 26 ways of diamonds without breaking the max win on that one spin alone.

Be careful of terminology, "maximum win" in that sense only applies to scratchcard-style slots or capped (multiplier) slots. Bonanza is neither of those so will state a maximum liability (set by the casino, e.g. £250k/€1m, and heavily influenced by the maximum stake offered), possibly a guidance "win up to" value (which sites often misquote as "max win"), and then the maximum observed multiplier in testing.

In the case of BTG, the game space is going to be astronomical - multiple reelsets, long reel strips, the interconnected top box and so on. So even doing 10 billion spins (for certification) will give you a guide of what the biggest win could be, but is not actually the maximum. Similarly, given the complex design of BTG slots - it's possible that where you expect the biggest pays to be and where the biggest pays actually are can be two different things.

Funny enough, one of the long-running discussions on CM has been how the potential of megaways has been significantly overstated, and the monster pays from BTG slots tend to come from the Danger High Voltage stable. In the case of Lil Devil, the stated "win up to" was 50,000x based on their test data, but there's a confirmed 105,000x win out there in the wild.

 

[justdoit]

Who is conducting checks on Operators and Providers? How deep does it actually go. Let's assume it's a Task at the UKGC for a small specialised team.

Do they police their licencees to ensure they are not engaging in illegal activity once a licence is granted? Illegal activity like withholding player funds without just cause or retroactively changing terms to steal income from partners?

No court would rule it was legal for them to retroactively change terms in order to with hold money from partners. It's Fraud... and on a f**cking massive scale. Stealing MILLIONS right under the nose of the UKGC.

The UKGC doesn't care that their licencees like Kindred, Paddypower, Boylesports and Sky Vegas are thieving under their noses. Their continued suitability means nothing, unless they can benefit.

Only where they are able to levy fines to line their own pockets, is the cause for them to act justified.

The sad reality is that rogue operators and groups like Kindred Et al. actually pay the UKGC with ill gotten gains, stolen from players and partners alike.

Just like politics, those on top line their pockets to the detriment of the general population. All masquerading as champions of the people. Nothing different here.

Skybet they refusing to pay this guy after he won the court

 

[Schind]

Be careful of terminology, "maximum win" in that sense only applies to scratchcard-style slots or capped (multiplier) slots. Bonanza is neither of those so will state a maximum liability (set by the casino, e.g. £250k/€1m, and heavily influenced by the maximum stake offered), possibly a guidance "win up to" value (which sites often misquote as "max win"), and then the maximum observed multiplier in testing.

It's on BTG's website as 'max win'. They list Lil Devil as 100,504x

I get what you're saying though.
I'm genuinely interested in how these things work. I studied statistics and probability many years ago as it's always been something I've been interested in. I suspect what little knowledge I've retained is miles away from being able to understand these things today though. I got an 'O' level in Computer Studies in 1985 - I haven't had the courage to apply to for a job at Microsoft with this 'qualification'!

 

[justdoit]

Racing Post exposes an unlicensed bookmaker in UK​

 

[jasonuk]

It's on BTG's website as 'max win'. They list Lil Devil as 100,504x

Fair point, that'll be BTG drinking the streamer Kool-Aid again then. Many of the review sites quote 50,000x as the max win "win up to", so that is likely to be what they originally declared based on internal and regulatory testing.

From a marketing perspective they need to quote something they've observed - so since this has happened in the wild they can modify their marketing to reflect that (and why it is oddly specific). It's plausible that we don't see another 50,000x+ win in the lifetime of the slot, and similarly it's possible we see one even larger (because it's not actually a theoretical maximum or capped win, just latching on to streamer "lingo" for marketing purposes).

If we take something like Immortal Romance, they quote "win up to 12000x" - but if Sarah went absolutely mental with Wild Vines you could have more than that... but the odds of that would be truly astronomical, and why providers of the day went with the "one big hit" principle - because it's likely to be seen in test conditions. Nothing worse than a provider claiming 60,000x when the odds are so ridiculous that they'll never see close to that in testing...

 

[dunover]

Skybet they refusing to pay this guy after he won the court
View attachment 194034

I wonder if that one will make it to one of those Channel 5 Bailiff documentaries like 'The Sheriffs are Coming' or whatever it was.

 

[DavidShush]

"Win upto" should be banned. It really should "Win likely to be 20X". Or not at all if you're like me and count 32 bonus teasers on TED and leave penniless and bonusless.

 

[MahoneyKnows]

"Win upto" should be banned. It really should "Win likely to be 20X". Or not at all if you're like me and count 32 bonus teasers on TED and leave penniless and bonusless.

“Win likely” is worse…. Sounds like you will likely win something where we know the opposite is true. I particularly dislike the “How much will you win?” Type lines where they idea of winning is implied. Win up to is usually just staying the maximum allowable win which is nice to know so that when you achieve a win greater than the “up to” amount there’s no surprise when it stops counting half way through the win and are met with “maximum allowable win achieved” message. ?

 

[jasonuk]

“Win likely” is worse…. Sounds like you will likely win something where we know the opposite is true. I particularly dislike the “How much will you win?” Type lines where they idea of winning is implied. Win up to is usually just staying the maximum allowable win which is nice to know so that when you achieve a win greater than the “up to” amount there’s no surprise when it stops counting half way through the win and are met with “maximum allowable win achieved” message. ?

Not necessarily, "win up to" historically was a guide of the maximum observed win and it was mathematically possible (subject to any liability cap) to exceed that. It's not likely, but it's technically possible - as noted earlier where a BTG game round exceeded the observed test samples by 100%+.

On the flip side, a lot of modern scratchcard slots impose a win limit / capped win on top of that. Given the game round is already scripted, telling a player they haven't won that pre-determined scripted result feels like a bait and switch - and I think would be quite reasonable to be referred to as dishonest or even fraudulent (and once again, the game rules do heavy lifting to avoid it being outright fraudulent).

 

[MahoneyKnows]

I’ve always been of the belief “win up to” states the maximum winnable amount on any singular spin - just like a physical scratch ticket will say “win up to a million”…. Any game bearing that wording and honouring a payout above and beyond the stated “up to” amount - good on those folks ?

 

[jasonuk]

I’ve always been of the belief “win up to” states the maximum winnable amount on any singular spin - just like a physical scratch ticket will say “win up to a million”…. Any game bearing that wording and honouring a payout above and beyond the stated “up to” amount - good on those folks ?

Your statement applies to scratchcard-style slots, but not to reel-based slots. The game rules will disclose either way.

Depending on the design of the slot, it may be possible to trigger that mammoth spin more than once (e.g. in a bonus) but the odds will be astronomical of it happening - way beyond the 10 billion spins they do for test.

Would it be fair to state "Win up to 100,000x" on Immortal Romance for something that might be a 1 in a googol shot? No. Does that mean the game is capped by multiplier stake? Also no, that's what the liability limit is for.

Capped wins (as a multiplier of stake) are a much more recent invention for online slots - and naturally not for the better.

 

[DreamRJ]

Capped wins (as a multiplier of stake) are a much more recent invention for online slots - and naturally not for the better.

Yeah I agree I am not a fan of the max wins on new slots either. For many that dream of hitting one is never going to happen. I still never have had a max win on any of them yet. These max win caps was created for streamers 100%. They constantly chase these so called max wins. But in essence when that spin that shown the max win result exceeds the Xbet and shows what it would have been in terms of money then you get pissed of and feel you got ripped off and missed out on the rest of the money beyond that max win cap.

Take for example the new prag slot Strawberry Coctail. That has a cap of 16000X bet and yet on that new slot they now decided to show the amount beyond the 16000X bet in cash before you get the final total on the screen that is just the capped cash amount totalling 16000X bet. I see them as cheating by providers. Dodgy and fake slots.

I mean take for example the new Jack Hammer 3 from net ent,, dreadful slot yet again from that provider

• Max Win: 1332x
• Max Win Probability: 1 in 50M spins

So that sums up how disgraceful they are in terms of the caps themselves but the actual chances of getting it.

I mean only slot that might be easier to get a max win on is the No Limit slot Nine 2 Five with Xbet enabled and the promotion to super can be got pretty easily and not hard to get super from base game either. But in general on the vast majority of other slots for UK players it is 100000000X harder to get super bonuses from base game without buying which we can not do.

 

[MahoneyKnows]

Your statement applies to scratchcard-style slots, but not to reel-based slots. The game rules will disclose either way.

I understand what you’re saying. In Canada I think there needs to be a mention of the “Max win” but I’m not certain. We have the “win up to” on reel machines here and I’ve seen the maximum be achieved multiple times during a bonus on a physical machine. The max win on a machine in bars (pubs) is 2500… once the 2500 is achieved on a singular spin - regardless of being in a bonus round or if there’s still money to be counted - the ticket is printed for that amount at the time of the hit… the bonus round will continue from there and the max win is reset to 2500.
Regarding scratch tickets - the lottery corp. / government here got taken to court over the fact that there can be tickets in the stores that advertise “Win up to X” which have already exhausted all max wins. So if there’s only 2 tickets that have the max win amount and both are cashed and that same series/batch of tickets still exist in stores the lotto corp has to tell all retailers to pull those particular tickets.

 

[jasonuk]

I mean take for example the new Jack Hammer 3 from net ent,, dreadful slot yet again from that provider

• Max Win: 1332x
• Max Win Probability: 1 in 50M spins

So that sums up how disgraceful they are in terms of the caps themselves but the actual chances of getting it.

So firstly, don't think of NetEnt of old - they've largely vanished in the Evolution universe (you'll see more NetEnt abominations with Red Tiger badges, with the name and theme but none of the play style).

Secondly, be careful of reading too much into one data point - remember this is the singular highest win theoretically possible or actually observed, so if the game doesn't have a controlled cap you would expect it to be rare because those biggest wins are themselves a group rather than a singular limit (e.g. there may be 100 such scenarios over 1000x).

For example:

• Bullshit Bonanza(tm) has a 1 in 10,000 shot of paying a full screen that is worth 400x - it then pays a fixed bonus award of 100x - meaning the 500x top prize is achieved 1 in 10,000 spins.
• If we take that 100x fixed award and turn it into a pick'em bonus round - you could have 550x is achieved 1 in 30k spins, 750x is achieved 1 in 100k spins, 10000x is achieved 1 in 2m spins and so on.

The key part here is that 99.99% of that theoretical game is literally unchanged - but the definition of highest win and frequency changes dramatically.

The same applies with scratchcard slots - you can add or remove single balls from the bag to modify the profile (RTP, highest win / frequency) but 99.99% of the game hasn't changed. This is why players have to be particularly careful because the RTP can be reduced substantially based on one or a handful of balls being removed from the pool (e.g. one ball removes 1.5% RTP, ten balls removes 10% RTP etc)

I mean only slot that might be easier to get a max win on is the No Limit slot Nine 2 Five with Xbet enabled and the promotion to super can be got pretty easily and not hard to get super from base game either.

If they put 16,000 times the RTP into the maximum wins compared to previous generations of slots, then perhaps not a surprise that it happens a lot more frequently. Naturally it has to be paid for somewhere, and that's why like most streamer slots it can drain a balance in minutes - paint drying would be a more entertaining hobby.

 

[DreamRJ]

For example:

• Bullshit Bonanza(tm) has a 1 in 10,000 shot of paying a full screen that is worth 400x - it then pays a fixed bonus award of 100x - meaning the 500x top prize is achieved 1 in 10,000 spins.
• If we take that 100x fixed award and turn it into a pick'em bonus round - you could have 550x is achieved 1 in 30k spins, 750x is achieved 1 in 100k spins, 10000x is achieved 1 in 2m spins and so on.

I know that was an example but I have had bonuses on bonanza that paid 10X so the fixed 100X minimum is not true lol

 

[jasonuk]

I know that was an example but I have had bonuses on bonanza that paid 10X so the fixed 100X minimum is not true lol

Oh I'm not referring to the Bonanza, I'm referring to a mythical slot I made up as an example. I know BTG have been somewhat deceptive with their win potential but I suspect people would be rioting if Bonanza capped a full screen at 400x

It explains the point though - the RTP curve being identical for 99.99% of the spins in the above scenario, but those particular metrics being wildly different. Sadly few providers give anywhere near enough information to calculate the RTP curve - and if they do it'll be restricted access rather than in the public domain. I guess that's why I found the WMS spec sheets interesting, because it provided a wealth of information about the slot not normally accessible.

 

[justdoit]

Betfair has levied ‘premium charge’ fees amounting to £723,806.01, essentially an extra tax for being successful ??? some UK casino turn to live scam
full story on link

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