RTG - changed gameplay?

I just want to give a BIG thanks to Rusty & DogBoy! :notworthy
Rusty is obviously convinced RTG slots are manipulated, DogBoy is adamant they are not.
I (like most others I guess) am just sitting on the fence enjoying the view!

Big up to both for keeping this discussion cordial and to the point. :thumbsup:

One thing I definitely agree with Rusty on is that each & every online slot should have it's return % clearly visible to the players - preferably on the slot's main screen, or at worst in the pay-table.
If Rival, WagerWorks & Online Arcade slots can do this, why can't the other softwares?

KK
 
I agree KK and DogBoy - these discussions make for good debate and I think we both use plain English so it is easier for people without any technical knowledge to follow.

Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
When you state, "no changes to the Maths in use" could you explain what you mean, are you refering to the game algorithms or something else?

No changes have been made to any of the game maths.
No changes have therefore been made to prizes, reel strips, reel strip layout or feature pick probability schedules (if the game has those) and so forth.

As stated, it's likely that any "chang" you have noted refers purely to the RTP variant in use (again using the Cleo example, there are reel strip changes between variations)


This statement appears contradictory in that you state there are changes in reel strip layout (added symbols eg) that effects a change in RTP for individual game variations the Casino can change but at the same time say there is no change to the game maths when obviously the point of changing the reel layout is to alter the theoretical player return percentage (game maths?).

For example added symbols where no extra Feature trigger symbol is added would obviously mean a lower frequency of feature triggers.
The only way around this would be to only substitute symbols and maintain the same reel strip length but we are talking about ADDED symbols here as your previous statement clearly shows.
(in Cleopatras case there is a change where 2 symbols are added to reel 2).

Could you explain exactly what you mean by "Feature pick probability schedule" , as this suggests that the probabilities involved in this element of the game are independent of the reel strip layout (probability of any given combination occurring)
Are you strictly talking about "pick em" bonus games here and not Free spin triggers?

Also how can you change the RTP without changing the Maths?
(the probability of outcome of winning combinations)
 
This statement appears contradictory in that you state there are changes in reel strip layout (added symbols eg) that effects a change in RTP for individual game variations the Casino can change but at the same time say there is no change to the game maths when obviously the point of changing the reel layout is to alter the theoretical player return percentage (game maths?).

For example added symbols where no extra Feature trigger symbol is added would obviously mean a lower frequency of feature triggers.
The only way around this would be to only substitute symbols and maintain the same reel strip length but we are talking about ADDED symbols here as your previous statement clearly shows.
(in Cleopatras case there is a change where 2 symbols are added to reel 2).

Also how can you change the RTP without changing the Maths?
(the probability of outcome of winning combinations)

Heya,

The different maths variations have always existed, so when I refer to "no changes to the maths" I mean that no changes have been made to these variations since the games were first introduced.
However, given that there are multiple RTP variations for operators to choose from, on a casino-by-casino basis players may see a change in a particular game (such as Cleo reel 2) if an operator changes from one variation to another.

Could you explain exactly what you mean by "Feature pick probability schedule" , as this suggests that the probabilities involved in this element of the game are independent of the reel strip layout (probability of any given combination occurring)
Are you strictly talking about "pick em" bonus games here and not Free spin triggers?

Yup, strictly talking about features that have some form of probability schedule involved in a picking feature, such as Paradise Dreams flower picks, Warlock's Spell potion feature or the Hidden Riches wheel feature.

e.g.: In Warlock's there are 6 prize outcomes, but as we're all aware there are different chances to hit the top prize of 100 free games versus the bottom prize.

Woooof
 
e.g.: In Warlock's there are 6 prize outcomes, but as we're all aware there are different chances to hit the top prize of 100 free games versus the bottom prize.

Woooof

How is that? Are you saying that the feature is not already pre-determined anyway from the moment the RNG triggered it?
 
The different maths variations have always existed, so when I refer to "no changes to the maths" I mean that no changes have been made to these variations since the games were first introduced.
However, given that there are multiple RTP variations for operators to choose from, on a casino-by-casino basis players may see a change in a particular game (such as Cleo reel 2) if an operator changes from one variation to another.


So therefore in plain English the probability of hitting the feature has been changed if one variation is changed for another.
As indeed is the RTP by changing the probability of outcome through changes to the reel strip.

OK so now we only differ on how often this happens.

Yup, strictly talking about features that have some form of probability schedule involved in a picking feature, such as Paradise Dreams flower picks, Warlock's Spell potion feature or the Hidden Riches wheel feature.

e.g.: In Warlock's there are 6 prize outcomes, but as we're all aware there are different chances to hit the top prize of 100 free games versus the bottom prize.

Gotcha :thumbsup:

I do understand why weighting is used in the pick games for entertainment purposes and that there need be nothing untoward about it.
The One thing I would say though (actually more than One thing as always :p) is that it is not necessary just as there is an alternative to weighting reel stop positions.
For example with Warlocks spell you could achieve the same probability of outcome with an un-weighted pick game and make it just as, if not more, exciting by having multiple rounds.

Rough example;
So Six picks
1st round
1=8 spins 2=8 spins 3=8 spins 4 =10 spins 5=10 spins 6 = qualify next round

2nd round

1=10 spins 2=10 spins 3=15 spins 4=15 spins 5=20 spins 6= Qualify next round

3Rd round

1=15 spins 2=20 spins 3 =20 spins 4=25 spins 5=25 spins 6=100 spins

OK so so the probability of 100 Free spins is probably higher than 1 in 216 and the other probabilities too but you get the gist. (No weighting)

Since you are involved in slot design (I think) you will know there are many other ways to accomplish this.
The other thing was that I believe RTG should state the probability of outcome in these pick em games.
If it is 1 in 1000 to hit 100 free spins say so it is no big deal but it gives the player information they should have.

Yup, strictly talking about features that have some form of probability schedule involved in a picking feature, such as Paradise Dreams flower picks, Warlock's Spell potion feature or the Hidden Riches wheel feature.

I am just wondering how "schedule" fits in here as it suggests some events are preordained.
Maybe this ties in with Robs question?
 
For example with Warlocks spell you could achieve the same probability of outcome with an un-weighted pick game and make it just as, if not more, exciting by having multiple rounds.

Heya,

Yep, not a bad example of an alternative method.

The primary reason we mainly opt for shorter 2nd screen bonus rounds that lead to free games is due to land-based considerations.
In some markets (Australia being one), B&M casino operators specifically request short 2nd-screen bonus rounds.

That being said, there's certainly a stronger argument for altering the games for on-line play to provide multiple rounds in the manner you suggest, since there aren't the same requirements.


The other thing was that I believe RTG should state the probability of outcome in these pick em games.
If it is 1 in 1000 to hit 100 free spins say so it is no big deal but it gives the player information they should have.

As a player I'm in 2 minds about that sort of information...it's in the "nice to know" category, but also sort of kills the "live in hope" factor.
As Han Solo would say, "Never tell me the odds!"


I am just wondering how "schedule" fits in here as it suggests some events are preordained.
Maybe this ties in with Robs question?

How is that? Are you saying that the feature is not already pre-determined anyway from the moment the RNG triggered it?

It's the same result whether the result is called for from a probability table at the time of trigger or time of selection (I term a table "schedule", so it's simply a table of Possible Results vs Probability, adding up to a Probability of 1).

Results are called for at time of trigger in some games, such as Aladdin's Wishes and 3 Stooges.
In Aladdins it's necessary as there's always a 25 Free Games somewhere in the 5 picks (rather than just giving the player a percentage chance to be awarded the 25 games).
In 3 Stooges we display the "what could have been" prizes on the non-selected zones. As per normal land-based productions, we only ever display these prizes if they were distributed prior to the start of the selection process, since calling for a result afterwards would be deceptive.

That's why in most of the pick screens RTG does not display what non-selected prizes would have yielded.

Woooof
 
Heya,

The different maths variations have always existed, so when I refer to "no changes to the maths" I mean that no changes have been made to these variations since the games were first introduced.
However, given that there are multiple RTP variations for operators to choose from, on a casino-by-casino basis players may see a change in a particular game (such as Cleo reel 2) if an operator changes from one variation to another.
All due respect DogBoy001, but one knows when something has changed after hundreds of thousands of spins on the same games and one does not need numbers, or algorhythm or whatever to prove it...just stats from one session to the next...all this is good for many that feel the need to understand the workings but doesn't mean anything at all really when it comes down to the actual play of the game..what you give are scenerios of what should be...what a player gets is what "IS".

.
 
I dont usually play at RTG's, I signed up at Titan, 2 dep's with bonus I have had the worst return of any RTG I have ever played at.....Closed account, I just cannot feel I can win there, must have the lowest payout settings.
 
Oh Dear!

It's worse than I thought.

It seems RTG casinos can choose to have some slots at, say, the 95% variant, some at, say, 93%, and maybe one or two at 97%.

There is considerable scope for abuse here. An obvious example is choosing 97% for new games, getting players hooked, and "infrequently changing them" to the 93% variant to suck the bankrolls of those players seduced into thinking the new games were "great".

Generally, I can no longer be confident of claims (where a RTG casino offers them) that "our slots pay 95%". This may be true, but may hide the fact that there is considerable variation between them.

Another abuse would be to lower the RTP of popular slots (on an infrequent basis of course), to ensure that more money was made.

It doesn't matter whether land slots have to show RTP, the online casino world is far less regulated, and can do without this kind of thing.

RTG just make things worse for themselves. By engaging in SOME kinds of deception, they fuel the fears that there are OTHER things that we still DON'T know about RTG.

When I play Munchkins, I play the SAME game, SAME RTP, in whichever of the dozens of MGS casinos I play it. The same CANNOT be said of RTG.

When players complain that MGS slots are "bad this month", then the general view is that this is down to bad luck. If the same happened at RTG (and oddly enough, it HAS), we have an alternative explanation, that many of the RTG casinos have asked for an "infrequent version change" to their slots to one of the lower RTP levels. A change of 95% to 93% may look small, but it makes a BIG difference to how long a bankroll will last on average.

We also have an insight as to why RTG casinos have been so resistant to publishing monthly RTP figures, the version changes would have shown up.
 
Oh Dear!

It's worse than I thought.

It seems RTG casinos can choose to have some slots at, say, the 95% variant, some at, say, 93%, and maybe one or two at 97%.

There is considerable scope for abuse here. An obvious example is choosing 97% for new games, getting players hooked, and "infrequently changing them" to the 93% variant to suck the bankrolls of those players seduced into thinking the new games were "great".

Generally, I can no longer be confident of claims (where a RTG casino offers them) that "our slots pay 95%". This may be true, but may hide the fact that there is considerable variation between them.

Another abuse would be to lower the RTP of popular slots (on an infrequent basis of course), to ensure that more money was made.

It doesn't matter whether land slots have to show RTP, the online casino world is far less regulated, and can do without this kind of thing.

RTG just make things worse for themselves. By engaging in SOME kinds of deception, they fuel the fears that there are OTHER things that we still DON'T know about RTG.

When I play Munchkins, I play the SAME game, SAME RTP, in whichever of the dozens of MGS casinos I play it. The same CANNOT be said of RTG.

When players complain that MGS slots are "bad this month", then the general view is that this is down to bad luck. If the same happened at RTG (and oddly enough, it HAS), we have an alternative explanation, that many of the RTG casinos have asked for an "infrequent version change" to their slots to one of the lower RTP levels. A change of 95% to 93% may look small, but it makes a BIG difference to how long a bankroll will last on average.

We also have an insight as to why RTG casinos have been so resistant to publishing monthly RTP figures, the version changes would have shown up.


I am no expert but feel very confident that Titan has the lowest settings. I have never experienced RTG playthrough as poor as my last few deposits. $170.00 Dep, $640.00 playthrough, last session, $80.00 and $160.00 playthrough, low rolling $1 or less, no bonus rounds???
 
Oh Dear!

It's worse than I thought.

It seems RTG casinos can choose to have some slots at, say, the 95% variant, some at, say, 93%, and maybe one or two at 97%.

There is considerable scope for abuse here. An obvious example is choosing 97% for new games, getting players hooked, and "infrequently changing them" to the 93% variant to suck the bankrolls of those players seduced into thinking the new games were "great".

Generally, I can no longer be confident of claims (where a RTG casino offers them) that "our slots pay 95%". This may be true, but may hide the fact that there is considerable variation between them.

Another abuse would be to lower the RTP of popular slots (on an infrequent basis of course), to ensure that more money was made.

It doesn't matter whether land slots have to show RTP, the online casino world is far less regulated, and can do without this kind of thing.

RTG just make things worse for themselves. By engaging in SOME kinds of deception, they fuel the fears that there are OTHER things that we still DON'T know about RTG.

When I play Munchkins, I play the SAME game, SAME RTP, in whichever of the dozens of MGS casinos I play it. The same CANNOT be said of RTG.

When players complain that MGS slots are "bad this month", then the general view is that this is down to bad luck. If the same happened at RTG (and oddly enough, it HAS), we have an alternative explanation, that many of the RTG casinos have asked for an "infrequent version change" to their slots to one of the lower RTP levels. A change of 95% to 93% may look small, but it makes a BIG difference to how long a bankroll will last on average.

We also have an insight as to why RTG casinos have been so resistant to publishing monthly RTP figures, the version changes would have shown up.

I thought there was a thread where you state that MG changed the return to Munchkins and the features were less frequent?
I really would not be so confident that MGS operates much differently.
I know I do a lot of RTG bashing but that is because I played the RTG software most.
MG are only just ahead IMO.
Since we are comparing software, how about Rival?
That is the most obviously weighted software I have ever played.

I really wish One of these software providers would get a grip and offer 97% return slot that can take advantage of the high play through from players in the online environment in a way that land based slots can not.
(It's not rocket science Boys)
Will it ever happen?

I am no expert but feel very confident that Titan has the lowest settings. I have never experienced RTG playthrough as poor as my last few deposits. $170.00 Dep, $640.00 playthrough, last session, $80.00 and $160.00 playthrough, low rolling $1 or less, no bonus rounds???

Well my experience was similar to yours but others have won.
Is that a matter of luck or were we playing different versions of the game or playing slots with lower return settings?
That's the question and the problem is all Three of those examples could be correct on any given Day.
 
It doesn't matter whether land slots have to show RTP, the online casino world is far less regulated, and can do without this kind of thing.

RTP changes occur just as frequently in land-based casinos as they do in on-line, and in the vast majority of land-based jurisdictions there is no display of RTP to the player.
And having different RTP settings on different machines is also the norm.

I worked for IGT, we've done a lot of work for Bally, for WMS, for a multitude of smaller manufacturers and a heck of a lot of casino groups at one time or another.

Sorry Vinyl, but if you say that the land-based industry is any different from the on-line industry regarding the frequency of RTP variation changes then you're choosing to ignore the word "infrequent".
And at least on-line you don't have the 85%, 87%, 89% and 90% RTP variations that are, far and away, the most commonly-used RTP settings in major terrestrial jurisdictions.

Woooof

P.S.: It's also worth remembering that there are a lot of operators, both land-based and on-line, that never change their RTP settings.
 
Last edited:
very interesting thread this,
and like some others, way above my head,
so the way i see it in laymens terms and correct me if I'm wrong,
if the casino isn't going to make its expected profit margins for a particular month they can change the reel layouts IE remove an extra scatter or wild symbol to make the slot tighter, so it pays out less, so bringing up there profit margins
if that is true is that the norm across all online casinos? mg rival ect
 
very interesting thread this,
and like some others, way above my head,
so the way i see it in laymens terms and correct me if I'm wrong,
if the casino isn't going to make its expected profit margins for a particular month they can change the reel layouts IE remove an extra scatter or wild symbol to make the slot tighter, so it pays out less, so bringing up there profit margins
if that is true is that the norm across all online casinos? mg rival ect

Hi Zebedy,
I will try to clarify things as stated in this thread by myself and Dogboy and I will do my utmost not to misrepresent anything Dogboy has said.

Regarding RTG Dogboy states that there are currently various versions of each slot which differ in that the reel layouts are slightly different - meaning that RTP/payout can changed by the Casino changing the version of the slot.
So yes a Casino could change all its slots so that the payouts to players is less and they make more profit without most players knowing.

Dogboy states that Casinos change versions of the game (change payout) only infrequently and his position is that when any changes are made it is totally unconnected to an individuals previous results.

My contention is not only that the Casinos can change the slot version on a whim and often - but much of this can be and is automated so that RTP and payouts are tightly controlled.
Or in other words if you are due a little treat from the Casino you could be playing slots with a very high RTP until reaching a trigger point where the games would be switched to a much lower RTP.
As evidence of my hypothesis I suggested that people should check their old game logs and find the highest point of a winning streak and then consider if the losing streak that followed was any different to the average streak.
Another way would be to consider your winning streaks and how out of the normal gameplay experience they were.
Of course the problem with all this is that any streak by definition is going to be somewhat outside the norm but I would strongly suggest that a pattern does exist.

Of course Dogboy strongly disagrees with me on this.

So of the Two views it is safe to say that the slot you play One Day may have a much lower *set payout/RTP/expected theoretical return the next Day.
(*they all describe the same thing- house edge)

Silcnlayc pretty much states that One who plays these games extensively knows intuitively when/how the games have been changed and I would agree with that.

As for all other software?
There are a few threads on MG gameplay and Rival that describe similar views. As far as I am concerned they all use weighting, some less ethically and more greedily than others.
Ultimately you will just have to go off your own experience and preference but personally I would avoid the Rival platform like the plague and play the others for entertainment purposes only until such time the industry gets some proper regulation.

Hope that helps some. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Heyas,

To clarify a little;

1) Not all operators change RTP variations in use, many do not change them at all.
2) The variations are not vastly different RTP and do not drastically change game play. Where possible, normal game hit rates (therefore including feature hit rates) and so forth are kept entirely as per (so no reel changes in main game, instead reel strip changes may occur during the free games, or changes are used to pick probability schedules).

...until such time the industry gets some proper regulation

I understand that regulation in the manner of the land-based industry may improve player confidence, however it will not alter the fact that operators will have several RTP variations that they can choose from, and that they may change infrequently.

In the land-based sector this is typically limited to no more than 1 change per 30 day period, which of its own accord is more frequent than is used by any RTG operators.

Woooof
 
I understand that regulation in the manner of the land-based industry may improve player confidence, however it will not alter the fact that operators will have several RTP variations that they can choose from

It will alter the fact that they have to display the RTP to player though and make clear any changes made at any time, at least if I have anything to do with it. ;)
 
It will alter the fact that they have to display the RTP to player though and make clear any changes made at any time, at least if I have anything to do with it. ;)

Yep, completely understand re display of RTP, though it does bring to mind Vinyl's comment that he doesn't trust such information from the casino anyway.

And as for a regulator having the power to require display of RTP, and publicise RTP change dates to players...well that doesn't happen in the land-based industry, and that's run by probably the same regulatory regimes that will cover on-line play...not sure that'll happen purely from a regulatory basis.

It's far more likely that self-regulation prompted by player feedback will eventually lead to that outcome.

Woooof
 
Yep, completely understand re display of RTP, though it does bring to mind Vinyl's comment that he doesn't trust such information from the casino anyway.

And as for a regulator having the power to require display of RTP, and publicise RTP change dates to players...well that doesn't happen in the land-based industry, and that's run by probably the same regulatory regimes that will cover on-line play...not sure that'll happen purely from a regulatory basis.

It's far more likely that self-regulation prompted by player feedback will eventually lead to that outcome.

Woooof

Trust comes with proper regulation and transparency, I believe VWM will be relating his comments with the current regulatory situation.

The following is an excerpt from the Gambling Commissions Remote Technical Standards consultation reply from PartyGaming Plc.

Q18. Do you agree with the Commissions approach to displaying information
about the likelihood of winning and the prizes on offer?


For games against the house, PartyGaming agrees with the Commissions approach to the displaying of information about the likelihood of winning and the prizes on offer.

Q19. Do you have a view as to what method should be used for return to player percentage calculations?

PartyGaming agrees with the Commission that RTP information should be available for customers to view in order to make an informed choice
. However we believe that the specific location of the RTP information should be up to the operator to determine. Again this could only apply to games against the house.

From UKGC site on Machine standards.

This standard is applicable to all categories of gaming machine as defined under section 235 of the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act). This standard will come into force for any gaming machine terminal, sited within Great Britain on or after 1 September 2007, that is dependant upon some external device for the purpose of gambling (including software downloads, server based systems or external random number generators), subject to the Implementation Annex to this standard (published separately). That Annex identifies those requirements of the standard which will come into force on various dates in the period 1 September 2007 to 1 September 2008.

1.4 Pay table/denomination configuration changes
Player terminal control programs that offer multiple pay tables and/or denominations that can be configured via an external communication must comply with the following:
a. information relating to the players likely return (%RTP) must be transparent to the player for the pay table in operation and in particular where any changes occur at times when the system is available for play;
b. the game is in an idle state when any update occurs; and
c. any change to the pay table will not cause inaccurate crediting or payment.

and

Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards: June 2007

RTS requirement 3C
For each virtual event, game (including bingo), or lottery, information that may reasonably be expected to enable the customer to make an informed decision about his or her chances of winning must be easily available before the customer commits to gamble. Information must include:
i. a description of the way the game works and the way in which winners are determined and prizes allocated;
ii. house edge (or margin);
iii. the return to player (RTP) percentage; or
iv. the probability (likelihood) of winning events occurring.


:thumbsup:
 
Yes, the UK is one of the few exceptions (we have games such as Aztecs, Cleopatra's Gold, Goldbeard and quite a few others that are in the RTG stable operating in the UK with mainstream land-based groups).

However, all of this only relates to companies seeking a UK license. If you're talking about universal internet regulation I doubt very much that this will be driven by the UK, and in the vast majority of jurisdictions there is little to no requirement for display of player odds or return.

Woooof
 
Yes, the UK is one of the few exceptions (we have games such as Aztecs, Cleopatra's Gold, Goldbeard and quite a few others that are in the RTG stable operating in the UK with mainstream land-based groups).

However, all of this only relates to companies seeking a UK license. If you're talking about universal internet regulation I doubt very much that this will be driven by the UK, and in the vast majority of jurisdictions there is little to no requirement for display of player odds or return.

Woooof

(This answer is not specifically in response to Dogboy but a general reply on the issues of regulation.)

I agree, all of which goes to show how poorly the player is protected and that most regulatory regimes are more interested in Dollars than truly fair gaming. You yourself make this point about Australian regulation.

I can see absolutely no argument in principle why the player should not only be entitled to this information but it should be a condition of the license for a software provider by any serious licensing authority.

Software providers, Casinos, affiliates and players all have common ground which a Licensing authority can work with to make proper sensible regulation that suits all.
The UKGC is by far and away the best example of any licensing authority that does this because of its extensive consultations with all concerned parties and its large budget.
Also because it is based on UK law and is ultimately answerable to UK government (and more importantly UK press) then there is unlikely to be any Whitewashing of serious issues.
This is why I use the UKGC as a standard to be followed

If software companies are against displaying RTP they should at least be prepared to explain their position and players should take any licensing authority to task that does not have it as a requirement.

Payments that Casinos and software companies currently have to make to the various licensing authorities that offer a cut price license (screw the player-give us the money) can be accurately described as scandalous.
The blame lies equally with both parties.
Mickey Mouse Licensing authorities offer slack regulation and cut prices because many Casinos and software companies are happy to go this route- a cosy little deal where only the player suffers.

Tougher regulation and the higher cost of a license and extra player protection that comes with it is currently simply seen as not worthwhile by both these sham regulatory bodies and Casinos because any player backlash against these insidious business partnerships is largely Whitewashed.
So the majority of Casinos gravitate toward the sham Licenses such as Kahnawake.

Thank God for the few people such as Bryan (Casinomeister) who actually understand it is possible to make a Buck and still be ethical.
In fact this can be used as a marketing tool and Bryan deserves every success in this and I respect his judgement though I fully appreciate he does not seek or need any endorsement from me.

This forum is One of the very few places where Players can voice their concerns and know they will be heard and have a genuine chance of a fair outcome they would not have got even at some of these so called regulatory authorities.
Why is this the case?
Because if enough of the player community shout and scream loudly enough when something is wrong it hits the Casinos where it hurts most (since most of them have no balls) that is in their pocket.

God forbid some of the players that come here and get redress should actually put something back into the community by trying to help others and demanding the same justice for others that they have received or actually thank Bryan or Max or the membership that helped them but there you go at least right was done by them and the information is out there.

Players;
The majority of Casinos, software providers, sham authorities and unscrupulous affiliates are all dining out at your expense.
We are just ants and if we bite alone they can simply brush us off or squash us.
But if we are many and get into their food and annoy them enough they will either have to pack up and leave or make provision for us.

Yes there are much bigger issues in life but this is a gaming forum and we are here so get involved in any small way and help to make things better for everyone. Lurkers use your voice.

Sorry for sermonising but at least I feel better. :D
 
Last edited:
Because if enough of the player community shout and scream loudly enough when something is wrong it hits the Casinos where it hurts most (since most of them have no balls) that is in their pocket.

We are just ants and if we bite alone they can simply brush us off or squash us. But if we are many and get into their food and annoy them enough they will either have to pack up and leave or make provision for us.

Yes there are much bigger issues in life but this is a gaming forum and we are here so get involved in any small way and help to make things better for everyone. Lurkers use your voice.

Sorry for sermonising but at least I feel better. :D

You are my hero, wanna go steady? :D :p
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top