RTP is too low..
- Thread starter SlotGrinder
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Location
- Lincoln UK
Just as an example:
There is a slot with 100x max win. I was thinking "super low volatility, RTP over 96%, max win must be easy to get"!
Lol, it took more than 12,000 spins to get the 100x
Food for thought.
Just because a slot "looks" super low volatility don't mean it is, without the data sheet you can't be sure, but i understand your logic and reasoning.
A 100x max win slot is on par with current UK AWP Cat C £1 stake £100 and any player will tell you they can be far from low volatility LOL
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Location
- England
I never said rtp is what makes a game fun to play (although it plays a part) - but ultimately rtp is what defines how much you lose longterm . Idk why the obsession with an individual session and how it "feels" . I'm playing slots all year not just one day . I play poker for a living (tournaments) and I lose the majority of days and sometimes months at a time 
but what's important is your expected roi (equivalent of rtp rly) . There's huge variance in tournaments , similar to slots and you can win way more or way less than your estimated expectation over the short/medium and even longterm but that's the gambling aspect of it
Just because an individual slot session doesn't feel much different between 96% rtp and 98% rtp doesn't mean your longterm experience will be no different . With the 98% rtp you will double the playtime . How that is distributed will vary but it might take the form of less super quick unsatisfactory sessions or it may mean more winning sessions (which by nature will be longer playtime) but similar amount of quick losing sessions . To say that we won't notice the difference is laughable .
98% rtp games can be the same maths profile as 96% rtp games yet with 2% rtp added . Maybe that 0.5x win every 5 spins becomes a 0.6x win . Sure it won't be noticeable for 100 spins but it will make a huge difference longterm
Why would casinos bother to raise rtp ? Well they won't whilst there's some players saying 96% rtp is great . But if a lot of players say hey wait why are you taking such a big edge on a game that is so quick and easy to wager a lot of money on and then a developer comes along with a 98% rtp slot that gets a lot of volume and profits then it might happen that casinos decide they need to offer that game.. and so on
but what's important is your expected roi (equivalent of rtp rly) . There's huge variance in tournaments , similar to slots and you can win way more or way less than your estimated expectation over the short/medium and even longterm but that's the gambling aspect of itJust because an individual slot session doesn't feel much different between 96% rtp and 98% rtp doesn't mean your longterm experience will be no different . With the 98% rtp you will double the playtime . How that is distributed will vary but it might take the form of less super quick unsatisfactory sessions or it may mean more winning sessions (which by nature will be longer playtime) but similar amount of quick losing sessions . To say that we won't notice the difference is laughable .
98% rtp games can be the same maths profile as 96% rtp games yet with 2% rtp added . Maybe that 0.5x win every 5 spins becomes a 0.6x win . Sure it won't be noticeable for 100 spins but it will make a huge difference longterm
Why would casinos bother to raise rtp ? Well they won't whilst there's some players saying 96% rtp is great . But if a lot of players say hey wait why are you taking such a big edge on a game that is so quick and easy to wager a lot of money on and then a developer comes along with a 98% rtp slot that gets a lot of volume and profits then it might happen that casinos decide they need to offer that game.. and so on
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Location
- Lincoln UK
Well i grew up with slots ( UK AWPs ) paying out 78% ( 72% on the big jackpot club machines ) which was the default for a lot of games in the late 80's so 96% im more than happy with lol
Its been known a long time that the worst games in any casino to play are the slots, them having the highest house edge overall, yet high 96% RTP slots are only half a % ish away from roulette which can also be quick and easy to wager a lot of money on.
Was given a free 10p scratchcard on sky vegas the other day ( TED ) and they are RTP 80% who the hell in their right mind plays them ?
Its all boils down to if you dont like the RTP of a game then dont play it but to think 96+% isnt high enough to have fun and a reasonable chance of a win is a bit of a stretch, its why LB casinos dont run at 96% I doubt they would cover the overheads.
Its been known a long time that the worst games in any casino to play are the slots, them having the highest house edge overall, yet high 96% RTP slots are only half a % ish away from roulette which can also be quick and easy to wager a lot of money on.
Was given a free 10p scratchcard on sky vegas the other day ( TED ) and they are RTP 80% who the hell in their right mind plays them ?
Its all boils down to if you dont like the RTP of a game then dont play it but to think 96+% isnt high enough to have fun and a reasonable chance of a win is a bit of a stretch, its why LB casinos dont run at 96% I doubt they would cover the overheads.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
@tracemonkey - would you say the B and Ms are less (differently?) engaging because of their design or RTP
I'm aware the slots here are set lower and B and Ms and frankly, I just don't enjoy them - now, whether that's simply because of their lower setting or design, I can't say with certainty. I DO know I don't find them engaging or have any longevity.
I can pull out 1k online - I NEVER do at a landbased (well, ok, ONCE) and whereas I could do an all nighter online I certainly couldnt or havent at the brick and mortar with the same balance - nor would I find it interesting enough to were I able (but possible for the fact I'd get sauced
)
I'm aware the slots here are set lower and B and Ms and frankly, I just don't enjoy them - now, whether that's simply because of their lower setting or design, I can't say with certainty. I DO know I don't find them engaging or have any longevity.
I can pull out 1k online - I NEVER do at a landbased (well, ok, ONCE) and whereas I could do an all nighter online I certainly couldnt or havent at the brick and mortar with the same balance - nor would I find it interesting enough to were I able (but possible for the fact I'd get sauced
)
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
I know he's banned now, but this is the third time (at least) he's quoted laughable numbers as to how games are calculated. He's been corrected before and ignores facts... Clearly no one can help this guy
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
there's confirmation bias, then there's fossilizationI know he's banned now, but this is the third time (at least) he's quoted laughable numbers as to how games are calculated. He's been corrected before and ignores facts... Clearly no one can help this guy
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
@tracemonkey - would you say the B and Ms are less (differently?) engaging because of their design or RTP
I'm aware the slots here are set lower and B and Ms and frankly, I just don't enjoy them - now, whether that's simply because of their lower setting or design, I can't say with certainty. I DO know I don't find them engaging or have any longevity.
I can pull out 1k online - I NEVER do at a landbased (well, ok, ONCE) and whereas I could do an all nighter online I certainly couldnt or havent at the brick and mortar with the same balance - nor would I find it interesting enough to were I able (but possible for the fact I'd get sauced
Higher RTPS online count towards your higher cashouts.
slotmaster
Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Location
- Ontario
The 100 percent days are over guys and not coming back, The 96% days are over soon if not already. Be selective and educated as to what you play and play the games you enjoy and have luck on.
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Location
- chelmsford UK
When was there ever 100% days?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2017
- Location
- United kingdom
I reckon that software providers just pissing into peoples ears and think everyone is naive!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Location
- UK
I know he's banned now, but this is the third time (at least) he's quoted laughable numbers as to how games are calculated. He's been corrected before and ignores facts... Clearly no one can help this guy
Ah hell, bloatgoat is banned? Shame, funny guy.
slotmaster
Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Location
- Ontario
I was using Las Vegas as an example back when there was competition. Even online back in 2006-07 there was 99-100 percent slots or advertised anyway. Not happening now as expenses are so high now and it's all greed and how fast they can take your money now.
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Location
- chelmsford UK
Maybe I'm missing something here?
How can a casino survive on 100% or even 99%, more so at a b n m?.
Where does the money come from to pay the bills?
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
Well it shows him as a banned user now
Can't see any recent ban-worthy posts but yeah... I was hoping to one day be able to change his mind....
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
They can't... you could have a select few on that RTP as marketing stunt but I don't know of a game higher than 96 in B and M. EGT might have some on 97 in eastern Europe I think
Well it shows him as a banned user now
Can't see any recent ban-worthy posts but yeah... I was hoping to one day be able to change his mind....
slotmaster
Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Location
- Ontario
Not all slots were and trance says it was a marketing stunt.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Location
- Glasgow and Home - N Ireland
I was back home at the Xmas period and hit the arcades in my seaside town. Checking out Andy Capp, Road Hog, Luxor and how times have changed from when i played them at the time '74%, 82%, RTP!' i muttered the whole way through my wee jaunt.
Having said that, i made 20 quid last a few hours which is, er, precisely 1h 45mins more than last night
Having said that, i made 20 quid last a few hours which is, er, precisely 1h 45mins more than last night
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
I don't see why he'd be banned going by his recent posts, unless I've missed something. Perhaps it was done because of a PM
My son is no more
No Worries we will buy a new one for you
might still be a few roaming round
hahahha very good we should buy the jumping one for @goatwack
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
I don't see why he'd be banned going by his recent posts, unless I've missed something. Perhaps it was done because of a PM
My son is no more
Yeah the post quoted above was from Dec 19... the guy didn't believe a word any one said, but his recent posts weren't ban worthy so guess it must have been a PM or something else that's maybe been deleted...
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Location
- United Kingdom
Cut his toe nails for goodness sake lol
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Location
- UK
He seems to be on a 7 day suspension now so we can expect him back shortly. Good.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Location
- uk
Bloaty & irish both banned same time anyone know why or whats been missed??
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Location
- UK
Back on the thread subject, I see from Dunover's reviews today that blueprint have rolled out a couple of new slots on under 95% RTP so the value is indeed disappearing. Whats the point (of playing).
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Location
- currently in US
I'm curious what kind of dialog goes on between slot developers and casinos - are casinos requesting slots with lower RTP? Do casinos negotiate lower rates (payments from casinos to slot providers) for slots with a higher RTP?
Hypothetically, a slot provider could create whatever kind of slot they want, and it's up to the casinos whether or not to accept it. I wonder if this single degree of separation has any potential impact on the kind of slots we will see. A slot provider could release, say, a 97% rtp slot, and if it proved popular, they have negotiating power even if casinos wanted to push down slot RTP's to the 94-95% range.
But I don't know how exactly the whole negotiating process goes down between casinos and slot providers.
Hypothetically, a slot provider could create whatever kind of slot they want, and it's up to the casinos whether or not to accept it. I wonder if this single degree of separation has any potential impact on the kind of slots we will see. A slot provider could release, say, a 97% rtp slot, and if it proved popular, they have negotiating power even if casinos wanted to push down slot RTP's to the 94-95% range.
But I don't know how exactly the whole negotiating process goes down between casinos and slot providers.
I think that super high variance is the worst thing that can happen because this way they gonna make 92 % RTP Slots and teasing you with the chance for 10 000x or more.
Right now if you are super unlucky, you can lose 1000 € in a few minutes with 1 € bet. The number of features, ... in some slots are great but they are not often enough. There must be a little "anti-luck" system for this games with bad base game, I mean 1-2k spins and no free spins is the worst experience a player can make. Quickspin added coin rewards so the player can buy features which were a great choice in my eyes.
With anti-luck I mean just a system that increases the playtime, often I just want gamble a little bit checking new games. But there is always one game that has multiple features which are not triggering once in over a thousand spins. Even slots with max. win 150x having such a high variance that having a good playtime is not guaranteed. I like the animations some games do, but this 50-100 dead spins in a row cannot be the true design game providers aiming for. Increasing the RTP would not solve this, I think 96 % is fine and 98 % is really good but I do not like games which are designed like "pay super mega ultra big win" or "pay nothing" we need more medium variance games where we do not need to fear bonus round to pay 1x or less.
I mean what is this? Got 10 times bonus in doa, not once over 15x... I know that there is one player who has the luck to get a wildline in the first spin but thats not the point. Free Spins should be something special or at least have a decent min. win around 20x and I would be happy. Netent is really special, getting into free rounds sometimes impossible and when finally getting in you went out with 0x and thinking about the meaning of life...
Right now if you are super unlucky, you can lose 1000 € in a few minutes with 1 € bet. The number of features, ... in some slots are great but they are not often enough. There must be a little "anti-luck" system for this games with bad base game, I mean 1-2k spins and no free spins is the worst experience a player can make. Quickspin added coin rewards so the player can buy features which were a great choice in my eyes.
With anti-luck I mean just a system that increases the playtime, often I just want gamble a little bit checking new games. But there is always one game that has multiple features which are not triggering once in over a thousand spins. Even slots with max. win 150x having such a high variance that having a good playtime is not guaranteed. I like the animations some games do, but this 50-100 dead spins in a row cannot be the true design game providers aiming for. Increasing the RTP would not solve this, I think 96 % is fine and 98 % is really good but I do not like games which are designed like "pay super mega ultra big win" or "pay nothing" we need more medium variance games where we do not need to fear bonus round to pay 1x or less.
I mean what is this? Got 10 times bonus in doa, not once over 15x... I know that there is one player who has the luck to get a wildline in the first spin but thats not the point. Free Spins should be something special or at least have a decent min. win around 20x and I would be happy. Netent is really special, getting into free rounds sometimes impossible and when finally getting in you went out with 0x and thinking about the meaning of life...
lockinlove
Editing my post so I dont get in trouble
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
- Location
- Canada
Some of these casinos I wont touch if it was the last casino on earth. Lucky Dino have super nice staff but I will never play there because they have such terrible rtp. 92% on jurassic giants and others. I see no reason for online casino to be that damn greedy. Go play a 92% rtp vs a 96% and tell me how you feel after lol or simply go play at a landbased.
Landbased have 90% rtp because of all the employees they have, which are hundreds a night, huge buildings to maintain etc. Online casinos have maybe 10-30 employees in a smallish office? Now they want to put their rtp with landbased? Try it and I will buy my own slot machine to play by myself to fill the need to gamble. Oh and family members I dont like can play it too ;p
Landbased have 90% rtp because of all the employees they have, which are hundreds a night, huge buildings to maintain etc. Online casinos have maybe 10-30 employees in a smallish office? Now they want to put their rtp with landbased? Try it and I will buy my own slot machine to play by myself to fill the need to gamble. Oh and family members I dont like can play it too ;p
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
I was partly to blame for irish ranger's ban
I asked him about his chat room adventures from times past and well the conversation became a bit too detailed, it upset some of the ladies and ended in a ban.
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Location
- chelmsford UK
I was partly to blame for irish ranger's ban
His actual ban was for dissing the mod who warned him about said convoy/comments.
- Joined
- May 8, 2018
- Location
- south east england
yeah, but If I hadn't prompted him to reply further it's maybe unlikely it would have happened. I was interested in the possible humorous mishaps in travelling all the way to america for basically blind dates etc.. but it got a bit more graphic, I should have pm'd him instead..I blame the christmas delirium for affecting my brain and clouding my normal common sense
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
yeah, but If I hadn't prompted him to reply further it's maybe unlikely it would have happened. I was interested in the possible humorous mishaps in travelling all the way to america for basically blind dates etc.. but it got a bit more graphic, I should have pm'd him instead..I blame the christmas delirium for affecting my brain and clouding my normal common sense
You didn't make him have a go at dunover - that's entirely his decision.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
It's a super-simple(ish) process...
I'm a game developer. I want my games on as many casinos as possible. I also want my game to play as well as it can, so i probably make my game just north of 96%.
Some casinos are happy to take games at 96%.
Some casinos want a lower RTP.
You do (almost) whatever it takes to get your games live, because the more casinos you're games are live at, the more money you make.
If you're very lucky, and you have a killer game (Bonanza for example) you will have more sway in refusing to lower the RTP below you're preferred RTP.
If you don't have a killer game, and a casino you want your games live on asks for 94%, then you either do it, or you don't release the game.
If you don't release the game on that casino, you are losing revenue. Not many people will lose money on purpose...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Location
- Blighty
The combination of lower RTP and HV god-awful design will kill the industry. The things play badly enough as it is. Rather than take a long term look at ways of increasing custom whilst retaining the entertainment factor (not easy i know), to the shock of no-one, casinos and manufacturers have gone for the short term quick hit.
Personally I would have tapered the RTP based on stake. I know WMS have done this but their base level of £2 for 96% seems a little steep. Either that or remove stakes below 50p. There has to be some element of inflation which has to be accounted for but reducing the RTP whilst also encouraging players to buy features in stupidly HV slots is a pretty shitty way of going about things.
That said, we’ve only got ourselves, largely at least, to blame. If we didn’t gobble up the HV slots tempted by the “we get them every week” record wins on YT then the manufacturers and casinos wouldn’t be attracted to them like a moth to a flame.
Personally I would have tapered the RTP based on stake. I know WMS have done this but their base level of £2 for 96% seems a little steep. Either that or remove stakes below 50p. There has to be some element of inflation which has to be accounted for but reducing the RTP whilst also encouraging players to buy features in stupidly HV slots is a pretty shitty way of going about things.
That said, we’ve only got ourselves, largely at least, to blame. If we didn’t gobble up the HV slots tempted by the “we get them every week” record wins on YT then the manufacturers and casinos wouldn’t be attracted to them like a moth to a flame.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
They won't kill the industry - for exactly the reason you give at the end. A problem could arise, however, if you end up in a situation like the UK retail bookmakers - here you have games with profiles so unfriendly that a new player would almost never entertain the games - but because the bulk of the money goes through games like that, the bookies just want more like that. Fine - the current customers like them, but new customers would (i would argue) be put off for life by spinning 30 times at 2 quid a spin without a single win - it's terrible. I'm a player, and i won't play UK bookmaker games other than for research purposes. So your pool of players just gets smaller and smaller.
Luckily, the online casinos don't have this problem and the way they are set up means they probably never will - UNLESS they start to dictate game and maths designs (which i have seen start to happen). Data is brilliant, and they have a lot of data - but equally you shouldn't look at data and say "60% of people like HV games, so all our games should be HV". That's a one way ticket to the bottom. Games, profiles, themes, etc.. should cater to as many people as you can. Some of those games might not be top 20 games, but if they cater to a group of players that don't play anything else, then the income is still incremental. You can't just look at the top 10 games and say "we need more of those" without also looking at other metrics or KPI's.
Why would a casino remove stakes lower than 50p? What possible reason do they have to do that? Land-based need high coin-in, and therefore stakes play a part - but online, stakes are much less relevant - you want people playing. There is no occupancy issue - no bums on seats blocking other players - so if someone wants to spin at 10p a spin for 5 hours a day, so what. And also, i believe changing RTP based on stake is something the UKGC don't like...
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Location
- Blighty
My point with the raising of minimum stake as one alternative to bring in the money as opposed to reducing RTP or making “lotto” slots is that, as you have said, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract and keep new customers. The one sure way of chasing new customers away is to produce slots which largely give no entertainment and once in a blue moon chucks a 1000x plus win.
However casinos need to cover increasing costs, at least to the level of inflation, so by raising the minimum bet you are to some degree increasing the throughput of money so desperately desired. Neither options are really desirable as there are a lot of players out there playing 20-40p spins who may be chased away by this option (I myself rarely venture north of 60p-£1) but would casinos rather these players just reduce their play a little but still play some of the time at 50p or chase everyone away by producing ever decreasing returns for your money.
I will not play any slot below 95% so if that is where we end up then I would give it up. I know I am but one man but suspect many will likely follow and once again, following on from AWPs and FOBTs, you’ll just be left with addicts who cannot stop.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Location
- Blighty
Edit: Duplicate post
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Location
- currently in US
That's true, but my thought process was along the lines of whether, for example, a 97% slot might get several times as much play as a 94% slot, it could be worth it to lose some business if you get a great deal more actual spins and plays on the slot.
Take a slot like immortal romance for example - would it have ever received near the popularity it did as a 94-95% game instead of an almost 97% game? I wouldn't be surprised if it received an order of magnitude less play - but we can't really know for sure. Even though casinos and slot providers have a great deal of info on their hands, they might not know what particular factor led to the success, for one slot to go "viral" where another never leaves the middle of the pack.
But it's certainly possible I'm overestimating how responsive most players are to RTP, in which case I guess casinos would be right (from a business perspective) in lowering RTP if a lot of players just sit down at an interesting looking game and don't particularly care anyway.
Aside from things like customer service, I think many casino costs are percentage based (payments to affiliates, slot providers, sometimes payment processing, taxes). So there probably isn't much reason or need to charge low rollers a higher fee, since they don't have the same per player costs as a physical casino. And today's low roller may be tomorrow's bigger player, so that might be some reason not to try to nickel and dime the low rollers too much - especially since it's easy for them to simply switch to another casino or another game.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Location
- Blighty
That last point is a good one. How many players genuinely are even aware of the RTP of a slot they are playing. I actually suspect it is quite a small number. That does bring trancemonkeys point about game design to the fore. Personally, even if the TRTP is over a gazillion spins, I will still use it to gauge value for money. I know I am going to lose, it’s just how much on average I am prepared to pay for that privilege. I won’t ignore a slot at the lower end of my acceptable scale but will be more reluctant to spend too much on it.
If a game is designed well then I may up my “per hour” loss rate but when you start drilling down below 95% online I can’t help but feel casinos are choosing the easiest path of least resistance to make more money in the short term. It’s why I’d far more advocate a slightly higher min stake or staggered RTP based on stake (just one a little less harsh than SGi).
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2013
- Location
- currently in US
Bodog group (bovada/ignition/etc.) is likely the biggest online casino for U.S. players that I'm aware of (unless some other sportsbook has them beat.)
For more of the slots, they don't even list the RTP. Rival games even offer an option to show or not show the help file showing the RTP, and they choose to block that feature. So bodog group actually makes an effort so that players WON'T have knowledge of the RTP. And they're still wildly successful.
So as much as I might not like to admit it, many players likely don't care - at least not about seeing the actual number. However, they still are affected by the gameplay whether or not they ignore the numbers, and it's harder to tell the exact effect of that (a few % more or less generous games) on player preferences.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Location
- England
Most ppl play slots for entertainment/gambling not as an investment so they're not really in the mindset of checking out rtp figures . It's all about "feeling lucky" for most
But reality is that longterm the rtp dictates how quickly you will lose your money . I think it is lost too quickly these days . B&M casinos have way more overheads and spin volume is a lot lower so of course their rtp is a lot lower
Online casinos can have 1000s of ppl playing the same slots and spins are very quick . Also players can jump from slot to slot in an instant and bet any amount they wish pretty much . I see no need for the casino to have 4% edge (96% rtp) . But it won't change unless players show an interest in it changing
But reality is that longterm the rtp dictates how quickly you will lose your money . I think it is lost too quickly these days . B&M casinos have way more overheads and spin volume is a lot lower so of course their rtp is a lot lower
Online casinos can have 1000s of ppl playing the same slots and spins are very quick . Also players can jump from slot to slot in an instant and bet any amount they wish pretty much . I see no need for the casino to have 4% edge (96% rtp) . But it won't change unless players show an interest in it changing
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Location
- United Kingdom
We are a very very small subset of players - most players don't have a clue about RTP. They go on "did i enjoy that or not"...
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2017
- Location
- Somewhere
I don't see why he'd be banned going by his recent posts, unless I've missed something. Perhaps it was done because of a PM
My son is no more
Sorry, got banned for writing some words on the forum somewhere which 'some' users feel offended by. Did'nt know people take it THAT serious, lol. Ah well. When someone got taken away for 100k of his winnings it pretty much clarifies on how i feel about these 'online casino's'.
Similar threads
