Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

Scattered Odds

Vesuvio said:
He made his point perfectly clearly. You might try reading instead of posting more and more threads which add nothing :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

thanks ves! i like the empty thank-yous from lojo though, he is always liberal with the thanks :thumbsup:

btw, lojo is that like short for long john at all? just curious.

anyways, lj's just on a rant, it happens -- and with a wack job like him it's nothing surprising -- :D he's not a bad guy, i like his point of view a lot of times or it is at least amusing to read his posts, probably more of the latter :p

my advice, avoid the slots, at least for a time. play vp if you must have a machine interface, or better yet try a table game. if basic strategy discourages you from cards, 3 card poker has just one strategy, raise with Q64 or better (courtesy the wiz). even roulette offers 50/50 bets plus all kinds of prospects for the degenerate gamb00ler.

personally slots aren't my thing, but it's easy to see why they can be aggravating. playtech has pachinko which like slots is a cheap way to watch your screen for a long time, and there's a minimal skill aspect to it i believe. i could never understand the game but it could appeal to some.

one thing i really like that i've seen on some flash-based casinos is deal or no deal. i played in fun mode and the structure seems fair. it goes like 1%,5%,10%,20%...100%,200%,500% cases or to that effect. i'm almost certain if you play it right you get get bank offers for more than your bet size, and in most of my trials i had the higher of the two amounts left when it got to the down and dirty.

any event it takes about two minutes(?) for each game and you control your destiny so it's quite fun to take on the house in this way when they offer to buy your case/stake back. in decision/game theory it is always discussed your EV (on tv's version, before opening any cases the average is 131k computed courtesy the wiz, so pick good and unless you screw up hold out for 150k+, haven't yet seen any computations for the online versions where obviously you have to pay to play) and you would sell this bet at this juncture for such an amount. i am very passionate about this game show, and howie is just a blast to watch! :thumbsup:

sorry for this derail but i thought i'd give alternative views than just trying to uphold the integrity of slots to someone who's obviously just venting and scapegoating. slots are very interesting, but last week it was also discussed about the randomness and reel stops, and i insist i saw on tv the reels are regulated by a cpu, which makes perfect sense and prevents mechanical defects from altering a reel's randomness.

i wish there was a definitive manual on how a slot worked; how it picks the wins and translates data into reel positions, if the machine is aware of the bets placed on the spins, how the returns on physical machines are tuned to pay various %s, if only someone could give an accurate breakdown of the programming and mechanics of a slot machine...
 
lojo said:
...
The RNG has no clue whether I have bet $37.50 or five cents, or played here before. The program only cares how much I bet because it has to pay me based on #of coins and lines, etc.
...
I've noticed that I've never hit a jackpot when betting max coin size, coins and lines. Why? Because I've only done it a few hundred times compared to many thousands of low rolls. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...


hey lj, you posted this on 7th february, and you make exactly the claims i do. what's the difference now? or is that just it, something came to light that you no longer feel this way? :confused:
 
lojo said:
use less words and I'll hear ya

edit:

It has been established (please prove wrong) that multidenomininational machines have seperate paytables inside them. We could be wrong? How do you feel about that. I feel raped.
Click to expand...

Having played at land based casinos for several years, I expect it. I expect that when I sit down at a multi denom Wild Cherry machine that the quarters pay out less (in the long term) than the $1. Doesn't bother me because I'm aware of it.

However -- I suspect that the payout percentages are reversed in online slots. What I mean is this... The land based casino where I usually go pay (these are approx and off the top of my head) 87 - 89% for pennies and maybe 90% for nickels (both primarily vid slots), 91 or 92 % for quarter reel slots, 92 - 93% half dollar, 93- 94% for $1 slots, and 95% - 96% for $5. This is of course an average for each of those denominations. (Some casinos will have a bank of machines posted at 98% payout.)

Now... what I feel (after high rolling in free play for weeks and losing my a$$) is that the above scenario is reversed for the vid slots online -- pennies and nickels pay out (percentage wise) better than the $1 and up. **shrug** Just my gut feeling after seeing a great lack of even halfway decent bonus rounds and wins betting max denom/max bet per spin.

I'm still not quite sure why this would be earth shattering?
 
Vesuvio said:
He made his point perfectly clearly. You might try reading instead of posting more and more threads which add nothing :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Ummm, If you have an ax to grind with me I'd appreciate a direct challenge rather than a sucker punch. Thanks.
 
happygobrokey said:
hey lj, you posted this on 7th february, and you make exactly the claims i do. what's the difference now? or is that just it, something came to light that you no longer feel this way? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sorry if I was 'short' with you earlier. I just get frustrated because I value your input but don't like to read page long missives. That's as honest as I can be on that subject, still, my bad.

I had a rude awakening last night, or I misread the Nevada Gaming Commission rules on adjustable paytables within a slot. Until or unless MG states that they hold themselves to a higher standard than NGC holds their participants I can only assume that they are also adjustable- coin to coin.

That may be flawed logic, hyperbole and conjecture, but I feel slighted and a fool for putting myself out there in defense of something I had no solid knowledge of, just trust in whom I considered authorities. An emotional reaction to a perceived fact.

Maybe I'm not rational enough to be posting here today. I think I'll pick up every stitch I dropped on some other threads and take a couple of days off.

Again, I do value your input here. Have fun and good luck :thumbsup:
 
Mousey said:
Having played at land based casinos for several years, I expect it. I expect that when I sit down at a multi denom Wild Cherry machine that the quarters pay out less (in the long term) than the $1. Doesn't bother me because I'm aware of it.

However -- I suspect that the payout percentages are reversed in online slots. What I mean is this... The land based casino where I usually go pay (these are approx and off the top of my head) 87 - 89% for pennies and maybe 90% for nickels (both primarily vid slots), 91 or 92 % for quarter reel slots, 92 - 93% half dollar, 93- 94% for $1 slots, and 95% - 96% for $5. This is of course an average for each of those denominations. (Some casinos will have a bank of machines posted at 98% payout.)

Now... what I feel (after high rolling in free play for weeks and losing my a$$) is that the above scenario is reversed for the vid slots online -- pennies and nickels pay out (percentage wise) better than the $1 and up. **shrug** Just my gut feeling after seeing a great lack of even halfway decent bonus rounds and wins betting max denom/max bet per spin.

I'm still not quite sure why this would be earth shattering?
Click to expand...

Thanks Mousey.

It is earth shattering to me because I believed otherwise. It's not okay and it's not fair in my book. It's one of the basic premises of allowing myself the foolery of gambling. Unless I misread the rules or a Nevada slots manager can assure me his machines do not have a seperate paytable for pennies and dollars, I won't be playing slots onland any more. Unless MG clearly state they don't do that foolishness, I'll never run a penny through their machine again either.
 
lojo said:
Ummm, If you have an ax to grind with me I'd appreciate a direct challenge rather than a sucker punch. Thanks.
Click to expand...
No axe to grind - I just thought "use less words and I'll hear ya" was a bit rude. If you have the time to start threads which often don't even explain themselves you could also do a bit of reading.

Anyway, as far as I can tell - you've suddenly become worked up about the possibility casinos might pay out differently on slots for different coin sizes. This is after seeing a Nevada regulation for land-based casinos, rather than anything special happening on-line. Despite nothing of any note having taken place (except your getting angry) you expect all the on-line casino software companies to rush out a statement of response?

Even if we accept it's a big deal (since when were there any guarantees of anything when you're playing slots?) that's not going to happen, not least because software companies don't tend to respond on these boards. Do MG even have a spokesperson :what:
 
Lojo, I gotta agree with Vesuvio. I count no less than five threads on the first page of this forum where you are ranting about the paytables in video slots online. I think you've made your point, and I personally don't want to read it in every thread I click on. Feel free to pick one thread and rant to your heart's content. And my advice (wanted or not), is that if you feel the games are rigged, not fair, not random...whatever, then the solution is simple. DON'T PLAY.

This argument has gone on for years. If you don't think you're getting a fair shake (keeping in mind it's gambling, and even moreso with slots), then walk away. Just my two cents.
 
Pinababy69 said:
Lojo, I gotta agree with Vesuvio. I count no less than five threads on the first page of this forum where you are ranting about the paytables in video slots online. I think you've made your point, and I personally don't want to read it in every thread I click on. Feel free to pick one thread and rant to your heart's content. And my advice (wanted or not), is that if you feel the games are rigged, not fair, not random...whatever, then the solution is simple. DON'T PLAY.

This argument has gone on for years. If you don't think you're getting a fair shake (keeping in mind it's gambling, and even moreso with slots), then walk away. Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Thanks Pina, your point is well taken, but my point is not made. It probably won't be made here either because I am one voice, a pissed off voice, but just one.
This epiphany is to me tantamount to a conversion to atheism. I'm not being rational, I'm being vocal.

Of course I won't play anywhere that doesn't meet my standards of fairness, and if I read it right B&M have the ability to not be fair (in my book) I may play onland again, but not without a manager's assurance.

I will not play online with any game provider that will not publically state their terms in regard to coin size.

Your mileage may vary. What I consider fair and what you consider fair may be two different things. There's enough mystery in the EV as it is.

But again, your point is well taken, as is V's. I'll shut my trap.

Personally, do you think it is fair to change a payout table based on coin size? I'll pick up your answer when I come back in a few days after cooling my jets.


:notworthy
 
Slotster! said:
My god - that's an absolute BEAUTY!

Five "Thor's Cock's" on top of the four Thors! :notworthy
Click to expand...

lmao that's a nice term for those symbols.

spearmaster chastised me for using the word "cock" in my sig, so i hope this vulgarity gets censored too ;)

p.s. zomg have you seen the comp point store at playboy casino? tv channel subscriptions, grotto romps with the hef, i think if i continue to play there (they have some kind of $60 monthly bonus coming into effect i've yet to see into) i will go for the poker chip set. playboy chips, ah hell yeah! 10000 points though, might take a while to get being a lowroller that i am. but the zippo (retail 30 bucks probably) is 7500 and the only other low prize is a deck of cards for 750, so save up 11500 maybe and get the chips and two sets of cards. i can't believe i cleared the signup with ~375 and just blew it all gamb00ling, sigh...
 
Plot of spins before hitting feature on Thunderstruck

I made the 'number of spins before hitting scatter' plot for ThunderStruck.

For Thunderstruck the probablity for hitting the feature each spin is p=0.007013636363636363

It is a
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
which means that hitting the freespins on excactly spin #n (and not before!) is given by:

p(n)=p*(1-p)^(n-1) for n=1,2,3,........

You can add these numbers and thus getting the probability for hitting the
freespins before a given number of spins. This gives cdf(n)=1-(1-p)^n and this I have plotted (I just plotted the continious function, but it is actually only defined for the integer values on the x-axis).

Since it is hard to read the y-values for high values of x, here are some important numbers:

cdf(328)~0.900 (so 10% of the times you will have more than 328 spins before hitting the feature)
cdf(426 ) ~0.950
cdf(655) ~0.990 (so 1% of the times you will have more than 655 spins before hitting the feature)
cdf (982) ~0.9990
cdf(1309)~0.999900
cdf (1636)~0.999990

So if you did not hit the freespins in 982 spins it was about a 1/1000.

Still bad luck, but not that rare.

Edit:data file(txt) included

Zoozie
 
Zoozie said:
I made the 'number of spins before hitting scatter' plot for ThunderStruck.

For Thunderstruck the probablity for hitting the feature each spin is p=0.007013636363636363

It is a
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
which means that hitting the freespins on excactly spin #n (and not before!) is given by:

p(n)=p*(1-p)^(n-1) for n=1,2,3,........

You can add these numbers and thus getting the probability for hitting the
freespins before a given number of spins. This gives cdf(n)=1-(1-p)^n and this I have plotted (I just plotted the continious function, but it is actually only defined for the integer values on the x-axis).

Since it is hard to read the y-values for high values of x, here are some important numbers:

cdf(328)~0.900 (so 10% of the times you will have more than 328 spins before hitting the feature)
cdf(426 ) ~0.950
cdf(655) ~0.990 (so 1% of the times you will have more than 655 spins before hitting the feature)
cdf (982) ~0.9990
cdf(1309)~0.999900
cdf (1636)~0.999990

So if you did not hit the freespins in 982 spins it was about a 1/1000.

Still bad luck, but not that rare.

Edit:data file(txt) included

Zoozie
Click to expand...

I learned that many people use variable bet size for slots. They play some rounds betting their base bet, then they continuously increase the number of coins if they don't hit the feature. Given that, if I take a look on your chart, the followings makes me wonder:

The derivative becomes less than 0.5 somewhere around 250. That means that the chance of hitting the feature within x spins increases more than linear by increasing the number of spins until that point, but after that the chance increases only slightly, less than linear. Of course the probability of hitting is the same on each independent spin, but it might mean that the progressive betting makes less sense after reaching that point where the derivative becomes less than 0.5.

I'm a bit tired yet, so probably I misunderstood something, but still, what do you think?
 
gerilege said:
The derivative becomes less than 0.5 somewhere around 250. That means that the chance of hitting the feature within x spins increases more than linear by increasing the number of spins until that point, but after that the chance increases only slightly, less than linear. Of course the probability of hitting is the same on each independent spin, but it might mean that the progressive betting makes less sense after reaching that point where the derivative becomes less than 0.5.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

Increasing bet-size as you describe is just the Martingale-system for slot. Most of the time it works and you win a little, but sometimes you lose a gigantic amount and if you add what you win and what you lose. And the average lose is larger because of the larger bet. A horrible solution, especially on slots.

There is no memory in the spins. The geometric distributions tell what the probability is that you will not hit the feature in the NEXT 250 spins etc. So if you are not hitting it in 250 freespins, you then start from scratch again and it is the same probability not hitting them the next 250 spins again.

Zoozie
 
Zoozie said:
Absolutely not.

There is no memory in the spins. The geometric distributions tell what the probability is that you will not hit the feature in the NEXT 250 spins etc. So if you are not hitting it in 250 freespins, you then start from scratch again and it is the same probability not hitting them the next 250 spins again.

Zoozie
Click to expand...

This is, of course, mathematically and statistically correct. In reality however, you just generally do - eventually. By gradually increasing your bet, you stand a better chance of recouping previous losses.

Like you intimate though, I've lost a shit load before now when it just never ever hits...
 
Zoozie said:
Absolutely not.

Increasing bet-size as you describe is just the Martingale-system for slot. Most of the time it works and you win a little, but sometimes you lose a gigantic amount and if you add what you win and what you lose. And the average lose is larger because of the larger bet. A horrible solution, especially on slots.

There is no memory in the spins. The geometric distributions tell what the probability is that you will not hit the feature in the NEXT 250 spins etc. So if you are not hitting it in 250 freespins, you then start from scratch again and it is the same probability not hitting them the next 250 spins again.

Zoozie
Click to expand...

I didn't want to suggest that progressive betting does any good. Slots take your money, whatever you do, that's no question.

Progressive betting was just a realistic example, although it is not necessary. Each session has always a first spin, so let's stop before that first spin, and just take a look on that geometric distribution before you indeed make the first spin. You know that you have
-~40% percent that you don't hit the feature within 140 spins
-~15% chance that you don't hit the feature within 250 spins
-~5% that you don't hit within 426 spins.

Again, you have not yet started to do the first spin, you just would like to plan how much to spin if you don't hit. Your strategy would be to hit the feature if possible, or quit after a fixed number of spins. I know that the most +EV would be not to play slots at all, but in a realistic situation I guess this is how most people play slots. They don't really mind how much did they put in, and they can't do nothing with the feature payout, they just want the feature. You see that planning to make 250 spins instead of 140 if you don't hit decrease the chance that you do not hit at all by 25 percent. But planning 426 spins instead of 250 decrease the chance only by 10 percent. So before the first spin planning 110 more (250 instead of 140) spins decrease the chance of not hitting by 25 percent, while planning 176 more (426 instead of 250) spins spins decrease the chance of not hitting at all only by 10 percent.

So if someone regularly play slots in a way I described, from the bankroll and strategy management view, by fixing the first spin there should be a planned threshold somewhere (OK I know zero spin is the threshold), where it makes less sense to play on any more on the long run, and book the losses, and this is what I wanted to mention with the derivative, but I'm really tired, and I still can be completely wrong.
 
gerilege said:
Again, you have not yet started to do the first spin, you just would like to plan how much to spin if you don't hit. Your strategy would be to hit the feature if possible, or quit after a fixed number of spins. I know that the most +EV would be not to play slots at all, but in a realistic situation I guess this is how most people play slots. They don't really mind how much did they put in, and they can't do nothing with the feature payout, they just want the feature. You see that planning to make 250 spins instead of 140 if you don't hit decrease the chance that you do not hit at all by 25 percent. But planning 426 spins instead of 250 decrease the chance only by 10 percent. So before the first spin planning 110 more (250 instead of 140) spins decrease the chance of not hitting by 25 percent, while planning 176 more (426 instead of 250) spins spins decrease the chance of not hitting at all only by 10 percent.
Click to expand...

Okie, I believe I understand what you are talking about now. Still it is just
a Martingale system, but using the chart to construct a betting system for slots. And using the chart you can construct a betting system with this property:

Following the betting system you will win 99% of the times statistically over 1000 spins. (if you are ahead at some time, then stop)
However the last 1% of the times you will lose your house, wife,dog, liver and whatever can be sold etc.

But also remember that that even hitting the feature only gives 35*(bet-size) in average wins for Thunderstruck, so a betting system to do what described above still has to be 'aggressive'.

Zoozie
 
Zoozie said:
Okie, I believe I understand what you are talking about now. Still it is just
a Martingale system, but using the chart to construct a betting system for slots. And using the chart you can construct a betting system with this property:

Following the betting system you will win 99% of the times statistically over 1000 spins. (if you are ahead at some time, then stop)
However the last 1% of the times you will lose your house, wife,dog, liver and whatever can be sold etc.

But also remember that that even hitting the feature only gives 35*(bet-size) in average wins for Thunderstruck, so a betting system to do what described above still has to be 'aggressive'.

Zoozie
Click to expand...

No, no betting system, nothing. First of all let's forget the progressive betting completely, and stick to flat betting, it doesn't really matter. I understand that no system could produce winnings. No winnings, it's all about minimizing losses with the typical human style for playing slots, which is -EV.

The question is only whether a point or an interval exists besides zero which if you fix before beginning to play, and stick to it, and you don't get the feature, then it is relatively significantly better to stop there than in any other interval later (absolute case is obvious, sooner is better).

With other words, if you don't get the feature:
Stopping after 0 spins is the best, and it is infinitely better than stopping after 1 spins.
Stopping after 1 spins is the second best, and it is x times better than stopping after 2 spins.
Stopping after 2 spins is the third best, and it is y times better than stopping after 3 spins.
And so on. (and that can be extended more generally, like stopping after 42 spins is the forty-third best, and z times better than stopping after 987654321 spins.) These x,y, etc. values should be on a curve.

Please note that it is always assumed that you don't get the feature and you will stop after the planned spins, and you go for the feature by all means. It's obvious that the more you spin, the more you lose. But adding another spin to the planned stop point might have different effect in different intervals.

For instance planning 4 spins instead of 2 might be a relatively better (or worse) decision than planning 22 spins instead of 20, although it costs the same. The question is whether such difference might exist or not.
 
gerilege said:
The question is only whether a point or an interval exists besides zero which if you fix before beginning to play, and stick to it, and you don't get the feature, then it is relatively significantly better to stop there than in any other interval later (absolute case is obvious, sooner is better).
Click to expand...

You total expected loss is 4%*(total bet amount). So the more you wager total, the worse it gets in average.

It is better to have four 1$ spins than one 5$ because the wagered amount is 4$ compared to 5$.

Bob Dance gave a classic example of this in his Million$ VP book that goes something like this

There are two gamblers that play the same game every day and same constant bet-size on a game with negative expectation (ie. a house edge)
They play like this:

Gambler 1: Always play 100 games and then stops.
Gambler 2: Always play 100 games. If he is ahead after the 100 games and has exactly x $. Then he will play until he has > x$ (tiny win more) and always stop if he reaches break even point for the day so he still did not lose that day.

Which gambler will do best?

It is gambler 1 though he will still be an overall loser. Some players think gambler 2 will be better off because he only gambles with money he has won and try to win more.

The morale is. The more you bet total, the more you will lose total

Zoozie
 
Zoozie said:
You total expected loss is 4%*(total bet amount). So the more you wager total, the worse it gets in average.

It is better to have four 1$ spins than one 5$ because the wagered amount is 4$ compared to 5$.

Bob Dance gave a classic example of this in his Million$ VP book that goes something like this

There are two gamblers that play the same game every day and same constant bet-size on a game with negative expectation (ie. a house edge)
They play like this:

Gambler 1: Always play 100 games and then stops.
Gambler 2: Always play 100 games. If he is ahead after the 100 games and has exactly x $. Then he will play until he has > x$ (tiny win more) and always stop if he reaches break even point for the day so he still did not lose that day.

Which gambler will do best?

It is gambler 1 though he will still be an overall loser. Some players think gambler 2 will be better off because he only gambles with money he has won and try to win more.

The morale is. The more you bet total, the more you will lose total

Zoozie
Click to expand...

Ok, I see that, I think we are talking about two different topics. The question is whether can ever playing 4 rounds instead of 2 be better (or worse) than wagering 8 rounds instead of 6 given the fact that you would like to avoid as much as possible that you don't get the feature, so the measure is the difference between the probability of you get the feature within fixed number of spins. I think not, it should be the same, just like if you'd start a new session. But the other way around - adding fixed number of spins to the plan - somehow makes me feel strange, as adding the same number of spins results in different decrease of the chance for not hitting the feature for different fixed number of spins.
 
Slotster! said:
... When you do the same experiment at higher odds! Gulp! Rather you than me!
Click to expand...

I would ONLY do this in fun mode, as I am sure that as soon as I start raising the bet I will be wiped out for thousands and may never get the 5 rams.

I am doing a lot of spins at these small bets, but not enough to justify the frequency that 5 rams are hitting, which should be around 1 in 140,000 or so. I seem to be getting 3 times or more the number of hits expected
 
arch.jpg
 
vinylweatherman said:
.....and again today, this time in bonus round!

This run is going on forever!!!

How long can I beat the odds for before it looks fishy about low bets hitting them more than higher ones (performance dependent on bet size, not uniformly random)
Click to expand...

This is freaky. I've played more Thunderstruck over the years than most forum members put together, 402,297 times at one casino alone in fact, and I only had the 5 rams flock together once in the early days at 1.80 a spin. I feel cheated :D
 
Simmo! said:
This is freaky. I've played more Thunderstruck over the years than most forum members put together, 402,297 times at one casino alone in fact, and I only had the 5 rams flock together once in the early days at 1.80 a spin. I feel cheated :D
Click to expand...

There is OBVIOUSLY something going on - all the wins are from relatively low stakes. :confused:

Secondly, most VWM's wins are during massive autoplay features.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.............
 
athlone64 said:
still 5 scatter :D
Click to expand...

Yes, and at a low 90c bet, higher than mine, but still low compared to many players (except KK).

My run has been at low stakes during the Casino Action tournaments, although this means many spins, this is nowhere near 100,000 between sets as would be expected. The only times I have had these at higher stakes was on Spring Break, once at 2-70 DURING free spins, and once at 11-25 as a trigger - these certainly paid well. I also had 4 wilds on Thunderstruck during free spins, paying 8000 from a 11-25 bet.

While the Thursday tournament still runs, I will continue with these low stakes autoplay runs and see if I just keep on getting the 5 rams, or whether this is a huge mega fluke.

It may be possible to approximate the odds against my run, but various broad assumptions would have to be made, that may not be accurate.

A long term controlled experiment in fun mode may help, but would need a very long run to come to any conclusions beyond chance.
 

Similar threads

Eliot85
The Rise of Curacao/Anjouan Casinos and Ridiculous Withdrawal Limits
Replies
7
Views
832
Avernite
A
K
How Do You Evaluate a Crypto Casino Long Term?
Replies
9
Views
827
ronniejohn
R
Valge
Betty Casino started as "women only" and ended up winning over everyone
Replies
2
Views
149
SYPlayer95
S
Valge
Finland is finally opening its gambling market
Replies
2
Views
415
ternur
ternur
S
What is going on with Dama NV?
Replies
18
Views
2K
drgabber
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top