Slot stats June 2010

Shyguy

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Location
Earth...unfortunately.
It has been a busy month boys and girls.

Firstly my thanks to all that have sent in their stats, whilst it is still not nearly enough to give a completely accurate portayal of online slots it is very useful and those collected look to be on the increase. I realise players cannot be arsed to write down their stats or send in details and I totally respect that decision, I know as I have also been bored to death writing the figures down!

Secondly thanks must go to Enzo and KasinoKing for their input during the last post. Their input was informative and constructive. Whilst I was working on this they did bring up some important facts that I have used as a sounding board to push this project a little further. The maths on "free spins" and "bonus games" per 100 spins may look poor but I can confirm they are correct.

Many players can play for hours and numerous hundreds of spins without winning a bonus game or set of free spins. We also need to take into account that "free spins" are still spins and they are included in our analysis. There is also the point that many slots offer different amounts of free spins ranging from anything from 5 up in most cases. How many of us have had to spend $200 without getting so much as 5 free spins?



On a very important note we received about 20 false slot sessions which came from an IP address from a certain area where an online casino exists. These were ignored and always will be! I am very happy to state that the online casino (I will not be giving out the name) is NOT one of CM's accredited casinos. If you want to send fake stats then at least make them realistic! Those we were sent had spins taken from numerous slot machines with the same PID, Sessionid and date/time. All that was different was the balance (Which increased exactly every 7-20 spins!) I cannot prove something like this by ip alone and am therefore declaring the matter closed.

From the 1692 sessions we collected we were able to ascertain that small fluctuations between the RTP's from May were evident. Nothing major or minor, with TopGame showing the largest increase up to 81.26% from 73.38%. The largest decline was that of RTG and Microgaming both dropping a small 2% appx.

Over the month of June we did not collect any stats for Boss Media at all.

Free Spins and Bonus games per 100 have increased on the whole with Cryptologic and RTG showing as providing at least 1 free spin per 100.

Another interesting aspect of the stats collected was that of players using a higher stake. We found no evidence to suggest a higher stake will give you more chance of getting more free spins. In fact it is almost 50/50 as to whether you win free spins on less than a dollars stake or more than a dollar. Those starting off on small stakes recieved roughly the same amount of freebies as they did when they increased the stake. I think this just shows to go with your gut instinct, if you think its time to raise the bar then do so.

Below are the tables that I shall be posting every month. Please remember I am not here to slate online casinos, players, reps or anyone else, I am merely showing you what I have received over the month as I believe it will be of interest to you.

On another point I will no longer be collecting stats on the most popular slots and we purely collect on the below three for the time being. If I notice something worth telling everyone I shall point it out but reading all these spreadsheets is one of the most boring tasks I have completed and believe RTP is of more interest than that of which slot machine is played the most. At the end of the day no one gives a shit which machine is more popular as long as you win something hey!

Will be back next month.

View attachment 22867
 

3Dice

I-Gaming Industry Representative
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Location
-
ShyGuy,

First off, I'm happy to see that you are no longer extending advice to players based on these numbers. That was an extremely important point made after your last post and its good that you realize the dangers of that. (advise = responsibility).

I'm a bit sad though, that you have forgotten to include the total nr of spins collected per operator. That is the ABSOLUTE minimum extra info needed to be able to read the numbers, and I can not see any motivation on your end to omit that data. How many sessions you collected has no more than a trivia value - what you need to publish is the total nr of spins. (and I would also advise to publish the observed variance)

Furthermore, the results you present here are still obviously wrong, and you need to look into what your options are to improve the quality of the data you collect. You should at the very least give guidelines to the people that participate in your survey, explain to them that they must select data based on parameters that are not related to the measured values. They should submit data by week, or month, and they should tell you for which period they will be collecting data before they start doing it. I.e. tell you "I'll be collecting data the second week of july", and then submit _all_ the data from that period.

If you allow them to submit data from the past then most certainly your research will suffer what is called a self-selection bias. (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
)
I would still very strongly suggest that you spend some time reading up on statistics, it is a thing of beauty when performed correctly, but if not it just produces wrong numbers on which absolutely no conclusions can be drawn.

There's this guy with bad eyesight .. he builds spectacles in pink glass .. puts them on and goes .. wow I can see everything sharp now. I never realized the world was pink.

Enzo
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
ShyGuy,

First off, I'm happy to see that you are no longer extending advice to players based on these numbers. That was an extremely important point made after your last post and its good that you realize the dangers of that. (advise = responsibility).

I'm a bit sad though, that you have forgotten to include the total nr of spins collected per operator. That is the ABSOLUTE minimum extra info needed to be able to read the numbers, and I can not see any motivation on your end to omit that data. How many sessions you collected has no more than a trivia value - what you need to publish is the total nr of spins. (and I would also advise to publish the observed variance)

Furthermore, the results you present here are still obviously wrong, and you need to look into what your options are to improve the quality of the data you collect. You should at the very least give guidelines to the people that participate in your survey, explain to them that they must select data based on parameters that are not related to the measured values. They should submit data by week, or month, and they should tell you for which period they will be collecting data before they start doing it. I.e. tell you "I'll be collecting data the second week of july", and then submit _all_ the data from that period.

If you allow them to submit data from the past then most certainly your research will suffer what is called a self-selection bias. (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
)
I would still very strongly suggest that you spend some time reading up on statistics, it is a thing of beauty when performed correctly, but if not it just produces wrong numbers on which absolutely no conclusions can be drawn.

There's this guy with bad eyesight .. he builds spectacles in pink glass .. puts them on and goes .. wow I can see everything sharp now. I never realized the world was pink.

Enzo
Credit the OP for effort (I assume) but his study is flawed and unscientific. 100% meaningless!!......where are the PAR sheets??
 

Shyguy

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Location
Earth...unfortunately.
Credit the OP for effort (I assume) but his study is flawed and unscientific. 100% meaningless!!......where are the PAR sheets??

Can you expand on that please?

ShyGuy,




Furthermore, the results you present here are still obviously wrong, ....

Enzo

Thanks Enzo, there were a total of 700,000 plus spins. My results are wrong because they are dis-liked. If I would just make them up to 98% each then I would get "yes, that looks very realistic" from casinos and the odd "bullshit" from players.


The issue is that the RTP information is never released by online casinos and maybe it should be completely set in stone, a legal document maybe by a totally independant source. It would save me a lot of time for starters.

Maybe online casinos should provide more clarity so we wouldn't have to keep asking the same questions. It's very simple.
 

paul02085

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Location
USA
I would suggest doing everything you can to make the numbers as accurate as possible. Having said that i think its great you are taking the time to do this. It is very interesting and much more information than we normally get about these burning questions. Thanks!
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
The issue is that the RTP information is never released by online casinos and maybe it should be completely set in stone, a legal document maybe by a totally independant source. It would save me a lot of time for starters.

Maybe online casinos should provide more clarity so we wouldn't have to keep asking the same questions. It's very simple.

Bullseye :thumbsup: Thats why I think what you are doing has value because it might make some casinos realise that speculation will be rife until the figures are published, and invariably that speculation is likely to be on the negative side of realism IMO.

Although ultimately, the RTP's require intervention from the software provider so a casino can't publish what it doesn't know (unless it's using IGT/Wagerworks software where the RTP's are displayed, in most cases, by default).
 

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
Bullseye :thumbsup: Thats why I think what you are doing has value because it might make some casinos realise that speculation will be rife until the figures are published, and invariably that speculation is likely to be on the negative side of realism IMO.

Although ultimately, the RTP's require intervention from the software provider so a casino can't publish what it doesn't know (unless it's using IGT/Wagerworks software where the RTP's are displayed, in most cases, by default).

Eh?
Are you saying that a Casino does not know the house edge for its games?
 
Top