1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!


Discussion in 'Online Casino Archive through Dec 2001' started by Ellen Gray, May 21, 2001.

    May 21, 2001
  1. Ellen Gray

    Ellen Gray Guest

    Has anyone ever had any dealings with Slotland? They claim a 98% payout but I am wondering just how true this is. Many times I have spent thousands without ever being up more than a few dollars. The best I can ever do with them after 2 years is actually to break even, if I am lucky, every few weeks. Stats: I have spent 40,000.00 to date and have collected 10,000.00 (which includes all bonuses). What do you think?

    I can say that their Customer Service is Great!

    Any info at all?

    Thanks. Ellie
  2. May 21, 2001
  3. dave_r

    dave_r Dormant account

    Mike from Oz has a webpage about his experiences trying to beat the game of Spacejack. This game supposedly gives the player an expected return of 102%. Mike's webpage can be viewed at

    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    Mike readily admits he has not collected enough evidence to judge the fairness of the deal.
    However his initial experiences have NOT been good:

    At first, I only seemed to see
    rediculous draws (5 card 21s verses my 20) when I raised my bet; with
    Spacejack, you really only have the choice of $1, $5, $10 and up. It
    seemed that every bet at $10 (and there were very few) was punished

    After a while, I was back to $1 bets; without making a deposit, I really
    could not afford to keep betting even $5. Now, even $1 bets were
    rediculous. The dealer would get at least 3 blackjacks for every one of
    mine (the dealer seemed to get them at about normal frequency; aces in
    the first two cards for the player seemed much too rare. That was the
    conclusion I came to when I first started hand recording cards over a year
    ago, but then it seemed it was just a bad patch, and the number was
    dragging back towards average.

    So here is my conspiracy theory: infrequent play will be rewarded with
    better than expected results, as longs as you keep the bets low. This is
    presumably to encourage players "just giving it a go" to become long term
    players. Then, as soon as you are a regular player, you get much worse
    than expected results, probably via the mechanism of dealing fewer aces
    to the player for the first two cards. (You still get plenty aces when
    doubling 11, however, and my impression is that aces are pretty normal,
    or perhaps even enough to compensate for the lack of dealt aces, for third
    and later cards).

    Perhaps the phrase "bait and switch" (I probably got that wrong) applies

    Note: this is not based on anything scientific; I did record about 10 pages
    of results a while back, but that's as far as it goes. I was quite discouraged
    by that, and stopped playing for a long time. When I came back, it was
    great for a while, in line with the conspiracy theory above.

    I quickly ran out of what I had deposited, and as James has mentioned,
    I've given up. As many people have indicated, if it sounds too good to be
    true... The only reason I pursevered with Slotland is that their games are
    so different from everyone elses, and they presumably have a huge income
    stream from lots of slot players, that perhaps they really could afford the
    odd player here and there getting a 102% return. Especially when most
    players would be attracted to the jackpot, and attempt to play more than
    one hand. But it looks like this one was either rigged from the start, or
    was recently changed.

    One of the most disturbing things (to me) about this, is how little the
    managers genuinely appear to know about their software. If I were
    running a casino, the first thing I'd want to know is every little thing about
    the software, because it's so critical to my cash flow. Maybe they know
    about some clause in the software contract, which causes them to rest
    easy without knowing the details...

    - Mike from Oz

Share This Page