Slotocash - Baptism by Fire

[Nifty29]

I have said all I have to say in the public forum. Perhaps "up and up" was not the best choice of words. I do not like they way the do business and I will not elaborate. I don't play at many of the "Accredited" casinos either.

Whether or not they become Accredited on this site is not up to me. It is up to Bryan, and the consensus. I will not post in this thread again.

It's your choice, but don't you think its unfair to membership and the casino?

Stating that you have issues with their business practices, and then refusing to say what your issues are, leaves readers thinking "Whoa if Slotocash did something so bad to this guy that he won't talk about it. I'm gonna give these guys a wide berth". It may not be deliberate on your part, but that's the kind of atmosphere this creates. If their behavior really IS that bad, then don't you think the membership should be warned? I would certainly want to know. Of course, it might be something quite trivial, but the way you present it suggests they are up to no good somehow.


It's unfair to the casino too, as they can't address, respond to or explain anything regarding your issues (which are bad enough to stop you playing) because you aren't giving them an opportunity to do so. Actually, considering they're up for accredtation, its pretty poor form IMO to make vague accusations and walk away.

You seem upset about bonus restrictions, so maybe it is all tied up with that? Maybe they denied a withdrawal? You can see how these questions and many more will be in members minds after reading your posts.

It's not a personal attack pmutts. I just think you're being unreasonable.

 

[The Dude]

I was in contact with Miss Sloto this morning. Like many RTG casinos, their processing takes can take up to 72 hours; longer if a payment is requested on a Friday or over a weekend since the person who processes withdrawals is not there.

As for the bonus incentive for reversing a withdrawal, one of the managers took the initiative to try this, unbeknownst that it's a no-no. It probably won't happen again.

 

[giogio]

I was in contact with Miss Sloto this morning. Like many RTG casinos, their processing takes can take up to 72 hours; longer if a payment is requested on a Friday or over a weekend since the person who processes withdrawals is not there.

As for the bonus incentive for reversing a withdrawal, one of the managers took the initiative to try this, unbeknownst that it's a no-no. It probably won't happen again.

The following is the reply I've received to my inquiries :


Please note that wires may take up to 10 business days to arrive.

While over half of wires can arrive one day to the next, not all wires
arrive that quickly and therefore we prefer to state the 10 business day as
a safe time frame.

 

[Tirilej]

So if I understand correctly there is only one person working with processing all withdrawals, and that person only works monday to fridays?
That's really important to know. If we know all facts then we should have no use for complaining later if we still chose to play there.

 

[The Dude]

I think that one thing people are having a hard time understanding is that once the funds leave the casino, it's up to a third party processor to get the funds to your happy little fingertips. The processing on the casino side may take from several hours to a day or two - maybe three if it's over a weekend - then it's in the hands of whatever third party you have chosen to have the funds delivered. That third party may take a day - it may take a week. It all depends on the circumstances. Neteller is pretty damn quick; a bank wire may take considerably longer.

Of course using bonuses can slow things up if your account needs to be reviewed to ensure that you have met all requirements. Declining bonuses and just having a go at the games is the smart way to go - just my opinion.

 

[giogio]

The thing is that, unfortunately for us in the USA, the only way to withdraw is via Wire Transfer with a minimum amount $350.00 wich makes it harder for small depositor (read "me")!!!

 

[Gremmyboy]

Careless of you Ms Sloto

You may be new to RTG, but this is one method to prove absolutely that any RTG casino is NOT using the standard 95% setting, but something else. Although we don't know which setting this double pears layout is on, when coupled with tales of "tight games", the assumption would be that it is the 91.5% setting, which leads players to think all the slots are on 91.5%

Whilst it could also be the 97.5% setting, this does not seem as likely given the current financial climate, and the state of the industry as it struggles to hang on to the profitable US market.

When it comes to playing time, the difference between 91.5% and 95% is VERY significant.

Given the experience of many players here, it is extremely unwise for an RTG casino to mess with the RTP settings, lest they get caught by not knowing about this "double pear" quirk, which was down to human error in designing the reel layouts for each of the three available settings.

Derail

Where do I find the double pears? Are they next to each other(ie. one pear on top of the other in view in the playing window) or are they somewhere else?

I looked for a while at various casinos but never could find what posters were on about!

Any pointers to finding them or an explanation of what exactly is happening with the double pears or the purpose of them(how having two pears can drop the RTP by six odd percent?) would be greatly appreciated!


Cheers
Gremmy


/Derail

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hold on a second.....before we go off half-cocked and keep throwing accusations around....

1. The player who mentioned this said " I *thought* for sure"....THOUGHT...not certain or sure at all (no offence to bgermain btw just pointing out a fact). The player may not have noticed it earlier.

2. The two pears have not been confirmed as 91.5 or 97. Given that Bryan has stated that his information is that 91.5 is NOT for use in online versions, but only in kiosks. The 91.5 choice suits the conspiracy theorists, but since no evidence of any kind has been produced to contradict what Bryan has been told by RTG top brass, then the most likely reality is that the actual setting is 97 which is HIGHER than normal.

3. Nobody has produced any evidence of any kind that the two pears were a programming error. It's an opinion, not a fact.

4. Posting something like " Careless of you Ms Sloto" is disrespectful to the rep. Again, no evidence that Ms Sloto has done ANYTHING let alone anything careless.

5. "Tales of tight games" aren't worth the paper their written on (not literally of course) when it comes to determining RTP. I'll wager that if anyone here was presented with 10 slots with ranges between 90-100 and given 1000 spins on each wouldn't get even half of them correct when asked to match each game to its RTP.

6. The state of the industry or the economy is not a reason by itself to lower payouts. Less players mean less money, and lower payouts mean less players.

1) It doesn't matter when it was implemented - it was spotted, and is easy to spot.

2) The only thing we know is that it is not 95%, so which ever one it is, it is NOT how the software comes, so it was tweaked to one of the other settings, probably at the time the licence was obtained.

3) Dogboy confirmed it was an error in designing the reelstrips. It caused stops 1 and 40 to both be a pear, so when the reel stops at one of these, a stacked pair of pears is visible. Further, when launched, RTG slots display at stop 1, therefore when this setting is in use, the stacked pears are immediately obvious, no play is required.

4) It is careless given that the subject of RTG settings has been a hot topic, and something that makes players suspect is only in the software to allow operators to be devious when marketing offers that appear to be better than those from other RTG casinos. The fact that RTP has been changed from the well known 95% setting is enough to make players think they are getting screwed, even if it IS the 97.5% setting. The fact that most information about these settings is clamped down in secrecy by RTG and operators only serves to fuel speculation that it is something bad for players, for if it were a good thing, surely openness would be a great marketing tool.

5) A tight session is not proof, but has players looking for a reason other than bad luck, so when they see evidence that the RTP has been altered from the usual 95%, this becomes a reason for their bad session. If players kept reporting a better payout when playing at Sloto than at any other RTG casino, the feeling would then be that the stacked pears meant that the setting was 97.5%.

6) There is no reason for many of the things done by online casino operators, yet they still do it all the same.

 

[Nifty29]

1) It doesn't matter when it was implemented - it was spotted, and is easy to spot.

Fair enough

2) The only thing we know is that it is not 95%, so which ever one it is, it is NOT how the software comes, so it was tweaked to one of the other settings, probably at the time the licence was obtained.

How do you know when it was "tweaked"? I could have been at any time, and it isn't relevant anyway. Bryan stated that operators have to request the change via RTG so they would probably have received the standard version at licence time and applied thereafter. The theory is as sound as yours.

3) Dogboy confirmed it was an error in designing the reelstrips. It caused stops 1 and 40 to both be a pear, so when the reel stops at one of these, a stacked pair of pears is visible. Further, when launched, RTG slots display at stop 1, therefore when this setting is in use, the stacked pears are immediately obvious, no play is required.

I don't remember reading it was an "error". Do you have a link?

4) It is careless given that the subject of RTG settings has been a hot topic, and something that makes players suspect is only in the software to allow operators to be devious when marketing offers that appear to be better than those from other RTG casinos. The fact that RTP has been changed from the well known 95% setting is enough to make players think they are getting screwed, even if it IS the 97.5% setting. The fact that most information about these settings is clamped down in secrecy by RTG and operators only serves to fuel speculation that it is something bad for players, for if it were a good thing, surely openness would be a great marketing tool.

Players "think" a lot of things. What they "think" and what the fact is are often miles apart. If the RTP information is "clamped down in secrecy by RTG" then how come Bryan knows and was allowed to post about it, along with other RTG operators like CW who have publicly confirmed their settings. A lot of players always think they're getting screwed....even if you made the RTP 99.9% those same people would be whining every time they didn't win 2 deposits in a row, even though it would be more than possible for it to happen.

5) A tight session is not proof, but has players looking for a reason other than bad luck, so when they see evidence that the RTP has been altered from the usual 95%, this becomes a reason for their bad session. If players kept reporting a better payout when playing at Sloto than at any other RTG casino, the feeling would then be that the stacked pears meant that the setting was 97.5%.

A 2.5% higher RTP would NOT result in a sudden surge of winning players posting about their new-found fortune. We are talking about a 2.5% difference over millions of spins, which may well be attained by more frequent small payouts which would not necessarily mean a whole swag of players walking away with cash every other deposit. Every player will experience different payouts regardless of the game RTP. As I said earlier, if you were given 10 slots all set at different RTPs and you were given 1000 spins on each, you would NOT be able to accurately state them in RTP order from worst to best. In fact, you probably couldn't do it with 10,000 spins. So, when players say "oh this casino has definitely got a lower RTP setting" I just take it with a grain of salt. Remember, you never hear complaints about a casino paying out too much do you?

In other words....feeling schmeeling. Nobody, me included, could state whether a slots theoretical RTP is 95% or 97.5% based on our own play, or even several other people's play.

I'll also say again.....RTG and Bryan state that the 91.5% RTP setting is NOT used in the online version of the software. So, if it isn't 95, it must be 97. Unless you think its all a load of crap, in which case RTG and Bryan are lying and must be a part of some grand conspiracy to drive customers away by causing them to win less ....AND, if one DOES think it's all a big lie, then continuing to play there would be the act of a fool surely? There are very very few members here over the years who have actually stopped playing RTG due to this issue, so the rest who complain regularly are obviously just looking for an excuse for their losses as they would surely not be foolish enough to keep giving their money to crooks would they? Surely not. No. Not a chance.

6) There is no reason for many of the things done by online casino operators, yet they still do it all the same.

Everything is done for a reason in business and casinos are no different. I was challenging your assumption that they have lowered the RTP and done so due to the economic climate...neither of which are supported with any evidence at all. You didn't actually address my comment, you just pretty much washed your hands of it and said "yeah well casinos do all sorts of things for no reason"...I was talking about something specific.


It just bothers me how many people (who I thought knew differently) get on the "all casinos cheat" bandwagon without getting any kind of evidential basis to support their opinion. It is frustrating, because it just encourages the conspiracy theorists and sore losers to splash accusations around and damage the reputation of decent operators. Give it to the rogues...absolutely no argument there...but don't start question the integrity of proven decent operators for no good reason.

It's a good example of why a lot of reps don't participate any more, and I know this for a fact.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Everything is done for a reason in business and casinos are no different. I was challenging your assumption that they have lowered the RTP and done so due to the economic climate...neither of which are supported with any evidence at all. You didn't actually address my comment, you just pretty much washed your hands of it and said "yeah well casinos do all sorts of things for no reason"...I was talking about something specific.


It just bothers me how many people (who I thought knew differently) get on the "all casinos cheat" bandwagon without getting any kind of evidential basis to support their opinion. It is frustrating, because it just encourages the conspiracy theorists and sore losers to splash accusations around and damage the reputation of decent operators. Give it to the rogues...absolutely no argument there...but don't start question the integrity of proven decent operators for no good reason.

It's a good example of why a lot of reps don't participate any more, and I know this for a fact.

They have not been with RTG for anything like 6 months, so the ONLY time they could have had the setting moved from the default was at the time the software was supplied. If they DID make the change later, it proves RTG have lied about operators having to wait 6 months before submitting the request to RTG.

This kind of thing isn't cheating, more like "sharp practice". This is something we might expect from run-of-the-mill casinos, but NOT the kind of thing expected from an accredited casino. IF it is the 91.5% setting, it would show that RTG lied about this setting only being used for "booths", but if it is the 97.5% setting, it would be quite a big surprise, and a good one at that, so why keep such a marketing coup secret. Advertising that all the games have been set to the highest available setting would do wonders, and would have RTG fans flocking to try them out, surely good for business.

Although not easy, it is possible to calculate the RTP for a simple slot (not Fruit Frenzy), and it has been done for quite a few Microgaming slots, and has shown that they are all pretty close to 95%. Such a calculation needs only the reelstrips and the paytable, and not a sample of millions of spins.

A simple slot also includes those that have fixed rules regarding the bonus round, with nothing being determined by probability tables that are not published as part of the rules. A slot that awards a fixed number of free spins at a fixed multiplier can have it's theoretical RTP calculated to several decimal places.

The problem with this industry is that so many operators hide away in jurisdictions that either look the other way, or can be "bribed" to see all complaints from the operator's point of view, that we have a regular stream of players that got screwed and have nowhere to turn. This has meant that operators are not going to be trusted, no matter how good a reputation they seem to have. Small negative signs will make players think that there could be worse to come, and in some cases, failing to heed such signs and give the benefit of the doubt has been an expensive mistake for players. A recent example is Rushmore, once accredited, but who have had a string of mishaps and negative signs followed by apologies and empty promises, only for things to go wrong again and again. Some die hard loyal players have stuck with them, but for some it has been an expensive mistake.

RTG casinos in particular have no regulators. CDS will mediate, but they have no power to enforce their decision, and no means to punish operators that flout the rules.

There are quite a few casinos that have the view "all players that use our bonuses are up to no good", yet they still offer them, and CS even speak to you like there is something wrong with you if you turn down their generous offers and say you want to play just with your deposit.

 

[wewewewewe]

Just give me some information concerning a withdrawal....my thoughts

I think that one thing people are having a hard time understanding is that once the funds leave the casino, it's up to a third party processor to get the funds to your happy little fingertips.

One cannot see in a RTG casino when this first step has been taken. So from the player side, the absence of information is frustrating.

for example my withdrawal of 28/2/2012 @ SLOTO. It still stands there, no status update whatsoever. Even not an reply from CS, after my second mail (with other concerns). This is the third business day.....

I am beginning to wonder if they have all affairs in order. For example, my first withdrawal was approved within the hour. (i send my ID and it was approved, got it on my Ewallet)

AFTER the approval, half a day later, they send me an email with requests for further ID information, they asked for an old Fax form with credit card info? I never deposited with a credit card. Why is that info needed?

I replied and stated that this already was done. The email gave me the idea that my withdrawal accidentally was approved. That this actually was a mistake. This idea is also backupped by the fact that my second withdrawal takes so long to be processed. Further reading in this thread about things also give me the idea that they are not there, were they supposed to be.

Please read, this is my personal opinion, just want it to share with you people.

 

[giogio]

for example my withdrawal of 28/2/2012 @ SLOTO. It still stands there, no status update whatsoever. Even not an reply from CS, after my second mail (with other concerns). This is the third business day.....



I'm sure you meant a different date.

 

[wewewewewe]

Date is 24/2/2012..

for example my withdrawal of 28/2/2012 @ SLOTO. It still stands there, no status update whatsoever. Even not an reply from CS, after my second mail (with other concerns). This is the third business day.....



I'm sure you meant a different date.

Youre Right, that must be 24/2/2012

Thanx! and Sorry.

 

[bgermain1985]

Hold on a second.....before we go off half-cocked and keep throwing accusations around....

1. The player who mentioned this said " I *thought* for sure"....THOUGHT...not certain or sure at all (no offence to bgermain btw just pointing out a fact). The player may not have noticed it earlier.

Nothing is certain in life - however I did edit that I play this game the majority of the time for a couple days and had not noticed it once. I pride myself for my attention to detail and again state that I am pretty sure this was a recent change. No offences taken.

 

[giogio]

You are not alone.
i'm also waiting for a wire requested on the 18 and approved on the 22.
I know I will be paid but I was used (spoiled I might say) to get it in 24 hour or less!!

......as of now ...still waiting. beginning to get very disappointed

 

[labeled]

Sloto never stopped offering Rival. I was told existing players could still log in to the Rival casino and play - even in the US.
I believe the same applies to ALL Rival casinos.

KK

Unfortunately, "sort of." With Sloto and Desert Nights you could keep the casino download and play from there, but other Rivals locked us out, and Sloto's Rivals were no longer offered on the web, only the standalone version.

 

[Sloto]

PM me your username if your withdrawal has not been processed with 72 hours and I will check for you.

Ms Sloto

 

[deucebag]

2. The two pears have not been confirmed as 91.5 or 97. Given that Bryan has stated that his information is that 91.5 is NOT for use in online versions, but only in kiosks. The 91.5 choice suits the conspiracy theorists, but since no evidence of any kind has been produced to contradict what Bryan has been told by RTG top brass, then the most likely reality is that the actual setting is 97 which is HIGHER than normal.

Dogboy confirmed on the forum that the two pears were indeed for the 91% setting (there is no 91.5%).

You sure like ridiculing people, but you're the one who is wrong.

And I agree with pmutts that a $6.50 max bet is a bad sign. It indicates an underfunded operation. But at least they're being honest and don't accepts bets were they can't pay off the win.

 

[Nifty29]

Dogboy confirmed on the forum that the two pears were indeed for the 91% setting (there is no 91.5%).

You sure like ridiculing people, but you're the one who is wrong.

And I agree with pmutts that a $6.50 max bet is a bad sign. It indicates an underfunded operation. But at least they're being honest and don't accepts bets were they can't pay off the win.

Oops my bad.... I'll concede the .5%

Do you have the link for that? My understanding is that he was not allowed to say which one it was, and hence did not do so. I'll stick with that unless you have something contrary.

Thanks for the wonderful personal feedback once again.....lovely and very meaningful to receive it from such an intelligent and respected person.

The $6.50 max bet means underfunded? Ummm....yeah. Absolutely. It's not to deter....you know......advantage players or professional bonus hunters or anything. I guess that's why 32Red have the rule in their SUB as they just don't have the money.

 

[KasinoKing]

Dogboy confirmed on the forum that the two pears were indeed for the 91% setting (there is no 91.5%).

You sure like ridiculing people, but you're the one who is wrong.

And I agree with pmutts that a $6.50 max bet is a bad sign. It indicates an underfunded operation. But at least they're being honest and don't accepts bets were they can't pay off the win.

I don't always agree with everything Nifty says, or the way he says it, but MY reply to your post will probably be very similar to his...
(Edit: He posted while I was still typing!)

Please provide the link to the post in which DogBoy said 2 Pears = 91%.
(FYI the data sheet I saw for Fruit Frenzy only has 95% and 97.5% options)

Sloto'Cash limiting the bets to $6.50 has absolutely nothing to do with how well they are funded.
The rule is there purely to thwart certain "advantage play" strategies.

KK

 

[Pinababy69]

I haven't reread the whole thread in question where Dogboy discussed the double pear symbols on Fruit Frenzy, but I did read his original post...and from what I gather, he never did say which setting the double pear symbols signified. On the contrary, he seemed to state that he COULDN'T say which setting it was.

Link to thread for anyone who is interested:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/fruit-frenzy-layout-at-doyles-hmmm.33284/

Dogboy's original post is #6 in the thread. Sorry for any derail.

 

[deucebag]

Oops my bad.... I'll concede the .5%

Do you have the link for that? My understanding is that he was not allowed to say which one it was, and hence did not do so. I'll stick with that unless you have something contrary.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rtg-software-backend-issues-rtp-etc.41825/

The $6.50 max bet means underfunded? Ummm....yeah. Absolutely. It's not to deter....you know......advantage players or professional bonus hunters or anything. I guess that's why 32Red have the rule in their SUB as they just don't have the money.

32red only have it for their sign up bonus, which is relatively small. Virtually no other casinos out there have this restriction (the ones that restrict bet size have a percentage rectriction). The only other reason for having this rule is even worse than being underfunded: it's a "gotcha" term that is there to create traps for players and win-win situations for casinos. Offer a very large bonus to attract high rolling players, and take their money if the didn't read the rules carefully enough and bet too high. There's nothing inherently nefarious or about betting more than $6.50, lots of players do that, especially ones that deposit 4 figures.

It's a bad rule, and reflects poorly on the casino. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours.

I don't always agree with everything Nifty says, or the way he says it, but MY reply to your post will probably be very similar to his...
(Edit: He posted while I was still typing!)

Please provide the link to the post in which DogBoy said 2 Pears = 91%.
(FYI the data sheet I saw for Fruit Frenzy only has 95% and 97.5% options)

What were you smoking on 8 October 2011?

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/questions-about-rtp.46494/

 

[giogio]

PM me your username if your withdrawal has not been processed with 72 hours and I will check for you.

Ms Sloto

So ,we have to be prepared/accept that 72 hours pending (possibly reversal) period is within the norm for a casino asking for accreditation? Just asking, nothing else than that.

 

[Gremmyboy]

Your argument that having RTP variables (of a limited nature) is inherently untrustworthy does not hold water.
That argument would see every pub, club and casino in most lands thrown into the pit.

You need to address these facts:

1) In the B&M industry, which is heavily regulated and players regard as totally above board, RTP variants exist, and are used across the board.

2) In most jurisdictions across the developed world, B&M RTP is not displayed to the player.

3) In the B&M industry, operators are under no obligation (in practically every jurisdiction) to notify players when an RTP setting is altered.

4) The RTP settings available on RTG products are all higher than most B&M jurisdictions.

5) By your own notation, only "some" of the RTG operators make use of RTP variants, many do not. And yet these operators, some of whom advertise that they only run 95% RTP games, are rubbished by your assertions that RTG as a system, by allowing RTP variants, is somehow not above board.

6) Use of a variable RTP setting WILL be part of any on-line regulatory system introduced by US authorities. If it's part of their B&M regulatory system, which it is, it WILL be replicated.

Your highlighting of Fruit Frenzy is not a case of a 95% RTP game being switched to a 60% RTP setting. It is an operator electing to change from a 95% RTP setting to a 91% RTP setting, which is a business decision they are entitled to make, and is a double-edged sword.

Can players still win on that setting? Absolutely.
Most pubs and clubs here in Australia vary between 85%, 87% and 89%, and yes, people still win (and intranet is now legal here, at least for one operator (Voyager), and we supply them).

And in the end, if players perceive that playtime is decreased in a particular casino (which it will likely be in a 91% setting versus 95%, volatility aside), on-line it is far easier to move than in the B&M world.

But getting back to regulation...all these calls for regulation, and then you'll what?

- Say that you can never trust any software that is allowed to have variable RTP settings, despite the fact that there is only a few % difference between the top and the bottom setting?
- Not trust the information that operators put out when they claim that they use a particular setting?
- Claim the authorities that do bring in regulation are rogue for allowing operators to use several RTP settings, without notification as to which is in use?

Regulation will bring oversight, but it will also institute the use of variable RTP settings (within a limited band), just as it has in the B&M industry ad infinitum.

Woooof

Cheers
Gremmy

 

[Pinababy69]

Thanks Deucebag and Gremmyboy for highlighting that post by Dogboy. I had either completely missed it first time around, or forgotten about it.

 

[Nifty29]

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rtg-software-backend-issues-rtp-etc.41825/



32red only have it for their sign up bonus, which is relatively small. Virtually no other casinos out there have this restriction (the ones that restrict bet size have a percentage rectriction). The only other reason for having this rule is even worse than being underfunded: it's a "gotcha" term that is there to create traps for players and win-win situations for casinos. Offer a very large bonus to attract high rolling players, and take their money if the didn't read the rules carefully enough and bet too high. There's nothing inherently nefarious or about betting more than $6.50, lots of players do that, especially ones that deposit 4 figures.

It's a bad rule, and reflects poorly on the casino. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours.



What were you smoking on 8 October 2011?

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/questions-about-rtp.46494/

I admit I had forgotten some of that stuff from last year and it appears you are right, and I am wrong. It's interesting to note that the disgraceful treatment dogboy was subjected to by Vinylweatherman and others is one of the main reasons he stopped participating. As soon as someone with expertise comes onto the forum, they are often driven away by some members starting a pissing match to prove they're the cleverest.....instead of actually engaging them in proper debate without boasting about how much of a hero they are for finding some loophole or some pedantic error in what is actually very useful information. (Sorry....back to the topic now.....just re-reading that old thread annoyed me because a fantastic resource was chased away by the usual suspects)

The reason you and I have different views on the max bet rule is because I don't go from casino to casino exploiting any and every +EV bonus I can find without ever intending to be a regular customer. Hence, the max bet bonus rule doesn't affect me.

Bonuses aren't offered to provide an income for advantage players. The max bet rule has nothing to do with liquidity.....its about deterring these kinds of players, whilst making it attractive to those regular players who like taking bonuses to extend their play. It's actually pretty funny that you think it is because they can't afford to pay. Sounds like sour grapes because their bonuses are harder to exploit.

All the max bet rules I've seen are clearly stated in the terms. The only players who get caught by "gotcha" terms (which don't exist btw if they are stated) are those who don't READ the terms before playing.....and that is their tough cookies. If its good enough for me, its good enough for them and they should be held to the same rules.

The only "gotcha" term is one they add afterwards or make up out of thin air....and there's a name for those casinos....ROGUE.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I admit I had forgotten some of that stuff from last year and it appears you are right, and I am wrong. It's interesting to note that the disgraceful treatment dogboy was subjected to by Vinylweatherman and others is one of the main reasons he stopped participating. As soon as someone with expertise comes onto the forum, they are often driven away by some members starting a pissing match to prove they're the cleverest.....instead of actually engaging them in proper debate without boasting about how much of a hero they are for finding some loophole or some pedantic error in what is actually very useful information. (Sorry....back to the topic now.....just re-reading that old thread annoyed me because a fantastic resource was chased away by the usual suspects)

The reason you and I have different views on the max bet rule is because I don't go from casino to casino exploiting any and every +EV bonus I can find without ever intending to be a regular customer. Hence, the max bet bonus rule doesn't affect me.

Bonuses aren't offered to provide an income for advantage players. The max bet rule has nothing to do with liquidity.....its about deterring these kinds of players, whilst making it attractive to those regular players who like taking bonuses to extend their play. It's actually pretty funny that you think it is because they can't afford to pay. Sounds like sour grapes because their bonuses are harder to exploit.

All the max bet rules I've seen are clearly stated in the terms. The only players who get caught by "gotcha" terms (which don't exist btw if they are stated) are those who don't READ the terms before playing.....and that is their tough cookies. If its good enough for me, its good enough for them and they should be held to the same rules.

The only "gotcha" term is one they add afterwards or make up out of thin air....and there's a name for those casinos....ROGUE.

Interesting that he appears to have let slip that the stacked pears IS the 91% setting, even though when under fire he would not reveal this information. he distances himself from this revelation by saying it is a business decision down to an individual operator, and can be a double edged sword.


Well, clearly it is, because RTG has told Bryan that the 91% is intended for "Asian kiosks", and that although we were seeing this stacked pears online in quite a few places, we were lead to conclude that it had to be the generous 97.5% setting, as it was not 95%, and it was not an Asian kiosk.

This suggests that Sloto has decided to turn the casino into an Asian kiosk, which is their perogative, and not their fault that RTG decided to mislead Bryan by saying the 91% was not for use online.

If there is proof that this setting change was made after the casino launched, it also brings into question whether RTG were also lying about this 6 month and "only through RTG" rule for making such changes.

How the heck are we supposed to trust anything RTG have to say about this, even if they manage to convince Bryan or Simmo.

This 86% setting is rumour, and there has never been evidence that it existed, not even for kiosks. Unfortunately, if we can't trust RTG to tell the truth to Bryan, we can't trust them if they say there is no setting lower than 91%. The ONLY thing that seems true is that the software comes with the default 95% setting.

KK's information is out of date because it came from some old marketing sheets that were no longer being updated, but that had been left lying around on the RTG website, and easily got at through a Google search. This find is what forced RTG to concede the point that there WERE these settings for slots. Before this, players who questioned this were told it was just bad luck.

Many players complain that RTG is tight at the default 95% setting, so they are not going to think things are any better long term on 91%.

This is also the first time an accredited RTG casino has changed the setting from 95% to something else. The stacked pears were first spotted at less reputable outfits that tried to attract players with large bonuses and copious spam.

The evidence is pointing more and more towards my speculation being more likely than the theory that no changes have been made from when the casino launched.

 

[Nifty29]

Many players complain that RTG is tight at the default 95% setting, so they are not going to think things are any better long term on 91%.

These same players would be complaining they were "tight" if they were set at 99 or 100%. It wouldn't make a difference.

An individual player would not be able to tell the difference of a few % if it hit them in the shnozz.

I would love an accred casino to setup a test where several slots are set at different RTP's and see who could tell the differences. I sincerely doubt anyone would be able to pick, apart from dumb luck on the odd occasion of course.

What is even more interesting is that the same people that whine about RTP's etc still play at RTG or at MGS etc. If I thought I was being cheated I would be off like a flash. Also, if one of the major brands is doing it, then you would probably at least suspect that the others are as well, so continuing to play anywhere pretty much tells you that it's all about finding a reason for their losses that doesn't involve their own personal decisions ie. to gamble.

 

[Gremmyboy]

This is straight from RTG:

There are three settings for the RTP on RTG slots. 91.5, 95 & 97.5%. When games are released they are set at the default 95%. The 91% is designed primarily for those operators who use RTG software for Asian kiosks and Internet cafes where these games are played. 95% of all RTG casinos have their slots set at 95%

Now this was from a little over a year ago, I'm sure the same applies now.

Interesting thing about the RTP in landbased casinos - I was at the Wynn this last week playing VP. The machine I was on had several games (Spin Poker, Super Times Pay Poker, etc.) I asked the floor manager about the RTP for the games. My question was "Is the RTP set for each individual game, or is the RTP set for the entire machine itself?" he said he was sure it was set for each individual game. I asked what the RTP was for the games. He said he didn't know: "They never tell us that." he said.

So at least in the online versions, we have a pretty good idea what we are getting. At the Wynn, we have to guess

But the bottom line is, the house always wins - it's right there in black in white. And whether it's a difference of a few percentages, it really doesn't make much difference in the end. The key to your bankroll's survival is knowing when to walk away.

I found this in another thread and it's posted by the Meister himself!

So I guess we're back at square one?

91% or 91.5%? Who Knows? It's only .5% is that enough to make a huge difference? Either way we know that there is a lower setting of around 91% give or take!


Cheers
Gremmy

 

[chuchu59]

So ,we have to be prepared/accept that 72 hours pending (possibly reversal) period is within the norm for a casino asking for accreditation? Just asking, nothing else than that.

Personally, given the stubborn attitude of so many casinos, the pending period should be no more than 48 hours. This period should not exclude weekends even if the casino does not process on a weekend otherwise it will unnecessarily prolong the pending period. That said, IMO unless the pending period lengthens to something absurd like 120 hours it should not relate to accreditation as I feel it should only aim to deter casinos from using shady or rouguish practices. I believe that as the economies pick up and competition becomes more intense the pending periods on average will be reduced since cashflow may be less of a problem.

 

[wewewewewe]

Been paid

Just wanted to mention, my withdrawal of 24/2/2012 has been processed yesterday.

Thanks SLOTO

No thanks for not answering my questions in the email about the difference in timeframes between withdrawals

No thanks for the + 72 hour (business time) waiting.


General conclusion: i will probably be back, but there is room for improvements....

 

[deucebag]

The reason you and I have different views on the max bet rule is because I don't go from casino to casino exploiting any and every +EV bonus I can find without ever intending to be a regular customer.

Please don't make assumptions about me. You're wrong. My motivation is not personal, I'm experienced enough to know the importance of reading terms and conditions, and would not get caught by such traps. I simply feel bad for the players that do get caught. You assertion that only a "bonus abuser" with questionable motivations would ever contemplate betting more than 6.50, even on a starting balance well into 4 figures, is ludicrous. I think it's outrageous that casinos get away with these predatory tactics (serioulsy, you should educate yourself on the concept of "unfair terms" in consumer contracts).

Another reason to dislike SlotoCash, is of course that SlotoCash set their slots at 91% RTP.

 

[Nifty29]

Please don't make assumptions about me. You're wrong. My motivation is not personal, I'm experienced enough to know the importance of reading terms and conditions, and would not get caught by such traps. I simply feel bad for the players that do get caught. You assertion that only a "bonus abuser" with questionable motivations would ever contemplate betting more than 6.50, even on a starting balance well into 4 figures, is ludicrous. I think it's outrageous that casinos get away with these predatory tactics (serioulsy, you should educate yourself on the concept of "unfair terms" in consumer contracts).

Another reason to dislike SlotoCash, is of course that SlotoCash set their slots at 91% RTP.

Who said anything about betting 6.50 on a 4 figure starting balance? I didn't. The whole point is that if you don't LIKE the terms then don't PLAY. The terms are clearly stated even in the cashier so they are not hidden. An AP WILL bet more than 6.50 playing any reasonable sized bonus.....which is WHY the rule is there....to deter these kinds of players who are responsible for most restrictions in place these days. I'm not saying its criminal or wrong, I'm just stating the fact that it makes it tougher for average players.

A clearly stated term is NOT a trap. It's a ridiculous notion. Any player affected by this term would clearly NOT have even attempted to read the terms in the first place so they deserve to be penalized. It's like putting a trap on the footpath with a big neon sign saying "this is a trap do not step on this trap its a trap", and then having someone step on the trap. You don't set a trap and tell the people you want to trap how to avoid it. LOL.

In regards to contract law, I'll defer to your expert legal opinion given that you're an attorney, unlike myself.

 

[Lucky Loser]

Until Sloto clarifies on the forum they are not using the lowest RTG setting of 91% I won't play there again.

Why would you when other casinos use RTP's of 95%+. Only a mug punter would.

While its only a small percentage difference, over the longer term, it has a huge negative financial impact. Especially for those players like me that bet every day and often play big.

eg: with a starting balance of $100. Play through once, twice, etc your balance would theoretically dwindle as follows:

95/91 ($100 played through once)
90/82 (2x)
85/75 (3x)
81/68 (4x)
77/62 (5x)
73/56 (6x)

.... and so on.

At the 91% setting your money will disappear much, much quicker.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Until Sloto clarifies on the forum they are not using the lowest RTG setting of 91% I won't play there again.

Why would you when other casinos use RTP's of 95%+. Only a mug punter would.

While its only a small percentage difference, over the longer term, it has a huge negative financial impact. Especially for those players like me that bet every day and often play big.

eg: with a starting balance of $100. Play through once, twice, etc your balance would theoretically dwindle as follows:

95/91 ($100 played through once)
90/82 (2x)
85/75 (3x)
81/68 (4x)
77/62 (5x)
73/56 (6x)

.... and so on.

At the 91% setting your money will disappear much, much quicker.

It's not so much about their decision to use 91%, which is pretty much confirmed by Dogboy's later post that the small number of casinos where we see this stacked pears are those that made the business decision to set the slot at 91%, but much more about RTG lying in order to make Bryan make the announcement that we will NOT be seeing the 91% setting at online RTG casinos, as it was designed for these "Asian booths". We now know that the minority of RTG casinos where we saw this were on 91%, and this probably represents the 5% that RTG say do not stick to the default 95% setting.

The problem from the player's point of view is that it does not allow them to make a fair comparison between different RTG casinos based on their offers, WR, and cashout rules. We CAN do this with Microgaming, as although the RTP is not published for each game, we can be certain that it is the same in all MGS casinos, and thus we can make an informed decision as to which promotional programme offers the best value.

Had RTG told the truth that a small percentage of their online operators have requested the 91% setting, even though it was developed for use in booths, we could have made an informed decision as players not to patronise this minority, whatever else they offered. It is not that RTG didn't know, after all any requests for such a change MUST go through RTG, and can only be done after 6 months from the last. Therefore, they KNOWINGLY mislead Bryan when telling him the setting was for "booths", not online games.

This, in my view, is a BIG lie, and could bring Bryan into disrepute as he backed up the statement from RTG by relaying it to us and giving the impression that he knew it to be true.

Since then, I have been wondering WHY this small percentage of casinos were using 97.5% instead of the default 95% given that they had lost many players, and that paying those that were left lead to a considerable leakage of funds through seizures, bent processors, etc. It DOES however make sense that those hit hardest went for the 91% setting, hoping it could be explained away as "bad luck" if players claimed they had noticed a tightening of the games.

If it was not for the stacked pears, we still would know very little about this, and would still assume that every RTG casino had the same games on the same RTP.

Now WE can make a decision as to whether the 91% is a price worth paying for the faster payments and better service being delivered by Sloto, as opposed to waiting months for payment at Rushmore, but with 95% RTP games (unless someone has seen stacked pears there recently).

ANY casino that has had this stacked pears in the past, even if not now, has been prepared to lower the RTP to 91% for "business reasons", whereas the majority have not been tempted to use this particular method to increase profits, or stem losses.

Dogboy was right when saying this was a "double edged sword".

For players in it for the long term, the change from 95% to 91% DOES matter, although for those out to take what they can by being creative with the SUB, it hardly matters at all, because they are going to move on.

 

[giogio]

(from VWM post)
Now WE can make a decision as to whether the 91% is a price worth paying for the faster payments and better service being delivered by Sloto,


It does seems like the "faster payments" though, are not always that fast.

 

[vinylweatherman]

(from VWM post)
Now WE can make a decision as to whether the 91% is a price worth paying for the faster payments and better service being delivered by Sloto,


It does seems like the "faster payments" though, are not always that fast.

It's probably not a good choice for non-US players, as they have access to all the softwares that have pulled out of the US. For the US player though, Sloto at 91% is going to be a better option than, say, Rushmore at 95%, or a Top Game casino who's games seem to get constantly "adjusted", and often screwed up in the process, run by groups not renowned for their professional approach to business difficulties. There are many RTG casinos that offer 95%, but will make every excuse in the book for delaying or confiscating any winnings.

For a US player, 5 days is "fast", even if it is deemed "unacceptable" for a non-US player who worries about the process taking longer than 24 hour pending and next day processing. Sloto is serious about staying in the US, going so far as to ditch Rival when they were told they could no longer accept bets from the US with it.

Who knows what the RTP is with Top Game, could be just as bad, even worse. It seems they can dive into the code at whim and make such an adjustment, which has even been shown to be true with Rival when Ms Tradition "got careless" and then got caught.

 

[Gremmyboy]

Who knows what the RTP is with Top Game, could be just as bad, even worse. It seems they can dive into the code at whim and make such an adjustment, which has even been shown to be true with Rival when Ms Tradition "got careless" and then got caught.

Could I please have a link to the thread where this happened? I would like to read it.

Thanks



Cheers
Gremmy

 

[ksech]

@gremmyboy
This thread is where MsTradition introduces herself...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rival-games-glitches.34311/
post#65

This may be the thread VWM is referring to(?)...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...inos-are-rogue-all-evidence-shown-here.37010/

 

[labeled]

OK, wtf? I was under the impression that those who believed casinos manipulated, or had the ability to manipulate, RTP were "tin-hatters" ie the "super user" thread. But as it stands, they do have this ability, they do use it, and it's pretty much common knowledge?

Sloto has always been seen as one of the most reputable groups out there, accreditation or not, right again?

Damn. How are US players ever supposed to just have fun playing and not spending their time suspecting they're getting effed over by rtp's and super-users and whatever the hell?

 

[vinylweatherman]

OK, wtf? I was under the impression that those who believed casinos manipulated, or had the ability to manipulate, RTP were "tin-hatters" ie the "super user" thread. But as it stands, they do have this ability, they do use it, and it's pretty much common knowledge?

Sloto has always been seen as one of the most reputable groups out there, accreditation or not, right again?

Damn. How are US players ever supposed to just have fun playing and not spending their time suspecting they're getting effed over by rtp's and super-users and whatever the hell?

Get rid of the current crop of protectionist congressmen and senators. The best softwares have all pulled out of the US, which has left US players in the hands of second rate and rogue operators. In many cases, new softwares have popped up, and many of these have been shown to allow operators to set and change the RTP of the games. The Tradition case was that players found that Blackjacks were suddenly being paid 1:1, when it was previously 2:1 Even the worst land Blackjack games pay 3:2. This was standard Blackjack too, not some odd variant where 1:1 pays for a Blackjack might be expected. The felt still showed 2:1 though, so players reported it as a glitch in the software (Rival). It turned out that it was a deliberate change made by the operator, which revealed that Rival software allowed operators to mess around with the RTP, and seemingly without limits. When caught red-handed, the owner (Ms Tradition) decided to offer up the excuse that it was a mistake made by a "trainee", who for some reason was granted unsupervised access to the LIVE back end. This was considered to be bullshit, and just an excuse to wriggle out of a cock up they had made (getting caught ). Not long after, Tradition casino just disappeared, and left players wondering about their funds. For their behaviour, Tradition were granted posthumous entry to the pit, and were joined by ALL Rival white labels because of the total lack of control Rival were exercising over their actions.

Common knowledge also tells us that both RTG and Top Game can mess freely with the RTP of the games. The Top Game incident where symbols went missing from a slot, rendering a progressive award impossible, could NOT have happened if the games were just left alone. It looked like the reelstrips were changed in order to change the RTP, and someone screwed up and deleted ALL of one symbol from a reel or two.

There has NEVER been evidence that RTP settings can be changed at Microgaming or Playtech once a game has been launched, however both softwares are no longer available to US players. For Sloto to carry on offering a service to US players, their choices were pretty limited, and of the main brands, it was between RTG and TopGame, so in this sense they made the right choice. They could have gone for a bespoke software, or one of the largely unknown smaller brands, but this would hardly have inspired confidence as it would mean players having to trust that an unknown software was both fair and bug free. They couldn't stick with Rival either, as Rival had served notice that US players would shortly be shut out of the software. Many of the other Rival casinos went to Top Game, and their behaviour grew even worse.

 

[ksech]

OK, wtf? I was under the impression that those who believed casinos manipulated, or had the ability to manipulate, RTP were "tin-hatters" ie the "super user" thread. But as it stands, they do have this ability, they do use it, and it's pretty much common knowledge?

Sloto has always been seen as one of the most reputable groups out there, accreditation or not, right again?

Damn. How are US players ever supposed to just have fun playing and not spending their time suspecting they're getting effed over by rtp's and super-users and whatever the hell?

It all comes down to TRUST. If you don't trust them stop playing, pretty simple...jmo...

 

[KatPM]

I did really like them, not so sure now...

I was excited to have a new place to play as it is very limited living in the US. I took one of their bonuses (misunderstood the terms) and ended up with a $10,000 win, but had a $119,000 playthrough requirement (on a $150 deposit), LOL!! Well it was completely my fault so I spent about 20 hours playing the requirement. Of course lost it all right towards the end.

I then started to play without using the bonuses- I like to play for $10 & $20 dollars a spin so I didn't want the bonus. I had a few lucky streaks and ended up taking out a couple withdrawls.

When I went on the next week I found that they had limited my bet amount to under $6.25. When I asked them why they sent me back a message saying that 'I was also excluded from using any bonuses(fine with me, I didn't use them anyway) because the bonuses were for people who had trouble winnning, and I obviously didn't.' The only answer I got about my limit on bets was that they were restricting some peoples accounts.

I don't think it's fair that if you have a winning streak you can be limited on your bets. I haven't really played much with them since- I don't think it's fun betting those small amounts. It's too bad because I went on a $14,000 losing streak the next couple days and they could have benefited from that, LOL!

Slotocash
PROS- totally fast payouts- never had a casino be as responsive as they are
CONS- limit you if you win

 

[vinylweatherman]

I was excited to have a new place to play as it is very limited living in the US. I took one of their bonuses (misunderstood the terms) and ended up with a $10,000 win, but had a $119,000 playthrough requirement (on a $150 deposit), LOL!! Well it was completely my fault so I spent about 20 hours playing the requirement. Of course lost it all right towards the end.

I then started to play without using the bonuses- I like to play for $10 & $20 dollars a spin so I didn't want the bonus. I had a few lucky streaks and ended up taking out a couple withdrawls.

When I went on the next week I found that they had limited my bet amount to under $6.25. When I asked them why they sent me back a message saying that 'I was also excluded from using any bonuses(fine with me, I didn't use them anyway) because the bonuses were for people who had trouble winnning, and I obviously didn't.' The only answer I got about my limit on bets was that they were restricting some peoples accounts.

I don't think it's fair that if you have a winning streak you can be limited on your bets. I haven't really played much with them since- I don't think it's fun betting those small amounts. It's too bad because I went on a $14,000 losing streak the next couple days and they could have benefited from that, LOL!

Slotocash
PROS- totally fast payouts- never had a casino be as responsive as they are
CONS- limit you if you win

REALLY

How come this isn't done as a matter of course for players who use the bonuses, instead of confiscating their wins because they forgot the limits and bet too big?

HOW the HELL do you get a remaining $119,000 playthrough from a $150 deposit?

WTF is this limiting of bets to $6 for players playing WITHOUT a bonus? This is the kind of shady practice we were seeing with the Rival white labels, and a few of the rogue RTG casinos. It also makes it look like the operator does not understand casino maths very well, else they would have just stuck with the bonus ban, and been damn GLAD to have a high roller prepared to wager $20 a spin and play WITHOUT bonuses. You big win has NOTHING to do with a betting strategy, it was pure luck that you got a high paying combo when betting big. Had you continued to bet this way, you would probably have given back far more than 10K.

I often spin at this level, as well as at lower stakes, and even HIGHER ones on occasion. I have NEVER had my bet limits restricted just for being lucky enough to hit big when betting high, I have only had the odd bonus ban because I have ended up ahead overall. These casinos would just LOVE me to carry on playing at a similar level without bonuses, even if in the short term I win more, but I suppose these casinos know damn well that without the leverage of bonuses, they are almost certain to get it all back in the long term.

It makes me wonder whether these limits are more to do with stopping you from generating very large withdrawal requests from winning sessions at large bets, rather than them thinking your betting strategy somehow manipulates the games into paying out too much. Rival certainly limited max bets right down to $2 a spin on some slots, and imposed it across all brands. They never explained WHY, other than to offer vague and lame excuses.

If you would rather bet $20, play elsewhere, and you will quickly become a VIP.

 

[giogio]

....and BTW, today was the last of the 10 business days and I didn't receive my money.
I will spend this coming week end without a spin nor any kind of play at sloto nor desert nights.(2d week end in a row)
I'm glad it isn't a big amount....still !!!!!!!!!

 

[Sloto]

KatPM, please PM me your username I don't know of anyone restricting bet limits without a bonus?

giogio, please PM me your username I will look into your withdrawal.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

 

[Diane]

KatPM, please PM me your username I don't know of anyone restricting bet limits without a bonus?

giogio, please PM me your username I will look into your withdrawal.

Best Regards

Ms Sloto

Even though I played without a bonus also my bets were also restricted in the beginning. However, once I asked Stephen to get involved it was resolved and limits were increased. $6.50 limit remains in place for bonus -----

Diane

 

[chuchu59]

After 3 deposits, cashed out a small amount on my 4th deposit. Initiated w/d about 12 hours ago and money was in my ecocard account just a while ago. And it's a Sunday.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Even though I played without a bonus also my bets were also restricted in the beginning. However, once I asked Stephen to get involved it was resolved and limits were increased. $6.50 limit remains in place for bonus -----

Diane

Is this now happening as routine for players claiming the bonus?

If so, it seems there is an error in the system that leads to players finding they are limited even when no bonus has been claimed. Such errors can make the operator look bad, even if CS are able to sort them out. This should be outlined in the bonus and general terms, so that finding themselves bet restricted does not come as a nasty surprise to players.

 

[DemonUK]

After 3 deposits, cashed out a small amount on my 4th deposit. Initiated w/d about 12 hours ago and money was in my ecocard account just a while ago. And it's a Sunday.

Interesting, a desert nights casino CS just told me they don't process at weekends and payout is 48-72 business hours even though their website doesn't say that. Told my Thursday 4-figure withdrawal to my neteller account won't be in until possibly Tuesday. Anyone else experienced similar?