SlotOCash, slot configured to 65% payout

[bernynhel]

I think that any player who is running on the assumption that every online casino operator does not have complete control over all of the settings covering every aspect of every game in every platform is running blind.

And if there exists a platform that does not give the operator this flexibility while there exists another which does, then the operator of the former is a fool for not having chosen the latter!

Therefore, as the above logic is not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination, what software manufacturer could survive their competition if they didn't build these setting options into their product? The obvious answer: none.

So every platform must include this flexibility for their operators.

 

[maxd]

I think that any player who is running on the assumption that every online casino operator does not have complete control over all of the settings covering every aspect of every game in every platform is running blind.

You are of course entitle to you opinion. However I respectfully suggest that the facts of the industry have somewhat greater weight than your dark forebodings.

Among other things the licensing requirements of some jurisdictions specifically requires that the casino operator NOT have this kind of "complete control". Where such access may have been an option in the past software providers wishing to operate within those jurisdictions have been required to modify their software so that such operator access is not possible.

 

[takethemoney]

You are of course entitle to you opinion. However I respectfully suggest that the facts of the industry have somewhat greater weight than your dark forebodings.

Among other things the licensing requirements of some jurisdictions specifically requires that the casino operator NOT have this kind of "complete control". Where such access may have been an option in the past software providers wishing to operate within those jurisdictions have been required to modify their software so that such operator access is not possible.

Thanks, but how does that mean it cannot be done in other jurisdictions where licensing is not available, such as the USA? Let me ask you this; if a casino is willing to provide business so people can gamble in places where gambling is supposedly illegal, what other compromises would they make? We already know they don't code credit card transactions properly, which is a bit fraudulent. Do you think casinos would suddenly hold themselves above being able to mess with settings that affect the return to player? I find it laughable, actually. We don't know anything to be absolute fact, except what we are told. With all due respect, I have never seen the backend of a casino.....have you?

Only the insiders know what is there. If an operator wants to do something other than tell us we are wrong and continue to deny that certain settings exist, then why not shut the rumors down for once and for all and give us a tour of the casino backend? As far as I am concerned it could only help matters and build up player confidence. If there is nothing to hide, then why not more tranparency? I don't think any of us are going to have a problem if we find out the casinos can adjust the RTP, as long as it doesn't go to outright rip off level, like 50% or something. Maybe there really is a takedown mode.......maybe that Oz guy behind the curtain really has something he hides....maybe he doesn't. How do we know?

 

[bernynhel]

You are of course entitle to you opinion. However I respectfully suggest that the facts of the industry have somewhat greater weight than your dark forebodings.

Among other things the licensing requirements of some jurisdictions specifically requires that the casino operator NOT have this kind of "complete control". Where such access may have been an option in the past software providers wishing to operate within those jurisdictions have been required to modify their software so that such operator access is not possible.

That the compliance arm of any juristiction licensing online casinos has any teeth in the sense of, let's say, the Nevada Gaming Commission is, at best, questionable. Given that software providers have actually modified their soft wear to comply with rules in said jurisdictions, what assurances are in place to guarantee that operators haven't retained older versions to operate on inspector's days off, scheduled holidays or any day other than scheduled inspection days?

Between Malta (335 sites), Netherlands Antilles (274 sites), the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (254 sites) , Gibraltar (222 sites), Costa Rica (217 sites) , UK (99 sites), Antigua and Barbuda (73 sites), Alderney (68 sites), Italy (57 sites) and Panama (41 sites), how many of these, the top 10 online casino licensing juridistions in the world, have inspectors worth a damn and not prone to bribery? Costa Rica, alone has 217 sites that CM can't recommend just on the basis that they're in Cost Rica! What about Panama, Netherlands Antilles, Antigua/Barbuda and for that matter any other?

How often do we hear of sites being shut down for crooked ops? If we had been hearing about enough of them, then I wonder at CM's PAB dept still being sufficiently relevant to continue to operate. Why wouldn't every site which falls under some type of licensing jurisdiction be required to post, clearly visible on every website page and on every gamescreen in their software: IS THE CASINO GAME YOU ARE PLAYING NOW CROOKED? IF YOU THINK IT IS THEN IT IS YOUR DUTY TO CALL THE PANAMA GAMING COMMISSION AT 1-866-555-5050 OR SIMPLY ENTER CTRL+! ON YOUR PC KEYBOARD FOR AN IMMEDIATE AUDIT AND SHAKEDOWN OF YOUR HOST ONLINE CASINO!!!

 

[bernynhel]

...With all due respect, I have never seen the backend of a casino.....have you? ;... If an operator wants to do something other than tell us we are wrong and continue to deny that certain settings exist, then why not shut the rumors down for once and for all and give us a tour of the casino backend?...

Better still - why doesn't someone from our esteemed peanut gallery simply attend the next big online gaming convention where prospective online operators surely must go to compare all of the possible platforms and licensing jurisdictions who have set up booths and hospitality suites to entice these future online casino big shots to choose them over the competition? It's not as if registration to these things are restricted to Steve Wynn and Donald Trump, after all!

They would have to explain, in detail, every nuance of these platforms in order to concvince prospects that theirs is the best choice. Then our spy(s) could return with brochures and ops manuals and post the whole shootin' match in a new section of CM - "The REAL POOP on Online Casinos and Poker Rooms"!

 

[maxd]

... how does that mean it cannot be done in other jurisdictions where licensing is not available ... We don't know anything to be absolute fact ....

A. Not all gaming software providers have casinos that operate in "unrestricted" jurisdictions. In order to do what you are proposing they'd need different different streams of software. To make a long story short the pragmatics of that are prohibitive.

B. Generally speaking gaming is not "illegal" in the USA, gaming transactions are what is being restricted. Similarly the US has shown a desire to restrict the flow of gambling dollars, not the activity of gamblers. Obviously individual states vary.

C. We also don't know for an absolute fact that the universe isn't just god's snowglobe. However you'd be a bit misguided if you were to spend your days wringing your hands over when the next shake might come. Pulling nasty dreams and fantasies out of the air because you can is not mature behaviour.

... I have never seen the backend of a casino.....have you?

Yes, I have. It's a lot duller than you might imagine.

... maybe that Oz guy behind the curtain really has something he hides....maybe he doesn't. How do we know?

You don't, but a little rational thought wouldn't hurt either.

Maybe all casinos are part of one big conspiracy? Maybe they are firing subliminal messages to make you buy pink toilet paper? Maybe it's all part of a covert commy plot to overthrow the vanity paper products industry.

Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the moon is made of cheese after all.

At some point you have to ask yourself "do I care that this is a groundless train of speculation that we are pulling out of our asses solely because it gives us something to make noise about?" Answer that question for yourself. Proceed accordingly.

How often do we hear of sites being shut down for crooked ops? If we had been hearing about enough of them, then I wonder at CM's PAB dept still being sufficiently relevant to continue to operate.

Your game is to speculate and insinuate and basically vandalize the industry and anyone connected to it.

Our work is to get out as much good info to players as we can and provide a service they can turn to if they need help. See the Rogue list, see the "No Can Do" list, see the Warnings forum, see the Casinomeister Webcasts, et al.

I'll leave it to the readers to decide who is providing the useful contributions here.

 

[bernynhel]

...At some point you have to ask yourself "do I care that this is a groundless train of speculation that we are pulling out of our asses solely because it gives us something to make noise about?" Answer that question for yourself. Proceed accordingly.

Your game is to speculate and insinuate and basically vandalize the industry and anyone connected to it.

Not quite, hence: my subsequent post.

Our work is to get out as much good info to players as we can and provide a service they can turn to if they need help. See the Rogue list, see the "No Can Do" list, see the Warnings forum, see the Casinomeister Webcasts, et al....

So why the need for licensing jurisdictions? Or vise versa: If the licensing jurisdictions have any effectiveness then why the need, which is substantial, for Rogue lists, Warnings forums and CM Webcasts? And, with all due respect, the industry had done a pretty good job of vandalizing itself long before I ever came on the scene. And I have never proposed that you or Bryan are, in any way, in collusion with any of the paranoid, dillusional, conspiracy theories which have sqrung from, or, are still in some developmental state of gestation within my large or small intestines!

 

[KasinoKing]

The 93%-96% was referring to numbers stated earlier in the thread, where it was referenced SlottoCash had changed the payout listed in the help file several times in a short period of time. If they were able to do this, it contradicts Rivals' claims that the Tradition/BJ was an isolated issue...

Proof please!
(i.e. Proof that SlotoCash changed the payout listed at their casino in isolation and that it was not a Rival-wide change.)

Thanks!
KK

 

[Nifty29]

Some people will always see something where there is nothing, and make statements based on fallacy instead of fact, and blame everyone else when they lose....instead of accepting they risked their money and lost. You dont wanna lose? Dont gamble. You think all software cheats? Dont use it. Of course, the next day is another thread from the same people who have just deposited again with the same software ....and then have a hissy fit when people dont take them seriously.

When one of these 'all casinos cheat' people actually has the courage of their convictions and ceases online play altogether, maybe what they say will become more than just rants and hot air.

 

[maphesto]

About this issue

I didn't dig up an old thread, I posted a new one here a few weeks back.

Please read it!

That was one isolated slot, Ocean Treasue. It was found in old marketing materials.

The 93%-96% was referring to numbers stated earlier in the thread, where it was referenced SlottoCash had changed the payout listed in the help file several times in a short period of time. If they were able to do this, it contradicts Rivals' claims that the Tradition/BJ was an isolated issue...

Those numbers in the help file was changing a lot of times in several casinos.

They have still today typos(by purpose?) in the help file. Cosmic Quest 2 and Hole in One have skill based bonus games and their RTP according to the help file are 98%/99%.

Accordning to marketing materials those two games have an average RTP of 95%/96% but if you are an hell of a driver/mini golf player you can have 98/99% RTP.

The RTP of 65% in help file was as you all can understand pure bollocks. That kind of RTP is only without features like free spins or bonus games.

And what casino would write 65% RTP on purpose? Answer: None!

About those changes between 93 and 96 in help files I can only guess that they had the option to change it in the same way RTG casinos can. Maybe they still can?
I don't know, but when Ruby Royal linked to their audit we could clearly see that their payout during several months on slots had an average below 94%.
To me, that sounds a bit too low when help files say RTP between 95 and 96%.

And yes, I can see the difference between RTG where they nowadays say that the casino can't change the rtp setting by themselves and Rival who could change it in the casino.

I agree. Don't get me wrong - I play basically only on Sloto or Black Diamond/Box 24, but Sloto's slots have ALWAYS been set tighter than any other Rival, IMHO.

I have won more at Sloto'cash than at the others, just wrote that to balance it up.

I once more want you to pay attention to Microgamings silence regarding the Pai Gow failure:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/microgaming-pai-gow-poker-payout-bug.37717/

Both Rival and MGS are answering important issues like this with silence.

I trust both Rival and MGS but they probably would be seen with better eyes if they bothered to answer questions like this.

EDIT: I am a happy player at both Rival and MGS, I still want casinos, software producers etc. to take all questions like this seriously and inform players.

 

[Nifty29]

Well I can tell you for certain that the bonus round payouts have been reduced in Cleopatras Coins - and its even worse than the RTP being changed in the game rules because it wasnt communicated to players at all.

Cleos Coins has been a fav of mine in the past, but I was disgusted a while back when I hit the bonus round (betting 30 coins) and got 30(1xbet), 30, and 60(2xbet) - the lowest Ive ever seen by a mile. I waited until the next round and again I got 30, 30 and 60!!. Now, in the past the lowest payout for each vase in this bonus round was 90 (3xbet) but went up to 180 (6xbet), so if you hit them in the free spins it could pay up to 54xbet. Now it appears the payouts have been reduced by 66%!! I have tried it here and there a few times since and had the same experience, so someone from Rival needs to come clean here in the forums. Im going to wait until I get those tickets to the inaugural Ice Hockey in Hell game to come back for the answer

Ive asked one casino and they said nothing has changed....well Im here to tell you that it has and its not a conspiracy theory....its real.

 

[chuchu59]

I used to spin a lot on Cleo's Coins in the past mostly because there are many bonus rounds. If memory serves me correct, I have not encountered any bonus round where there were 2 vases that paid 1x bet with the remaining one paying 2x bet. The worst I recall was a total of 6x bet with the vases paying 1x, 2x and 3x bet and these were far and few between. If the total 4x bets came in succession it is either close to a one-in-a-million shot or they have lowered the payouts.

Nifty, maybe you consider yourself lucky not to have encountered this during free spins. You might have banged your head against the wall with 12x bet returns twice in succession. It isnt easy to get the vases during free spins.

 

[bernynhel]

For the record, I have never posted a complaint that I had lost due to any suspicions I may or may not have regarding any casino's ability to alter RTPs in any platform, willy nilly. I have never, ever complained if I thought that this was the case in any particular casino. If I deposit and play while running on this kind of assumption, then I do so on the basis that, if any of these conditions exist, it's just part of the game and if I lose, I lose and if I win, great.

For those insisting on proof of any of it, I have posted my suggestion for getting to the bottom of it below: to go attend the iGaming Super Show in Prague which runs today through the 28th. Personally, I don't care, that much but given that, I have my theory and I accept that that's how it is. I wouldn't mind hearing what anyone finds out, though. Yeah, it's all conjecture based on common sense and what I would expect in the way of operator control given that any platform may be manipulated by any operator in any respect if I were in the market for a gaming platform to operate.

Do I cite a specific game at a particular site? Naw. And I really don't care. I just figure they're all similarly outfitted, operator settings-wise.

 

[Nifty29]

I used to spin a lot on Cleo's Coins in the past mostly because there are many bonus rounds. If memory serves me correct, I have not encountered any bonus round where there were 2 vases that paid 1x bet with the remaining one paying 2x bet. The worst I recall was a total of 6x bet with the vases paying 1x, 2x and 3x bet and these were far and few between. If the total 4x bets came in succession it is either close to a one-in-a-million shot or they have lowered the payouts.

Nifty, maybe you consider yourself lucky not to have encountered this during free spins. You might have banged your head against the wall with 12x bet returns twice in succession. It isnt easy to get the vases during free spins.

Yup its shocking Chu - but back early last year I was hitting a min of 12x bet in the normal bonus round and min of 36xbet in the free spins bonus round so the fact Im getting 1/3 of that now means something has definitely been tweaked without announcement - and that is poor form IMO.

@Bern

I just figure

Exactly.

 

[bernynhel]

Yup its shocking Chu - but back early last year I was hitting a min of 12x bet in the normal bonus round and min of 36xbet in the free spins bonus round so the fact Im getting 1/3 of that now means something has definitely been tweaked without announcement - and that is poor form IMO.

@Bern

I just figure

Exactly.

So, let me understand, if a declaration isn't made ragarding changes in game payout %'s, you will go forward with the expectation that no such changes have been made? And you think that's more reliable than "I just figure..."? Not that I think that "I just figure..." is in any way accurate, but I sure don't let it get to me when I think a favorite game has been altered without my being notified, in advance, because I expect that to be the norm, not the exception. Please pardon me if I choose to not break it down, casino by casino, game by game. I just don't feel I need to see an RTP declaration (I've never looked for one!) from a casino when I play and notice that it's a lot harder to hit on games I had previously played.

 

[Nifty29]

So, let me understand, if a declaration isn't made ragarding changes in game payout %'s, you will go forward with the expectation that no such changes have been made? And you think thats better than "I just figure...?

The difference is I have concrete and irrefutable evidence - as anyone who has played Cleo over the years will attest to. It is not the same as "I dont get as much playtime any more" or "I just cant cashout" or "these slots dont pay like they used to" etc etc- this is a definite payout alteration that anybody can check for themselves. It isnt me saying "I reckon the RTP has changed" - I know it has as result of the change in payouts as described in my previous post......so I would not go on in the expectation that no changes have been made because I can prove that they have. ( FWIW I am not aware of any case of MG or RTG changing what a combination etc pays)

Is this better than "I just figure"?. Yes.

 

[bernynhel]

The difference is I have concrete and irrefutable evidence - as anyone who has played Cleo over the years will attest to. It is not the same as "I dont get as much playtime any more" or "I just cant cashout" or "these slots dont pay like they used to" etc etc- this is a definite payout alteration that anybody can check for themselves. It isnt me saying "I reckon the RTP has changed" - I know it has as result of the change in payouts as described in my previous post......so I would not go on in the expectation that no changes have been made because I can prove that they have. ( FWIW I am not aware of any case of MG or RTG changing what a combination etc pays)

Is this better than "I just figure"?. Yes.

OK. Terrific. I got all that. That doesn't address the changes to RTP to games that are not obvious and that no player can check for themselves. My point is why dwell on this one game where you have irrefutable proof if it's going on all around you, anyway? And then, what do you do with this proof? And since you do have proof, why can't that also mean that the same is, in all likelihood, also happening where the proof is not evident? Why would one operator out of all operators, alter RTP on one game, out of all games, when all operators have the same ability in regards to all games? lol Hey, we can both agree that the other one is nuts - that's OK by me.

 

[GrandMaster]

Why wouldn't every site which falls under some type of licensing jurisdiction be required to post, clearly visible on every website page and on every gamescreen in their software: IS THE CASINO GAME YOU ARE PLAYING NOW CROOKED? IF YOU THINK IT IS THEN IT IS YOUR DUTY TO CALL THE PANAMA GAMING COMMISSION AT 1-866-555-5050 OR SIMPLY ENTER CTRL+! ON YOUR PC KEYBOARD FOR AN IMMEDIATE AUDIT AND SHAKEDOWN OF YOUR HOST ONLINE CASINO!!!

I can think of a few people here who would demand an audit every time they lost a spin on a slot machine.

 

[jod5413]

Now That, is extremely funny, GrandMaster!

 

[bernynhel]

I can think of a few people here who would demand an audit every time they lost a spin on a slot machine.

LOL! Huh!