Time To Ban The Feature Buy!

[trancemonkey]

That's a good point from a pragmatic point of view. There are potentially different perspectives between 1. player 2. industry and 3. regulator.

There are probably always going to be difficult questions regarding the best ways to balance responsible gaming and freedom, but my somewhat cynical belief is that the problem gamblers tend to find a way to blow their money no matter what you do. So restrictions tend to not have much value to problem gamblers - sometimes even harming them by driving games underground and out of regulated jurisdictions that ensure payouts and fair games. While the recreational players end up losing their freedoms.

I am absolutely in favor though of casinos taking a pro-active approach in encouraging players to set their own responsible gaming limits. It's an incredibly minor hassle for someone to just say "no thanks," while it puts it front and center for those who want it. I'll admit that even people who aren't addicts can sometimes make pretty huge mistakes, and something like this should be moderately effective in stopping that. They won't lose their life savings in minutes if they set their limits at account creation. Now, if they go to 6 different casinos over the course of 20 minutes to get around their own self restrictions and blow their savings anyway, I don't think there was anything the casinos could have (or should have) done to help them.

Exactly... Which is why adding a "max stake" RG option would work. Choose to ignore it? That's up to you. But at least you had the option. Casinos might not like a max stake RG option but I don't think it would really hurt them much. It might actually benefit them... People staking up and doing their nuts would be less likely to happen which means players would be more likely to have longer sessions, which means they don't lose as fast and all in all probably have a better experience. Then they come back time and again and you have long term happier customers...

At least that's the theory...

Now of course the feature buy "cheats" a little because it says the feature stake is £1 if you buy for £50, but as long as stake is classed as purchase price then all good.

 

[EkJR]

It's a shame if this slot actually drove you to quit. Were you managing fine before Extra Chilli came out?

Glad you went ahead and used Gamstop. Even if it's just a 6 or 12 month break, it will give you a chance to sort things out

Not a huge problem no. This game was the tipping point. Got a massive win on Knights Life then within an hour my balance had just about gone doing £200 feature buys on Chilli. Even when you got to 20-24 spins(16 was always the problem) the wins were awful. That was the final straw, £10k gone in a very short space of time no matter if profit or not is not acceptable to me

 

[goatwack]

It's not even about lack of self-control, it's about ease of use and the casual nature of it.

I lost £40 just reeling the feature buys off, could just as easily have been £140, doesn't make me hooked on getting my next day's fix, but whilst 'in the moment' it certainly can be a draw.

And that's not even for the 20,000xs, merely the state of shock and bemusement that if two of the bonuses just paid me 40p & £2, at a combined cost of £20, then it can't get any worse, surely.

Big bets have always existed, nowhere have they been as colourfully-promoted to the casual player with such easy accessibility. They're far from addictive as I think most will lose so often in a row or make negligible gains that they'll simply cease using them after a while, but people's threshold will vary.

There should DEFINITELY be a cap on how often a player can activate these across that company's servers per session/ day/ week or month, people that claim otherwise quite obviously have vested interests, or are passively supporting irresponsible gambling.

 

[nikantw]

Reply below also in Buffalo Rising thread...

That would be kind of unworkable... Because your max bet would constantly change after every spin. The only workable solution would be Max Bet of no greater than 2% of your deposit. That way if you deposit £100 you can only bet at £2 for the entirety of the session. If you deposit again with a lower amount while you still have funds greater than 1x max bet, the initial max bet limit applies. If you make a higher deposit, the higher max bet would apply.

Something like that could work... But the % of balance would be quite confusing... If you put in 100 you could only bet at 2 once then your bet would have to drop....

Are there any sites that allows players to set a stake limit?

I'm all for RG, but am struggling to understand how that would work, so if I had £10 in my account, I could only bet in 20p's? Or do you just mean for feature buys? Which would mean a balance of £5k to buy a £100 feature?

I see on Thunderkick for example, when your balance is below the max bet of the slot, then the bigger bet options become unavailable.
In PlaynGo slots you can have auto play at max bet and as your balance drops the bets adjust accordingly.

Both examples are not that far from what I say. Looks like there is a way.

Another idea is the pop up for the "reality check". They can add to it a "adjust your max bet" section.

But the easiest change is the min bet set at $0.01 in all slots. They are never going to do that, but is is kind of the definition of RG.

 

[trancemonkey]

I would be vehemently against a % of balance .. it actually would make you more likely to lose if you think about it.

If you start at 100 and are betting at 2 euros, if you hit a feature when you're down to say 30 euros, you have a good chance of recovering. But in your example at that point my bet would have been forcibly reduced to 60c. This means that even a 100x win would not get you back above where you started. It would only make people more likely to lose. It would be totally unfair and cause more issues than it solves.

Having it as a % of your deposit doesn't have this issue as long as it's a reasonable % (2-5%).

Better still, people should be able to limit their max stake ...

 

[trancemonkey]

I see on Thunderkick for example, when your balance is below the max bet of the slot, then the bigger bet options become unavailable.
In PlaynGo slots you can have auto play at max bet and as your balance drops the bets adjust accordingly.

Both examples are not that far from what I say. Looks like there is a way.

Another idea is the pop up for the "reality check". They can add to it a "adjust your max bet" section.

But the easiest change is the min bet set at $0.01 in all slots. They are never going to do that, but is is kind of the definition of RG.

One last thing... Of course there is a way. But the two examples you give are not limiting to a % of balance. They are limiting by the entirety of your balance.

 

[lotusch]

I already gave my opinion in another thread.
Feature Buy option is scandalous and dangerous and if I had the powers I would ban this option for online slots.

 

[dunover]

If you ban feature buy (where on most slots you will get some or all or even more than the cost back, unless you gamble to zero) then you need to ban stakes of 100-500 quid a base game spin which IMO is even worse considering several of these on the bounce can be dead and pay absolutely zilch. Sauce for the goose etc.

 

[snorky510238]

Yes it amazes me that those kind of stakes are available and even more so that people actually spin those amounts. It might not be a bad idea to have say a limit of £5 a spin and £20 max feature buy in the normal casino and for anyone who wants to gamble more have a VIP section. Where you can only play if you prove you can legitimately afford it. As for feature buys excuse me if this has been mentioned but how did they arrive at the buy costing 100x stake? Chilli has an average of is it about 250 spins per bonus. I know there will be recycled money playing the base game but it’s still 250 or whatever x stake so how can you expect to buy a bonus x100 stake and expect it to perform the same? 100x just seems like a convenient rounded amount that’s all. Also if you only feature buy is the overall rtp the same as playing normally? If it is then surely the maths must be different.

 

[interlog]

Are there any sites that allows players to set a stake limit?

Videoslots has the option to set your max stake in the responsible gambling section of your account. I always use it and it has saved my arse a few times when I clicked the max bet button by mistake and the spin wasn't accepted!!

 

[EkJR]

Yes it amazes me that those kind of stakes are available and even more so that people actually spin those amounts. It might not be a bad idea to have say a limit of £5 a spin and £20 max feature buy in the normal casino and for anyone who wants to gamble more have a VIP section. Where you can only play if you prove you can legitimately afford it. As for feature buys excuse me if this has been mentioned but how did they arrive at the buy costing 100x stake? Chilli has an average of is it about 250 spins per bonus. I know there will be recycled money playing the base game but it’s still 250 or whatever x stake so how can you expect to buy a bonus x100 stake and expect it to perform the same? 100x just seems like a convenient rounded amount that’s all. Also if you only feature buy is the overall rtp the same as playing normally? If it is then surely the maths must be different.

The maths are vastly different surely. What I still object to is someone from BTG saying the gambles are 50/50 and 60/40. Yes we can see they should be that, but where does RNG come into that? If it's a losing game it's not going to let you gamble to 24 and give you nothing. Similarly if you collect 8 it's going to give something however small so there are obviously several algorithms involved here. The simplification of this by the provider is bordering on , if not already, falsehood.

 

[goatwack]

If you ban feature buy (where on most slots you will get some or all or even more than the cost back, unless you gamble to zero) then you need to ban stakes of 100-500 quid a base game spin which IMO is even worse considering several of these on the bounce can be dead and pay absolutely zilch. Sauce for the goose etc.

Both should be pared back if we're talking RG, difference being one is actively encouraged with bells and whistles on, whereas your average punter isn't likely to bet £10 per spin. With the Feature Buy they might just do that.

But again, it's all good. We have the 100 auto-spin 'cap'

 

[trancemonkey]

The maths are vastly different surely. What I still object to is someone from BTG saying the gambles are 50/50 and 60/40. Yes we can see they should be that, but where does RNG come into that? If it's a losing game it's not going to let you gamble to 24 and give you nothing. Similarly if you collect 8 it's going to give something however small so there are obviously several algorithms involved here. The simplification of this by the provider is bordering on , if not already, falsehood.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... The RNG decides whether you win the gamble or not based on the odds of winning / losing. It hasn't already decided it is a losing game. This is back in to some serious tin foil hat territory...

Once you collect the feature, then it plays the feature as normal. The feature isn't predetermined. It only starts asking for data for the free spins if you collect them.

 

[Scott1baird]

If you dont like the buy in feature don't play that slot simples, BGT wasn't the first either for that, there is another game out way before BGT that you can buy the feature on forget the name but its an elf based game with dropping wilds.

 

[EkJR]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... The RNG decides whether you win the gamble or not based on the odds of winning / losing. It hasn't already decided it is a losing game. This is back in to some serious tin foil hat territory...

Once you collect the feature, then it plays the feature as normal. The feature isn't predetermined. It only starts asking for data for the free spins if you collect them.

So no RNG determines the first gamble of the slot, I.e 8 to 12? How is that determined? Or indeed the second gamble etc. It's all very confusing, need Einstein to work it all out for us

 

[EkJR]

If you dont like the buy in feature don't play that slot simples, BGT wasn't the first either for that, there is another game out way before BGT that you can buy the feature on forget the name but its an elf based game with dropping wilds.

The ability to gamble the feature buy is of far bigger concern to me. On Chilli you pay say £100 for the feature, you can lose £100 instantly for 4 extra spins. It's just shit and a huge risk but you know you need to do it otherwise(perhaps) the payout will be dreadful.

 

[trancemonkey]

So no RNG determines the first gamble of the slot, I.e 8 to 12? How is that determined? Or indeed the second gamble etc. It's all very confusing, need Einstein to work it all out for us

Why do you nees anyone to work it out. I explained it already. Each gamble calls the RNG for a result.

 

[Scott1baird]

The ability to gamble the feature buy is of far bigger concern to me...

I know that but playing chilli without buy in you get around 30% real rtp if that's just doesn't play the same as bonanza. So I would rather risk say £20 on a buy in and hope I get lucky with a plus 4 or two.

 

[snorky510238]

Why do you nees anyone to work it out. I explained it already. Each gamble calls the RNG for a result.

Maybe but what is it selecting the result from? Just a simple win/lose or is it more complex?

 

[EkJR]

Why do you nees anyone to work it out. I explained it already. Each gamble calls the RNG for a result.

We are going round in circles a bit. We already talked about the gamble from 12 to 16 being hard to get despite being 60/40. So are you saying it's treated like the other gambles, I.e truly random? The whole thing is massively complex, a lot more complex than you or BTG are making it out to be. Can anyone really say they make 6 in 10 of the 12 to 16 gambles? I assume on the RNG for the wheel it's either 1 or 2, win or lose. There are 6 1s and 4 2s, we are led to believe. The RNG has a much greater chance of landing a 1 than a 2 yet the game doesn't play that way.

 

[EkJR]

Maybe but what is it selecting the result from? Just a simple win/lose or is it more complex?

Asked much the same. It's not as straightforward as it's being made out to be

 

[snorky510238]

I have watched people gambling the feature and if your life depended on it you would not say it’s seems random or fair in anyway.

 

[trancemonkey]

Maybe but what is it selecting the result from? Just a simple win/lose or is it more complex?

On the first gamble it's 50/50 and on the remainder it's 60/40. That's what BTG say anyway.... Although I'm not sure that's true. In fact I've just had a thought as to why that can't be true.... I need to think more about this.

But even if the odds aren't as displayed it's still only doing one call to the RNG to determine the win lose whatever the odds are.

 

[trancemonkey]

Asked much the same. It's not as straightforward as it's being made out to be

Yes it is

 

[EkJR]

Yes it is

We really need this tested out over a long period of time to prove this or otherwise.