Videoslots - Newly Accredited

[JohnSnow]

I stopped playing at videoslots. If I lose 3000 dollars in a month or 6000 which I have done many times I still get absolutely NOTHING in rewards.

Why should anyone play at videoslots when they have litterarely nothing to offer? It's only good for low rollers that just register and get easy. The only thing that is absolutely awesome about videoslots is withdrawal times! Never ever had a problem with that. But overall they have nothing to offer for medium to high stakes rollers. And now also lowered rtp on games.

 

[Mouche12]

But this lowered RTP is (still) only for UK players, not for Dutchies and others, right?

 

[JohnSnow]

But this lowered RTP is (still) only for UK players, not for Dutchies and others, right?

I did not know this. Anyhow I'm done at videoslots. They have nothing to offer for medium stake rollers or blackjack players like myself. I usually played blackjack on videoslots because I rarely make deposits without bonuses and when I do I usually play blackjack. It's a curse that I have under control now. No more blackjack anywhere otherwise only after I have made a withdrawal and still left some funds to play. The thing is, for the amount of money I have put in at videoslots and lost I got 0 rewards.

When I first registered years ago I got every single week free spins a lot of them. After I resumed depositing and playing there and many times got very nice cash backs every single week. My cashbacks are now 0 for a long long time and this while my deposits became much larger.

 

[deepsky2]

But this lowered RTP is (still) only for UK players, not for Dutchies and others, right?

I think some games have a lower RTP for all countries as Mystery reel Megaways is I think 96.2? were almost all casinos its 98 plus.

 

[colinsunderland]

But this lowered RTP is (still) only for UK players, not for Dutchies and others, right?

I think it was 4 other countries wasn't it, possibly Sweden, Germany, Austria, Ireland?

 

[Jono777]

I think it was 4 other countries wasn't it, possibly Sweden, Germany, Austria, Ireland?

Spot on mate

Your Input Please - Videoslots: Lower RTP for UK, Sweden, Germany & Others

 

[Kroffe]

Spot on mate

Your Input Please - Videoslots: Lower RTP for UK, Sweden, Germany & Others

*Cries in swedish*

 

[Jono777]

*Cries in swedish*

Lol, to be fair (and a few will disagree here but I won't be arguing back ) it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I have been gambling in general long enough to not let a 2-3% drop in RTP bother me in this instance. I still try PnG games from time to time and have not really noticed a difference.

I also think (and could be wrong) that the more popular games with heavier traffic and regular play you will notice it even less.

Bottom line is a 94% or thereabouts is still fine with me as I'm sure many others, most Novomatics are around or slightly above this are they not? Also when back in the day I'd play compensated AWP's at 72%, says it all really

 

[Kroffe]

Lol, to be fair (and a few will disagree here but I won't be arguing back ) it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

I have been gambling in general long enough to not let a 2-3% drop in RTP bother me in this instance. I still try PnG games from time to time and have not really noticed a difference.

I also think (and could be wrong) that the more popular games with heavier traffic and regular play you will notice it even less.

Bottom line is a 94% or thereabouts is still fine with me as I'm sure many others, most Novomatics are around or slightly above this are they not? Also when back in the day I'd play compensated AWP's at 72%, says it all really

Well look at it like this, usually the house has 4% advantage when you have 96% rtp, now they have 6% meaning a session that would last you 60 minutes before now only lasts 40 minutes.
2% Makes a biiiiiig big difference and i would never play a slot from a provider that they have lowered the rtp on.
Theres a million casinos out there, and they are one of the few sites running the lower rtp versions.

I think its a really crappy move to let the players take the hit for the license fee they have to pay.
Like they wanna keep all the players and advantages with having a swedish license, but they are not ready to pay for it.
And they way they just kinda lowered the rtp without telling us about that major change left a really bad taste.
When they do such a major change, making them a worse site to play on when playing some of the major providers you would think they would inform you via mail or something.
And when people started talking about it in the chat etc... woops, chat broke and didnt get fixed for a couple weeks.
Weird huh?

Im sure there are a big portion of their customers who still not know they are playing slots with worse chance of winning.
Super shady

 

[Jono777]

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their point, of course they are

Mine was based on what I see and witness and NOT the math.

People have preached math for RTP across loads of games, including win potential, hit rate, etc, etc the list goes on.

However experience and evidence has shown (at least to me personally) that things rarely agree with the theoretical and the math.

This is one of those situation where many will agree and many will not, it is an unfair move where others offer higher RTP but I stand by what I say in that for me personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest, maybe I'm just weird lol?

 

[nikantw]

There is no argument really. What Jono says is like me saying that I wish I had 94% RTP instead of the 66% I have so far at DOAII (few thousands spins).
And what the Math say is that after 300 trillion spins on DOAII my RTP will be 96.8%

2 different things that are both true. For more details go to my thread below

 

[steveh35]

Isn't the answer stay away from games that have low rtp? I am finding NetEnt games are doing quite well for me and building my balance up to around £50 some days which then means I can take a chance on another game.

I have changed my habits accordingly with VS now I normally try the new games first and NetEnt whereas before the RTP change and the XP I might have just played only the games I saw on page 1.

As long as NetEnt do not reduce their RTP on VS I will continue using them as a builder tool but the XP and RTP have changed how I play at VS.

 

[nikantw]

Isn't the answer stay away from games that have low rtp? I am finding NetEnt games are doing quite well for me and building my balance up to around £50 some days which then means I can take a chance on another game.

I have changed my habits accordingly with VS now I normally try the new games first and NetEnt whereas before the RTP change and the XP I might have just played only the games I saw on page 1.

As long as NetEnt do not reduce their RTP on VS I will continue using them as a builder tool but the XP and RTP have changed how I play at VS.

What you want is your session to be fun, meaning RTP>96% and RTP>TRTP (game hot).

 

[shadow123]

Sorry but the math is really important, its ok saying 2% drop may not be felt for many thousands of games but it is real and will cost
the players in the long term. If you play a lot of png and red tiger the cost will be apparrent sooner than you think and it can make a big
difference to playtime.I recently rejoined Ladbrokes and played Mystery reel megaways at 98% and the game felt different straight
away, I got combinations never seen before on the 96% version.Didnt win but got a lot more playtime.Bear in mind on those percentages
it cost twice as much to play at VS as Ladbrokes.

On a sour note I had my worst session ever yesterday at VS, I decieded to give them one last chance, lost £300 playing
Wild Worlds and Perfect Gems,never seen such consistant dead play.Checked the RTP after the session ,Wild worlds was 34%
and Perfect Gems 43%.Sorry that is more than bad luck

 

[steveh35]

Sorry but the math is really important, its ok saying 2% drop may not be felt for many thousands of games but it is real and will cost
the players in the long term. If you play a lot of png and red tiger the cost will be apparrent sooner than you think and it can make a big
difference to playtime.I recently rejoined Ladbrokes and played Mystery reel megaways at 98% and the game felt different straight
away, I got combinations never seen before on the 96% version.Didnt win but got a lot more playtime.Bear in mind on those percentages
it cost twice as much to play at VS as Ladbrokes.

On a sour note I had my worst session ever yesterday at VS, I decieded to give them one last chance, lost £300 playing
Wild Worlds and Perfect Gems,never seen such consistant dead play.Checked the RTP after the session ,Wild worlds was 34%
and Perfect Gems 43%.Sorry that is more than bad luck

I play Wild Worlds and it is a very very volatile slot the long bonus round and the potential seem to mean it has a less than generous base game, I have stopped playing this as a starter game and use it more if I get in to a bit higher balance.

 

[Kroffe]

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their point, of course they are

Mine was based on what I see and witness and NOT the math.

People have preached math for RTP across loads of games, including win potential, hit rate, etc, etc the list goes on.

However experience and evidence has shown (at least to me personally) that things rarely agree with the theoretical and the math.

This is one of those situation where many will agree and many will not, it is an unfair move where others offer higher RTP but I stand by what I say in that for me personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest, maybe I'm just weird lol?

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
And i dont mean this to sound rude, even tho i know i will come of as a bit of a butthole.
What i said about payout is more fact than it is opinion.

If a man came up to you selling lottery tickets, he has two sets of a 100 tickets,they cost the same, and prices are identical in the two sets.
Only in one of the sets there are 2 less winning tickets, its only 94 instead of 96.
I know its not exactly the same, but im sure you can see the point im trying to make. It would be crazy to buy a ticket from the set with 2 less winning ones, the same way its crazy to play a slot running on 94% when you have the option to play it at 96% at another site.
Short term it wont matter and you probably wont notice it, but longterm, the math will kick in.

If it truly didnt matter, then there is no way vs would change it in the first place.
And im not saying you cant get great hits on a slot running at 94%, of course you can, but you are more likely to get them on a slot running 96%.

 

[shadow123]

And bear in mind, higher RTP definately gives longer playtime and therefore more chances for something decent to drop

 

[thr0b]

The issue is this. VS are stung by the extra costs in some markets. To compensate, they’ve lowered the RTP on some games in those markets.

Is this preferable to pulling out of these markets entirely as loads of providers have lately, I think it is.

And real world - I’ve not noticed any big difference in how the games play or pay. But then I don’t spend thousands.

 

[Kroffe]

The issue is this. VS are stung by the extra costs in some markets. To compensate, they’ve lowered the RTP on some games in those markets.

Is this preferable to pulling out of these markets entirely as loads of providers have lately, I think it is.

And real world - I’ve not noticed any big difference in how the games play or pay. But then I don’t spend thousands.

But this goes for ALL sites operating in sweden. And like i said, they are one of very few running lower rtp.
Somehow those other sites still manage, even tho they run the higher rtp versions.
Like i said earlier, videoslots want all the benefits of having the license but none of the costs.
And dont get me wrong, i get it, its a business, but lets not pretend they dont have a choice.

And because people keep playing slots from those providers even tho they have lower payouts, they get exactly what they want.

 

[Jono777]

My main focus was trying to get the point across that the math and the theory is rarely what we get anyway

Another way for me to try and explain is lets say "new slot ABC" has TRTP of 96% with a win potential of 100,000x and everyone is rushing to play it.

Had this been released with 94% TRTP and the SAME advertised potential, I feel an (almost) equal number of players would still rush to play it, the exception being maybe the stubborn and hard to please (no finger pointing whatsoever here)

Now if it had been released with 96% and then reduced to 94% all hell breaks lose which although things have come across in a different way, bottom line is exactly the same.

Nikan also makes a very valid point on the previous page of this thread

 

[thr0b]

Clearly VS would prefer to make that profit still. Who knows what the other providers will do in future. Maybe VS will change their position. Maybe other providers will follow suit, or pull out.

You can always vote with your wallet.

 

[Kroffe]

My main focus was trying to get the point across that the math and the theory is rarely what we get anyway

Another way for me to try and explain is lets say "new slot ABC" has TRTP of 96% with a win potential of 100,000x and everyone is rushing to play it.

Had this been released with 94% TRTP and the SAME advertised potential, I feel an (almost) equal number of players would still rush to play it, the exception being maybe the stubborn and hard to please (no finger pointing whatsoever here)

Now if it had been released with 96% and then reduced to 94% all hell breaks lose which although things have come across in a different way, bottom line is exactly the same.

Nikan also makes a very valid point on the previous page of this thread

Well i would play the game if advertised and released at 94%, in fact i do play some slots that are very high volatile that is around those numbers.
But i would play it at a casino that offered me the 94% version, not at a site that gave me 92% wich is what this whole argument is about.
Given the choice, i just find it weird that people would willingly play those providers at a casino that offers less payout.

And how things "feel" does not really matter. Slots run on numbers&math, and thats all they do.
And just because alot of people "feel" it does not make a difference does not make that true.

It is similiar to how anti-vaxxers make their logic. Instead of data&numbers they go by "alternative facts" and feelings.

 

[Jono777]

, i just find it weird that people would willingly play those providers at a casino that offers less payout.

There is more to slotting life than just 2% RTP.

VS has a LOT more positives than I'd say 90% of today's trustworthy casinos.

I don't know anywhere else that is going to guarantee me a minimum of £200 wager free cash when I finally get to level 21, among many, many other pluses. Play N Go reduced RTP slots have contributed towards this goal.....

In this case of Play n' Go having reduced RTP for selected countries at VS, as I said doesn't bother me and that 2% or whatever the difference be. It is insignificant to me personally given that I have no headaches or lag or bullshit or this that and the other which I'd possibly encounter at places with the slightly higher RTP version.

At the end of the day its each to their own and nothing I say or post is going to change those opinions who are against this reduction so I will just leave it there

 

[ChopleyIOM]

That's fine Jono, if there's a load of other stuff at VS you like which you feel makes taking the hit on RTP worthwhile then that's fine, it's just that a few posts ago you seemed to be suggesting that it hasn't made any difference to how the slots play, when it absolutely will. I take your point about the 'feel' of the slots not changing but slots don't work on feelings, they work on maths, and these increases in house edges mean that you will lose more of your money over time, playing these reduced RTP slots at VS than you will lose elsewhere.

To be clear on this I really like VS, they are my preferred casino to play at, but I would not play ANY of the slots that have had their RTPs reduced when I could play them at a higher RTP elsewhere.

You may as well make a £100 deposit and then voluntarily just reduce your balance to £90 before you start playing, since the overall effect is basically the same.

I covered this in my video at the time, here's a direct timestamped link to the relevant section (11m19s.)



Whole video.

 

[Kroffe]

There is more to slotting life than just 2% RTP.

VS has a LOT more positives than I'd say 90% of today's trustworthy casinos.

I don't know anywhere else that is going to guarantee me a minimum of £200 wager free cash when I finally get to level 21, among many, many other pluses. Play N Go reduced RTP slots have contributed towards this goal.....

In this case of Play n' Go having reduced RTP for selected countries at VS, as I said doesn't bother me and that 2% or whatever the difference be. It is insignificant to me personally given that I have no headaches or lag or bullshit or this that and the other which I'd possibly encounter at places with the slightly higher RTP version.

At the end of the day its each to their own and nothing I say or post is going to change those opinions who are against this reduction so I will just leave it there

Yeah im not bashing vs as a site, just the choice to reduce rtp.
I still play alot on vs, but i tend to avoid the providers they have lowered the rtp on. I do spend a bit less money, since i play the providers they nerfed at other sites instead.
But in terms of numbers of providers (some i can only find on vs) and the promos they run with freerolls,tuesdaybattles, sngs etc i still think they are one of the top sites.

Like i said, i didnt really want to come of as an asshole, because like you say, to each their own.
I just get worked up when talking about it.

Hope you have a great day, and best of luck in tuesday madness if you plan on taking part! =)

 

[Jono777]

Great points guys and now we're all happy and agreed lol.

Just to clarify, I did not explain myself too well maybe in one key point...

I totally get how slots work and that the complicated math behind them does factor 100% and basically take away the fancy graphics and the math IS the slot, I get it lol

Trying to explain better (and possibly fail again ) was that I played the 96% versions at VS and also continued to play the same games once their RTP had been openly adjusted to the lower version.

Now yes, "on paper" I have a less chance of winning overall, no argument there from me. However what I was trying to say, I personally has not noticed any difference when it comes to hit rate, feature frequency and play time, granted had I kept notes / stats etc I probably would have done, however as the relaxed and casual, small stake, small session player that I am, did not get chance to notice any remarkable differences.

Hope this makes a lot more sense now

 

[CongoGB]

I think a lot of this depends on how much money you're chucking into the lowered RTP slots on VS.

Personally, I'm not a high roller, and generally have a fairly quick mess around with PnG slots in comparison to some of you guys, but it doesn;t bother me in the slightest. I still feel like I get sufficient play time/winnings from them.

My main moan today is about the pointless Clash of Spins. I had a fairly decent week last week - lots of playtime (there's those PnG slots for you!), and managed 10 whole free spins...

5 on Pink Elephants - 20p
5 on Sticky Bandits - 0p

I genuinely can't see the point of Clashes now they've been reduced to 1 per hour. IMO, they're just pissing people off, rather than making people want to compete.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
And i dont mean this to sound rude, even tho i know i will come of as a bit of a butthole.
What i said about payout is more fact than it is opinion.

If a man came up to you selling lottery tickets, he has two sets of a 100 tickets,they cost the same, and prices are identical in the two sets.
Only in one of the sets there are 2 less winning tickets, its only 94 instead of 96.
I know its not exactly the same, but im sure you can see the point im trying to make. It would be crazy to buy a ticket from the set with 2 less winning ones, the same way its crazy to play a slot running on 94% when you have the option to play it at 96% at another site.
Short term it wont matter and you probably wont notice it, but longterm, the math will kick in.

If it truly didnt matter, then there is no way vs would change it in the first place.
And im not saying you cant get great hits on a slot running at 94%, of course you can, but you are more likely to get them on a slot running 96%.

It doesn't really matter that much if you play 94% or 96%. What matters much more is the math model. How is the RTP distributed between base game, features or small/big/mega/hyper wins etc.?

E.g. PnG could have reduced the chance to hit max win potential (which you won't see on average in less than 1:50 million spins and often 1:1 billion spins anyway).

2% can be distributed and changed in many ways. It could well be that a player won't notice much of a difference because the reduced math model still provides a good balance for the game.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

That's a very good point Harry, although as mere players I guess we have no way of finding out where they've taken that 2% from, TBH for me the preferred solution is to simply play the highest RTP maths model available.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I think a lot of this depends on how much money you're chucking into the lowered RTP slots on VS.

Personally, I'm not a high roller, and generally have a fairly quick mess around with PnG slots in comparison to some of you guys, but it doesn;t bother me in the slightest. I still feel like I get sufficient play time/winnings from them.

My main moan today is about the pointless Clash of Spins. I had a fairly decent week last week - lots of playtime (there's those PnG slots for you!), and managed 10 whole free spins...

5 on Pink Elephants - 20p
5 on Sticky Bandits - 0p

I genuinely can't see the point of Clashes now they've been reduced to 1 per hour. IMO, they're just pissing people off, rather than making people want to compete.

The CoS is indeed not the replacement for the Race Winnings we used to have. However, I see now the Tuesday Battle as the "real replacement" and quite an improvement over the usual race winnings as a simple 100 lucky spins can get you over 1,000 bucks whereas the "old" weekly race was dominated by a handful of players only. Now it is pure luck for a buck!

 

[Harry_BKK]

That's a very good point Harry, although as mere players I guess we have no way of finding out where they've taken that 2% from, TBH for me the preferred solution is to simply play the highest RTP maths model available.

Sure, the highest RTP will be always the best. However, it does not mean that a slightly lower RTP is evil as some posters here make it to be.

Below is a model from a soon-to-be released slot. Can you guess which is the math model with higher volatility and RTP?

 

[Buffalo Bill]

I have some truly awful Rtp figures on games with 96% over many many spins, and i have not stopped playing Pimped on Vs since the RTP reduction and I'm still at 105.9% RTP on it.
I don't doubt that it is less advantageous to players, but at times I am sure I could play a slot with 500% RTP and still lose and play one with 50% RTP and win.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Below is a model from a soon-to-be released slot. Can you guess which is the math model with higher volatility and RTP?

View attachment 109767

The one on the right looks higher volatility, but could also be running on the higher RTP, as the one on the left seems to balance more of the RTP into the smaller 'big' and 'super' wins, whereas the one on the right forsakes those for far more frequent (but still fairly rare) 'mega', and in particular, 'epic' wins.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I have some truly awful Rtp figures on games with 96% over many many spins, and i have not stopped playing Pimped on Vs since the RTP reduction and I'm still at 105.9% RTP on it.
I don't doubt that it is less advantageous to players, but at times I am sure I could play a slot with 500% RTP and still lose and play one with 50% RTP and win.

Well yes, that absolutely will happen. I remember getting some insane runs at Jackpot Party and the slots there only paid 92% (with 3% to the progressives making the 95% RTP), but on a good day you'd swear they were set to 150% or something.

The thing with RTP is that it's a very long-term affair, and the extra house edge will chip away at you over time, even if you don't feel it from one session to the next.

That said I totally take Jono's point about sticking with VS for all the reasons he listed, I'm not saying there's a right or wrong answer to this, but for me personally RTP is king, and I always play where RTP is highest.

 

[Harry_BKK]

The one on the right looks higher volatility, but could also be running on the higher RTP, as the one on the left seems to balance more of the RTP into the smaller 'big' and 'super' wins, whereas the one on the right forsakes those for far more frequent (but still fairly rare) 'mega', and in particular, 'epic' wins.

You are right sir!

The one on the right has higher volatility and a slightly higher RTP overall.

I just wanted to show once how providers develop math models that allows them to play around with the RTP and volatility without actually changing the overall feel of the game.

Nobody will start counting the spins between a big and a mega win. We celebrate when we hit 100+ x wins and mostly memorize only the much higher ones.

 

[dionysus]

24 hr support - but kinda hoped support could just add the free spins instead of having to wait til 'other' support is in tomorrow

mom's fault, but easy error - got a mailer and she entered the code wrongly - was an II and she entered a 11
but for w/e reason live chat can't just manually add the free spins and needs to be 'escalated'

 

[dionysus]

sorted, ty

 

[curremon]

What are the odds ? last few weeks 100% implosions in game reactoonz has been 3 wilds... i know it can give 3 often but fucking 300 times in row ?

 

[shadow123]

No need for that kind of language, reactoonz can be a total f******g c** t though

 

[nikantw]

...
I don't know anywhere else that is going to guarantee me a minimum of £200 wager free cash when I finally get to level 21.....

How far are you? I am almost 11,000xp away from my first gold wheel.

 

[Jono777]

How far are you? I am almost 11,000xp away from my first gold wheel.

roughly 182,000 of 210,000 so quite a way to go lol

 

[Harry_BKK]

@Team.Videoslots

I am not one to complain but this is becoming slowly rather ridiculous. I am talking about Realistic Game slots. Most of them have a win limitation that is now becoming brazenly low, so low, that I refuse to publish reviews for them to avoid giving them the extra publicity. Nobody should bet a single cent on their games as they could have a good portion of large wins simply vanishing.

You just released Aussie Adventure from Realistic. If you look at the pay table, the win limit is set a 500 credits for a 2.00 credits bet = 250x

Now if you scroll down the paytable, you will see the game pays 500 credits for a 5-scatter trigger, and you don't even get to play some free spins.

I don't know if anyone is playing these games but anyone who does must be completely mad to even risk a single cent on them.

In conclusion, I would welcome it if you could rethink your listing of Realistic Games until they get their act together. Mentioning the limit in the rules does not make it right because 99% of players never look at the paytable.

 

[Team.Videoslots]

Hello Harry,

The game has been checked and certified with the caps in place, and the RTP has this taken into consideration, so the cap does not affect the money getting paid out. While the cap might be considered low or unappealing for some players, they are popular and appreciated by some.

Best regards,
Team Videoslots.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Hello Harry,

The game has been checked and certified with the caps in place, and the RTP has this taken into consideration, so the cap does not affect the money getting paid out. While the cap might be considered low or unappealing for some players, they are popular and appreciated by some.

Best regards,
Team Videoslots.

I don't doubt that is is all taken into consideration but you sure know that most people do not read the paytable and will not know that this is a sort of compensated slot that limits the payout.

Honestly, I cannot fathom anyone appreciating such games but each to their own.

 

[Team.Videoslots]

Hello again Harry,

We have things planned for the future that will make that issue a thing of the past but, unfortunately, I cannot really go into any detail regarding that at the moment.

Best regards,
Team Videoslots.

 

[curremon]

@Team.Videoslots This seriously drives me crazy... WHY reactoonz feels so insanely rigged at your casino ?
You can dig up my every round from last 2 weeks and there is only 3 wilds on every implosion.. There is no chance to get more and thats not normal

 

[ChopleyIOM]

@Team.Videoslots

I am not one to complain but this is becoming slowly rather ridiculous. I am talking about Realistic Game slots. Most of them have a win limitation that is now becoming brazenly low, so low, that I refuse to publish reviews for them to avoid giving them the extra publicity. Nobody should bet a single cent on their games as they could have a good portion of large wins simply vanishing.

You just released Aussie Adventure from Realistic. If you look at the pay table, the win limit is set a 500 credits for a 2.00 credits bet = 250x

Now if you scroll down the paytable, you will see the game pays 500 credits for a 5-scatter trigger, and you don't even get to play some free spins.

I don't know if anyone is playing these games but anyone who does must be completely mad to even risk a single cent on them.

In conclusion, I would welcome it if you could rethink your listing of Realistic Games until they get their act together. Mentioning the limit in the rules does not make it right because 99% of players never look at the paytable.

I don't see what the problem is Harry? It's just a very low variance game with a reasonable RTP of 95.25%.

As I understand it we're not talking about the payouts being capped RTG style where anything over 2000x doesn't get paid (or whatever it was on RTG), here we've simply got a max win of 250x stake.

For reference, here on the IOM we have random slots in pubs with a 250x stake jackpot, that can be played at stakes of up to £2 (so on a £2 play the jackpot is £500), they're incredibly popular and people like them as a way to gamble without betting the farm. (Many folks play them on 50p or £1 play, and the jackpot remains scaled at 250x stake.) The RTPs are in the range of 90-94%, so Aussie Adventure is higher than those at 95.25%

At the end of the day different people like different game profiles, I'm quite fond of low variance games myself, in fact Tombola are getting a fair few deposits off me these days, and all their games cap out at 500x stake.

Besides, you only need to look over at the Bonanza thread, folks in there still get very excited when it lobs 250x stake their way......

 

[spoo42]

So am i reading it right that, if you get really lucky and hit 5 scatters giving maximum amount you can win, then youll go into bonus round knowing you wont get any more or anything you win wont count ?

 

[Jono777]

@Team.Videoslots This seriously drives me crazy... WHY reactoonz feels so insanely rigged at your casino ?
You can dig up my every round from last 2 weeks and there is only 3 wilds on every implosion.. There is no chance to get more and thats not normal

I shall go one better lol

Yesterday I had 3 wilds in place, they did not form part of a win and I had 2 full 'test tubes'

Implosion was the first result and it awarded another 3 wilds, now this is where random goes out the window, ALL THREE landed on top of the already existing wilds, I mean what are the chances in a 7x7 grid, please

I won't accuse the slot of being rigged, I have seen and also had some good wins on it, however I do feel it is like a fruit machine and previous wins (from others?) will result in a type on compensation cycle kicking in which is what I felt happened yesterday

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So am i reading it right that, if you get really lucky and hit 5 scatters giving maximum amount you can win, then youll go into bonus round knowing you wont get any more or anything you win wont count ?

No the five scatters don't trigger the bonus round at all. The issue here I suppose is if you get to 250x stake in a free spins round for example, and you have spins left, what happens then? If the round terminates at 250x stake and the remaining spins are 'lost', then that's a problem.

It depends what they class as a 'game' I suppose, is each free spin classified as a 'game'?

It's also possible they've worked out the RTP based on the rounds terminating when they hit 250x stake, so for example if the slot was allowed to carry on its RTP might be 97.4% overall, but the 250x cap drags it down to 95.25%, but if that's stated then that's still fair enough I suppose.