Videoslots Shocker!

[bamberfishcake]

So even both sides can agree that some games feel changed.

The majority of companies will pull a fast one if the risk of being caught is minimal and they can make more money. There are shareholders to impress and the industry, like so many others, is not just results-driven but demands continual improvement year on year. Greed is what spurs companies to do shoddy things, even those that make billions.

I don't think it is inconceivable to think Microgaming took the HTML revamp as an opportunity to take a massively popular game and tweak it to play in a different way to drive profits and catch regulars out. Would not be hard to change the volatility or swap average wins but still maintain RTP and stick it back in the lobby with an updated certificate.

Must admit, I don't hear of anything about defective slots. Often, a game will need some work after initial testing and delay the release, but I am not sure what kind of work. Perhaps it paid out too much, perhaps it paid out too little, and perhaps there are other things the developers want to be checked. Would be interesting to speak to someone from a test house and find out more about the actual process and what slots get rejected, and what kind of rework is needed for those that don't cut the mustard.

Maybe the expected max win was not achieved over 10 billion spins, so the developers go for another run, because in reality, they worked out the maths to pay max 1 in 20 billion

Perhaps, we don't hear of anything because they actually are squeaky clean and let's face it, all slots make money if played, but the absence of any product compensation cases or dodgy product headlines from the industry itself could be seen as conspicuous to some.

So, what do we have to go on as players? Only the image portrayed and what we are told by the industry, compared to what we actually experience and our gut feeling as a result, plus the evidence from players like the Evolution Gaming videos and fake money streamers. It's no wonder players believe some games have been tampered with. It's probably more logical to admit a little goes on than believe everything is above board in the real world.

There are multiple RTP models for nearly every slot, they test games over billions of spins now to achieve max wins, cap win potential, hide RTP, fund fake streamers, don't pay out and call game errors in live casino productions, stall large withdrawals by perverting regulations, ignore customer complaints and don't train staff - all in the pursuit of squeezing more profits.

The industry is very competitive, and regardless of the regulation, not very transparent at the product end. Game developers need to deliver more value for money than the competition to keep good relationships and get top lobby spots.

It's not hard to find a motive and believe some tampering goes on when the industry is as it is and when the risks seem so minute for a small tweak here and there.

 

[catsdeadnow]

I don't see how someone is (predictably) chastised time and again on these hallowed pages when breaching the supposed 'integrity' of slot design.

I have to agree - which explains my having resisted posting in other threads before now: Among threads in the past in which someone dared raise the notion of possible shenanigans, the reflexive and near-immediate response would almost always mention tin foil ...

And something else was equally predictable: Sooner or later a White Hat would demand the one thing they themselves don't have either: Proof.

Accomplished little. Illuminated nothing.

 

[mack341]

I think this ukgc paper is from 2019/20.

Not saying it's conclusive proof of anything, but fair to conclude a concern about possible manipulation and the ukgc not having a robust enough system to detect and deter.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Consultation on test houses framework development

The current framework by which test houses are approved and deliver their services has been in place since 2007.

We plan to develop our levels of assurance about the independence, competence and overall suitability of the companies and individuals that are entrusted with testing the games that are offered to consumers.

There are 15 test houses, 11 of which are based overseas and acquire their accreditation by nonUK accreditation bodies. The accreditation required is ISO 17025, which is a universally accepted accreditation standard.

Our recent compliance assessment of accreditation arrangements showed variance in the standards that are being used. For example, there are different versions of ISO 17025 in use. We also have specific requirements under our Technical Standards and Testing Strategies. Our recent compliance assessments indicate that some test houses are not incorporating these standards into their testing methodologies.

Within test houses, there are key roles that have responsibility for the way in which a test house operates, and the technical aspects of the testing undertaken. Currently the information collected regarding these individuals is limited. This impedes our ability to make an ongoing assessment of the individual’s suitability and independence.

...We further propose that critical individuals, such as those that perform testing, should be personally accredited.

As part of our application process, we look at the ownership structure and the financing arrangements for test houses. This is a key indicator of the independence of a test house. We also seek to understand the people and/or organisations that have an influence over the way in which the test house is operated.

This means we need to understand who has a controlling interest in the organisation. A controlling interest is determined by having a controlling shareholding or voting rights. The Commission proposes to view anyone with a 10% shareholding as having an influence over the test house.

 

[catsdeadnow]

"The agency had found that Volkswagen had intentionally programmed turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engines to activate their emissions controls only during laboratory emissions testing, which caused the vehicles' NOx output to meet US standards during regulatory testing."

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Yes, Virginia -- and as Juno already observed -- there is actually something called "extremely clever programming" ...

 

[goatwack]

I have to agree - which explains my having resisted posting in other threads before now: Among threads in the past in which someone dared raise the notion of possible shenanigans, the reflexive and near-immediate response would almost always mention tin foil ...

And something else was equally predictable: Sooner or later a White Hat would demand the one thing they themselves don't have either: Proof.

Accomplished little. Illuminated nothing.

The very reason you'll now be firmly put in the 'Black Hat' pit of despair, despite your neutrality and commendable attempts to play devil's advocate. Welcome to the club!

And yet, I'd also imagine opinions can be shaped over time, evolve to be something else, with new information coming to light, or simply people changing their mind on something - all the hallmarks of normal behaviour.

Absolutes aren't really conducive to healthy debate, and with neither side willing to acknowledge the other's views, it is like you say, accomplishing nothing - the hallmark of these types of threads, as you've clearly noticed!

Made all the worse as neither 'side' has definitive proof. When that happens, it just comes down to who can shout the loudest, or who can be seen to be the most right. Do I believe this industry's beyond reproach and take its word in contrast to my own experiences? No

Do I believe Snorky's version of events based on his extensive experiences with Bonanza? No. I mean yes, YES. I meant YES

 

[goatwack]

I think this ukgc paper is from 2019/20.

Not saying it's conclusive proof of anything, but fair to conclude a concern about possible manipulation and the ukgc not having a robust enough system to detect and deter.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Consultation on test houses framework development

The current framework by which test houses are approved and deliver their services has been in place since 2007.

We plan to develop our levels of assurance about the independence, competence and overall suitability of the companies and individuals that are entrusted with testing the games that are offered to consumers.

There are 15 test houses, 11 of which are based overseas and acquire their accreditation by nonUK accreditation bodies. The accreditation required is ISO 17025, which is a universally accepted accreditation standard.

Our recent compliance assessment of accreditation arrangements showed variance in the standards that are being used. For example, there are different versions of ISO 17025 in use. We also have specific requirements under our Technical Standards and Testing Strategies. Our recent compliance assessments indicate that some test houses are not incorporating these standards into their testing methodologies.

Within test houses, there are key roles that have responsibility for the way in which a test house operates, and the technical aspects of the testing undertaken. Currently the information collected regarding these individuals is limited. This impedes our ability to make an ongoing assessment of the individual’s suitability and independence.

...We further propose that critical individuals, such as those that perform testing, should be personally accredited.

As part of our application process, we look at the ownership structure and the financing arrangements for test houses. This is a key indicator of the independence of a test house. We also seek to understand the people and/or organisations that have an influence over the way in which the test house is operated.

This means we need to understand who has a controlling interest in the organisation. A controlling interest is determined by having a controlling shareholding or voting rights. The Commission proposes to view anyone with a 10% shareholding as having an influence over the test house.

I dunno Mack. Looks to me like you're implying these independent tests are somehow shaped by external factors, in secret locations by people with differing agendas

 

[mack341]

I dunno Mack. Looks to me like you're implying these independent tests are somehow shaped by external factors, in secret locations by people with differing agendas

 

[catsdeadnow]

Welcome to the club!

Not only do I graciously and humbly accept your kind invitation - but, for over seven years now, I've been dithering over different possible avatars for my profile on here.
Eureka - got one now, Goat, thank you.

 

[ergosum]

I agree completely with your post mate, to be honest I had considered it might be slanted towards UK players, but who knows, could be the same everywhere. I am finding more and more casinos are just a race to the bottom. I deposit quite large amounts, generally £500-£1000 a day, over the last 12 months I have had less and less withdrawals, add to that the constant interruptions (Genting are a bloody nightmare for blocking you halfway through a game until you have spoken to live chat every other week!!) it really is taking all the fun out of it. A few years ago the deposits would last a lot longer, casinos like Guts were great, and you could hit a big win maybe once a month that would pay for your play for a couple more months, now it's horrendous. As an example I have played through £1k today on Virgin games, highest win was a £94 on big bass, every other game barely 10-20x wins. Videoslots specifically I have given up on, I think my lifetime RTP there was around 36%, like a bucket with a hole in, I experienced the same as you, deposits with no wins, sacked it off now and won't be going back.

 

[snorky510238]

All the industry has done for the past 18 months is to exploit every avenue possible, to speed up the process via which players lose money.

In some areas it’s blatant, in others, it’s very subtle and done in the shadows. Any business looks to become more efficient and effective, usually at the customers expense.

Just a few of the things Casinos/Providers have done lately, include; reducing rtp, reducing/stopping the amount of freebies on offer, offloading affiliates, unscrupulously and even down to minute detail, such as speeding up the spins on games that were a bit slow, like DOA.

All greed on their part and geared towards maximising profit. Given that they have even gone as far as speeding games up and that every little avenue is being used to squeeze as much cash out of the players as possible, we would have to be extremely naive to think that providers haven’t exploited the following loophole.

As I understand it, when these games are audited (and I use that term very lightly, whilst trying not to piss myself with laughter), there has to be some leeway, which again works in the providers favour. As I understand it the game should ideally be running within a couple of percent of rtp.

If that is true, you cannot tell me that providers wouldn’t be exploiting that loophole. These programmers will be the best in the profession, they will be way ahead of the guy from the auditors with his ZX Spectrum.

Advertise a game at 96%, that is actually programmed to pay 95%, even 94%. Apparently all above board and bingo, another £10,000,000 profit for the year, just like that. Can’t tell me things along these lines aren’t happening.

 

[shadow123]

Would be interesting to know more about the testing procedures and how deep they go,whether the entire code is checked
or just simulations run to determine the rtp.The latter tells you nothing about what is going on when the games are run in the real
world.
I would say the chance of skullduggery in coding is 100% and very easy to hide unless is checked line by line by a top notch programmer.
Years ago a programmer at Bell Fruit was caught scamming a certain model of land based machine using some procedure they devised
to pay out jackpots,so there is a precendence for naughtiness

 

[pinnit2014]

I think this ukgc paper is from 2019/20.

Not saying it's conclusive proof of anything, but fair to conclude a concern about possible manipulation and the ukgc not having a robust enough system to detect and deter.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Consultation on test houses framework development

The current framework by which test houses are approved and deliver their services has been in place since 2007.

We plan to develop our levels of assurance about the independence, competence and overall suitability of the companies and individuals that are entrusted with testing the games that are offered to consumers.

There are 15 test houses, 11 of which are based overseas and acquire their accreditation by nonUK accreditation bodies. The accreditation required is ISO 17025, which is a universally accepted accreditation standard.

Our recent compliance assessment of accreditation arrangements showed variance in the standards that are being used. For example, there are different versions of ISO 17025 in use. We also have specific requirements under our Technical Standards and Testing Strategies. Our recent compliance assessments indicate that some test houses are not incorporating these standards into their testing methodologies.

Within test houses, there are key roles that have responsibility for the way in which a test house operates, and the technical aspects of the testing undertaken. Currently the information collected regarding these individuals is limited. This impedes our ability to make an ongoing assessment of the individual’s suitability and independence.

...We further propose that critical individuals, such as those that perform testing, should be personally accredited.

As part of our application process, we look at the ownership structure and the financing arrangements for test houses. This is a key indicator of the independence of a test house. We also seek to understand the people and/or organisations that have an influence over the way in which the test house is operated.

This means we need to understand who has a controlling interest in the organisation. A controlling interest is determined by having a controlling shareholding or voting rights. The Commission proposes to view anyone with a 10% shareholding as having an influence over the test house.

Along the lines of ISO - same as BSI or any other accredited standards, a lot of the times dependent on who you get round to re-certify you each year. Worked in places were the ISO guy would come round, apply would could only be described as a 'light touch' regime and hey presto: certified for another year and a lot of surprised departmental faces

Obviously they're probably the best you can place (not absolute) assurance on but by no means does it mean you're bullet proof. We used to have the ISO people contact us in advance and it allowed us to strategically hand certain, cherry picked files over to him with 2 days to 'touch them up'

Same as the HSE - 2 companies, 2 identical issues of non-compliance, not uncommon to see 2 completely different inspector reports.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

But it’s perfectly okay for you to make the same old point and post a thousand times. Dear me, Choppers you need to take the blinkers off kid.

Blinkers for what? I can't repeat this often enough, I'm the one who stopped playing the bloody things! And if I'm making the same old point a thousand times it's because it's entirely relevant in a thread where nearly everyone is saying how sure they are that the industry is bent, whilst still continuing to voluntarily give it their money.

I've made three deposits to Unibet in the last twelve months, two of which I made a withdrawal from (and that was only to play the old 98% NetEnt slots, which they still have on their books for some reason).

Nothing anywhere else, at all, except for 3Dice, which is basically the only casino I play at because I've been there for ten years and I trust them not to dick me over. (I've done over 21,000 spins there this month so far, and that number will grow again tonight when I have another session.)

As I said in my post last night, Immortal Romance felt wrong to me, it was like MG had made a cheap knockoff of their own game, half the animations had gone, the sample rate had been downgraded on the music, the Wild Desire behaviour had changed (at least from a graphical perspective), the whole thing felt clonky and crap compared to the old Viper Client version - so I was like, 'Nahhh, not playing this'.

I used to be a very regular depositor and player at loads of different casinos, but I think the whole thing has gone to the dogs in loads of different ways over the last couple of years so I've just stopped doing it - to my mind it's the only logical choice to make.

I still don't think slots that are advertised and certified at 96% RTP have secretly been downgraded to 95% or 94% to shave a bit extra off the top, you know what Unibet do when they want a 94% game? This....



Or in the case of Immortal Romance we have this, when we all know the full-fat version is 96.86%.

So not only did they completely fuck the slot up aesthetically, they decided to help themselves to a massively increased house edge.

Once again, I'm out.



But hey, maybe I'm wrong and you're right, sure, maybe they are cheating on RTP too, I'll acknowledge the possibility, but I'm still the one here who's stopped tipping my money over to them. I absolutely cannot get my head around anyone who thinks a casino is scamming them (beyond anything other than taking the house edge off them over time, which is transparently built into the game), who also continues to give said casino their money.

 

[bamberfishcake]

I think this ukgc paper is from 2019/20.

Not saying it's conclusive proof of anything, but fair to conclude a concern about possible manipulation and the ukgc not having a robust enough system to detect and deter.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Consultation on test houses framework development

The current framework by which test houses are approved and deliver their services has been in place since 2007.

We plan to develop our levels of assurance about the independence, competence and overall suitability of the companies and individuals that are entrusted with testing the games that are offered to consumers.

There are 15 test houses, 11 of which are based overseas and acquire their accreditation by nonUK accreditation bodies. The accreditation required is ISO 17025, which is a universally accepted accreditation standard.

Our recent compliance assessment of accreditation arrangements showed variance in the standards that are being used. For example, there are different versions of ISO 17025 in use. We also have specific requirements under our Technical Standards and Testing Strategies. Our recent compliance assessments indicate that some test houses are not incorporating these standards into their testing methodologies.

Within test houses, there are key roles that have responsibility for the way in which a test house operates, and the technical aspects of the testing undertaken. Currently the information collected regarding these individuals is limited. This impedes our ability to make an ongoing assessment of the individual’s suitability and independence.

...We further propose that critical individuals, such as those that perform testing, should be personally accredited.

As part of our application process, we look at the ownership structure and the financing arrangements for test houses. This is a key indicator of the independence of a test house. We also seek to understand the people and/or organisations that have an influence over the way in which the test house is operated.

This means we need to understand who has a controlling interest in the organisation. A controlling interest is determined by having a controlling shareholding or voting rights. The Commission proposes to view anyone with a 10% shareholding as having an influence over the test house.

Good stuff Mack, thanks for the link.

So it seems the current process is that once a test house has been approved via ISO accreditation, they work to a self-governed framework, pretty much unchecked. And the UKGC acknowledge some test houses are not incorporating their standard into the testing strategies, and are not currently background checked for conflict of interest.

Good to see some movement from the UKGC towards something more serious, and agree that the current system is not adequate enough to install any confidence all is above board.

 

[goatwack]

Blinkers for what? I can't repeat this often enough, I'm the one who stopped playing the bloody things! And if I'm making the same old point a thousand times it's because it's entirely relevant in a thread where nearly everyone is saying how sure they are that the industry is bent, whilst still continuing to voluntarily give it their money.

I've made three deposits to Unibet in the last twelve months, two of which I made a withdrawal from (and that was only to play the old 98% NetEnt slots, which they still have on their books for some reason).

Nothing anywhere else, at all, except for 3Dice, which is basically the only casino I play at because I've been there for ten years and I trust them not to dick me over. (I've done over 21,000 spins there this month so far, and that number will grow again tonight when I have another session.)

As I said in my post last night, Immortal Romance felt wrong to me, it was like MG had made a cheap knockoff of their own game, half the animations had gone, the sample rate had been downgraded on the music, the Wild Desire behaviour had changed (at least from a graphical perspective), the whole thing felt clonky and crap compared to the old Viper Client version - so I was like, 'Nahhh, not playing this'.

I used to be a very regular depositor and player at loads of different casinos, but I think the whole thing has gone to the dogs in loads of different ways over the last couple of years so I've just stopped doing it - to my mind it's the only logical choice to make.

I still don't think slots that are advertised and certified at 96% RTP have secretly been downgraded to 95% or 94% to shave a bit extra off the top, you know what Unibet do when they want a 94% game? This....

View attachment 171256

Or in the case of Immortal Romance we have this, when we all know the full-fat version is 96.86%.

So not only did they completely fuck the slot up aesthetically, they decided to help themselves to a massively increased house edge.

Once again, I'm out.

View attachment 171257

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and you're right, sure, maybe they are cheating on RTP too, I'll acknowledge the possibility, but I'm still the one here who's stopped tipping my money over to them. I absolutely cannot get my head around anyone who thinks a casino is scamming them (beyond anything other than taking the house edge off them over time, which is transparently built into the game), who also continues to give said casino their money.

What's this obsession with insisting everyone stop doing what they're doing, or else they're culpable and complicit in some way?

And for argument's sake, if someone were to 'cease their activity' on the game in question, at which point do they do that, to 'suit'? 10,000 spins? 100,000? It's a nonsense....

Moreover, even if stopped, is someone allowed to query their figures based on what they've invested heavily in, or is that not allowed?

I guess that would make them the perfect customers, consume the slop, don't ask questions!

 

[mack341]

Good stuff Mack, thanks for the link.

So it seems the current process is that once a test house has been approved via ISO accreditation, they work to a self-governed framework, pretty much unchecked. And the UKGC acknowledge some test houses are not incorporating their standard into the testing strategies, and are not currently background checked for conflict of interest.

Good to see some movement from the UKGC towards something more serious, and agree that the current system is not adequate enough to install any confidence all is above board.

The other thing that gave me a slight 'hmm' was the licensee [the slot maker I presume] chooses the test house, a phrase comes to mind 'you don't bite the hand that feeds you' but that would only really apply if they chose the same test house every time rather than spread things around.

I suppose they could want the most thorough, meticulous test house as that would save them money [or risk] later on, from having to pull a game gone to market and retests etc..

 

[ChopleyIOM]

What's this obsession with insisting everyone stop doing what they're doing, or else they're culpable and complicit in some way?

And for argument's sake, if someone were to 'cease their activity' on the game in question, at which point do they do that, to 'suit'? 10,000 spins? 100,000? It's a nonsense....

Moreover, even if stopped, is someone allowed to query their figures based on what they've invested heavily in, or is that not allowed?

I guess that would make them the perfect customers, consume the slop, don't ask questions!

Because it's a wildly inconsistent position that makes no sense, the lengths people are going to in order to cast doubt on the fairness of the games they are actively playing, leaves me slightly questioning their sanity.

By all means if someone has drawn a line in the sand, stopped playing, and wants to analyse their stats looking for problems then fine, I can understand that.

But where the process goes:

1) THESE GAMES ARE CHEATING ME because of X, Y and Z
2) Deposits money, plays games
3) ANOTHER TERRIBLE SESSION, THESE GAMES ARE CHEATING ME
4) Return to 1

If you go through that cycle more than once, then TBH there's a problem.

STORY TIME WITH CHOPLEY -

I've mentioned before about the terrible start I got to on Arctic Adventure at 3Dice, which went on a run from hell for me for an extended period of time right out of the gates, in fact the thread is probably still here at CM, I'll see if I can find it, Enzo (head honcho at 3Ddice) was answering my questions about it because it was running so badly, including assuring me that the bonus rounds were not controlled in any way, that the spins in the bonus round were entirely random like in the base game, that the four scatters wasn't predetermined to pay any more and would only do so through random chance due it awarding an extra pick (I'd been tracking my features on it and thought the numbers were looking a bit 'odd', sound familiar?......), and so on.

What 3Dice did agree with me on was that my numbers on it were awful, and I was being very unlucky, I remember they threw quite a few comps my way as a means to try and balance things out a bit, but above and beyond all else I was absolutely assured by them that the game was fair and random, had been extensively tested by them prior to release, and that the stats for it across all their players as a whole were where they expected them to be.

So at that point I had a decision to make, did I believe them and carry on plugging away at it (I mean, at this point the main guy at the casino, who designs and programs their games, had told me how they work), understanding that a fair and random game would eventually gravitate towards T-RTP, or did I decide there was something shady going on and call foul? (And for the record, I'd lost quite a bit of money on the game at this point, to the extent that Enzo actually opened up a private conversation with me on the site one evening to politely suggest that sometimes taking a break from a game was a good idea.)

I went with the former and believed what I was being told, and yes, over time, the slot levelled out, I've actually had some very good runs on it over the years now and it's one of my favourite games there, despite the way it can be extremely lumpy, and looking back with years and years of experience playing it, I can understand the run I had early on was indeed unfortunate, but within the scope of the variance it can deliver.

But I cannot stress this enough, if I had decided there was something shady going on, they'd have never seen another penny off me, because how dumb would it be to become convinced in your own head that a game was cheating you, and then carry on playing that game?

These stats are old now, I'll ask Anna for my lifetime stats again, these are the oldest stats from the old download casino client, look how bad they are on Arctic, over 64,000 spins and running at 92.6%, the game has an RTP of 95.43%



Then they moved to their new web based platform, these stats are from 2020, at the time I'd only done 30K spins on the game, but as you can see I'm running over RTP on it. (Honestly, I think this number might have got better since then, as I've hit a decent number of the top bonus rounds on it, something I found nearly impossible to do early on.)



This is I suppose a very long-winded way of me saying that for god's sake if you think you're being cheated then stop playing!

The point has been made more than once in this thread (and by several people) that the one number we really need here is snorky's lifetime stats on Bonanza at VS, how many spins has he done, and what is his RTP. Not just the last year or suchlike (which we already know is bad from what he's said) - but lifetime.

 

[perunamies]

Agree with Chopley. Makes zero sense to keep on depositing day in and day out if you're sure the slots you still keep on playing day in and day out are bent.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Right, I've found the thread, and there's some interesting reading, old Chopley used to be a bit of a tinfoil hatter

I'd suggest starting from Page 6, but by all means read it from the start if you want to - NEW SLOT Artic Treasure Adventure.... STAY COOL - Page 6 - Casinomeister Forum

Page 7 is where Enzo himself comes in and clears up how the slot works.

On Page 8 Chopley has a 'feeling' about things



At 30,000 real money spins, my RTP was at 83.18% (!)



Anyway, it's all there if you want to read it. I mention all this not to hijack the thread, but to demonstrate how I went down the rabbit hole back in the day. In one of the posts on Page 10 I report back on how Enzo actually went through my stats with me across the whole site, to make better sense of the numbers overall.

Looking back on it now, my experience with Arctic was quite a formative experience in me really getting my head around how random games work, and how variance and randomness between them can make the numbers look very weird and suspicious. This was all nine years ago and I feel I've learned a lot about how games work since then, so my input to this thread is not based on wanting to berate or belittle anyone, and my apologies if I am coming across like that.

When it comes to shitty runs on slots, wondering what the hell is going on and losing deposit after deposit and not understanding how my numbers could be what they were, I've been there, done that and got the t-shirt, my postings at CM on these topics are based on 15 years of experience playing slots, and really doing some deep dives, as I did with Arctic back in 2013, and being fortunate enough to have Enzo on hand to take the time to teach me about how this stuff works (and hopefully a few folks at CM in the process too).

For me folks, the RTP is the RTP, if it says 96%, then it's 96%, if it says 94%, it's 94% - and it'll get there eventually.

 

[mack341]

Agree with Chopley. Makes zero sense to keep on depositing day in and day out if you're sure the slots you still keep on playing day in and day out are bent.

I don't think most people are 'sure'

For myself I am suspicious and wondering about sessions that have a distinct pattern of dead spins at the same time as hard to bonus etc... kind of doesn't fit with my image of what random would do.

A feeling something has changed across the board, much harder to win on old favourites and deposits get eaten faster. [96% rtp slots not the butchered 94% bastards]

Chopley's 3dice games, and I'm going from memory here of watching a few of his sessions, look like they have more of a basic mechanic, you can plug away for a while without getting your arse ripped. [edit: they are inhouse games too, so no sharing the revenue]

 

[snorky510238]

Can one of the mods change the thread title to @ChopleyIOM’s 3 dice promotion thread.

Thanks

 

[Jono777]

I don't think most people are 'sure'

For myself I am suspicious and wondering about sessions that have a distinct pattern of dead spins at the same time as hard to bonus etc... kind of doesn't fit with my image of what random would do.

A feeling something has changed across the board, much harder to win on old favourites and deposits get eaten faster. [96% rtp slots not the butchered 94% bastards]

Chopley's 3dice games, and I'm going from memory here of watching a few of his sessions, look like they have more of a basic mechanic, you can plug away for a while without getting your arse ripped. [edit: they are inhouse games too, so no sharing the revenue]

Not too long ago, most games were like this, then greed crept in

 

[perunamies]

Not too long ago, most games were like this, then greed crept in

Yeah, because casinos were never greedy before the year 2022.

 

[pinnit2014]

Can one of the mods change the thread title to @ChopleyIOM’s 3 dice promotion thread.

Thanks

Never heard them mentioned: are they less bent?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I occasionally drop them into my posts, but in a highly skilled and subtle manner so that no one will ever consciously notice.