Videoslots Shocker!

[brianmon]

Maybe the UKGC has special agents who travel around the world, Knocking on the doors of casinos.
"Hello, I'm from the UKGC, I've come to read your RTP meters"

 

[ChopleyIOM]

To answer a few folks at once here, I

Terrific comparison there, truly

Must be great to place your unconditional trust in a company or product like that, without question. Even as in Snorky's case, where he's being shafted every which way, only to nonchalantly handwave away someone else's experiences like that. I wish I could be as submissive to these trusting companies!

And yet we are told to put up or shut up.....and so players will go along with that, playing games they've been told are fine, all to see that RTP even itself out. And if it happens to not do so, then one's told to not put one more cent through the game, as that would be stupid, right?

Guess I'd best get investing in that lube, things are gonna get bumpy! Because lord help the person that speaks out!

.....and should one have lost a shit-ton already, well, never mind eh. It's just the natural order of things!

Only in this industry I tell ya!

Well I'm not the one still pumping the things with money! I think Unibet have had two or three deposits off me in the last year (if that), and I haven't deposited a penny anywhere else for around 18+ months now (might even be longer than that), apart from 3Dice.

The deciding factor for me was gimped RTPs, endless crazy HV releases, slots relying on feature buys to be even remotely interesting, the death of decent bonuses and perks, and a tiresome, endless churn of low-effort games with all the charm of a diseased badger.

When VS will cheerfully take games at RTPs of 94% or 92% (or even lower) they've made their intentions entirely clear, which is why I stopped playing there when the RTP gimping started happening, there were several videos on my old channel calling them out for their shady behaviour in tucking the news away on their invisible newsfeed, rather than letting players know clearly that the games they were playing had just had their house edge increased by 50%.

So yeah, I voted decisively with my wallet quite some time ago, what I don't do is grumble and moan about how bent and cheating the games are these days, and then continue to deposit money and play them!

According to snorky's OP to this thread, it took him 18 months and 50+ losing deposits to realise VS were doing something 'underhanded' to pinch his money off him, it took me about ten minutes to appraise the way they were going and I was like, 'Screw this, I'm outta here'.

But sure, I'm the one with 'unconditional trust' in the situation ?

EDIT - Just checked my VS account, the last deposit I made there was in March 2020.

EDIT AGAIN - Three deposits to Unibet in the last year of £100 each, so that's the sum total of my deposits anywhere except 3Dice in the last twelve months. I voted with my wallet, not gripey threads and posts here on the forums

 

[aceking123]

But again - why would they want to rig an individual account? What possible good could come from it? They’re already making money through letting that player play a game. Why rig one out of hundreds, and thousands of players?

I genuinely can’t think of a single good reason.

And it’s never people on a winning streak claiming the games feel “off”; it’s always the losers. Even when the losers were days earlier on a winning streak.

Humans always see patterns in things that aren’t there, and rarely complain when they’re happy, even if they “know” something isn’t “right” - if it’s in their favour, they’re happy.

I get what your saying but even if they did 10% of individuals accounts that's alot of money across the board.

Your correct we do see patterns & observations over time, but it still doesn't mean players are talking crap.

 

[snorky510238]

And as I have stated, people ask for a bit of substance to what I am saying and it just gets totally ignored. Not even an attempt by the doubters to explain it.

Don’t worry, there will be more to come, as I pursue the truth. Probably an impossible mission, I grant you that but if you don’t try, etc.

Let me ask another question. If you ran a business and realised there was nothing in place to stop you making another, let’s say £10,000,000 a year. Would you exploit the loophole or just carry on as you are?

I will just clarify one thing, that the OP may have come across in a slightly misleading way. I don’t think it’s the Casinos that are primarily responsible, it’s the providers but Casinos are the ones harbouring it and aren’t completely innocent.

Take other walks of life as an example of what goes on.

Politicians: They earn a decent wedge, don’t they? Why would they need to be greedy and fiddle expenses? No way would they risk doing that, they are people we can trust.

The police: Are there to protect us and see that the laws are obeyed, correct? No way could anyone get into the police force if they were corrupt, racist, a potential murder, prepared to cover up for or carry out malpractice, right?

Professional sports people: They earn fantastic money, correct? They wouldn’t take performance enhancing drugs you fools. Why would they need to do that, they earn thousands. They wouldn’t get involved in match fixing because they don’t need to right?

Whilst it would be fair to say that the vast majority of people within the above professions are probably, genuine law abiding citizens, it has been proved that a certain percentage are not on several occasions.

These are professions that the public needs to be able to trust. The type of professions that we want to look up to and respect but it has been proven time and time again that we cannot do that with 100% confidence.

If these supposedly upstanding pillars of the community can harbour individuals that cannot help exploiting the system or their power. Don’t tell me for a second, that an industry that by its own very nature, is unethical and immoral, is squeaky bloody clean for god’s sake.

 

[Mouche12]

One of the few good things about the newly regulated Dutch gambling market is that most casinos (as far as I have seen) use the highest RTP for providers like Play 'n Go, Microgaming, etc.

BTG uses just one RTP I think. I love most of their games, even though they're high variance. Since October 2021 I've been much luckier at casinos with a Dutch license, sheer coincidence of course -- but still, it's a breath of fresh air to me and I'm feeling a bit more confident again playing online. Never had much luck at VS, but if they want to enter the Dutch market they surely must opt for the highest RTP.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

If these supposedly upstanding pillars of the community can harbour individuals that cannot help exploiting the system or their power. Don’t tell me for a second, that an industry that by its own very nature, is unethical and immoral, is squeaky bloody clean for god’s sake.

But literally no one is saying that, including me. You can't just make up an assertion that no one has put forward and then zealously refute it with a load of examples that are irrelevant to the point at hand - it's the textbook definition of a straw man argument.

There is an awful lot about the casino 'industry' that I think is scummy and sleazy, I regularly called it out on my old channel, and have done so time and time again here on CM over the years, there is ample evidence for anyone who cares to go looking. (It's like over in the Brexit thread where I'm accused of being in love with the EU and thinking the EU is fantastic, and then I calmly just present posts I made three years ago IN THE EXACT SAME THREAD where I'm openly critical of aspects of how it's run and organised and to what ends.)

I don't mind having a debate about this stuff, but please let's not just start making things up.

I've said time and time again that we've seen what casinos do when they want to make more money, they lower RTPs, they cut back on perks, they stop offering bonuses, they cheap out on CS, they don't observe RG guidelines, they use stalling tactics on withdrawals etc etc, we all know the score. In the case of VS they weren't happy making 4% on the PnG games, so they took the versions where they make 6% - boom, job done, and they didn't have to do anything other than send an email to PnG with a subject title of 'We want to make more money please, send us sacks of cash, cheers'. I believe one of their sister casinos is running the 91% variants? So there you go, job done again.

The one thing they (a) Have no real ability to do and (b) Makes absolute no sense anyway, is start faffing about trying to run some strange version of Bonanza that may or may not make RTP but if it does make RTP it does it in a 'weird' way that means snorky loses his £15 deposits in an unsatisfactory manner.

I asked this questions a few pages ago, answers came there none, the explanation has to be one of these, so which do we think it is? What do we think VS are up to?

1) They are running hacked games
2) They are in cahoots with BTG and have special anti-snorky versions of their slots
3) They have access to secret backdoor online casino controls that can interfere with the games and make them play 'wrong'
4) They are somehow fiddling with the network traffic to alter the results
5) Insert conspiracy theory here

 

[snorky510238]

If I knew the answer. I would be halfway to solving the puzzle. All I am saying is that something is a million miles from making sense.

Well here’s what I am prepared to do.

I give @Videoslots my full permission to list all my deposits since the start of this year.

Against each deposit I would like them to state, the games played (there’s only a handful), the length of time the deposit lasted and the highest point the balance reached and the rtp for each game played.

Is there any other information you would like to add to that?

 

[goatwack]

Meanwhile, over at VS HQ.....

"Blow me sideways, that fella Snorky, who's been ripping us to shreds on CM wants us to publish his Bonanza RTP!"

"But won't that go against data protection laws Bob?"

"It'll be fine, just get the figures already!"

"You might wanna see this......he's at 63%!"

"Darn it. Send in our sleeper agent Chopley to keep Snorky distracted and pray this never sees the light of day. Now hold my hand Jed"

 

[catsdeadnow]

I've been skulking on here for years.
Never posted publicly.
'Til now.

For moi, this thread is so disheartening in so many respects.

In one corner we have The White Hats: those who insist slot programming and functionalities are as they're officially -- legally -- and claimed and required to be. And that, in the absence of appropriate evidence to the contrary, the rest of us can and should -- must -- understand and believe that.

In the other corner are The Black Hats: those who insist that what we're asked to believe is essentially theoretical, acceptance of and belief is just blind faith in the undeserving, and that the rest of us can and should -- must -- understand and believe the richness and poorness of our own personal experiences.

To be blunt, neither Hat can back up their claims -- at least for lowly CM members like moi --with clear, certain and irrefutable, objective evidence. Both sides are relying on a pretty normal combo of selected "facts", selective "information" - and personal insights and understandings.

So, within this forum at least, neither Hat can be proven right. And neither can be proven wrong. There's something else the Hats seem to share: Arguing their case with absolute commitment, conviction and unrestrained passion.

For someone who's here to learn, I felt this thread could and should have become one of the more useful and important "discussions and analysis" of one of the more uber-important subjects to all of us. Sadly, that didn't happen - not even close, on account of passions overtaking sensibilities and even civilities. There's no learning in sarcasm; there's no education in disdain.

It's my hope that maybe this small book from me will make a tiny contribution to a widespread effort being made to restore this thread's value and substance.

So let me go first.

Up here, where we sell milk by the bag, there's a bricks/mortar casino in the nation's capital that's operated by a 'lil outfit called Hard Rock Cafe International.

The casino's own corporate-speak promises that "the RTP for all slot machines is no less than the 85% as legally required". Slots account for almost all of this casino's revenues.

Them there Hard Rock folks aren't small potatoes: Forbes cites their annual revenues at just over $3 billion.

Hard Rock lead the news here two months ago with this: "The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has fined the operator of the Rideau Carleton Casino more than $227,000 for dozens (ed: a total of 36) of alleged regulatory violations, including "repeatedly" (ed: over a period of almost two years) failing to implement, follow and enforce anti-money laundering policies and (ed: Commission-prescribed) procedures."

Seems to me The White Hats hang a lot of their arguments on the claims that casinos/developers (eg) "don't have to" tinker with RTPs or variances ... and "the risk of tinkering wouldn't be worth it to them."

Running 85% slots (!!!), Hard Rock hardly needed to make up their own playbook to put food on the table. But they did it anyhow. Fact. One doesn't mean all, obviously; but nobody ever got themselves worse off over estimating greed.

All to say can we carry on with this thread and respectfully explore what actually might be, and why - what's actually a possibility ... however unverified, however unverifiable?

Cheers.

 

[goatwack]

There is nothing to be gained from these types of discussions as respecting others' viewpoints take a hike fairly early on, as does the notion of hypothetical 'what ifs' and other assorted conjecture.

Whether that's indicative of the times we live in, where everything's split into 'right' and 'wrong', or if it pertains just to slot discussion, who really knows. But if you're seeking any shade of grey in these types of discourse, then you'll be sorely disappointed!

 

[pinnit2014]

Whilst i may not personally subscribe to the 'April patch' bent theory, having played the game as much as probably anyone, over the last few years it feels (no doubt certain posters will not like that word ) like the variance has been kicked up about 10 notches - the last few years i've had my biggest X wins BUT they've come in the form of more (a lot more) sub 50x wins than before: so while i've had more 750x plus wins i've had a helluva lot more sub 50's

Ah, but it always gave crap bonus's...true, but not as many

Just my 'feeling' having clocked up more than 10000 hours playing

 

[snorky510238]

I said ages ago that the middle ground bonus 200-500x had been all but removed.

The other thing that changed tenfold, is the amount of spins required to land the bonus. It was obvious to anyone that played it enough, that the game was tampered with on a massive scale.

Of course because they don’t have to announce anything, that leaves unsuspecting players thinking, that was a bad session, oh and another, then after a while, you realise that the only way this can possibly be happening is if it’s been tampered with.

I would love nothing more than to have the ability or be able to post my lifetime stats for Bonanza. With every little detail there for all to see.

I can guarantee that even the most proactive of the “rtp rules”, brigade would not be able to say it looks legit…..Well apart from one, of course.

Anybody would think, I am making all this up for the good of my health or because I have nothing better to do. I am limited to what I can do here. I have called things as they are, named names and Casinos. Not one has ever replied. Not that I would expect it to be honest.

This is one of the main problems. Casinos and Providers have come up with this armour that’s impossible to penetrate.

The outcome of each spin is random (that is the biggest load of bullshit, you’ll ever hear, yet I would say 99% of slot players believe it).

You only have to ask yourself a few questions in order to realise this statement is false, at least where games such as Bonanza are concerned.

The game has endless possibilities, in the bonus round, allegedly. Stacked symbols, retriggers, reels 7 deep, unlimited multiplier, wilds, decent pay table and you can stake up to £20 a spin.

Yet the game was released without a max cap win. Why do we think that was? Because the game has been programmed in such a way that a huge win is not attainable. If it was truly random a monster win should be more than attainable. Yet apart from the mythical 14,000x, we have seen nothing much over x5,000 after thousands, possibly millions of bonus rounds.

 

[goatwack]

You don't know that Snorky. For all you know there are countless players out there still playing out the Unlimited Multiplier from 2016

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I thought it'd been pretty well established that Bonanza used dynamic reel strips or some other such trickery to control the payouts in the bonus round?

Ultimately the game has an RTP of 96% so the Megaways can't make it more likely to win overall, any more than an old five-liner that Microgaming would have run in their Viper casino back in the day on 96%.

I remember when the 243-wayers first came out and I was like, 'Ooohhhh how will it be possible to lose?', of course that didn't last long....

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I've been skulking on here for years.
Never posted publicly.
'Til now.

For moi, this thread is so disheartening in so many respects.

In one corner we have The White Hats: those who insist slot programming and functionalities are as they're officially -- legally -- and claimed and required to be. And that, in the absence of appropriate evidence to the contrary, the rest of us can and should -- must -- understand and believe that.

In the other corner are The Black Hats: those who insist that what we're asked to believe is essentially theoretical, acceptance of and belief is just blind faith in the undeserving, and that the rest of us can and should -- must -- understand and believe the richness and poorness of our own personal experiences.

To be blunt, neither Hat can back up their claims -- at least for lowly CM members like moi --with clear, certain and irrefutable, objective evidence. Both sides are relying on a pretty normal combo of selected "facts", selective "information" - and personal insights and understandings.

So, within this forum at least, neither Hat can be proven right. And neither can be proven wrong. There's something else the Hats seem to share: Arguing their case with absolute commitment, conviction and unrestrained passion.

For someone who's here to learn, I felt this thread could and should have become one of the more useful and important "discussions and analysis" of one of the more uber-important subjects to all of us. Sadly, that didn't happen - not even close, on account of passions overtaking sensibilities and even civilities. There's no learning in sarcasm; there's no education in disdain.

It's my hope that maybe this small book from me will make a tiny contribution to a widespread effort being made to restore this thread's value and substance.

So let me go first.

Up here, where we sell milk by the bag, there's a bricks/mortar casino in the nation's capital that's operated by a 'lil outfit called Hard Rock Cafe International.

The casino's own corporate-speak promises that "the RTP for all slot machines is no less than the 85% as legally required". Slots account for almost all of this casino's revenues.

Them there Hard Rock folks aren't small potatoes: Forbes cites their annual revenues at just over $3 billion.

Hard Rock lead the news here two months ago with this: "The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has fined the operator of the Rideau Carleton Casino more than $227,000 for dozens (ed: a total of 36) of alleged regulatory violations, including "repeatedly" (ed: over a period of almost two years) failing to implement, follow and enforce anti-money laundering policies and (ed: Commission-prescribed) procedures."

Seems to me The White Hats hang a lot of their arguments on the claims that casinos/developers (eg) "don't have to" tinker with RTPs or variances ... and "the risk of tinkering wouldn't be worth it to them."

Running 85% slots (!!!), Hard Rock hardly needed to make up their own playbook to put food on the table. But they did it anyhow. Fact. One doesn't mean all, obviously; but nobody ever got themselves worse off over estimating greed.

All to say can we carry on with this thread and respectfully explore what actually might be, and why - what's actually a possibility ... however unverified, however unverifiable?

Cheers.

Yes but the White Hats are coming from a starting position of the games being developed, tested, regulated and licensed in tightly regulated jurisdictions where the penalties for non-compliance are extremely harsh. Maybe the lack of evidence that the games aren't bent is because..... they're not bent? Why make a bent 96% game when you can just release a 94% maths model of it? You've just increased the house edge by 50% at a stroke and done it entirely within the rules.

VS are running Mystery Reels Megaways at 93.09%, a house edge of 6.91%, there's your con, right there, in plain sight! No further trickery required.

Almost anything is a possibility, it's a possibility that the entire universe is simply a construct of goatwack's imagination and we are all neurons in his intergalactic sized brain, and everything that happens in our lives is based on how happy he is with his daily God-sized sandwich. I mean, it's highly unlikely, but it's a possibility, right? It might be, right?

Random games with a house edge make money as a mathematical certainty, if the casinos want to make more money, they can run games with a lower RTP. Has Bonanza been changed? I don't know. Some people seem sure it has, and maybe they're right. But if it's certified and it makes RTP then it ultimately makes no difference anyway, I still don't understand the point of doing this when the RTP is identical and the game is so popular anyway, and yeah it would be a bit scummy to change a game without telling the players, but it's within the rules.

 

[satchnz]

Yes but the White Hats are coming from a starting position of the games being developed, tested, regulated and licensed in tightly regulated jurisdictions where the penalties for non-compliance are extremely harsh. Maybe the lack of evidence that the games aren't bent is because..... they're not bent? Why make a bent 96% game when you can just release a 94% maths model of it? You've just increased the house edge by 50% at a stroke and done it entirely within the rules.

VS are running Mystery Reels Megaways at 93.09%, a house edge of 6.91%, there's your con, right there, in plain sight! No further trickery required.

Almost anything is a possibility, it's a possibility that the entire universe is simply a construct of goatwack's imagination and we are all neurons in his intergalactic sized brain, and everything that happens in our lives is based on how happy he is with his daily God-sized sandwich. I mean, it's highly unlikely, but it's a possibility, right? It might be, right?

Random games with a house edge make money as a mathematical certainty, if the casinos want to make more money, they can run games with a lower RTP. Has Bonanza been changed? I don't know. Some people seem sure it has, and maybe they're right. But if it's certified and it makes RTP then it ultimately makes no difference anyway, I still don't understand the point of doing this when the RTP is identical and the game is so popular anyway, and yeah it would be a bit scummy to change a game without telling the players, but it's within the rules.

It’s interesting, albeit not surprising, that you decided to ignore my post about Lightning Roulette. The one post that offers video evidence of a game of chance that is clearly not random.

I’m kinda on your side regarding slots and a casinos ability not to be able to influence the outcome, but I sure don’t share your absolute blind confidence, and outright arrogance, that everything is always 100% above board. You only have had to live life a little bit to realise that this world is not all unicorns and lollipops.

 

[snorky510238]

Random games are guaranteed to make money?

My interpretation is that nothing random is guaranteed to happen.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

You only have had to live life a little bit to realise that this world is not all unicorns and lollipops.

Ha! If only my Gambling Low Ebbs videos were still online.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Random games are guaranteed to make money?

My interpretation is that nothing random is guaranteed to happen.

Flip a coin 100 times and let me know when you to get to 100 flips without getting a tails.

 

[goatwack]

Makes you wonder how many coin-tossers have ever achieved this feat, but for one reason or another, never got to share their truth with the world

 

[Jono777]

Forget all about the coins, forget all about Bonanza, forget all about RTp, forget all about volatility.

Lets all just be plain "Tossers" - at least there is nothing dodgy about that and the end result will always be the same

 

[goatwack]

I've tossed off 100 times this week alone, and the result is always the same

- splooge on the carpet, crinkled socks. Don't need sextillions to tell me that

 

[aceking123]

All so called live games are controlled period, the game shows are the worst for this, there's plenty of videos showing them not to be true in the fact that the provider does have control of the games in question. Do they meet the trpt yes no doubt. But its in a controlled way.

Bonanza fell the wrong side of this when you put the word unlimited into the game, we all know this is bull, what's to say they've tweaked the game & many others to suit what they get who knows, the industry is filthy & super greedy, so nothing would surprise me.

Another slot immortal romance this has changed without doubt.

No smoke & mirrors if you play a game long enough you can see the change. I've played immortal romance since the day it came out, in all those years I've never hit 5 scatters, never hit top symbol of five across the board & never hit the dream of 5 wilds. I'm talking millions of spins.

I've hit the four wilds 1,2,3,4 a few times but always at a stake lower than my normal bet. It says to me something is corrected itself, why else would it do it on such low stakes, begs a question.

 

[Deeplay]

Ha! If only my Gambling Low Ebbs videos were still online.

I watched all of them Chopley ... some were hard and painful to view! But showed the true misery of the flip side of gambling ... worthy uploads if somewhat very depressing to sit through !

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I watch all of them Chopley ... some were hard and painful to view! But showed the true misery of the flip side of gambling ... worthy uploads if somewhat very depressing to sit through !

Thanks Deeplay - I mention them only to counter the assertion that my views on the world of gambling are coming from a place of 'unicorns and lollipops'.

 

[snorky510238]

Flip a coin 100 times and let me know when you to get to 100 flips without getting a tails.

View attachment 171225

Well, there are only 2 outcomes when flipping a coin unless you use the Evolution coin flipper, where it’s possible it can land on its edge.

Therefore, it is more than highly probable that you will spin tails at some point before completing a hundred spins. Also you have tried to create a random situation.

Random definition: made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

 

[goatwack]

I'm just glad no one's seen fit to use the coloured balls in a bag analogy (yet)

 

[Deeplay]

Thanks Deeplay - I mention them only to counter the assertion that my views on the world of gambling are coming from a place of 'unicorns and lollipops'.

I agree and I remember back in the day when fortune lounge we the dogs bollocks when it came to VIPS they took me for dinner etc ... they were doing the rounds in Europe visiting vips (i gambled a lot then!) and we spoke on conspiracy theories. I always remember him saying they have no reason at all to cheat. The system is inbuilt to ensure over time they get everything. His boss would complain when they would have some massive payouts but then ... it always turned around. He never went to detail but he told me there is nothing they need to do but let the games and maths model do the work. The ways they would try to influence were through promos / comping / vip treatments etc player loyalty. Everything else was built in.

Most new slots today are crap to play - but they are not bent. Just very smart math models - and I can guarantee play a game long enough you come out with a loss. Bonanaza is an extreme example because I think it has a very clever maths model - but its not bent. In the end if I felt any game online was not legit Its very simple - I would not put play it. There is nothing to see here but an ocean of tin foil hat myth and legend. But some people will always see patterns where they are none.

 

[catsdeadnow]

Yes but the White Hats are coming from a starting position of the games being developed, tested, regulated and licensed in tightly regulated jurisdictions where the penalties for non-compliance are extremely harsh. Maybe the lack of evidence that the games aren't bent is because..... they're not bent? Why make a bent 96% game when you can just release a 94% maths model of it? You've just increased the house edge by 50% at a stroke and done it entirely within the rules.

VS are running Mystery Reels Megaways at 93.09%, a house edge of 6.91%, there's your con, right there, in plain sight! No further trickery required.

Almost anything is a possibility, it's a possibility that the entire universe is simply a construct of goatwack's imagination and we are all neurons in his intergalactic sized brain, and everything that happens in our lives is based on how happy he is with his daily God-sized sandwich. I mean, it's highly unlikely, but it's a possibility, right? It might be, right?

Random games with a house edge make money as a mathematical certainty, if the casinos want to make more money, they can run games with a lower RTP. Has Bonanza been changed? I don't know. Some people seem sure it has, and maybe they're right. But if it's certified and it makes RTP then it ultimately makes no difference anyway, I still don't understand the point of doing this when the RTP is identical and the game is so popular anyway, and yeah it would be a bit scummy to change a game without telling the players, but it's within the rules.

In fairness, any of us trying our best to be objective and open-minded would probably prefer the following:
It's possible that the lack of evidence that the games aren't bent is because..... they're not bent.
It's also possible that the games are bent, but there's no evidence because there's been no detection.
And it's also possible that bent games have been detected, but the evidence has been suppressed and not disclosed.

Surely each of is entitled to claim and argue which of the above is most and least likely to be true. And each of us is entitled to use and reference any and all insights and information we have to support our arguments.

But from what I've been reading on here, none of those insights and none of that information -- however thoughtful -- is actually proof.

Even so, I believe you and all other White Hats are entitled to have your insights and your information carefully and respectfully considered. But I believe Black Hats' entitlement is no less and no different.

For example, I'd carefully considered your comment that (eg) casinos don't have to make games bent to make more money. The headline news about Hard Rock I cited is hardly proof that slots at Rideau Carleton Raceway had been bent. It is, however, proof that, in at least this one instance, operators violated dozens and dozens of different regulations for almost two years, with one sole focus and objective: Making even more money. At 85% RTP, they were obviously already making truckloads. They didn't have to operate dishonestly and underhandedly. They chose to. The fine they paid is a mere cost-of-doing-business tax.

Seems to me your essential default is (i.e.) 'There's absolutely no need or reason to incur the potentially catastrophic risks of tinkering when simply reducing the RTP achieves the same goal legally'.

Understood - but here are the problems I'm having (over and above serious marital difficulties I was only recently advised I was actually having): What's it called and what does it mean if casino personnel claim and represent that a slot's RTP is X and in fact it's actually less than X? And if you don't believe that scenario is possible, why don't you believe it's possible?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well, there are only 2 outcomes when flipping a coin unless you use the Evolution coin flipper, where it’s possible it can land on its edge.

Therefore, it is more than highly probable that you will spin tails at some point before completing a hundred spins. Also you have tried to create a random situation.

Random definition: made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

It is a random situation, or rather, a random event. And by 'highly probable' we're talking odds to the extent that I'd cheerfully stake my life on it never happening in exchange for ten million quid if every person on the planet started flipping coins today and did nothing else until they died or flipped 100 heads on the trot - and if they got 100 heads I'd be killed on the spot, or forced to play Starburst for the rest of my life (I'm not sure which would be worse).

A random slot is kind of just a coin except it has billions of sides instead of two, if you add up every single possible result, with each generation of a result costing £1, then on average each result returns 96p.

I'd do the bag of balls thing but goatwack has already sent a shot across the bows on that front.....

 

[snorky510238]

But that’s my exact point. A true random event cannot be influenced in any way. Using these examples, where outcomes are influenced heavily by the structure of the activity cannot be classified as random. They are more predetermined.

I don’t see any difference between a slot that is classified as compensated and a slot classified as random.

A compensated slot pays the said percentage so if it says 96% payout, that is what it should do.

A random slot pays 96% rtp so that means that it is what it should do.

Where is the difference here?

 

[snorky510238]

I'm just glad no one's seen fit to use the coloured balls in a bag analogy (yet)

Don’t encourage, I beg of you.

 

[satchnz]

This thread has become a battle between experiences and theories. Experiences are something you know. Theories are something you have to believe. It’s human nature to believe your experiences over theories.

(I’m attempting to be deep here, but I’m several bourbons into the afternoon so none of this may make sense - apologies)

 

[pinnit2014]

This thread has become a battle between experiences and theories. Experiences are something you know. Theories are something you have to believe. It’s human nature to believe your experiences over theories.

(I’m attempting to be deep here, but I’m several bourbons into the afternoon so none of this may make sense - apologies)

Nothing beats a bit of daytime drinking.

Even better if you're winning on the slots at the same time

Though - that can, and has gone, horribly wrong: what do you mean i shouldn't spin on 10's? I'm invincible!

30 minutes later - a teary drunk emerges from the bathroom.

 

[satchnz]

Nothing beats a bit of daytime drinking.

Even better if you're winning on the slots at the same time

Though - that can, and has gone, horribly wrong: what do you mean i shouldn't spin on 10's? I'm invincible!

30 minutes later - a teary drunk emerges from the bathroom.

Purely a low roller my friend. Down only £23 for four hours of entertainment. My bankroll would never sustain more than five £10 spins so that’s never going to happen. Finished for the day now ?

 

[paul7388]

This thread has become a battle between experiences and theories. Experiences are something you know. Theories are something you have to believe. It’s human nature to believe your experiences over theories.

(I’m attempting to be deep here, but I’m several bourbons into the afternoon so none of this may make sense - apologies)

I know the feeling I just ate a full packet of bourbons with my coffee now feel a bit sick lol.

 

[brianmon]

As far as I'm aware, one of the most important things to a casino is the 'hold'.
That's the amount of cash they constantly retain. Basically the cashflow

This is probably why they're so keen on the new ultra-high variance games.
Sure, they're likely to have to pay out a huge win now and again. But day to day, these UHV slots will probably be running under RTP

Don't forget, the TRTP% is for the game, at the provider's end. It's not what the casinos are 'guaranteed' or what the player is 'guaranteed'.
This may be why some existing games would be changed. Increase Variance means an increased hold.

Plus, the higher the variance, the fewer withdrawal, possibly not the £/$ value of withdrawals, but the actual number.
What's better for a casino? 1000 withdrawals of £200 a day or 30 withdrawals of £5000 and the occasional withdrawal of £50,000.
Less staff needed to do the withdrawals. less payment provider fees.

I don't know how internet line leasing for businesses works. But won't it cost more, the more traffic you have?
If a deposit can last for 30 minutes. Won't that be better and cheaper for both the casino and the provider than players getting hours and hours of playtime per deposit?

Then there are bonuses. a smaller percentage of players will manage to complete wagering on UHV slots (and increased variance existing slots) all adding to the hold

Just my thoughts on why an existing game might be changed

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Seems to me your essential default is (i.e.) 'There's absolutely no need or reason to incur the potentially catastrophic risks of tinkering when simply reducing the RTP achieves the same goal legally'.

Understood - but here are the problems I'm having (over and above serious marital difficulties I was only recently advised I was actually having): What's it called and what does it mean if casino personnel claim and represent that a slot's RTP is X and in fact it's actually less than X? And if you don't believe that scenario is possible, why don't you believe it's possible?

I haven't said it isn't possible, I've said that it's the least likely option for a casino to take if it wants to increase its profits and/or offset increased operating costs, there are so many different legal levers available to pull, that to choose the one marked 'PULL THIS LEVER TO RISK A MASSIVE FINE, POSSIBLE LOSS OF OPERATING LICENCE AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS' seems daft.

I totally get that casinos are caught breaking other rules and get done for it, I've never for one single second suggested I think the industry is as pure as the driven snow (quite the opposite), but I still don't see how the dodgy games angle pans out, and there's certainly no evidence for it happening.

I'm prepared to accept that Bonanza might have been messed with in terms of its volatility and its maths model, (brianmon makes some good points in his post just above), it still doesn't entirely make sense to me as to why they'd bother, but enough seasoned players seem convinced of it for me to concede the point as as possibility, I don't however believe that it doesn't make RTP - because that's the one thing everyone involved could really get slapped on the arse for.

If I were running VS and Bonanza was turning in 94% for a couple of months on the trot, I'd be worried about it and I'd be onto BTG, because that'd say to me the game wasn't running right, wasn't making its certified RTP, and that there was a problem that'd need addressing. (VS list the actual achieved RTP of all slots on their site, it's publicly available information, unless we're now saying that they're falsifying those numbers? Because you can pick any month you want and it's always very close to 96%.)

 

[MickeyVonDickey]

A bit of a 'noob' so please forgive my ignorance. Am I right in thinking that trtp is worked out at a testing house that comes to an average rtp on any given slot over 10 billion + spins.

If this is the case then the only people who can falsify this is the testing house themselves, as the 'average joe' (or possibly even regulators) wouldn't have the ability, technology, industry know-how or indeed, willingness to test this themselves.

So whatever figure is stated by the testing house (within fine margins) would be taken as gospel and displayed at each online casino as the trtp for that particular online slot.

Is this roughly how it works?

 

[Jono777]

Nothing beats a bit of daytime drinking.

Even better if you're winning on the slots at the same time

Though - that can, and has gone, horribly wrong: what do you mean i shouldn't spin on 10's? I'm invincible!

30 minutes later - a teary drunk emerges from the bathroom.

How naïve and nice and none judgmental am I ?

I thought he was referring to the biscuits when I first read his post.

Friday = knackered o' clock

 

[Jono777]

I haven't said it isn't possible, I've said that it's the least likely option for a casino to take if it wants to increase its profits and/or offset increased operating costs, there are so many different legal levers available to pull, that to choose the one marked 'PULL THIS LEVER TO RISK A MASSIVE FINE, POSSIBLE LOSS OF OPERATING LICENCE AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS' seems daft.

I totally get that casinos are caught breaking other rules and get done for it, I've never for one single second suggested I think the industry is as pure as the driven snow (quite the opposite), but I still don't see how the dodgy games angle pans out, and there's certainly no evidence for it happening.

I'm prepared to accept that Bonanza might have been messed with in terms of its volatility and its maths model, (brianmon makes some good points in his post just above), it still doesn't entirely make sense to me as to why they'd bother, but enough seasoned players seem convinced of it for me to concede the point as as possibility, I don't however believe that it doesn't make RTP - because that's the one thing everyone involved could really get slapped on the arse for.

If I were running VS and Bonanza was turning in 94% for a couple of months on the trot, I'd be worried about it and I'd be onto BTG, because that'd say to me the game wasn't running right, wasn't making its certified RTP, and that there was a problem that'd need addressing. (VS list the actual achieved RTP of all slots on their site, it's publicly available information, unless we're now saying that they're falsifying those numbers? Because you can pick any month you want and it's always very close to 96%.)

....where the chance of actually getting caught due to extremely clever programming and other protective measures make this less than 1% chance of the fine happening.

I'd take the risk as an operator to make even more money.

Apologies but this thread is going nowhere now, those who believe and those who don't (and possibly are also TOO trusting)

Ever industry has its loopholes and exploits and I-Gaming is no exception.

 

[snorky510238]

I haven't said it isn't possible, I've said that it's the least likely option for a casino to take if it wants to increase its profits and/or offset increased operating costs, there are so many different legal levers available to pull, that to choose the one marked 'PULL THIS LEVER TO RISK A MASSIVE FINE, POSSIBLE LOSS OF OPERATING LICENCE AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS' seems daft.

I totally get that casinos are caught breaking other rules and get done for it, I've never for one single second suggested I think the industry is as pure as the driven snow (quite the opposite), but I still don't see how the dodgy games angle pans out, and there's certainly no evidence for it happening.

I'm prepared to accept that Bonanza might have been messed with in terms of its volatility and its maths model, (brianmon makes some good points in his post just above), it still doesn't entirely make sense to me as to why they'd bother, but enough seasoned players seem convinced of it for me to concede the point as as possibility, I don't however believe that it doesn't make RTP - because that's the one thing everyone involved could really get slapped on the arse for.

If I were running VS and Bonanza was turning in 94% for a couple of months on the trot, I'd be worried about it and I'd be onto BTG, because that'd say to me the game wasn't running right, wasn't making its certified RTP, and that there was a problem that'd need addressing. (VS list the actual achieved RTP of all slots on their site, it's publicly available information, unless we're now saying that they're falsifying those numbers? Because you can pick any month you want and it's always very close to 96%.)

So what about the rtp I posted for Bonanza at Spinrider, showing 87% over a 5 year period?

You have come up with some very lengthy answers for certain questions and continually asked for some substance to the accusations but when I attempt to make it available, you choose to conveniently, ignore it completely,

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So what about the rtp I posted for Bonanza at Spinrider, showing 87% over a 5 year period?

You have come up with some very lengthy answers for certain questions and continually asked for some substance to the accusations but when I attempt to make it available, you choose to conveniently, ignore it completely,

How many spins did you do over that five year period? That's the number that makes the 87% RTP meaningful, I know you said 'lots' but without an actual number to attach to it, I can't really say one way or another.

 

[Reelsoffun]

Well snorks, you’re not really helping yourself of people taking you seriously when your asked to provide your lifetime RTP at VS as it’s them you’re accusing of wrongdoing then post your 87% stats on bonanza from another casino completely?

But I will answer you in regards to the spin rider stats, it’s most likely a below average amount of luck on that game there, too few games, or even some stake deviation, something that gets overlooked a lot. It’s so easy to skew personal RTP on any slot by playing higher or lower than normal stakes and getting lucky or unlucky.

When are people going to realise that just because a slot has a long term TRTP of 96% it does not mean that every player is going to eventually achieve said RTP. There will be a small minority of players that are running way above, many will be below and providing they have all played sufficient games, the vast bulk of the players with be very close to expected RTP.

Its no secret that I made hundreds of slot simulators and had a hand in some real land based slots, they might only be sims, but have real slot math and perform just as real slots and If I was to give a set amount of members on here an exact copy of one of them and got them to all play the same x amount of spins, you would probably find some very interesting results, I would expect some to do way better than others etc, online games will be no different.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

....where the chance of actually getting caught due to extremely clever programming and other protective measures make this less than 1% chance of the fine happening.

I'd take the risk as an operator to make even more money.

Apologies but this thread is going nowhere now, those who believe and those who don't (and possibly are also TOO trusting)

Ever industry has its loopholes and exploits and I-Gaming is no exception.

I'd respectfully refer you to this post I made last night Jono, I'm the one who's actually stopped playing the bloody things! (Not because I think the games are bent, but because of all the other crap I didn't like. But even as I type this message I've got a slot running over at 3Dice whilst playing Trials Rising, I choose to play at a casino that doesn't gimp their RTPs, doesn't introduce feature buys, doesn't invite me to gamble my features, doesn't gimp their bonuses and VIP offers, doesn't introduce mega-HV games it's borderline impossible to ever actually win on, and all the rest of it. Other options are available, anyone who's complaining about the slots they're playing being cheaty or bent or dishonest, or changing their gameplay without informing them (3Dice give you a popup you have to click through on the very rare occasions they make a change to a slot), whilst still depositing money to play them, is above all else, letting themselves down.)

Videoslots Shocker! - Page 11 - Casinomeister Forum

 

[goatwack]

A bit of a 'noob' so please forgive my ignorance. Am I right in thinking that trtp is worked out at a testing house that comes to an average rtp on any given slot over 10 billion + spins.

If this is the case then the only people who can falsify this is the testing house themselves, as the 'average joe' (or possibly even regulators) wouldn't have the ability, technology, industry know-how or indeed, willingness to test this themselves.

So whatever figure is stated by the testing house (within fine margins) would be taken as gospel and displayed at each online casino as the trtp for that particular online slot.

Is this roughly how it works?

TRTP is, as you say, the testing carried out by the software house to attach a game's percentage, run in-house over millions and sometimes billions of spins.

One's own RTP is therefore always likely to veer away from the exact figure stated, given the much smaller sample size, which often leads to these types of discussions due to the variables. But many also take issue with how these TRTP figures are obtained, never mind vetted, given that the processes are never fully disclosed to your average Joe.

Throw in developers releasing various versions of their games, and welcome to 2022!

And yes, disputing one's own experiences versus a theoretical figure does cause jip

 

[catsdeadnow]

I haven't said it isn't possible, I've said that it's the least likely option for a casino to take if it wants to increase its profits and/or offset increased operating costs, there are so many different legal levers available to pull, that to choose the one marked 'PULL THIS LEVER TO RISK A MASSIVE FINE, POSSIBLE LOSS OF OPERATING LICENCE AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS' seems daft.

I totally get that casinos are caught breaking other rules and get done for it, I've never for one single second suggested I think the industry is as pure as the driven snow (quite the opposite), but I still don't see how the dodgy games angle pans out, and there's certainly no evidence for it happening.

I'm prepared to accept that Bonanza might have been messed with in terms of its volatility and its maths model, (brianmon makes some good points in his post just above), it still doesn't entirely make sense to me as to why they'd bother, but enough seasoned players seem convinced of it for me to concede the point as as possibility, I don't however believe that it doesn't make RTP - because that's the one thing everyone involved could really get slapped on the arse for.

If I were running VS and Bonanza was turning in 94% for a couple of months on the trot, I'd be worried about it and I'd be onto BTG, because that'd say to me the game wasn't running right, wasn't making its certified RTP, and that there was a problem that'd need addressing. (VS list the actual achieved RTP of all slots on their site, it's publicly available information, unless we're now saying that they're falsifying those numbers? Because you can pick any month you want and it's always very close to 96%.)

I've cobbled together excerpts from your various posts on this thread (my only interest is in learning generally ... and, more specifically, trying to better understand why my go-to Immortal Romance is such a drastically different game than it was back in the day ... ).

And you've given me no reason to be anything except appreciative of the time, effort and thought you've been investing in those posts - thank you.

So I've taken the liberty of generalizing what I've learned from you - in your own words.

• "I don't however believe that it doesn't make RTP because"
• "that's the one thing everyone involved could really get slapped on the arse for" - and
• "VS list the actual achieved RTP of all slots on their site, it's publicly available information" - and because there's
• "Never, ever, ever, one single solitary shred of evidence to back any of the claims up" (that are implying or alleging hanky-panky).

I trust this compilation doesn't strike you as a crude or insulting over simplification (we Canadians may be polite, but we're not rude?) - truth is you do acknowledge (at least in the case of Bonanza) that if a seasoned/experienced player feels/believes/claims a game doesn't play/feel right, that game "might have been messed with in terms of its volatility and its maths model".

I dove into this thread wanting to better understand why I'd been forced to terminate my longstanding relationship with Immortal Romance. You've given me one perspective to consider - thank you. I know you recognize and respect that there are also others.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I've cobbled together excerpts from your various posts on this thread (my only interest is in learning generally ... and, more specifically, trying to better understand why my go-to Immortal Romance is such a drastically different game than it was back in the day ... ).

And you've given me no reason to be anything except appreciative of the time, effort and thought you've been investing in those posts - thank you.

So I've taken the liberty of generalizing what I've learned from you - in your own words.

• "I don't however believe that it doesn't make RTP because"
• "that's the one thing everyone involved could really get slapped on the arse for" - and
• "VS list the actual achieved RTP of all slots on their site, it's publicly available information" - and because there's
• "Never, ever, ever, one single solitary shred of evidence to back any of the claims up" (that are implying or alleging hanky-panky).

I trust this compilation doesn't strike you as a crude or insulting over simplification (we Canadians may be polite, but we're not rude?) - truth is you do acknowledge (at least in the case of Bonanza) that if a seasoned/experienced player feels/believes/claims a game doesn't play/feel right, that game "might have been messed with in terms of its volatility and its maths model".

I dove into this thread wanting to better understand why I'd been forced to terminate my longstanding relationship with Immortal Romance. You've given me one perspective to consider - thank you. I know you recognize and respect that there are also others.

Yes I would say that is a fair summary of my position on this.

Speaking as someone who loved Immortal Romance back in the day, I'd say the HTML5 remake of it was a travesty from an aesthetic perspective if nothing else, and we also know for a fact that MG kicked out different maths models for it as well. Did they mess with the 'full fat' 96% version of it in the process? Honestly I didn't do enough spins to come to any sort of conclusion, the way the slot looked and sounded in its HTML5 incarnation was enough to put me off.

I maintain to this day that the original Viper Client version of Immortal Romance is one of the finest online slots ever made. Solid RTP, spicy but sensible volatility, and enough going on in terms of base game wins, feature hit frequency and progression with unlocking the different characters, and of course the Wild Desire feature - to make it perfectly balanced. And of course we could always choose our feature, go for Amber if we wanted a quick hit potential, or choose Michael with the Rolling Reels if we wanted something to go on for a while, with Troy and Sarah offering different options.

I don't know if MG messed with the volatility/maths model of Immortal Romance when it migrated to its current incarnation, I do know that I didn't enjoy playing it (even the music sample bitrate had been downgraded), so I stopped playing it.

So I guess what I'm saying here is that I totally understand when a player says something doesn't 'feel' right to them anymore, but what I don't do is keep plugging away at the thing that doesn't feel right for months and months and months and tens upon tens of deposits, I just find somewhere else and something else to play instead, and I don't call shenanigans in the process.

 

[snorky510238]

So I guess what I'm saying here is that I totally understand when a player says something doesn't 'feel' right to them anymore, but what I don't do is keep plugging away at the thing that doesn't feel right for months and months and months and tens upon tens of deposits, I just find somewhere else and something else to play instead, and I don't call shenanigans in the process.

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.

 

[goatwack]

I don't subscribe to the theory that one should simply 'stop playing' whatever game they happen to enjoy, based on the judgement doled out by those that seek to shut down someone's findings with a game, moreover if the person playing also - unbelievably - wishes to be proven wrong themselves, that their outlook could well be flawed, their figures skewed.

After all, far better to let these games play out as intended, so that the maths rights the wrongs of the world. You'd be surprised how many punters positively yearn to be proven wrong by the White Hat posse, it's an oft-overlooked fact in these discussions.

Still doesn't explain how refraining from participating in said game(s) in any way excuses or validates days/weeks/months of inexplicable losses and shonky gameplay, nor does the 'stop playing it, buffoon' card absolve foul play from possibly being afoot. It's all too convenient an excuse to shut down objectors, with not enough consideration being given to the people paying good money and waste their time, only to see the opposite happening to what's being espoused.

I could go into KFC and visibly shake with anger that the Colonel's changed his secret recipe whilst still enjoying their offerings. I don't see how someone is (predictably) chastised time and again on these hallowed pages when breaching the supposed 'integrity' of slot design. It's almost like an auto-immune response to shield this industry from any form of criticism!