Wagerworks have got three Megajackpot (progressive) slots:
Cluedo
Cleopatra
Monopoly with Pass Go Bonus
These are based on the standard games, for instance the Cleopatra pays are:
(Cleopatra is wild and pays 2x)
5 Cleopatras 10000
4 Cleos 2000
3 Cleos 200
2 Cleos 10
(Sphink is scatter)
5 Sphinxes 100
4 Sphinxes 20
3 Sphinxes 5
2 Sphinxes 2
3 or more Scatters gives 15 spins at 3x, with a maximum of 11 retriggers allowed
5 Scarabs OR Bells 750
4 Scarabs OR Bells 100
3 Scarabs OR Bells 25
2 Scarabs OR Bells 2
5 Tablets 400
4 Tablets 100
3 Tablets 15
5 Staffs 250
4 Staffs 75
3 Staffs 10
5 Eyes 250
4 Eyes 50
3 Eyes 10
5 Aces 125
4 Aces 50
3 Aces 10
5 Kings 100
4 Kings 50
3 Kings 5
5 Queens OR Jacks OR Tens 100
4 Queens OR Jacks OR Tens 25
3 Queens OR Jacks OR Tens 5
5 Nines 100
4 Nines 25
3 Nines 5
2 Nines 2
Payback is given as 95.02%
The Progressive game has exactly the same pays, except 'Cleopatra' is replaced by 'Megajackpot', and has the same pays.
If you get 5 Wilds on Line 1, you win the jackpot.
Except they say
"With a 1,000,000 jackpot, the long-term expected return to player is 90.00%. With a 4,000,000 jackpot, the long-term expected return to player is 93.04%."
And you can bet anywhere between 2p and 5 coins and still be eligible to win the jackpot.
So clearly something is wrong. 5 is 250x bigger than 2p, but both are eligible for the same jackpot. And to win that jackpot all you have to do is get 5 Wilds on line 1. And that's something that should be fixed odds. E.g., if there are 30 symbols on each reel and 1 Wild, then the odds are 1 / (30^5)= 1 in 24.3 million.
Clearly if that's so, then a max bet at 5 pays 10,000 coins for 5 wilds on lines 2 - 20, and at reset (1.5 million) 60,000 coins (based on max bet of 5 coins per line) for line 1.
Whereas the 2p game would pay 250 times as much in coins - 15,000,000 coins (because the progressive is the same amount).
Which means that there's a much higher return to player at 2p than at 5. Which is not sensible.
The 'pay table' also says:
"In accordance with the fair gaming practices in Alderney as well as in most physical casinos world-wide, each and every game outcome is independent. Your odds of getting any particular outcome are always the same. The odds do not vary based on your prior outcomes, your bets, your budget, time of day, day of week, etc."
However looking at 'Game Info' it says:
'If the same Jackpot is offered in the same game with different denominations, the odds of winning the Jackpot are exactly proportional to the actual max bet amount. Therefore, the game is completely fair, offering the same odds per currency amount bet irrespective of the base denomination. For example, a player betting max in a 0.20 denomination game has twice the chance of winning the Jackpot as a player betting max in the same game and currency, but in a 0.10 denomination. The expected return to player is exactly the same for both players. So you can play in your favourite denomination, free from worrying about giving up any Jackpot odds relative to your total max-bet money staked. '
These two statements are contradictory. "Your odds of getting any particular outcome are always the same. " is false, because "a player betting max in a 0.20 denomination game has twice the chance of winning the Jackpot as a player betting max in the same game and currency, but in a 0.10 denomination".
In other words the odds of getting the 5 Wilds outcome is not the same at all. They are not in fact operating 'in accordance with the fair gaming practices in Alderney'.
This means that the Wilds must be weighted based on your bet size.
Max bet is 100 lines, so at 2p this is a 2 stake. At 1 million the game returns 1.80
At 4 million the game returns 1.8608.
Therefore the chance of winning the jackpot is equal to (1.8608 - 1.80)/(4 million - 1 million). That is 49.34 million to 1.
The payout of the game with a zero jackpot is 89.4%.
The game resets at 1.5 million, at which level the game pays 90.92% so they are contributing 1.52% payout with their seed money.
The problem with all of this is that the weighted jackpot has to affect other pays. At 5 coins the chance of hitting the jackpot is only 197,360 to 1 (albeit that you're wagering 500 a spin!), so this would mean if wilds (which, if aligned correctly, win the jackpot) are more likely at higher coins you'd also get more other pays with wilds too. Which would make the return higher at higher coins because you'd get more wild wins.
The only way they could do this is to implement something like this:
1. Get a random number between 1 and x, where x is the chance of hitting the jackpot at the coin level, and if you get a 1, show five wilds on line 1 on the reels
2. If you didn't get a 1, spin the reels as normal. If five wilds on line 1 is the result, discard the result and repeat.
[Which is of course not a fair game, the reels on screen are faked - fraudulent, they do not represent what is actually happening in the background.]
But still it doesn't explain why the payout is so much lower than the normal game.
Cluedo is the a 'skin' of the same game, same paytables but it pays 95.04% at 1m (below reset), and 98.08% at 4 million, which suggests the same odds of winning the jackpot - so why does it pay so much more? And why does it pay less than the basic Cluedo game, which pays 96.00%?
Monopoly is a different game and pays 95.11% at 1m and 98.15% at 4m.
The basic Monopoly game pays 96.01 - again why is it this one pays less despite having the same symbols? I can understand the concept of the jackpot spin being a cheat and not a fair game by doing two separate spins, but that doesn't explain the lower payout.
Quite aside from the fact that Wagerworks claim they have fair games when they do not, these jackpots suck!
"If you win MegaJackpots the prize money shall be paid to you in 20 equal annual instalments. For the avoidance of doubt, no interest will accrue in your favour on any unpaid balance. In lieu of the annual payments, a MegaJackpots winner will be offered the option of selecting a reduced lump sum amount based on the present value of the future payments."
20 years! That's worse than winning at one of the rogue RTGs for payout.
And they admit that the money is not worth what they say it is
"In lieu of the annual payments, a MegaJackpots winner will be offered the option of selecting a reduced lump sum amount based on the present value of the future payments"
So the return to player given is also fraudulent.
They don't specify how the 'present value' will be calculated, which is rogue behaviour given the amount of money involved.
20 year gilt yields are 4.11%, which gives a NPV of 4 million of 2.69 million. Of course Wagerworks could choose a lower figure since they don't specify how this will be calculated. If you were to buy 20-year Wagerworks paper the yield would obviously be much higher than 4.11%, and thus the NPV would be lower.
What this does mean is that the stated returns are wrong. If you have a slot machine that has 3 pays:
10,000 in 1000 years, 2p today, or 1p today
and another
10,000 today, 2p today, 1p today
then the second machine has a MUCH higher payout.
That's the principle here.
The stated payouts are overinflated because the money they're paying is not worth what they say it is.
These must be the worst progressives online. Why have Wagerworks done such a bad job?
Cluedo
Cleopatra
Monopoly with Pass Go Bonus
These are based on the standard games, for instance the Cleopatra pays are:
(Cleopatra is wild and pays 2x)
5 Cleopatras 10000
4 Cleos 2000
3 Cleos 200
2 Cleos 10
(Sphink is scatter)
5 Sphinxes 100
4 Sphinxes 20
3 Sphinxes 5
2 Sphinxes 2
3 or more Scatters gives 15 spins at 3x, with a maximum of 11 retriggers allowed
5 Scarabs OR Bells 750
4 Scarabs OR Bells 100
3 Scarabs OR Bells 25
2 Scarabs OR Bells 2
5 Tablets 400
4 Tablets 100
3 Tablets 15
5 Staffs 250
4 Staffs 75
3 Staffs 10
5 Eyes 250
4 Eyes 50
3 Eyes 10
5 Aces 125
4 Aces 50
3 Aces 10
5 Kings 100
4 Kings 50
3 Kings 5
5 Queens OR Jacks OR Tens 100
4 Queens OR Jacks OR Tens 25
3 Queens OR Jacks OR Tens 5
5 Nines 100
4 Nines 25
3 Nines 5
2 Nines 2
Payback is given as 95.02%
The Progressive game has exactly the same pays, except 'Cleopatra' is replaced by 'Megajackpot', and has the same pays.
If you get 5 Wilds on Line 1, you win the jackpot.
Except they say
"With a 1,000,000 jackpot, the long-term expected return to player is 90.00%. With a 4,000,000 jackpot, the long-term expected return to player is 93.04%."
And you can bet anywhere between 2p and 5 coins and still be eligible to win the jackpot.
So clearly something is wrong. 5 is 250x bigger than 2p, but both are eligible for the same jackpot. And to win that jackpot all you have to do is get 5 Wilds on line 1. And that's something that should be fixed odds. E.g., if there are 30 symbols on each reel and 1 Wild, then the odds are 1 / (30^5)= 1 in 24.3 million.
Clearly if that's so, then a max bet at 5 pays 10,000 coins for 5 wilds on lines 2 - 20, and at reset (1.5 million) 60,000 coins (based on max bet of 5 coins per line) for line 1.
Whereas the 2p game would pay 250 times as much in coins - 15,000,000 coins (because the progressive is the same amount).
Which means that there's a much higher return to player at 2p than at 5. Which is not sensible.
The 'pay table' also says:
"In accordance with the fair gaming practices in Alderney as well as in most physical casinos world-wide, each and every game outcome is independent. Your odds of getting any particular outcome are always the same. The odds do not vary based on your prior outcomes, your bets, your budget, time of day, day of week, etc."
However looking at 'Game Info' it says:
'If the same Jackpot is offered in the same game with different denominations, the odds of winning the Jackpot are exactly proportional to the actual max bet amount. Therefore, the game is completely fair, offering the same odds per currency amount bet irrespective of the base denomination. For example, a player betting max in a 0.20 denomination game has twice the chance of winning the Jackpot as a player betting max in the same game and currency, but in a 0.10 denomination. The expected return to player is exactly the same for both players. So you can play in your favourite denomination, free from worrying about giving up any Jackpot odds relative to your total max-bet money staked. '
These two statements are contradictory. "Your odds of getting any particular outcome are always the same. " is false, because "a player betting max in a 0.20 denomination game has twice the chance of winning the Jackpot as a player betting max in the same game and currency, but in a 0.10 denomination".
In other words the odds of getting the 5 Wilds outcome is not the same at all. They are not in fact operating 'in accordance with the fair gaming practices in Alderney'.
This means that the Wilds must be weighted based on your bet size.
Max bet is 100 lines, so at 2p this is a 2 stake. At 1 million the game returns 1.80
At 4 million the game returns 1.8608.
Therefore the chance of winning the jackpot is equal to (1.8608 - 1.80)/(4 million - 1 million). That is 49.34 million to 1.
The payout of the game with a zero jackpot is 89.4%.
The game resets at 1.5 million, at which level the game pays 90.92% so they are contributing 1.52% payout with their seed money.
The problem with all of this is that the weighted jackpot has to affect other pays. At 5 coins the chance of hitting the jackpot is only 197,360 to 1 (albeit that you're wagering 500 a spin!), so this would mean if wilds (which, if aligned correctly, win the jackpot) are more likely at higher coins you'd also get more other pays with wilds too. Which would make the return higher at higher coins because you'd get more wild wins.
The only way they could do this is to implement something like this:
1. Get a random number between 1 and x, where x is the chance of hitting the jackpot at the coin level, and if you get a 1, show five wilds on line 1 on the reels
2. If you didn't get a 1, spin the reels as normal. If five wilds on line 1 is the result, discard the result and repeat.
[Which is of course not a fair game, the reels on screen are faked - fraudulent, they do not represent what is actually happening in the background.]
But still it doesn't explain why the payout is so much lower than the normal game.
Cluedo is the a 'skin' of the same game, same paytables but it pays 95.04% at 1m (below reset), and 98.08% at 4 million, which suggests the same odds of winning the jackpot - so why does it pay so much more? And why does it pay less than the basic Cluedo game, which pays 96.00%?
Monopoly is a different game and pays 95.11% at 1m and 98.15% at 4m.
The basic Monopoly game pays 96.01 - again why is it this one pays less despite having the same symbols? I can understand the concept of the jackpot spin being a cheat and not a fair game by doing two separate spins, but that doesn't explain the lower payout.
Quite aside from the fact that Wagerworks claim they have fair games when they do not, these jackpots suck!
"If you win MegaJackpots the prize money shall be paid to you in 20 equal annual instalments. For the avoidance of doubt, no interest will accrue in your favour on any unpaid balance. In lieu of the annual payments, a MegaJackpots winner will be offered the option of selecting a reduced lump sum amount based on the present value of the future payments."
20 years! That's worse than winning at one of the rogue RTGs for payout.
And they admit that the money is not worth what they say it is
"In lieu of the annual payments, a MegaJackpots winner will be offered the option of selecting a reduced lump sum amount based on the present value of the future payments"
So the return to player given is also fraudulent.
They don't specify how the 'present value' will be calculated, which is rogue behaviour given the amount of money involved.
20 year gilt yields are 4.11%, which gives a NPV of 4 million of 2.69 million. Of course Wagerworks could choose a lower figure since they don't specify how this will be calculated. If you were to buy 20-year Wagerworks paper the yield would obviously be much higher than 4.11%, and thus the NPV would be lower.
What this does mean is that the stated returns are wrong. If you have a slot machine that has 3 pays:
10,000 in 1000 years, 2p today, or 1p today
and another
10,000 today, 2p today, 1p today
then the second machine has a MUCH higher payout.
That's the principle here.
The stated payouts are overinflated because the money they're paying is not worth what they say it is.
These must be the worst progressives online. Why have Wagerworks done such a bad job?