Watch Out Players.. questions about Dark Knight Rises

[dionysus]

is it possible that actually WAS all wild lokis - i looked at that thread, dont see where it says it was wildstorm feature

 

[dunover]

is it possible that actually WAS all wild lokis - i looked at that thread, dont see where it says it was wildstorm feature

Read replies to the post - players state wildstorm wilds appear as 'loki wilds' in playcheck.

 

[mattsgame]

is it possible that actually WAS all wild lokis - i looked at that thread, dont see where it says it was wildstorm feature

I think 2 posts down, I was corrected as I thought it was all wilds in the Loki feature. In saying that, in my own Playcheck I have seen it and I am sure many others have. Surely some one else has a Playcheck of the split wild feature on TDKR? I tried to look at mine but I am getting a system error atm.

 

[dionysus]

Read replies to the post - players state wildstorm wilds appear as 'loki wilds' in playcheck.

i did - i saw one player say that, and while possibly correct, the playcheck shows lokis for wildstorm, again, is it not possible those ARE loki wilds
I dont see where it says it isnt

 

[The Viking]

I think it is Loki wild, i remember a 32rep posting this screenie from a Loki feature

i did - i saw one player say that, and while possibly correct, the playcheck shows lokis for wildstorm, again, is it not possible those ARE loki wilds
I dont see where it says it isnt

 

[dunover]

I think it is Loki wild, i remember a 32rep posting this screenie from a Loki feature

For pete's sake let's PM him and ask him! Wildstorm wilds appear as Lokis in the playcheck. Please believe me, I've seen my own.

 

[dionysus]

For pete's sake let's PM him and ask him! Wildstorm wilds appear as Lokis in the playcheck. Please believe me, I've seen my own.

okeydokey, let us know

 

[The Viking]

I belive you i just remember this pic he showed us, and this one was from a Loki feature.

For pete's sake let's PM him and ask him! Wildstorm wilds appear as Lokis in the playcheck. Please believe me, I've seen my own.

 

[dionysus]

I belive you i just remember this pic he showed us, and this one was from a Loki feature.

ya, never said they didnt either - just asking if THIS particular screenie is from the loki feature

 

[Igor82]

TDKR Case Study Update

Good evening everyone,

Apologies on the delay in replying - we had finished the TDKR case study on Monday morning, however it took a while to properly write it up. The case study will be uploaded on the website tomorrow as a downloadable PDF and as a permanent entry into our knowledge base.

I'll follow up the post with a link.

HighIQ was kind enough to provide us with 60 odd screenshots from his playcheck session on a reputable casino. We have then paired this with another half dozen cases of our own players, stretching their game-play from 2nd until 20th September and further, another half dozen specifically conditioned tests to understand the game performance in depth.

IMPORTANT: this is NOT the session that is in dispute, undergoing a PAB, so it is not in poor nature to discuss it. This analysis was done on a session that resulted in the opening post screenshots, performed on a different casino.

Case & Conclusion:

HighIQ wagered 314 rounds at varying escalating bet values. on 314th round he triggered 3 scatters and started a free spin feature. The feature awarded 50 free spins at 3 times multiplier.

The triggering bet was £ 3.00 and the free spins were paying at less than triggering bet. We wanted to understand the nature of the payout.

1. HighIQ average lifetime bet was 1.5191, while his trigger bet was 3.00; this meant that his freespin features should have paid at 50.06%

This was not the case. The free spins features were paying at 58.22% across the board.

This made us investigate further cases and while we deduced that payouts did swing up or down according to previous average bet, it did not correspond to the lifetime average.

We suspect two scenarios:

a) Average bet is deduced from averages of specific spins that trigger the fight scene; or
b) Average is deduced from spins that are played from the very first fight scene until the free spin.

At this time we simply posed the question to MGS if one of the two options is the case (out of personal curiosity - at this point i do not know if such answer is a trade secret) few hours prior to typing out this post. There is a way to deduce which is it, however i do not see the relevance in how the average bet is calculated. HighIQ case proves that the game adjusts the average according to a) or b) even when it is in player favour; and our cases performed at max bet accumulation and min bet trigger show that the averages also scale upwards drastically in such cases leading to the conclusion that the adjustment is fair on both sides of the average adjustment.

2. HighIQ had a symbol discrepancy as earlier pointed out by me in relation to the WILD symbol on playcheck. I owe dunover credit as he was right in his statement that wild symbols are purely a representation of the special wild. True value of the bonus type round can be found in event 2 of the free spins where the Playcheck will specify what type of bonus item was chosen (each bonus item corresponds to the type of bonus round).

We have replicated cases where heat seeking wilds were selected (bonus item 3) and the playcheck win-line payout would correctly represent the bonus item, however the symbol would not. We likewise posed the query to MGS for confirmation, however the conclusion is very clear and apparent. There is a clear way how to correlate the type of bonus round selected to the payout which is by analysing event 3 in the freespins playcheck review. The graphical mismatch is just that- graphical.

In conclusion, this players gameplay had paid out exactly to accordance of it's performance. Now, i cannot claim what kind of repercussions or connection this may have with his PAB but i can confirm that this casino session had no issues and no glitches.

Furthermore, to answer some of the speculation on this thread:

We did not see different game performance prior and post update. Admittedly, our investigation was limited to a small number of our customers and following no finding into game performance difference was orientated toward understanding the game better, however on our casino, from our play sample we didnt derive any suspicion into the game function.

Furthermore, to answer the claims that the game could not be random - i sincerely found no reason to suspect anything but a graphic update during the initial game launch. I cannot speak for microgaming and i definitely cannot speak for other operators with regards to their deployment; however based on the limited sample of our internal cases and analysis of a secondary casino case i can conclude the following:

1. TDKR is a 243 win-way game that has a freespin accumulator feature, similarly to other MGS games launched in the past

2. Free spins will pay an adjusted bet value according to the average bet which is derived from the spins that had a role in accumulating the free spins prior to the trigger

3. Free spins will pay an adjusted COIN COUNT (aka if 5A's should pay 750, it will adjust the coin payout); while they will keep the coin value intact.

4. Bonus feature selected can be accounted for from analysis of "event 2" and some cases "event 3" of the free spin sessions in playcheck.

Based on few minor outstanding play-check discrepancies, the game may have further updates but i don't see a significant announcement happening on MGS behalf in relation to this game.

Personally, we've had some pretty decent winners on our Casino deriving from this game, and we've seen some pretty disappointing sessions; which is true for any game we look into.

IMHO, this game is graphics packed bonus-based multi-liner that unlocks its true potential after 10 freespins are unlocked. It's not for everyone (as obvious from the comments) but i would not dare venture as far to call it rigged, glitched or abusable - based on our research so far.

As i said, i'll publish the full case at some point tomorrow which i feel will help players get a far more significant understanding of how the game functions and disperse some doubt (i should hope).

Igor

 

[Igor82]

This made us investigate further cases and while we deduced that payouts did swing up or down according to previous average bet, it did not correspond to the lifetime average.

We suspect two scenarios:

a) Average bet is deduced from averages of specific spins that trigger the fight scene; or
b) Average is deduced from spins that are played from the very first fight scene until the free spin.

At this time we simply posed the question to MGS if one of the two options is the case (out of personal curiosity - at this point i do not know if such answer is a trade secret) few hours prior to typing out this post.

Hi all, please find the case study here:

Link Removed (invalid URL)


for non PDF readers:

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

Above matches our investigations. I hope this answered any remaining doubt with regards to game performance.

Mods: Can you please change the title of the thread? There was no error found in the game, but rather, the game was suspected to be performing one way by players, while it had performed a different way.

 

[gerilege]

Hi Igor,

Thanks a lot for the great work! Read through quickly your post and report, and have two questions.

From the report:
"While we have seen claims of players managing to “cash-in” in the early days of the game launch due to different performance parameters of the free-spin pay-out, we could not see the different pattern on our installation of the game from the one present at launch."

What do you mean under different performance parameters of the free-spin pay-out?

From your post:

"this game is graphics packed bonus-based multi-liner that unlocks its true potential after 10 freespins are unlocked."

I am not sure if I understand this correctly. Does this mean that the theoretical RTP (the exact, mathematical, complex, but finite RTP at any given moment, and not the simulated one over the long run) is lower before you unlock 10 free spins?
Example: consider a game where we have the same reel setup during normal play and feature play, and the feature is a standard 15 free spins @3x type. Now if the feature is symbol-combination driven (i.e. 3 scatters) then the exact, calculated RTP and the simulated RTP will give the same results for any arbitrary spin. But if we consider an accumulator-type trigger, then this will not be true any more.
Both spins with zero accumulated symbols and trigger-1 accumulated symbols will have the same simulated, long-term RTP, since the spins needed for the trigger will become statistically insignificant on the long run. But the exact, finite RTP will be lower when you have zero accumulated symbols (i.e. you do not play the game long enough). Is it the same for TDKR?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi all, please find the case study here:

Link Removed (invalid URL)

Furthermore, we did have a reply with regards to the way average bet is calculated.




for non PDF readers:

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

Above matches our investigations. I hope this answered any remaining doubt with regards to game performance.

Mods: Can you please change the title of the thread? There was no error found in the game, but rather, the game was suspected to be performing one way while it had performed a different way.

This is very much how Tomb Raider II works. It would have helped had they not made the initial error on the paytable. The fact that it's fight triggering bet, not average bet, that governs the free spin weighted bets, may be what confused one casino into calling into doubt the validity of the game, and trying to void a very large payout.

A player who kept changing bet, but as you said, triggered fights always on the higher bets, and then had a particularly generous free spin round, could fail the audit because the casino is looking at the average bets, and then thinking the free spins all paid at far too high a bet.

Of course, there is another complication. What about the fight scene that triggers the multiplier increase. When this happens, the multiplier is applied to all the free spins thus far. I would have thought that this would create a case for an additional calculation on that particular fight scene, rather than simply using the bet it triggered at to create another datapoint for averaging when the spins are triggered.

It now seems a case of waiting out the original PAB, as if it concludes that the casino was wrong in applying "malfunction voids play" as this analysis would suggest, we would have a consistent explanation of how it came to be that the game was suspected of being too generous in the first place.

 

[Przecinek]

Hi all, please find the case study here:

Link Removed (invalid URL)


Mods: Can you please change the title of the thread? There was no error found in the game, but rather, the game was suspected to be performing one way while it had performed a different way.

Quality post there Igor and a good study too. Helps to clear all the controversy surrounding this particular slot.
I did a test in 4 fun mode, using €7.5 stakes and them switching to €0.3 and was surprised to see that I got paid for two scatters only €0.6! According to your study it should be way more as my average when triggering 'battle scenes' was much higher than €0.3. That happened more or less around the time the game was launched.

This is very much how Tomb Raider II works. It would have helped had they not made the initial error on the paytable. The fact that it's fight triggering bet, not average bet, that governs the free spin weighted bets, may be what confused one casino into calling into doubt the validity of the game, and trying to void a very large payout.

A player who kept changing bet, but as you said, triggered fights always on the higher bets, and then had a particularly generous free spin round, could fail the audit because the casino is looking at the average bets, and then thinking the free spins all paid at far too high a bet.

Of course, there is another complication. What about the fight scene that triggers the multiplier increase. When this happens, the multiplier is applied to all the free spins thus far. I would have thought that this would create a case for an additional calculation on that particular fight scene, rather than simply using the bet it triggered at to create another datapoint for averaging when the spins are triggered.

It now seems a case of waiting out the original PAB, as if it concludes that the casino was wrong in applying "malfunction voids play" as this analysis would suggest, we would have a consistent explanation of how it came to be that the game was suspected of being too generous in the first place.

Yikes, I would have never thought about those multiplier spins, but they are effectively doubling the amount of spins player has.
About TRII : I just checked this game, and it says "All values within the bonus game have already been multiplied by the weighted average bet taken from the time the first reel is activated until the time of triggering the feature". So this would mean that all bets count towards average payout, not only "passport" ones. Unless this is what you meant by referring to "initial error on the paytable" (I assumed you mean Batman paytable?)

Also VWM, in another thread, you said " all (TDKR) free spins are played at the bet that gave the triggering scatters" - this seems to contradict the results of Bet-at's study?

 

[Nifty29]

Hi Igor,

Thanks a lot for the great work! Read through quickly your post and report, and have two questions.

From the report:
"While we have seen claims of players managing to “cash-in” in the early days of the game launch due to different performance parameters of the free-spin pay-out, we could not see the different pattern on our installation of the game from the one present at launch."

What do you mean under different performance parameters of the free-spin pay-out?

From your post:

"this game is graphics packed bonus-based multi-liner that unlocks its true potential after 10 freespins are unlocked."

I am not sure if I understand this correctly. Does this mean that the theoretical RTP (the exact, mathematical, complex, but finite RTP at any given moment, and not the simulated one over the long run) is lower before you unlock 10 free spins?
Example: consider a game where we have the same reel setup during normal play and feature play, and the feature is a standard 15 free spins @3x type. Now if the feature is symbol-combination driven (i.e. 3 scatters) then the exact, calculated RTP and the simulated RTP will give the same results for any arbitrary spin. But if we consider an accumulator-type trigger, then this will not be true any more.
Both spins with zero accumulated symbols and trigger-1 accumulated symbols will have the same simulated, long-term RTP, since the spins needed for the trigger will become statistically insignificant on the long run. But the exact, finite RTP will be lower when you have zero accumulated symbols (i.e. you do not play the game long enough). Is it the same for TDKR?

AFAIK, TRTP is not a number that can be calculated at any particular moment like RTP is i.e. the slot TRTP is 97% (or whatever) and it is no less or more at any given point. Whether the slot is able to pay more at a given point in time than another does not affect it's overall TRTP. The "theoretical" part means that, over the long term, the slot SHOULD (and mathematically does in practice) pay extremely close to that number.

RTP can be calculated at any point, whereas TRTP can not. It's really not much different than hitting free spins on any slot where there is a range of spins and multipliers....you hit the lowest number on the lowest multiplier, and your potential for a big hit is lower, but the TRTP has not changed. It does not increase when you hit the highest spins on the highest multiplier. Am I making sense?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Quality post there Igor and a good study too. Helps to clear all the controversy surrounding this particular slot.
I did a test in 4 fun mode, using €7.5 stakes and them switching to €0.3 and was surprised to see that I got paid for two scatters only €0.6! According to your study it should be way more as my average when triggering 'battle scenes' was much higher than €0.3. That happened more or less around the time the game was launched.



Yikes, I would have never thought about those multiplier spins, but they are effectively doubling the amount of spins player has.
About TRII : I just checked this game, and it says "All values within the bonus game have already been multiplied by the weighted average bet taken from the time the first reel is activated until the time of triggering the feature". So this would mean that all bets count towards average payout, not only "passport" ones. Unless this is what you meant by referring to "initial error on the paytable" (I assumed you mean Batman paytable?)

Also VWM, in another thread, you said " all (TDKR) free spins are played at the bet that gave the triggering scatters" - this seems to contradict the results of Bet-at's study?

At face value, it does, but Igor has presented an argument showing that it's possible this will occur when a player keeps changing bet, but just happens to trigger all the fights on a higher bet, making his "weighted average" far higher than the session average. It's possible the casino using the malfunction argument thought that this was a demonstration of a major glitch, rather than a misunderstanding of how the game is supposed to work.

It now means I will have to look again at my original session to see what the bets were when the fights were triggered, and whether the average bet used during the free spins reflects this, as it clearly does not reflect the average of all the bets leading up to the trigger. I may now be too late, as these may no longer be available in Playcheck.

 

[Igor82]

What do you mean under different performance parameters of the free-spin pay-out?

Some players claimed that the game paid them differently after launch than it payed days later due to a pay-table update, causing sufficient amount of confusion to require analysis. This was uncovered to be false. Player assumptions were based on insufficient information, namely how the free spin averages were calculated.

"this game is graphics packed bonus-based multi-liner that unlocks its true potential after 10 freespins are unlocked."

I am not sure if I understand this correctly. Does this mean that the theoretical RTP (the exact, mathematical, complex, but finite RTP at any given moment, and not the simulated one over the long run) is lower before you unlock 10 free spins?

No, nifty is quire right here. the TRTP never changes, however the fun, versatility of bonus rounds that can be picked allowing further win potentials (stacked and split wilds) become available after 10 free rounds are achieved. The sentence is aimed to state the full potential of the player experience, rather than insinuate TRTP change.

Of course, there is another complication. What about the fight scene that triggers the multiplier increase. When this happens, the multiplier is applied to all the free spins thus far. I would have thought that this would create a case for an additional calculation on that particular fight scene, rather than simply using the bet it triggered at to create another datapoint for averaging when the spins are triggered.

I'm not following your line of reasoning. If 5 losing spins triggered the fight scenes, averaging €1 in their bet value, then irregardless of the triggering bet value all spins would pay at €1 x multiplier across all spins. Fight scenes would simply generate the free spin count and the multiplier aggregate, but the average bet would average the win of the full free spin round, irregardless of what the multiplier is or how many spins were generated.

The average does just that: averages out the total value of the free spin round.

It now seems a case of waiting out the original PAB, as if it concludes that the casino was wrong in applying "malfunction voids play" as this analysis would suggest, we would have a consistent explanation of how it came to be that the game was suspected of being too generous in the first place.

PLEASE don't involve the PAB. This analysis suggests no such thing! Your statements make it hard to be open about things. I analysed the game on my casino based on some of my player requests (which were reading your posts as gospel and thought their bonus rounds should yield them more) and analysed highiq case of another casino, for comparison, at his request. For all you know and all i know the PAB case could have had a malfunction for reasons not listed here. Should you insist on using my posts to fuel this line of "fiction for fact" style of communication; i'll reserve my future endeavors (which take time and effort) for audience better suited to listen.

This post was a result of factual investigation to understand the game itself and disperse speculation. Whether you appreciate it or not, even believe it or not, is fully your prerogative - but i would personally appreciate if you could respect the effort and not use it to make claims on cases that have no actual relevance to the study.

I did a test in 4 fun mode, using €7.5 stakes and them switching to €0.3 and was surprised to see that I got paid for two scatters only €0.6! According to your study it should be way more as my average when triggering 'battle scenes' was much higher than €0.3. That happened more or less around the time the game was launched.

The average bet adjustment is only influential to the outcome of free spin rounds. Base game rounds pay at trigger bet. In such case if your 0.30c bet (1 coin at 0.01c) winning 2 scatters should yield you 30c as a win.

Yikes, I would have never thought about those multiplier spins, but they are effectively doubling the amount of spins player has.

no, the amount of spins stays the same, it's just that the win of each of the spins is multiplied (example. 150 coins pay 300 coins for x2 multiplier). This result is adjusted according to the weighted average.

Also VWM, in another thread, you said " all (TDKR) free spins are played at the bet that gave the triggering scatters" - this seems to contradict the results of Bet-at's study?

It was an assumption based on what initial pay table stated. payable was updated to reflect that actual game performance.

AFAIK, TRTP is not a number that can be calculated at any particular moment like RTP is i.e. the slot TRTP is 97% (or whatever) and it is no less or more at any given point. Whether the slot is able to pay more at a given point in time than another does not affect it's overall TRTP. The "theoretical" part means that, over the long term, the slot SHOULD (and mathematically does in practice) pay extremely close to that number.
....

Am I making sense?

Correct.

 

[gerilege]

AFAIK, TRTP is not a number that can be calculated at any particular moment like RTP is i.e. the slot TRTP is 97% (or whatever) and it is no less or more at any given point. Whether the slot is able to pay more at a given point in time than another does not affect it's overall TRTP. The "theoretical" part means that, over the long term, the slot SHOULD (and mathematically does in practice) pay extremely close to that number.

RTP can be calculated at any point, whereas TRTP can not. It's really not much different than hitting free spins on any slot where there is a range of spins and multipliers....you hit the lowest number on the lowest multiplier, and your potential for a big hit is lower, but the TRTP has not changed. It does not increase when you hit the highest spins on the highest multiplier. Am I making sense?

Since a true video slot is a finite machine (i.e. it has a finite number of reels with a finite number of reel stops) TRTP can be combinatorially calculated at any given moment once you know the exact finite probability of events and the corresponding paytable. This calculation might be very complex for slot machines with long reel strips, hence it is often replaced by simulation of million spins. This simulation estimates the combinatorial theoretical probability and TRTP which is hard to calculate. But for accumulator type games, this simulation has a high difference to the combinatorial TRTP if the sample is from the very first beginning of the game on that slot.

Let me give some simplified examples. The estimated TRTP for both slots will be the same on the long run.

Slot A. For each spin, you have the following possible outcomes betting a single coin:
Empty spin, 90% of the time, pays zero.
Win of 5 coins, 9% of the time, pays 5 coins.
Feature, 1% of time, pays 50 coins (let's have this as a static 50 coin win, it does not matter now).
Now the combinatorial TRTP is the following if you bet a single coin:
0.9*0 + 0.09*5 + 0.01*50 = 0.95.
If you would run a simulation for this game for TRTP, it would also reach 95% (0.95), and at any given point of game play, the TRTP is 95%.

Slot B. For this slot, you need to get a given combination 5 times to get the feature.
For each spin, you have the following possible outcomes betting a single coin:
Empty spin, 85% of the time, pays zero.
Win of 5 coins, 9% of the time, pays 5 coins.
Feature accumulator, 5% of time, when the fifth is collected, feature pays 50 coins (let's have this as a static 50 coin win, it does not matter now).

The simulated RTP of this slot would also be 95% over a big sample (you need to hit a 5% probability event 5 times more than you need to hit a 1% event probability for slot A).

However assuming your accumulator is on zero, your combinatorial TRTP will be lower than 95% for that spin, since you have:
0.85*0 + 0.09*5+0.5*0 = 0,45, which is 45%. For that single spin you have 0% to hit the feature, since you need to collect five somethings to trigger. Hence the feature payout is impossible to achieve on the next spin on slot B, while it is possible to achieve on slot A.

With other words, if you only play a single spin in your lifetime on slot A, your TRTP is 95%, but if you only play a single spin on slot B, your TRTP is 45%.

The reason that the above things and the identical TRTP can co-exist is that for accumulator games, once you have accumulated 4 out of 5 on slot B, your TRTP for the next spin will be the following:
0.85*0+0.09*5+0.05*50 = 2.95 = 295%.

But you needed to play a few spins with a lower "per spin" TRTP to get there.

Now connecting back to the original topic. I always had the assumption that features like in Thunderstruck2 are equally powerful, not matter you need to unlock some of them. If it is not the case for the game in this thread, than the above considerations would apply to this game.

Edit: considering Igor's post in the meanwhile, if he is stating that the features in this game are equally powerful, than my above comments does not apply to this game.

 

[Igor82]

Let me give some simplified examples. The estimated TRTP for both slots will be the same on the long run.

Slot A. For each spin, you have the following possible outcomes betting a single coin:
Empty spin, 90% of the time, pays zero.
Win of 5 coins, 9% of the time, pays 5 coins.
Feature, 1% of time, pays 50 coins (let's have this as a static 50 coin win, it does not matter now).
Now the combinatorial TRTP is the following if you bet a single coin:
0.9*0 + 0.09*5 + 0.01*50 = 0.95.
If you would run a simulation for this game for TRTP, it would also reach 95% (0.95), and at any given point of game play, the TRTP is 95%.

the TRTP is the same but bares zero influence on individual spin. individual spin ranges from 0% to xxxx% rtp. Only aggregate probability of all winline combinations added up will show the intended TRTP, which can only be calculated when enough attempts have been made.

Individually, it bares no relevance to the game what so ever. looking at RTP as a player is actually false exercise. To each individual user the volatility rating of a slot has far more impact on their game expectancy than it's TRTP. (by that i mean you can either expect frequent tiny wins, or long dry spells with high hits - you can assume the feel of the game you are about to embark on)

Slot B. For this slot, you need to get a given combination 5 times to get the feature.
...
Now connecting back to the original topic. I always had the assumption that features like in Thunderstruck2 are equally powerful, not matter you need to unlock some of them. If it is not the case for the game in this thread, than the above considerations would apply to this game.

Edit: considering Igor's post in the meanwhile, if he is stating that the features in this game are equally powerful, than my above comments does not apply to this game.

Again, it bears no relevance to your individual spin. each of your spins (attempts) can yield you a x5 bet with probability of hitting lets say one time in a 100 attempts. or a 50xbet which has far lower probability (say one in 10,000) or a feature bet which will accumulate many x5 and x50 bets and multiply them etc. eventually yielding a x2000 bet for you. Reality is, probability for the combination of the events to happen that lead to that outcome will be proportional to your win (in case of x2000 say 1 in a million).

all that truly happens is that you travel different paths of getting to that win and along it, in some cases invest more attempts in getting there and in some cases less attempts (kind of like snakes and ladders lol) - yielding you a session loss or a session win.

For you, the TRTP makes no difference as such (except that it indicates how much the game takes as a overall margin of course), it literally is a roll of dice with each individual spin. For us, the operators & game providers alike, it means that when thousands of players put through millions of spins; across their entire body of stakes, the game will give out 3-4-5% less, than it will take - creating a profit. All it needs is sufficient number of spins (hence, the house always wins fallacy).

Your profit, if you will, was attributed to by the small losses of many players and the game took it's "service cut" (as i like to look at it).

I hope that helps.

EDIT: oh, and important - that's why there is no reason to make slots NOT random. It takes far more effort and money to hunt each player session down individually per player and then adjust (seriously: ) then to simply ensure the probability of outcome is lower than the win it will yield. Randomness works in casino favor as much as it does in players.

 

[gerilege]

the TRTP is the same but bares zero influence on individual spin. individual spin ranges from 0% to xxxx% rtp. Only aggregate probability of all winline combinations added up will show the intended TRTP, which can only be calculated when enough attempts have been made.

Individually, it bares no relevance to the game what so ever. looking at RTP as a player is actually false exercise. To each individual user the volatility rating of a slot has far more impact on their game expectancy than it's TRTP. (by that i mean you can either expect frequent tiny wins, or long dry spells with high hits - you can assume the feel of the game you are about to embark on)



Again, it bears no relevance to your individual spin. each of your spins (attempts) can yield you a x5 bet with probability of hitting lets say one time in a 100 attempts. or a 50xbet which has far lower probability (say one in 10,000) or a feature bet which will accumulate many x5 and x50 bets and multiply them etc. eventually yielding a x2000 bet for you. Reality is, probability for the combination of the events to happen that lead to that outcome will be proportional to your win (in case of x2000 say 1 in a million).

all that truly happens is that you travel different paths of getting to that win and along it, in some cases invest more attempts in getting there and in some cases less attempts (kind of like snakes and ladders lol) - yielding you a session loss or a session win.

For you, the TRTP makes no difference as such (except that it indicates how much the game takes as a overall margin of course), it literally is a roll of dice with each individual spin. For us, the operators & game providers alike, it means that when thousands of players put through millions of spins; across their entire body of stakes, the game will give out 3-4-5% less, than it will take - creating a profit. All it needs is sufficient number of spins (hence, the house always wins fallacy).

Your profit, if you will, was attributed to by the small losses of many players and the game took it's "service cut" (as i like to look at it).

I hope that helps.

All I am saying is that for a game on which you have to "collect" something during spins to get a specific prize which is contributing to the TRTP, and you have no other chance to get that prize, you will have a lower TRTP if you do not play enough spins. If you only play up to 4 spins on slot B in my example in your life, you will never have a chance to get the feature, hence in that case you have a mathematically lower TRTP.

If you sell all your belongings and bet 10000$ on a single roulette spin on red, you have an exact TRTP on that bet. The same applies for slot A all the time. But for slot B, you better not put that 10000$ on your first spin, since with that single spin you have no chance to get the feature and you have no more shots.

Furthermore, I insist that TRTP can be theoretically calculated for a single spin if you know all the probabilities. It can be very complex, it might be difficult to calculate it with computers in a lifetime, but for simple games as the above examples, it can be done. A few years ago together with a few forum members we calculated it for a few Microgaming slots where the reel strips were not that long and features were simple.

Maybe if Enzo (3Dice) is around, he could help me explaining this a bit better.

 

[vinylweatherman]

All I am saying is that for a game on which you have to "collect" something during spins to get a specific prize which is contributing to the TRTP, and you have no other chance to get that prize, you will have a lower TRTP if you do not play enough spins. If you only play up to 4 spins on slot B in my example in your life, you will never have a chance to get the feature, hence in that case you have a mathematically lower TRTP.

If you sell all your belongings and bet 10000$ on a single roulette spin on red, you have an exact TRTP on that bet. The same applies for slot A all the time. But for slot B, you better not put that 10000$ on your first spin, since with that single spin you have no chance to get the feature and you have no more shots.

Furthermore, I insist that TRTP can be theoretically calculated for a single spin if you know all the probabilities. It can be very complex, it might be difficult to calculate it with computers in a lifetime, but for simple games as the above examples, it can be done. A few years ago together with a few forum members we calculated it for a few Microgaming slots where the reel strips were not that long and features were simple.

Maybe if Enzo (3Dice) is around, he could help me explaining this a bit better.

There are a number of games requiring one to collect things towards a bonus, and some operators are wary of such games due to the potential for abuse by players through certain betting strategies, in particular strategies where there is a bonus in play. This is despite the inbuilt protection of using weighted average bets, and the fact that triggering the eventual bonus event is not something that a player can predict.

This new Dark Knight slot is similarly vulnerable, as getting the trigger is just as (un)predictable as getting that last passport on Tomb Raider II. Once a player has played the new Batman slot enough, they will develop a feel for how far, on average, they can push their session whilst not triggering one of the bigger accumulated free spins rounds at the "wrong time" as far as they are concerned. For example, a player may decide to push for around 40+ free spins at 3x, and then decide that's far enough, and will leave the game and return later when they don't have any "shackles" through having a bonus in play, not greatly different to how Scrooge might be played (or not played at BetAt, as this isn't allowed with a bonus).

Given that MGS games are the same wherever they are deployed, if no error in the game engine is found at one venue, it follows that no error in the game engine existed at any venue.

This thread started with an error spotted after the paytable was updated to say "average weighted bet". Players said they saw a change between sessions prior to this update, and after. Igor found no evidence of this even looking at sessions from the 2nd September, which would have been prior to the updating of the paytable.

As there was no pulling of the game, nor notification to operators, this would point to it merely being a graphical update, with the game always having paid on the basis of average weighted bets.

My session from the 2nd really does look like I didn't suffer any average weighting of my bets, so I can't reconcile this with Igor's findings, even by considering that it's not average of all bets, but only of those bets yielding a fight scene and collection of further free spins.

 

[Nifty29]

There are a number of games requiring one to collect things towards a bonus, and some operators are wary of such games due to the potential for abuse by players through certain betting strategies, in particular strategies where there is a bonus in play. This is despite the inbuilt protection of using weighted average bets, and the fact that triggering the eventual bonus event is not something that a player can predict.

This new Dark Knight slot is similarly vulnerable, as getting the trigger is just as (un)predictable as getting that last passport on Tomb Raider II. Once a player has played the new Batman slot enough, they will develop a feel for how far, on average, they can push their session whilst not triggering one of the bigger accumulated free spins rounds at the "wrong time" as far as they are concerned. For example, a player may decide to push for around 40+ free spins at 3x, and then decide that's far enough, and will leave the game and return later when they don't have any "shackles" through having a bonus in play, not greatly different to how Scrooge might be played (or not played at BetAt, as this isn't allowed with a bonus).

Given that MGS games are the same wherever they are deployed, if no error in the game engine is found at one venue, it follows that no error in the game engine existed at any venue.

This thread started with an error spotted after the paytable was updated to say "average weighted bet". Players said they saw a change between sessions prior to this update, and after. Igor found no evidence of this even looking at sessions from the 2nd September, which would have been prior to the updating of the paytable.

As there was no pulling of the game, nor notification to operators, this would point to it merely being a graphical update, with the game always having paid on the basis of average weighted bets.

My session from the 2nd really does look like I didn't suffer any average weighting of my bets, so I can't reconcile this with Igor's findings, even by considering that it's not average of all bets, but only of those bets yielding a fight scene and collection of further free spins.

You're making stuff up again...and I'm sure Igor will reiterate what he's already pointed out SEVERAL times.

Just for your benefit, however, I will put it in a nutshell.....

There is NO "emptier", "vulnerability", "forceable jackpot", "advantage play" etc etc etc. If there WAS, TDKR would NOT be live at ANY casino. Besides, as Igor has explained, and as everyone elses results have shown recently, you are just as likely to LOSE playing at the same or varied stakes.

If there was a way to "predict" EXACTLY when the fight sequence will occur (there isn't), or EXACTLY when the free spins would activate (there isn't), THEN perhaps there would be an "emptier" of sorts. However, since there is NO way to even remotely predict any of these events, then there is NO way to manipulate your results. I've seen players go 5-600 spins without the free spins, and only 40 spins or less, so unless you are psychic then you have no more idea than anyone else. Increasing your bet as the free spins increase will NOT help you "beat" the slot, as you could very well put in far more than the free spins pay....and this has been shown to be the case, just like any other random video slot.

I'll leave the rest to Igor, as I'm too dumbfounded to argue with you any more right now. You really need to get over this obsession you have with every second slot being a "cloaked AWP" of some kind. I mean, you can't even predict THEM, as your recent "failed prediction" about Treasure Ireland (i.e. the non-megastreak) shows.

 

[Igor82]

I'll leave the rest to Igor,

No, you've got it pretty well covered moving on...

 

[vinylweatherman]

You're making stuff up again...and I'm sure Igor will reiterate what he's already pointed out SEVERAL times.

Just for your benefit, however, I will put it in a nutshell.....

There is NO "emptier", "vulnerability", "forceable jackpot", "advantage play" etc etc etc. If there WAS, TDKR would NOT be live at ANY casino. Besides, as Igor has explained, and as everyone elses results have shown recently, you are just as likely to LOSE playing at the same or varied stakes.

If there was a way to "predict" EXACTLY when the fight sequence will occur (there isn't), or EXACTLY when the free spins would activate (there isn't), THEN perhaps there would be an "emptier" of sorts. However, since there is NO way to even remotely predict any of these events, then there is NO way to manipulate your results. I've seen players go 5-600 spins without the free spins, and only 40 spins or less, so unless you are psychic then you have no more idea than anyone else. Increasing your bet as the free spins increase will NOT help you "beat" the slot, as you could very well put in far more than the free spins pay....and this has been shown to be the case, just like any other random video slot.

I'll leave the rest to Igor, as I'm too dumbfounded to argue with you any more right now. You really need to get over this obsession you have with every second slot being a "cloaked AWP" of some kind. I mean, you can't even predict THEM, as your recent "failed prediction" about Treasure Ireland (i.e. the non-megastreak) shows.

Even when I agree that the evidence does not show signs of an error, it's still wrong.

How about addressing the "elephant in the room", which is that one casino has categorically stated that there WAS an error in the game when first deployed. It also appears that they are intending to stick to this assertion.

Whilst it could be that the casino have actually decided it's a case of fraud, by using the "malfunction voids play" term, they have gone on record as claiming that a game error, not fraud or breaches of the terms, is what has happened.

My money is on a fair few people having egg on their faces when this is all over, so I'll just wait and get ready for my "I told you so" moment.

 

[dionysus]

Even when I agree that the evidence does not show signs of an error, it's still wrong.

How about addressing the "elephant in the room", which is that one casino has categorically stated that there WAS an error in the game when first deployed. It also appears that they are intending to stick to this assertion.

Whilst it could be that the casino have actually decided it's a case of fraud, by using the "malfunction voids play" term, they have gone on record as claiming that a game error, not fraud or breaches of the terms, is what has happened.

My money is on a fair few people having egg on their faces when this is all over, so I'll just wait and get ready for my "I told you so" moment.

told us what? you kept asserting MG said there was a glitch - they didnt
you kept asserting there was a glitch - there isn't

all there is is a CASINO saying there's a glitch, and maybe they did, and that's why the op should PAB and the op, max and the casino can sort it out
sorry, but the big elephant in the room was you trampling all over a single casino's assertion and making it a huge MG conspiracy

anyway, thanks Igor Igor for the study