- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Location
- uk
you should be able to play it at 30p per spin ) click the middle go upto the number 1-5 click it back to one then lower bet should take you down to 30 pence .
Watch Out Players.. questions about Dark Knight Rises
- Thread starter HIGHIQ
- Start date
you should be able to play it at 30p per spin ) click the middle go upto the number 1-5 click it back to one then lower bet should take you down to 30 pence .
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Location
- Manchester
I think it was their version of fixing it.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
for the sake of argument, I doiwnloaded Ladbrokes - the game plays at 30 cents on mine
edit: I think your problem might be, the game defaults to a 2 cent, 150 ($3) bet
move the coin size to one cent, and bet to w/e you want
- Joined
- May 17, 2012
- Location
- uk
Ok I just checked again, its working now but on Saturday it would only let me play with 4 or 5 coins I tried to reduce but it would not let me
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Location
- uk
could of been a bug awaiting update . i dont play there but the other half does )
Hi HIGHIQ,
I'm running analytic on a few things as i'm curious as to the game performance and i'd like to give a concrete answer to 'speculation' based on statistical analysis.
What i can say so far is that from the cases we looked into (and it takes manual labour to extract playcheck screenie for every bonus round of every player) - nothing unsavoury has happened. But, still preliminary and inconclusive.
Seeing as we've (so far) found no discrepancy to point in any unsavoury direction, i started looking at your post more in-depth and your screenshots and i would like you to answer (via PM not to endager your PAB) two questions over your screenshots:
1) Your screens show that your coin payout was modified to reflect 58.044% of your triggering bet. As in, your BET*WIN (5OAK for A)*MULTIPLIER(3) should have yielded you 2250 in credits, but you show 1306. You would need to extract you transactions and see if that corresponds to your average bet.
2) What puzzles me further is that you obviously chosen stacked wild feature based on the symbol on your bottom reel 4. Stacked wild doesn't have an additional multiplier so your 2612 payout shouldn't have happened (1306*2). I'm trying to get to a figure that should equal the original value of that winning line, which if you screenshot is honest, should have been 4500 credits before the adjustment.
5 aces give 750 credits x3=2250, what additional x2 multiplier did you gain, to have a winning payout of 4500 (then adjusted). Even if you take 3 wilds at their own face value of 375*3, that wouldn't add to the winning combination correctly so i frankly see no way for you to arrive at that result.
That screenshot does not look right to me and i sincerely wouldn't want to imply it's incorrect or dishonest, so if you could kindly PM me the bonus feature you selected, i will recreate your scenario on my casino and put it in the analysis.
As it stands right now, that screenie is not OK, unless i'm missing something that is staring me in the face?
HIGHIQ, the more i analyse your post more certain i am becoming that the glitch you speak of has nothing to do with the way bonus feature pays, which is an answer that all would benefit from (working on it).
*NOTICE:The following should not deviate from the topic at hand, which is how the bonus rounds work, but I am having high concerns regarding the validity of; or the game issue shown through HIGHIQ screenshots.*
Above, you state you had double split selected which is why it doubled your win (emboldened quote above), however:
This is the symbol of split wilds which offer 6OAK (paying 2x5OAK):
AND 
In there it does state that 5OAK payout will be doubled, however:
Your screenshot shows STACKED wilds symbol on reel four (given by Bane), and not SPLIT wilds symbol (given by Batman) - which does not pay double the win.
See here:
<----Your win || and Stacked Symbol -----> 
**************************
So in conclusion, while bonus round payout (average or not) and payable in-game update is still up for debate, your specific case has nothing to do with the speculation that ensued, namely:
1) Either the game calculated Stacked Wild symbol as a Split wild symbol and as such doubled your 5OAK payouts from the stacked wild column > In which case it truly was a game glitch, which bring it's own set of repercussions.
(One of the options would be to invalidate your win and a recalculation be made as to what your true win is. - i don't know this as a fact as i don't have the case facts at hand)
or
2) You changed your screenshot to gain support. I have to state this as a valid option, however i dont see the reason for you doing this since you did not uncover the casino name and you also undergone a PAB - which would uncover your doing anyway.
Above shows with 100% certainty that *your payout does not match the symbols at hand, for your benefit* which is why i would imagine the casino put a stop on your winnings (again we don't know the full story here), and still leaves the question toward why you incurred a decrease in coin pay-out (down to 58% ) from what it should originally pay.
************************************
At this point we need allow Max to do his job, but for the time being the speculations that ensued on previous pages should not be taken at face value, as the OP post has far more implicated issues with their winning screenshots than is obvious on the surface of things.
Igor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Location
- Hungary
Hi Igor,
I think it is impossible to find out what happened here without client and server side logs. I would not take it for granted that the following three are in sync and correct for these games:
The screenshot and the paycheck log
The help file description and the way how it should by the rules pay out
The way it actually paid out.
I tried to find out what happened in another, similar game and case, see a summary post here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ew-game-battlestar-at-ladbrokes-casino.54843/
I was able to confirm that there was a mismatch, and also a possible explanation for the mismatch, but the assumed explanation cannot be confirmed without game logs.
It is extremely difficult to work with so many variables. Maybe you are in a better position to get this clarified with MG. I mean as a first step get confirmation on how the game should theoretically pay out, and verify it paid out like that.
After having spent more than ten years in the software industry and almost 15 years following the world of online gambling, I am not convinced - and I am really sorry to say that -that these games are fully formally specified from a software design perspective, at least regarding all the edge cases introduced with different tricky things in these complicated features. I am getting the impression that in the rush it might happen that simply no one exactly knew or put into exact words how the game should behave in some rare edge cases, so as sometimes usual in sw industry, dev, test and doc just went by gut feeling.
Just a hint. In general, due to Intellectual Property and audit standard reasons, there should be a formal specification of this game under a version-controlled, time-stamped storage. I would love to see those specs, at least the parts where these features are described, for both games.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Igor -he DID have the split/doubling wild. Before suggesting HIGHIQ has 'photoshopped' stuff I suggest you do some homework on these MG game reports - they often show a different play report symbol to what the player sees on the reels. One example the MG play report on Immortal Romance, say you get a Wild Desire feature with reels 1,2,3 wild the game report will show the WILD VINE symbol in the first 9 spaces, which is nothing to do with wild desire symbols. Similarly on TSII in the same scenario, you'd see Loki Wilds on the first 9 places for a 3-reel shitstorm.
We've already had this argument in a thread about Battlestar Galactica if you dig it up.
This is a known and common MG issue.
With all due respect dunover, i'm a casino rep disconnected from the issue, working for general end-player benefit in trying to understand what transpired on this case. As you can see i also stated that while photo-shopping is an option i don't see a reason to do this, while you state he did have double/split wilds (on what, gut feeling?)
I'm guessing you are assuming Microgaming just swapped over split wild for stacked wild; and while giving you the benefit of the doubt, you dont know that for a fact - again, you are speculating. In fact you (we) don't even know what bonus type round the player chose (which is why i asked him to PM me). Following your logic, it could have been heat seeking missiles...
The problem with this thread is the speculation that ensues and without factual evidence or statistics, it's anyone's guess what has happened - hence my final statement: Allow max to do his job.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
We never got a resolution of the other complaint, but this post from KK is VERY telling as to why THIS issue is also appearing to be going nowhere.
What REALLY set the cat among the pigeons in the current case is that it started not as a player questioning whether the game was working properly, but as a CASINO voiding winnings because they were 100% certain it was paying out too MUCH.
The deafening silence from Microgaming is as expected, and does not mean there is no glitch. It seems MGS have this "neither confirm nor deny" attitude to anything of this nature, something we might expect from MI6, GCHQ, or the NSA.
One thing has become clear, there IS a glitch, yet Microgaming are telling everybody there isn't one.
It's now possible that there is STILL a glitch that could be of advantage to the player, but it isn't the obvious one it appeared to be initially from reading the initial set of rules and paytables.
We could be entering a very dangerous era for operators. These ever more complicated slot games are trending to what we have here in the UK in our "Fruit Machines". These are VERY complex and feature rich games, and they are stuffed full of "edge cases". This leads to the occasional software slip up, and a few of these create the "emptiers" that pro players love, but arcade operators hate.
At least the UK Fruit Machine operators are protected somewhat by the limited hopper size on the games, either £125 or £250, after which a faulty machine runs out of coins and goes into "call attendant" mode, hence the nickname of "emptier" for such faults. Online operators have no such protection, they have to spot the problem during audit, otherwise it's too late, the player has walked off with the money.
Most problems online turn out to be display errors, or errors in the rules and paytables, with the game itself operating as it should. This case is different, as we have a casino actually voiding winnings based on there actually being a significant enough problem with the game that they can't just let the bets stand and yank the game.
Despite the fact that one casino is calling "malfunction voids play", the only things we KNOW MGS have fixed for this game are the rules, where they now correctly state "weighted average bet", and a minor bug in how the game is displayed in the lobby, where it was followed by some odd looking characters after the name. My MGS casinos also went into "monthly update mode" twice more after the initial formal monthly update, showing that two patches so far have been applied this month by MGS after the main new games update.
If players are still getting paid too much in a certain "edge case", it's still a problem for operators. The OP must have been particularly clever about exploiting this bug as it seems that most who have seen the discussion, and tried for themselves, have decided it offers no long term advantage, with some reporting some pretty low session RTP values despite trying the exploit as detailed initially.
Maybe now we should try out the Bane split wilds edge case to see if this is paying more than it should.
From the screenshots, I can see that the weighted average bet is not actually shown as the stake for each free spin, so this is not an indication as to whether the initial suspect is the bug in question that caused the casino to void the winnings.
I feel that we are REALLY going to have to pile on the pressure to get Microgaming to cooperate and tell even operators what is going on, let alone the players. It seems the last issue just went away after KK was ignored after being promised a reply at ICE.
Had the casino not voided the OPs winnings, it would have been much easier for MGS to stonewall until the issue went away. It's easy to argue that players who think they have spotted an error merely don't fully understand the complexities of the game. This is how it has been with Fruit Machines, and is also why some "emptiers" last for months, if not years, before the manufacturer wakes up to the fact that it is THEY that don't fully understand their game, and that unknown to them, it pays at an RTP of 100%+ if played a certain way.
What REALLY set the cat among the pigeons in the current case is that it started not as a player questioning whether the game was working properly, but as a CASINO voiding winnings because they were 100% certain it was paying out too MUCH.
The deafening silence from Microgaming is as expected, and does not mean there is no glitch. It seems MGS have this "neither confirm nor deny" attitude to anything of this nature, something we might expect from MI6, GCHQ, or the NSA.
One thing has become clear, there IS a glitch, yet Microgaming are telling everybody there isn't one.
It's now possible that there is STILL a glitch that could be of advantage to the player, but it isn't the obvious one it appeared to be initially from reading the initial set of rules and paytables.
We could be entering a very dangerous era for operators. These ever more complicated slot games are trending to what we have here in the UK in our "Fruit Machines". These are VERY complex and feature rich games, and they are stuffed full of "edge cases". This leads to the occasional software slip up, and a few of these create the "emptiers" that pro players love, but arcade operators hate.
At least the UK Fruit Machine operators are protected somewhat by the limited hopper size on the games, either £125 or £250, after which a faulty machine runs out of coins and goes into "call attendant" mode, hence the nickname of "emptier" for such faults. Online operators have no such protection, they have to spot the problem during audit, otherwise it's too late, the player has walked off with the money.
Most problems online turn out to be display errors, or errors in the rules and paytables, with the game itself operating as it should. This case is different, as we have a casino actually voiding winnings based on there actually being a significant enough problem with the game that they can't just let the bets stand and yank the game.
Despite the fact that one casino is calling "malfunction voids play", the only things we KNOW MGS have fixed for this game are the rules, where they now correctly state "weighted average bet", and a minor bug in how the game is displayed in the lobby, where it was followed by some odd looking characters after the name. My MGS casinos also went into "monthly update mode" twice more after the initial formal monthly update, showing that two patches so far have been applied this month by MGS after the main new games update.
If players are still getting paid too much in a certain "edge case", it's still a problem for operators. The OP must have been particularly clever about exploiting this bug as it seems that most who have seen the discussion, and tried for themselves, have decided it offers no long term advantage, with some reporting some pretty low session RTP values despite trying the exploit as detailed initially.
Maybe now we should try out the Bane split wilds edge case to see if this is paying more than it should.
From the screenshots, I can see that the weighted average bet is not actually shown as the stake for each free spin, so this is not an indication as to whether the initial suspect is the bug in question that caused the casino to void the winnings.
I feel that we are REALLY going to have to pile on the pressure to get Microgaming to cooperate and tell even operators what is going on, let alone the players. It seems the last issue just went away after KK was ignored after being promised a reply at ICE.
Had the casino not voided the OPs winnings, it would have been much easier for MGS to stonewall until the issue went away. It's easy to argue that players who think they have spotted an error merely don't fully understand the complexities of the game. This is how it has been with Fruit Machines, and is also why some "emptiers" last for months, if not years, before the manufacturer wakes up to the fact that it is THEY that don't fully understand their game, and that unknown to them, it pays at an RTP of 100%+ if played a certain way.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
And you weren't speculating using the word 'photoshop'?
And that these new MG slots with split wilds show conflicting symbols between real play screenies and MG play report jpg's is not speculation. We have seen it before here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ew-game-battlestar-at-ladbrokes-casino.54843/
Funnily enough, HIGHIQ, you and me were all in on that thread......
Seems the same issue rearing its head again.
I posted not to cast speculation on a current PAB but to hopefully add some info that helps STOP speculation.
Saying something is an option while offering an alternative isn't speculation, it's stating possibilities. You're very knowingly twisting my statements - not cool.
I'll head back and continue the analysis of rounds and talks (seek out some factual knowledge), out of personal curiosity if for nothing else.
I'll head back and continue the analysis of rounds and talks (seek out some factual knowledge), out of personal curiosity if for nothing else.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Regardless of what Max discovers, I'll tell you one thing for sure...
It has NOTHING to do with fruities, emptiers or "edge cases".
"Edge cases"....
. Seriously?
At least Igor is doing ACTUAL investigation, and hasat least some basis for making educated guesses etc.
Fourteen paragraphs of assumptions and irrelevance is meaningless.
It has NOTHING to do with fruities, emptiers or "edge cases".
"Edge cases"....
. Seriously? At least Igor is doing ACTUAL investigation, and hasat least some basis for making educated guesses etc.
Fourteen paragraphs of assumptions and irrelevance is meaningless.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Regardless of what Max discovers, I'll tell you one thing for sure...
It has NOTHING to do with fruities, emptiers or "edge cases".
"Edge cases"....
At least Igor is doing ACTUAL investigation, and hasat least some basis for making educated guesses etc.
Fourteen paragraphs of assumptions and irrelevance is meaningless.
Shouldn't that be 'head cases'?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Location
- Denmark
Igor, I have the greatest respect for you testing the game, and trying to come up with an explanation, and I do believe you have good knowledge, and the tools to find one, but to imply that a player in an ongoing PAB situation may have photoshopped his screenshots, without any proof, when you know he can't even comment on the accusations is ALSO not cool in my opinion.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Regardless of what Max discovers, I'll tell you one thing for sure...
It has NOTHING to do with fruities, emptiers or "edge cases".
"Edge cases"....
At least Igor is doing ACTUAL investigation, and hasat least some basis for making educated guesses etc.
Fourteen paragraphs of assumptions and irrelevance is meaningless.
Maybe not, but there is no getting away from the initial claim by the casino that an error in the game resulted in far too much being paid out to a player to the extent that they invoked the "malfunction" term to void said payouts.
It's only a question of the nature of the glitch that is to be confirmed. It's more than a simple typo in the paytable and rules.
It's of course possible that the OP has manipulated the screenshot, but it's also possible that the casino have misused the "malfunction voids play" term in order to void a "bonus abuse" type payout.
If there is nothing to this, why can't Igor seem to get anywhere with his "contact at MGS", and instead having to resort to his own investigation that has now "100%" convinced him that something isn't right.
Where is the MGS official statement that could put this issue to bed right away, and end any speculation about there being some kind of "emptier" exploit if a certain method of play is used?
Igor is better placed to investigate as he has access to the back end stats for ALL play, not just the limited amount of access a player has, which is only to his own logs, and not in a form that makes it easy to analyse.
I'm helping him analyse the game play and screenshots via PM's. Highiq can confirm this.
It is not an accusation. Symbols show one possible payout, credits awarded show another. It is equally possible that 1) game glitched or 2) he edited the image; or as dunover suggested 3) game didnt glitch but playcheck didnt register correct symbols graphically (which i would also need to confirm).
So while i stated the options (minus dunovers suggestion) I also agreed to use my time to help the OP analyse, not the PAB screenies (that's max), but the screenies he took afterwards (shown on this thread - belonging to another casino). This will allow him to use at least one casino rep's opinion and if anything, understand the game and his sitution better - which i feel is the right approach considering our line of duty of any of us (active operators on this forum).
Above said, one of the options STILL continues to be manipulation and that is as fair to say as it is to say that the game is glitched or - VWM's comparisons of MGS to MI6 and CIA.
If we are to list possibilities, let's list them all honestly and uncover the actuality of the matter.
For the record, i'm not trying to discredit the OP, i'm in fact helping him understand his situation to the best of my personal capacity (and limitations). Until then, all avenues are open.
In my dead honest opinion from my short time here i sincerely think we could all benefit from a little less "conspiratory" approach and little more "analytical" approach to our postings & mutual communications on both sides of the proverbial fence, if we would like to sustain the honesty and credibility of the valid side of the industry (im excluding certified rogues - providers and operators alike).
just my 2 pence at the end of it all - i'm sure i'll still be considered one of the "conspirators" by the usual suspects regardless (not meaning you) because of the nature of my profession.
hey hey, please, that's not fact at all. Not all elements of the game are exposed, that is true, but to go ahead and say that i'm not getting anywhere because i said we haven't arrived at one conclusion or another is blatant fabrication of something you cannot possibly know. It's why i have an issue with your posts.
1) screenshots posted HERE aren't right. MY playcheck is 100% fine. 2)where in the world did you get an idea im not getting anywhere or that i have even tried contacting MGS yet???
I'm not a MGS representative nor do i pretend to be. I have experience and work in the industry, fullstop. I'm also able to communicate with MGS in an honest, analytical and open forum. And also, i wont allow myself to point a finger at my supplier because some guy thought it was clever to blow things out of proportion as you do, consistently.
If i post a case and/or question, it will be on the basis of analysis of MY OWN test account transactions and playcheck analysis of my players with a formed opinion and questions to be answered, which i'm not ready for yet - because i didn't FIND a discrepancy yet!
You can rest assured that i wont be writing to MGS posting a link to this forum with a question "What do you have to say for yourself, huh?" - i respect my own credibility more than that vynil.
I'll be honest with you: after being personally privy to wild statements like these, i have whole new level of respect for max and what he has to put up with trying to help!!
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
No conspiracy theories from me. No VWM-like tangents either. The only statement I'm making is that the MG games DO payout correctly and paid what the playlog states in the pictures the OP posted. The only (I thought useful) addition I made is that the OP has not, either in this thread or the similar one he made regarding Battlestar Galactica, edited any images.
Let me explain - when you get a MG play report and the jpg they store with that spin, the symbols are often different. I'll explain why this is especially so in games with split wilds like BG and TDK:
As you know, on 243-way slots, multiple winlines occur on a single spin (hence the large amount of win lines pictured just for the one game the OP posted). In the case of a SPLIT wild, the effect is to create extra winline(s) which ALL have to be calculated/pictured individually. Therefore, these wins when pictured in the MG game report graphics show a SINGLE wild for purposes of valuation of that ONE specific winning line/combo.
I think you'll find (if you talk with MGS) that I am correct in this.
Bear this in mind when viewing MG game report jpg's in future where the game has split wilds.
Disclaimer: this is not an opinion on the OP's PAB or complaint, merely a stand-alone observation on the veracity of any MG game report jpg's he's posted!
Let me explain - when you get a MG play report and the jpg they store with that spin, the symbols are often different. I'll explain why this is especially so in games with split wilds like BG and TDK:
As you know, on 243-way slots, multiple winlines occur on a single spin (hence the large amount of win lines pictured just for the one game the OP posted). In the case of a SPLIT wild, the effect is to create extra winline(s) which ALL have to be calculated/pictured individually. Therefore, these wins when pictured in the MG game report graphics show a SINGLE wild for purposes of valuation of that ONE specific winning line/combo.
I think you'll find (if you talk with MGS) that I am correct in this.
Bear this in mind when viewing MG game report jpg's in future where the game has split wilds.
Disclaimer: this is not an opinion on the OP's PAB or complaint, merely a stand-alone observation on the veracity of any MG game report jpg's he's posted!
Thank you for the useful explanation. I understand you better now.
To confirm I understood what I am reading:
1) i understand that split wild creates a "new reel" environment for each winline, achieving a maximum of 6OAK rather than 5OAK and also allows more winning combinations.
2) Graphics show a wild symbol for each winline individually, while NOT representing the wild symbol correctly in the REEL POSITIONS screen (aka whole reel of wild in case of stacked wilds or split wild in case of split wilds)
I believe we agree on number 1 and i'll be as honest as to say i do not know if REEL POSITIONS screen (showing the final 15 symbol positions of the spin) will show stacked or split wilds appropriately, so i will tentatively agree until i find an example.
Now, the GRAPHICS of the wild symbol between SPLIT wild (here: Attach Removed (Old not found)) and STACKED (here: Attach Removed (Old not found)) wild differ, that much is true.
Split is yellow light, Stacked is more "hellish" looking and red. It is important to note that the wild depicted showed on reel 4 in the OP's REEL POSITIONS screen, as per that bonus round description and intended function.
My concern is that the GRAPHICAL representation of OP's wild, is the one of STACKED wilds (bane wild) while the payout is showing a combination that can only achieved by having a SPLIT WILD (bantman wild).
Do you believe that MGS randomly shows wild symbols simply to represent a wild while the payout decides what kind of a wild it is (possible), or do you believe that the graphics on the screen should represent the kind of a wild chosen, depending on the bonus round type selected?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
Unless the logs use a different wild, to my eyes, in the images, the op clearly has Bane wilds, meaning, they cant split
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Don't be too concerned - the problem simply lies in the graphics MG use in the game reports. The awards/pays shown are correct, but for some reason (possibly simplicity) the reports use wild symbols from one kind of event and transpose them into others where that wild can't be attained. If you look at immortal romance for example, and check out MG reports of one free round you'll see wild symbols from another. Like I said, this is a graphics issue and has no bearing on the correct pays resulting form the spin(s).
Obviously I believe the reports should show the SAME symbols you see on the reel, but they don't always. You can test this yourself by getting free rounds on various MG 243-way slots and screenshotting the actual game then retrieving the game report corresponding to that spin.
Respin_Ftw
Experienced Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Location
- Sweden
This slot is one of the worst slots ever to be launched imo!
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Location
- Out Of Town
MG have always had arse about representation of their wilds on certain games. If you go and check a win from a wild storm feature in Thunderstruck 2 you will see the wilds are actually graphics of the wilds from the Loki feature, this is just one example off the top of my head.
EDIT Actual found 1 image which supports this claim here: Wild Storm 5 wilds and this is posted from Playcheck by a casino rep.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
is it possible that actually WAS all wild lokis - i looked at that thread, dont see where it says it was wildstorm feature
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Read replies to the post - players state wildstorm wilds appear as 'loki wilds' in playcheck.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Location
- Out Of Town
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.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
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
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Location
- Faroe Islands
I think it is Loki wild, i remember a 32rep posting this screenie from a Loki feature
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
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.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Location
- Faroe Islands
I belive you i just remember this pic he showed us, and this one was from a Loki feature.
i just remember this pic he showed us, and this one was from a Loki feature.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
I belive you
ya, never said they didnt either - just asking if THIS particular screenie is from the loki feature
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
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
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Location
- Hungary
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?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
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.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Location
- Respect-land
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.
vinylweatherman said:
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?
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was an assumption based on what initial pay table stated. payable was updated to reflect that actual game performance.
Correct.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Location
- Hungary
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Location
- Hungary
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.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
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.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
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.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
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.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
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
