Why does pragmatic keep making new slots with max win limits discussion?

MrEvil

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Location
Norway
They cap the win at 5000x, but the slots are still insanely expensive to play, and take forever to bonus. No idea how they do it, but every time i try one of their games i walk away having lost 150-200x without getting the feature. Big ass bonanza has only 2100x max win, but pays and plays like it's 5 times as much potential as it really has.

It feels like their goal was to be more expensive to play than Novomatic slots on a bad day, and so far they have managed that with every single new game. I used to play the socialtournaments as well, so i have done tens of thousands of spins on their slots.
 
Pragmatic Play is reviewed at Casinomeister

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
There are quite few slots on Pragmatic's books with very sensible variance, generally their older releases, look for the ones that have 2 1/2 or 3 of the lightning strike symbols for volatility.
 

MrEvil

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Location
Norway
There are quite few slots on Pragmatic's books with very sensible variance, generally their older releases, look for the ones that have 2 1/2 or 3 of the lightning strike symbols for volatility.
Yes, i have had nice sessions on some older pragmatic slots, over 2 years ago. Their variance rating makes no sense anymore either, everything is 4,5/5 or 5/5, regardless of the max win potential. Surely a 180000x max win slot would be higher variance than a 5000x max win slot, but they are both rated at 5/5.
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
Not necessarily, you can make a volatile game with a relatively modest top prize, a good example would be something like PnG's Multifruit81 which has a top prize of under 2000x stake, but is surprisingly volatile as PnG stacked a lot of the RTP into bigger prizes in the several hundred times stake range. (For the record I quite like Multifruit81, but that's about as volatile as I will play, and you need to be aware of the maths behind the game before getting involved with it.)

I agree that if you're prepared to take high volatility style risks it makes sense to play for high volatility style rewards, I don't really understand the thinking behind making crazy volatile games that have fairly small top prizes, as you're running the risk of a high volatility nightmare session, without the upside of crazy win potential.

Pragmatic seem to have gone down a strange route with their highly volatile games that have smallish top prizes, their argument would (presumably) be that there's a better chance of getting wins in the 1000-5000x stake range (or whatever it is on the game in question), but it's still going to be a very small chance overall, to my mind it'd make more sense to just play something like DOA2, Jammin' Jars, San Quentin etc.
 
Last edited:

flyingguy

Full Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Location
London
I really like Christmas Carols Megaways which is classed as high variance, a £20 deposit can go on for hours on low stakes. It seems to me all the high variance pragmatics just never pay massive X wins but hold the balance quite well. Whereas other providers with HV you rarely get wins but when you do they are decent, like DOA.
 

ultra100

Full Member
webmeister
MM
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Location
Europe
I highlighted the wheel spin at VS bit because you're playing at a casino that will gimp the RTPs of the slots you're playing right under your nose and not tell you about it, but you're complaining about Pragmatic employing entirely transparent and clearly explained max win caps on their slots.

Here's Gates of Olympus at VS:

View attachment 151309

And here it is at Unibet:

View attachment 151310

The 5000x max win cap is absolutely not the thing I'd be bothered about in this scenario.
Completely agree on that one. IMO, max cap is not a problem at all.

The problem is the screenshot above with different RTP settings, especially when operator change it without any notice. It's a massive difference between 96% and 94% RTP.
 

danofthewibble

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Location
UK
On the RTP issue, the UKGC would do well to make it an obligation on the licence holder to make clear on launching a game whether or not the RTP has changed in the last six months (and include a link explaining the effect). And providers should be obliged to show the RTP while loading.

Unrelated to win caps, which are only frustrating if you get one of those bonuses where it could theoretically continue to substantially more. But clearly those rounds are coded to get the blood pumping .
 

Kroffe

เ๓ ค Ŧคภςץ ๒єคг
MM
Joined
Mar 2, 2019
Location
sweden
On the RTP issue, the UKGC would do well to make it an obligation on the licence holder to make clear on launching a game whether or not the RTP has changed in the last six months (and include a link explaining the effect). And providers should be obliged to show the RTP while loading.

Unrelated to win caps, which are only frustrating if you get one of those bonuses where it could theoretically continue to substantially more. But clearly those rounds are coded to get the blood pumping .
All providers should be forced to do it as blueprint does it.
List the rtp in the paytable.
I can see no benefit at all using external pages like png and microgaming does.
Almost like it was made so casinos can make 'mistakes' and show the 96% helpfile for a 94% game.
 
Top