You took the bonus - now what?

[kirby]

OK, say you deposited $50 and got a $100 bonus. You've got a x20 playtrhough so you're going to have to wager $3000 without losing that $150. Rules probably prohibit or restrict the use of blackjack, video poker or craps to meet that requirement.

I can sometimes get up $1000 or maybe $1500 on slots before I'm broke.
I question whether anyone can actually consistently outlast the house odds, but if you have a strategy, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Vesuvio]

OK, say you deposited $50 and got a $100 bonus. You've got a x20 playtrhough so you're going to have to wager $3000 without losing that $150. Rules probably prohibit or restrict the use of blackjack, video poker or craps to meet that requirement.

I can sometimes get up $1000 or maybe $1500 on slots before I'm broke.
I question whether anyone can actually consistently outlast the house odds, but if you have a strategy, I'd love to hear about it.

With a 20x playthrough on slots, assuming a 5% house edge, you're expected to lose everything (in this case $150) i.e. 3000x0.05=150. That could be why you're struggling to make a profit

 

[realwtfsup]

I take bonus to gamble with. Gamble to me means I might lose all my money =)

Have had some luck especially with my firt two Lucky Nugget and The Gaming Club. It is a slots only bonus deposit $50 get $200. Cashed out $1500 total at both.

 

[Pinababy69]

Sometimes I win with a bonus, but more often than not I lose it all. I'd say I win about 10% of the time if I'm lucky. And I am a strictly slots player, don't play anything but slots.

 

[Nomad]

There is a way to make these profitable if you can handle the variance. Essentially, you bet everything on one hand of blackjack, red/black on roulette, or some other essentially 50/50 bet. Check the T&C, but some places will allow you to play these games, just not to count them towards the WR. At this point, you've either doubled or busted. If you double, play through the WR and cashout. If not, you're out a hundred bucks. Basically, the effect is cutting the WR in half. If you wanted to, you could go further than just doubling. Just a personal preference. This strategy is not one that I devised, but it does work mathematically. How well it workds depends on the terms of the particular bonus.

[edit] Due to the variance, this requires a substancial bankroll, especially if you expect to try to make this significantly profitable. A somewhat smaller bankroll is ok if your goal is to simply increase your odds a bit, but not to necessarily guarantee a long term profit. [/edit]

 

[buck]

Bonus WR

If you can get some decent build up even playing BJ most MG will have some double line non jackpot slots that pay close to even money. Have used this in the past. But normally skip the bonus. Be careful that specific games are restricted from WR but no prohibited.

Buck

 

[KasinoKing]

OK, say you deposited $50 and got a $100 bonus. You've got a x20 playtrhough so you're going to have to wager $3000 without losing that $150. Rules probably prohibit or restrict the use of blackjack, video poker or craps to meet that requirement.

I can sometimes get up $1000 or maybe $1500 on slots before I'm broke.
I question whether anyone can actually consistently outlast the house odds, but if you have a strategy, I'd love to hear about it.

Well, I only deposit when I get a bonus, and I make profit 9/10 months.
So I guess the answer is yes, I can consistently outlast the house odds.

I don't have a specific strategy, and I very rarely play Blackjack or Video Poker that so many others seem to advocate (even when it is allowed in WR).
The main thing is don't lose too much on any one game, but quit when you're ahead, and switch to a different game.
This should especially be applied to slots. I know we all think 'the feature hasn't hit for ages - it MUST come soon!' But when you've done 400 spins of Thunderstruck without ever hitting 3-Rams, and lost half your bankroll - you are WAY past the point you should have stopped!
I recently did a deposit $100, $300 bonus, 20x WR = $8000 on MG slots only - and came out the other side with $475 in the bank (no mega-wins). So it can be done! Mind you - it took me over a month!

Good luck!

 

[Black21Jack]

I recently did a deposit $100, $300 bonus, 20x WR = $8000 on MG slots only - and came out the other side with $475 in the bank (no mega-wins). So it can be done! Mind you - it took me over a month!

It took over a month to make a $475.00 profit? and you had to risk your tiny $100.00 deposit with $8000.00 in wagers? Holy cow! no wonder I stay away from bonuses.

 

[kirby]

Thanks to all for the comments thus far. I had thought about the all-in bet to boost the bankroll so it's interesting to see that for some it works. Need to check the T&C as backjack is the only "table" game tht I know how to play.

The other comments go to my ambivalence towrds the bonuses. It is gambling and, yeah, expecting to lose it all is part of the game, but the deck seemed stacked against us (so to speak) at 20x. Seems like a lot of work for something "free."

Thanks again

 

[KasinoKing]

It took over a month to make a $475.00 profit? and you had to risk your tiny $100.00 deposit with $8000.00 in wagers? Holy cow! no wonder I stay away from bonuses.

Well it wasnt like that was the only casino I used or that played it every day for a month!
I usually play 10-15 different casinos per month. But I do stick to very low stakes as I recall, I think that $8K took over 13,000 spins!
I love gambling, but hate losing my mission is just to finish every month in the black.
(PS: Actually it was $375 profit - I can see maths is not your strong point! )

The other comments go to my ambivalence towards the bonuses. It is gambling and, yeah, expecting to lose it all is part of the game, but the deck seemed stacked against us (so to speak) at 20x. Seems like a lot of work for something "free."

The Blackjack experts (like Black21Jack!) will assure you 20x WR is extremely good if Blackjack is allowed and youre dealt a fair game. If you flat bet the WR the maths say you should come out with a profit. But I (and many casinos) consider that to be a) Bonus Abuse, and b) Extremely boring and sad!
Casinos are for gambling and having fun so have a go at slots, stud, or 3-card poker you never know, you might catch a big one! It works for me!

 

[sirius]

The 'boost your bankroll by playing BJ or roulette' method is actually flawed and some casinos seem to believe in it and have banned those games totally. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering and not banned altogether. It doesn't make sense to stop new players from playing the popular games. All the games have a house edge so any play on those games will help the casino in the long run and reduce a player's bankroll on average. They would still need to play enough on the allowed games to cashout.

It is true that there is an advantage in boosting your bankroll before finishing the wagering (in effect treating it as a sticky bonus that is lost after wagering) but most players will actually have a higher chance of *really* boosting the bankroll playing the allowed slots due to the extreme variance! You should be doing ok on the slot-only bonuses, and you don't even need to bet big on them.

 

[sirius]

Can anyone post their wins on the slots bonuses? I'm sure there will be a lot of very big winners. Of course, most of the time you will lose but you should be ahead on average if you play enough of them. It does help to bet big on them but it is not necessary.

 

[GrandMaster]

The 'boost your bankroll by playing BJ or roulette' method is actually flawed and some casinos seem to believe in it and have banned those games totally. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering and not banned altogether. It doesn't make sense to stop new players from playing the popular games. All the games have a house edge so any play on those games will help the casino in the long run and reduce a player's bankroll on average. They would still need to play enough on the allowed games to cashout..

This idea is not flawed, you can increase your expected profit by this method at the expense of increasing the variance. I don't know how many people actually use it.

It is true that there is an advantage in boosting your bankroll before finishing the wagering (in effect treating it as a sticky bonus that is lost after wagering) but most players will actually have a higher chance of *really* boosting the bankroll playing the allowed slots due to the extreme variance! You should be doing ok on the slot-only bonuses, and you don't even need to bet big on them

I think most slots-only bonuses don't have a positive expectation for the player, but I don't know the probability distributions to make the calculations. You should certainly bet big to increase your expectations.

 

[chalupa]

"Boost your bankroll" strategy absolutely works, and in fact is the only way to make money in the long run with many of these bonuses.

Assume this:
$50 deposit + $100 bonus with 20x wagering required on slots

Expected loss on a 5% slot machine is 20x(50+100) x 5% = $150


Results without bankroll boosting:
$50 deposit + $100 bonus - $150 expected loss = $0
Net profit/loss: -$50.00


Results with maximum roulette bankroll boosting (first risk it all on 1 number in roulette, then play out slots if you win):
36/37 times = $0
1/37 times = $5400 win - $150 expected loss = $5250
Average = 5250/37 = $142
Net profit/loss: +$92.00


This extreme example of bankroll boosting turns a $50 LOSS into a $92 PROFIT, in the long-term.

That is why casinos don't allow roulette with bonuses.

 

[chalupa]

By the way... don't try the above example at home unless:

1. You are comfortable with the extreme variance (you can go a long time before you hit that one number... the Theory Of Probability can be a harsh mistress in the short term).
2. You are certain the casino will pay out if you do hit the big one.

You should always bankroll boost first in this situation (unless you're just playing for fun... bankroll boosting tends to shorten your playing time considerably in the short-term ), but perhaps in a less extreme fashion.

If you risk it all on less of a longshot, your profits won't be as high, but they will be more consistent and you will be less likely to run into raised eyebrows upon withdrawal.

No matter what you do, you of course always need to follow the casino's Terms and Conditions to the letter, because the casino doesn't like smart players.

 

[sirius]

"Boost your bankroll" strategy absolutely works, and in fact is the only way to make money in the long run with many of these bonuses.

Assume this:
$50 deposit + $100 bonus with 20x wagering required on slots

Expected loss on a 5% slot machine is 20x(50+100) x 5% = $150


Results without bankroll boosting:
$50 deposit + $100 bonus - $150 expected loss = $0
Net profit/loss: -$50.00


Results with maximum roulette bankroll boosting (first risk it all on 1 number in roulette, then play out slots if you win):
36/37 times = $0
1/37 times = $5400 win - $150 expected loss = $5250
Average = 5250/37 = $142
Net profit/loss: +$92.00


This extreme example of bankroll boosting turns a $50 LOSS into a $92 PROFIT, in the long-term.

That is why casinos don't allow roulette with bonuses.

What I was trying to explain was that you are just as likely to increase your bankroll by that amount or more playing the slots (most players will have more chance of boosting it a lot playing the slots as they need to bet big in the other games). It is flawed to ban roulette and blackjack. Slots actually have much higher variance so the house edge isn't a significant consideration for many thousands of spins.

The expected loss you calculated for slots assumes you will wager $3000 but, due to the variance, the player loss is more likely to be less than $50 on average because many times the bankroll will be wiped out well before even a third of the requirements are wagered. Betting big will increase the average profit for the player but it probably isn't necessary to have an advantage.

I hope you understand why it is flawed for casinos to ban these popular games. The average player can easily hit tens of thousands on the slots due to the variance but are unlikely to 'shoot that far' playing blackjack and roulette. The odds of hitting a certain target in blackjack and roulette will be slightly higher due to the lower house edge but the max target a player will aim for will not realistically be as high as is possible playing slots. Obviously for all these games, the average result will be negative due to the house edge in all of them.

 

[sirius]

Basically, I am saying that it's not a bad idea to play slots for the 'phantom/sticky' bonuses (including other bonuses where you are expected to lose the lot in the wagering), especially if you bet big. When playing with the bonus, you want to have the possibility of winning a high amount to maximize the average profit. The fact that you will lose the whole lot most of the time isn't something you should worry about because it minimizes the average wagered amount.

 

[chalupa]

What I was trying to explain was that you are just as likely to increase your bankroll by that amount or more playing the slots...

I'm sorry, I think you have this exactly wrong. The more you play slots, the more likely it is that the high house edge will grind you away into oblivion.

Your only hope is to hit a huge win -- and the chance of that happening is much smaller than the 1/37 chance of hitting a single number on roulette. A small win here or there won't do it, because you don't have the option to cash out early. You still have to complete your wagering requirements.

the player loss is more likely to be less than $50 on average because many times the bankroll will be wiped out well before even a third of the requirements are wagered

Huh? In this case the player loss is not less than $50 -- it is exactly $50.

I hope you understand why it is flawed for casinos to ban these popular games. The average player can easily hit tens of thousands on the slots due to the variance but are unlikely to 'shoot that far' playing blackjack and roulette.

You are correct, I believe, about the average player

The average player is going to bet small and stretch their gaming experience. Regardless of what game the average player chooses, unless they get absurdly lucky, they are doomed.

Clearly, the casino is not worried about the average player.

The casino IS worried about the bonus hunter, to whom the 36:1 leverage offered by roulette is a potent weapon.

Obviously for all these games, the average result will be negative due to the house edge in all of them.

The average result on your total balance is negative, yes. There is no way around that.

But you don't care about that. What you care about is the result relative to your initial deposit. And as I showed in my example, it is possible to show a substantial long-term profit by leveraging the bonus money.

------

Some of the above also brings up another point about large wagering requirements, specifically the "risk of ruin".

Risk-of-ruin is the chance you will be wiped out before completing the wagering requirements, even if the bonus amount is higher than your expected loss for those wagering requirements.

Even a good game like blackjack has a high risk-of-ruin if you are required to wager a large amount compared to your bankroll.

Look at the seemingly generous 32% sign-up bonus at Old / Expired Link that allows blackjack. Then check out this table at

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

. Do you think 32 Red picked those wagering requirements and minimum bet sizes by sheer coincidence?

And when you compare blackjack to a high-variance high-edge game like slots, you can imagine that your risk-of-ruin goes through the roof. Especially when you consider that a 5% slot machine may actually be closer to 10% if you don't count the extreme longshot of the jackpot.

Again the solution, is... LEVERAGE that casino bonus money while you have it, before the wagering requirements grind it away. Double-down, and double-down again, baby!

 

[KasinoKing]

Again the solution, is... LEVERAGE that casino bonus money while you have it, before the wagering requirements grind it away. Double-down, and double-down again, baby!

I really like your positive attitude, baby!

But I can't believe you're really serious about the 'one number at roulette' plan. Losing 36 out of every 37 deposits would grind down even the most hardened of gamblers!
Have you ever actually tried it yourself? I doubt it!

 

[chalupa]

Of the top of my head I don't know any place that allows roulette with a match bonus currently, but when they did I have taken my long-shots -- never more than $100 per number though.

Currently about the only time I play roulette is for promos where you get cash back on losses, as it is usually allowed. Again, in those situations, it is to your advantage to take a long-shot. Generally I go for about a 6x return.

For match bonuses, I routinely risk hundreds where I have roughly only a 25% or 10% chance of winning.

The 25% is typically all on Pair Plus in three-card poker. The 10% (roughly) is to bet $100 multihand video poker and double it 3x.

And yes, you are right, it can be brutal in the short term -- I just lost about $1000 today. But I do have a nice long-term profit to show for it.

 

[thelawnet]

What I was trying to explain was that you are just as likely to increase your bankroll by that amount or more playing the slots (most players will have more chance of boosting it a lot playing the slots as they need to bet big in the other games). It is flawed to ban roulette and blackjack. Slots actually have much higher variance so the house edge isn't a significant consideration for many thousands of spins.

The expected loss you calculated for slots assumes you will wager $3000 but, due to the variance, the player loss is more likely to be less than $50 on average because many times the bankroll will be wiped out well before even a third of the requirements are wagered.

This is true.....

If we consider a hypothetical simplified slot with the following (generous) paytable:

Probability Pay
.00002 10,000
.035 10
.4 1

The payout can be seen to sum to 95%, and the WR is $3000 with a $1 stake. Given our initial bank of $50 deposit + $100 bonus = $150, it seems we should lose $3000 *.05 = $150, or lose all our money. So the offer seems to be bad for us.

Based on a 10,000,000 trial simulation, we get an average final balance of $119.65. Ths is a $69.65 profit on something that appears to have no advantage!

Why? Well, the average number of spins was 632.6, because if we hit the jackpot we will definitely do all 3,000 spins without busting, but if not then it's highly unlikely. So the actual practical average WR is $633. This sounds a lot better than $3,000! The downside is the reason for that low WR is that you have lost all your money most of the time....

So using the actual average wagered amount, 632.6 * 0.05 = $31.63 expected loss. So rather than losing $150 (all the bonus + the deposit) on average, we lose far less. If the casino hadn't given us a bonus, then we would have lost $31.63 on average (where in order for the mean of the sampling distribution to appear normal, you need to playing this offer thousands of times at the least), which is as you would expect for a game with a house edge, but as they gave us $100, so we are ahead.

The downside is that we have a 98.8% chance of busting out, so the offer is very high risk to lose $100, much less to win.

This wouldn't work where you have to meet the WR to get the bonus, only when you get the bonus in advance.... Or if you continued to the WR, redepositing (which would be pointless, given that there is no more bonus to get). So the correct strategy that maximizes EV (at the expense of horrible risk to your bankroll) on a given bonus-paid-before-WR-met promotion is to reduce the number of expected number of spins to a minimum by choosing a game that has most of its payout as the jackpot. Obviously a low house advantage is good as well, but given a $3000 WR, and the choice between a 95% return on a low-variance slot with an average of 2,000 spins before busting, or a 90% return on average of 800 spins, the 90% slot has a higher EV (but much higer variance).

Unfortunately my example above is purely theoretical, and I have no idea whether it bears any resemblance to any actual slot..... It's much easier to find probabilities for video poker than for slot machines. But if you had the pay table and probability for a casino's slots, you could compare them all with for the WR and work out the risk of ruin (or rather the risk of NOT getting ruined, which is probably more appropriate when the risk of ruin is 99%!), and decide which is the best one to play.

The odds of hitting a certain target in blackjack and roulette will be slightly higher due to the lower house edge but the max target a player will aim for will not realistically be as high as is possible playing slots. Obviously for all these games, the average result will be negative due to the house edge in all of them.

If we used this hypothetical slot machine, then the average win, excluding bust-outs is $119.65 * 100/1.12 from $150 (now disregarding the bonus) = $9960, or slightly less than the $10,000 (jackpot.

If we played roulette with a $150 balance, with an evens payout on 18/37 odds, betting the whole balance every time, then to get to $10,000 we would need only 6 bets (1 bet taking us to $300, 2 to $600, 3 to $1200, 4 to $2400, 5 to $4800, and 6 to $9600). (18/37)^6 = 0.013.

So in fact a $10,000 target is equally reasonable (1.2% vs 1.3%), even playing a suicidal roulette strategy. It's simply psychology that allows people to feed $150 into a slot machine chasing that improbable win, whereas they are unlikely to keep doubling up from $1200 to get that $9600 win, for fear of losing what they have already got. But in fact in both cases you are jeopardizing your $150 in return for a remote chance of $10,000.

 

[KasinoKing]

Welcome to the forum, thelawnet!

Exactly how many maths degrees have you got???

VERY impressive stuff! :notworthy (I just wish I could understand some of it!)

 

[sirius]

First of all, I'm glad someone can see what I'm trying to say!

This is true.....

If we consider a hypothetical simplified slot with the following (generous) paytable:

Probability Pay
.00002 10,000
.035 10
.4 1

The payout can be seen to sum to 95%, and the WR is $3000 with a $1 stake. Given our initial bank of $50 deposit + $100 bonus = $150, it seems we should lose $3000 *.05 = $150, or lose all our money. So the offer seems to be bad for us.

Based on a 10,000,000 trial simulation, we get an average final balance of $119.65. Ths is a $69.65 profit on something that appears to have no advantage!

Why? Well, the average number of spins was 632.6, because if we hit the jackpot we will definitely do all 3,000 spins without busting, but if not then it's highly unlikely. So the actual practical average WR is $633. This sounds a lot better than $3,000! The downside is the reason for that low WR is that you have lost all your money most of the time....

So using the actual average wagered amount, 632.6 * 0.05 = $31.63 expected loss. So rather than losing $150 (all the bonus + the deposit) on average, we lose far less. If the casino hadn't given us a bonus, then we would have lost $31.63 on average (where in order for the mean of the sampling distribution to appear normal, you need to playing this offer thousands of times at the least), which is as you would expect for a game with a house edge, but as they gave us $100, so we are ahead.

The downside is that we have a 98.8% chance of busting out, so the offer is very high risk to lose $100, much less to win.

I haven't simulated any slot machine but I'm sure most slots aren't as high variance as that (there will be more payoffs inbetween in the paychart). You wouldn't want as high a chance of busting as that.

This wouldn't work where you have to meet the WR to get the bonus, only when you get the bonus in advance.... Or if you continued to the WR, redepositing (which would be pointless, given that there is no more bonus to get). So the correct strategy that maximizes EV (at the expense of horrible risk to your bankroll) on a given bonus-paid-before-WR-met promotion is to reduce the number of expected number of spins to a minimum by choosing a game that has most of its payout as the jackpot. Obviously a low house advantage is good as well, but given a $3000 WR, and the choice between a 95% return on a low-variance slot with an average of 2,000 spins before busting, or a 90% return on average of 800 spins, the 90% slot has a higher EV (but much higer variance).

It is better to choose the higher house edge slot in your example but you can usually also effectively increase the variance by increasing the bet/coin size. It therefore probably doesn't matter too much which slot is chosen. Players could analyse the variance using the 'fun mode' of casinos if they wanted to create a paytable to run through a simulation.

So in fact a $10,000 target is equally reasonable (1.2% vs 1.3%), even playing a suicidal roulette strategy. It's simply psychology that allows people to feed $150 into a slot machine chasing that improbable win, whereas they are unlikely to keep doubling up from $1200 to get that $9600 win, for fear of losing what they have already got. But in fact in both cases you are jeopardizing your $150 in return for a remote chance of $10,000.

It is common sense that a high win is almost as equally reasonable playing slots. Due to the high variance, players will also probably win more on the occasions they do win as they wouldn't aim as far playing roulette or blackjack. The house edge won't be significant because the wagering is only in the few thousands. Casinos must have been browsing the 'bonus hunter' forums and been taken in by the methods of others and believed they should ban those games. It's bad for business for them to ban the popular games such as roulette and blackjack completely in promotions. They obviously should not count them for the wagering requirements if they feel they need to do that but it doesn't make any sense to ban them altogether.

 

[loganberry]

You took the bonus...now what...

Kirby writes:
OK, say you deposited $50 and got a $100 bonus....

I can sometimes get up $1000 or maybe $1500 on slots before I'm broke.
I question whether anyone can actually consistently outlast the house odds, but if you have a strategy, I'd love to hear about it.


Have turned $5 bonus into between $2000 - $2800 a few times, playing only on slots.

I usually start playing on a bonus slot for around 80c per go and if/when I reach $16, I try my luck at Break Da Bank, playing one line at $1 per go. If I hit $320 or $640, which I have done, then I go to What a Hoot/Carnaval, and play a few $2.25 spins to get a feel as to how things are going, then increase the bet to $45 for a couple of spins, then back down to $2.25, then back up to $45 for a couple more spins, etc. etc.

It's hard work, and takes me hours, but if I crack it, it is well worth it....By the way, does this then make me a 'smart' player who the casinos despise? I am playing for entertainment, but I am also playing to make a profit!

If on Break da Bank I only win $40/$80, then I revert to playing bonus games again to try to build it up to something more.....Ho Ho Ho, Tally Ho, etc @ $1.50 per go. If I win nothing at all, then there is always next time.

My usual deposit is about $50, and I did convert that to $18k once, using the same play methods as above. Took the best part of 24 hours, but was it worth it!!!

On a few occasions, the total wager has been well in excess of $15k...gulp...but all from either a $50 purchase or $5 bonus.

 

[thelawnet]

First of all, I'm glad someone can see what I'm trying to say!



I haven't simulated any slot machine but I'm sure most slots aren't as high variance as that (there will be more payoffs inbetween in the paychart). You wouldn't want as high a chance of busting as that.

I don't think it's that bad..... 20% of the payout as returned as jackpot, the rest will pay off regularly (and there are plenty of worse slots than 75% in the world). So the greater the percentage of the payout whose chance is lower than the number of spins, the lower the number of expected spins.

It is better to choose the higher house edge slot in your example but you can usually also effectively increase the variance by increasing the bet/coin size. It therefore probably doesn't matter too much which slot is chosen. Players could analyse the variance using the 'fun mode' of casinos if they wanted to create a paytable to run through a simulation.

Actually increasing coin size is not as effective in increasing variance as increasing the proportion of the jackpot that goes to an improbably jackpot, although there's no question that it does. Although the payout of slot machines is not distributed normally, in general increasing coin size by a factor of x would increase variance by of sqrt(x). This isn't accurate for modelling risk of ruin for slots as the distribution is not normal for big jackpot slots for sample sizes less than several million units. If I bet $1 a time, according to my example above, 1.2% of the time you hit the jackpot and complete the 3000 spins, hence $3,000. The rest of the time you will lose $25 out of every $100 you bet, as if we took out the $10,000 jackpot the slot would pay 75%. But the average number of spins is 636, given that 1.2% of the time we get a jackpot, completing all 3,000 spins. If we multiply the coin size by 10, we have 60 spins, but we still lose $600. But given that the jackpot was already improbable for our sample size, reducing the sample size by increasing the coin size does not have a huge effect on our expected value for our hypothetical slot machine, reducing the chance of a jackpot for our sample to 0.12%, and meaning that we will complete (roughly) 60.36 spins for a total value of $604 rather than $636...

This will increase our EV by $32 * 5% = $1.60, but means we have a 0.12% chance of winning $100,000 rather than a 1.2% chance of winning $10k... You pays your money and you takes your choice, but on a jackpot slot increasing coin size won't increase the EV of a promotion as effectively as choosing a slot that pays more of its return as a jackpot.

BTW, I like your idea of playing the slots in fun mode... I am surprised nobody seems to have done this. It would be useful to know the paytables for each game. I have not really played slots much, but I believe Viper slots have autoplay, with stats showing each win, which will play about 3,000 spins per hour. If you ran this for a day it would be enough to give some fairly accurate probabilities for at least the lower jackpot games.