Forum Forum Home Bandit’s Posts Today’s Posts

[Haz40 WANTED $1,167 Outlaw]

My pet hate was always withdrawing and leaving a balance to play with and never ever winning or hitting a bonus after taking money out. Just a coincidence eh. ?

[TheReelStory WANTED $14 Outlaw]

Chdl1990 wrote:

Just to have my 2p worth. I don’t think it’s rigged but I would never say that with much certainty. However what I do believe is there are that many players playing at the same time to rig it would be pointless as someone has to win that’s the nature of it. I have in the past felt something wasn’t quite right but then sometimes that feeling goes in my favour, when your the smallest player at a blackjack table an you hit nothing but 21’s whilst the guy next to you betting big picks up all the 3’s and 4’s for you ? putting a slot on silly stake with nothing, soon as you put it down, bonus drops in, probably just coincidence, maybe more but fact is I can’t do anything except enjoy the fact I have a bonus and hope it pays the world!!

Feelings (and in fact, Psychology) are a massive part of gambling (on both sides). Casino’s and slot operators use psychology to get you to play more (teases in slots, different volatility maths models etc) and it is also the reason that gamblers do the things they do (chase losses cause the next big win MUST be close IE gamblers fallacy, thinking you’re winning when actually you’ve lost overall etc).

The human brain is wired to remember specific events and emotions. So if you hit a big winning streak, you’ll remember it, if you hit a big losing streak, you’ll remember it. If you tie suspicions to an event (like withdrawing and then playing after and losing) you will remember it and it will skew your memory and your thinking.

If you saw the actual statistics of those events occurring, you’d probably be surprised about how they don’t match your memory, but that’s the way it is. Also, statistics play a big part. Things aren’t really statistically significant until you hit the millions of occurrences. So with the withdrawal -> not winning example, the chances are you’ve only experienced that event a few hundred times (maybe not even that) so it’s very possible that your experience is just unlucky compared with the average, but still well within realistic statistical boundaries.

[Masquerade WANTED $14 Outlaw]

But can the overall RTP / model include in-built variance to exploit the player psychology or reduce potentially fatal spikes in the customer(s) (the casinos) losses ??

Can the maths include legitimate switches to the way that the game plays  ?? (e.g. through symbol changes on reels, increases/decreases in random feature chances) . As long as the game plays within its stated RTP then I can’t see why a developer wouldn’t want to make it more exciting for the player-base, but at the same time not wanting to see deviation in hundreds of Steves hitting the top of the ReelKing ladder in quick succession and denting the smaller casino customers. I know that, over time, the game will do what it says without modification but, games get replaced and you don’t want to lose a customer because the are currently down far too much to afford to take on your next game.

As you are testing these games though the billions of spins, are subtle changes being made by the server on the fly to iron out the bumps?? You’re not ‘compensating’ as the RTP has to stay the same – just shifting what percentage of that RTP comes from where.

Not ‘Rigged’ but ‘Dynamically Adapted’

[Biohazard WANTED $675 Outlaw]

Masquerade wrote:

But can the overall RTP / model include in-built variance to exploit the player psychology or reduce potentially fatal spikes in the customer(s) (the casinos) losses ??

Can the maths include legitimate switches to the way that the game plays  ?? (e.g. through symbol changes on reels, increases/decreases in random feature chances) . As long as the game plays within its stated RTP then I can’t see why a developer wouldn’t want to make it more exciting for the player-base, but at the same time not wanting to see deviation in hundreds of Steves hitting the top of the ReelKing ladder in quick succession and denting the smaller casino customers. I know that, over time, the game will do what it says without modification but, games get replaced and you don’t want to lose a customer because the are currently down far too much to afford to take on your next game.

As you are testing these games though the billions of spins, are subtle changes being made by the server on the fly to iron out the bumps?? You’re not ‘compensating’ as the RTP has to stay the same – just shifting what percentage of that RTP comes from where.

Not ‘Rigged’ but ‘Dynamically Adapted’

What you have explained is compensating, and no this does not happen with online slots. They are random and not controlled by anything other than the RNG implemented. It will always return to the theoretical RTP over time naturally.

The way in which casinos often deal with variance is by modifying the max bets allowed per slot. DoA2 has some mental potential, and this is why many casinos have capped the max bet to relatively low, to avoid the chance of a ridiculous payout.

[TheReelStory WANTED $14 Outlaw]

Masquerade wrote:

But can the overall RTP / model include in-built variance to exploit the player psychology or reduce potentially fatal spikes in the customer(s) (the casinos) losses ??

Can the maths include legitimate switches to the way that the game plays  ?? (e.g. through symbol changes on reels, increases/decreases in random feature chances) . As long as the game plays within its stated RTP then I can’t see why a developer wouldn’t want to make it more exciting for the player-base, but at the same time not wanting to see deviation in hundreds of Steves hitting the top of the ReelKing ladder in quick succession and denting the smaller casino customers. I know that, over time, the game will do what it says without modification but, games get replaced and you don’t want to lose a customer because the are currently down far too much to afford to take on your next game.

As you are testing these games though the billions of spins, are subtle changes being made by the server on the fly to iron out the bumps?? You’re not ‘compensating’ as the RTP has to stay the same – just shifting what percentage of that RTP comes from where.

Not ‘Rigged’ but ‘Dynamically Adapted’

As above, no, that isn’t what happens (it wouldn’t be legal). It would also be almost technically impossible to change the game mechanics while still hitting the same RTP. What you have to remember is that the RTP is not set, it is calculated. You set up the game, simulate it (or work out the maths) and get the RTP out. The RTP is not a target, it is just what will happen based on the setup of the game.

The art to designing slots is to get the game set up in such a way that the RTP is in the right range (95-98%) but still be compelling to play (bonuses hit reasonably often, variance is good, big wins are possible etc). To try and do that dynamically? Very VERY difficult.

Also as above, Casino’s protect their exposure by setting limits. Max stake, stake selections and even Max Win limits. Some games have a hard limit (5000x max win) whereas others can literally have an infinite max win (infinite retriggers on free spins for instance) so casino’s will put a top limit on the monetary win, such as 100k.

[Masquerade WANTED $14 Outlaw]

Haha – two responses very quickly – what are you guy’s covering up ?? 😀  </tinfoilmode>

Thanks – yes, I do look like I’ve described compensation. I didn’t intend to as, in my mind, that is shortening of ‘infinity’ down to a more manageable risk (weekly, this fruit machine will pay 92%, etc).

Now you’ve mentioned max wins, bet limits, I can see where any mitigation is coming from. Thanks.

[Author]

Posts