Forum

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Geezawin wrote:

Eightblack wrote:

I suppose the bonus is the free spins which you do get, weather or not they’re all dead spins is a different matter

Don’t get me wrong I hate them but like argyl says while a 0 bonus is a cunt occasionally the same game will pay something stupid like a year’s wages

Cheers 8 see what u mean about the spins as the bonus. .but why even bother giving it in the 1st place .   I agree with mr b and the bandit  i can understand that all bonus’s  cant be great .  lol trust me i know this from experience . But for a game to give you a bonus and pay fk all is just not right. Sucks .

It’s only not right if you see a bonus as an entitlement to a win. On some games, it simply isn’t, rather it is the chance to win with some aspect more favourable to the player, e.g. Bonanza’s increasing multiplier. The reason you can land the bonus and hit zero is because your bonus is literally just 12 free random spins with enhanced odds. Unfortunately enhanced odds are not a guarantee of anything.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Mr B wrote:

Well if it’s all on the player (ffs) then we want 200%rtp guaranteed per play session. [rollseyes]

This thread isn’t limited to high volatility when low volatility has already been exampled as just a shit at times. This thread also isn’t about me so ditch the personal aspect when other people including Bandit feel the same way as stated in post one.

The reality is when a slot regardless of volatility level takes a dickhead amount of money to then bonus – what a relief – and then pay  a few pennies or indeed nothing, that is utterly shite and there is no need for it. It is cruel.

Yes, I am here again saying something bad about the industry, in agreement with bandit. You come back with “it’s on the player”. No it isn’t. The player has no say on how a slot is going to perform which is obvious. And the “random” thing is not gonna wash either because we proved (even though this is ignored) that slots are profit over random, regardless of how random is implemented worse, this has absolutely nothing to do with random, it is to do with giving a player nothing for a thousand spins and then giving a bonus (repeating myself here to relentlessly drive home the point again) that then pays nothing.

Cruel. Randomly cruel ? Designed cruel ? who cares. It’s cruel.

You have a strange way of taking things very personally. I referenced you because it’s your thread and you’ve previously complained quite vocally about aspects of slots being pre determined. Well pre determined bonuses don’t pay zero, highly volatile random ones can.

Low volatility slots don’t (generally) take thousands of spins to bonus and then pay nothing. When I say it’s on the player I mean you have full control over what games you choose to play, what stake you play at and how many spins you give it. This means if you want a session based on low volatility slots with frequent bonuses, you are free to pick from the huge range of titles that fall in to that category. The downside to that choice is those games as much as they won’t pay zero are also very unlikely to pay monster 1000x plus hits. If you choose high volatility games, you might get a gigantic win, but the downside is you might not hit a bonus at all or find it pays somewhere between nothing and fuck all. Yes, as a player I’m sure you would like a game which paid guaranteed minimum 1000x bonuses every 5 spins but that’s why it called gambling and not “free money”.

And much to everyone’s relief, happy to add I’m not getting in to this random / RTP issue again, I’ve explained how it works in too many times to care any more.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Eightblack wrote:

I suppose the bonus is the free spins which you do get, weather or not they’re all dead spins is a different matter

Don’t get me wrong I hate them but like argyl says while a 0 bonus is a cunt occasionally the same game will pay something stupid like a year’s wages

Moreover, it only happens on games where the bonus element is random, which I’d have thought is what players like Mr B would want – a bonus that’s not pre-determined at the point of landing it. Certainly the overall market wants those high volatility games, that’s the only reason we’re seeing a new whatever-Megaways every month, it’s because players are lapping them up.

It’s all on the player. You can’t choose a game where the bonus gives you three options, literally tells you that one of them is a highly volatile “win less often, but win bigger” round, choose that as your bonus and then complain when your six free spins pay nothing. Choose the lower volatility option, or play a game where the bonus frequency is high and the average payout is 25x if that’s the gaming experience you want; there’s no shortage of titles in that range to choose from.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

I’m not a rep of the gambling industry, but a zero bonus is a good sign you’re playing a high volatility game where the bonus is random. So the flipside is that sometimes the bonus will go bonkers and pay 5000x or some such ridiculous figure. There seems to be a growing demand for these games the industry is responding to, hence the slew of licensing for “Megaways” titles.

If you want a guaranteed win in a bonus, play a game with a pre determined bonus or lower volatility. Or Raging Rhino.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

For a bonus hunt at 40p, I’d recommend an initial balance of £200, or £100 for 20p.

Bonanza (or Diamond Mine if you prefer) – very difficult to bonus, but you can probably get about 200 spins out of the price of 50-75 and if you do happen to hit a bonus, it has the potential to go nuts.

Book of Ra 6 – tends to chuck in the books a bit more frequently than the regular version.

Secret of the Stones – used to bonus more than it does now, but still pretty fun low variance game

Scruffy Duck – as above, but throws in quite frequent decent base wins

Danger High Voltage – will probably bonus inside 100 spins

Wild North – you’ll definitely hit a feature but it might not pay anything

Dead or Alive – very likely to bonus, can be epic

Jammin Jars

Reactoonz

Book of Dead

Raging Rhino

Immortal Romance

Ted

Fishin Frenzy

Montezuma

All fairly likely to bonus within 100-150 spins.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

GamStop or not, I would never play at a casino not licensed in the UK. All that will happen is they’ll refuse your withdrawal and you’ll have zero recourse.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Mr B wrote:

Rest assured, there is no paradox.

It can indeed be a paradox depending on interpretation of the question, namely the (reasonable) assumption that as a multiple choice question, the intention is that one of the three listed answers is correct. If you interpret otherwise (that it could have a correct answer which is not listed, or start making different assumptions about what “random” means in respect of how someone chooses an answer, for example) then you can remove the paradox angle but you are only left with the answer being you have zero percent chance. Your chance can be 0, 1 in 3 or the question can be interpreted as a paradox. As a multiple choice question, you can only answer “none of the listed answers are correct”.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Mr B wrote:

argyl53 wrote:

If there are four possible answers and one of them is fixed as the correct answer, it’s as straightforward as picking one of the four answers at random carries a 25% chance that you picked the right one. However I suspect you’re trying to make some point we’ve covered to death already regarding random and RTP and will therefore misinterpret probability theory in some way which relies on the correct answer itself being random, with an uneven probability distribution.

Happy to explain the mathematics of probability in relation to slots for you for the 32nd time if you like, Mr B ? not sure what the chances are you’d get it this time though!

Interesting response Argyl, however, the question and answer posed is the only thing on my mind in this thread. I have no interest in discussing slots on this thread however I did make a remark on the apology to bio thread.

I do however see a correct answer on here so far.

Fair enough, well if I treat your question in isolation of any context, it’s really a 1 in 3 chance as per my previous answer however the fact that it’s posed as a multiple choice question in which 1 in 3 is not one of the options makes it a basic example of a paradox. If for example you took the correct answer as 1 in 4, you would actually have 1 in 2 chance of picking that answer at random from the list, which renders your answer at odds with the answer. Likewise your chance of picking the otherwise “correct” answer of 50% is only 25%, so it’s impossible for you to actually answer correctly whatever you do.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

I was taking the piss btw with the post about slot RTP. For the love of God, sincerely, let’s not get in to any of that again.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Obviously also in your particular example, you have two choices which are both the same answer which is where people are getting the 50% from, though in terms of probability that would give you a 1 in 3, not a 1 in 2, since you’re effectively picking from 3 answers instead of 4. See also: a family has 2 children, one if which is a boy, what is the chance the other is also a boy?

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

If there are four possible answers and one of them is fixed as the correct answer, it’s as straightforward as picking one of the four answers at random carries a 25% chance that you picked the right one. However I suspect you’re trying to make some point we’ve covered to death already regarding random and RTP and will therefore misinterpret probability theory in some way which relies on the correct answer itself being random, with an uneven probability distribution.

Happy to explain the mathematics of probability in relation to slots for you for the 32nd time if you like, Mr B 🙂 not sure what the chances are you’d get it this time though!

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

It’s by no means impossible that there is a correlation between the display of a win and the gamble outcome, but I would caution humans love to see patterns in things which are actually random. When you are basically a giant pattern recognition machine, everything looks like a pattern.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

These style of megaways games with variable number of bonus spins and increasing multiplier are usually random on every spin, so you are better off gambling for more spins / multiplier, assuming you’re okay with the risk of losing. Also they would not be allowed in accordance with GC rules to work in a way such that gambling with a risk of loss made no difference to the outcome, since it would clearly be misleading the customer. You will usually find a bit of small print somewhere in the info for these games telling you the “best strategy” is to always gamble.

What can happen is that the maximum gamble you can achieve before losing is pre determined at the point of landing or buying the bonus. I’m pretty sure Extra Chilli works that way.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

So….sincerely asking here….what actually is the point of this thread? That casinos don’t have any cares or concerns other than their bottom line? That gambling addiction has had devastating impacts on people’s lives which has spilled over on to the lives of their loved ones and those around them? That it’s even resulted in suicide, violent crime and other highly unpleasant things?

Well presumably we’re all in agreement about that. In other news, bears shit and you won’t believe where.

I took flak from some posters (I think including Mr B, I’d have to go back and check) basically for pointing this out, that casinos are businesses and don’t care in the least where their money comes from. I was accused of “defending the casinos”, because I made the point that this is exactly why regulation including KYC and AML exists and that’s why you get asked to send in all sorts of documents before they pay out. It’s precisely because the casinos wouldn’t verify your identity, or want to know where you’re getting the money you deposit from. They’d be very happy to accept stolen money, money you can’t afford, money from crime being laundered and all the rest of it. And indeed they’d be happy to find an excuse to not pay your winnings if they could get away with it.

But as a society and legal framework we put things in place to stop it and curb what you call this “dark side” of gambling. That’s why the verification procedures exist, it’s why all UK online casinos must be partnered with an independent dispute resolution mediator, it’s why support structures like Gamstop and Gamcare are available, it’s why gambling addiction treatment is available through both the NHS and private charities. It’s also why you have to send in proof of ID, proof of address, proof of card ownership and sometimes proof of income.

How can you have it both ways? How can it be simultaneously both unacceptably outrageous that casinos need to know who you are and also they don’t do enough to know who you are? If anything, you seem to be arguing for even tighter regulation of the industry and yet you’re the first to complain when they want so much as a copy of your passport, let alone whatever assurances you have in mind to prove you’re not a depressed addict on the verge of suicide.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Personal comment is not a personal attack and disagreeing with someone’s opinion is not disagreeing with their right to exist.

[Author]

Posts