Venting Anyone face a 20% RTP slot?

[Deeisherexx]

 

[The Viking]

lol this has to be a typo right ?

 

[ultra100]

Yeah, seems like a typo, only showing decimal value. All RTP set-ups have xx.20% on that particular Play'n GO slot:

• 96.20%
• 94.20%
• 91.20%
• 87.20%
• 84.20%

 

[dealer wins]

You get a "big win coin show" if you win 0.4x your bet!!

 

[satchnz]

I swear they’re all set to 20% at times.

 

[KasinoKing]

I've been trying Esqueleto Explosivo 2 a bit recently - and that probably doesn't even get that high!

KK

 

[jasonuk]

Mecca make a lot of typos like that and have a lot of stale information hanging around - doesn't seem to be much in the way of sanity checking going on. Most of their PnG tend to be one level down now-a-days, and no different here as the game is 94.20%

Would a 20% RTP slot be better or worse than the latest social gaming "innovation" Slot Masters (I'd blame SG, but they appear to be the distributor for HungryBear Games on this one - first announced end of last year but rolling out to multiple casinos including Mecca right now) - or as I'd describe it, how to tilt a bunch of gamblers with a free-to-play game in two minutes

If you think bingo players get annoyed at the same winners... imagine the reaction when someone nukes their leaderboard-winning score with five seconds to go and costs them £50... for absolutely no reason.

 

[jasonuk]

Also, we shouldn't joke too much about those kind of RTPs... being a bingo operator you would only have to look at super books (free ticket games with paid upgrades). Any time those make a showing the people buying paid tickets should be shown in flashing neon lights the word "mug" the RTP of the tickets they've just bought - which can be below 1% RTP. Pretty much legalised robbery...

Aside, I split the Slot Masters japes over to another thread

 

[Deeisherexx]

Also, we shouldn't joke too much about those kind of RTPs... being a bingo operator you would only have to look at super books (free ticket games with paid upgrades). Any time those make a showing the people buying paid tickets should be shown in flashing neon lights the word "mug" the RTP of the tickets they've just bought - which can be below 1% RTP. Pretty much legalised robbery...

Aside, I split the Slot Masters japes over to another thread

I have NO idea why people play superbooks there can be 5000 players and £10 pot for frees and £50 for paid its bonkers.

 

[hhhelllo]

Who the f2ck came up with 87 and 84.....
Have you ever played those version?
Everytime I played a slot below 92% for more than 100 spins, I know there was a big problem with the return because of complete different behavior. Especially if it's a game you played often.
I tried hacksaw at 88%. Wow
400 dead spins instead off 250 before a dead bonus..... Nice activity
Fck those greedy casino operators that kept asking for lower bs like it.
And fck those providers to comply.
Fck offf

 

[jasonuk]

PlayNGo have offered those five math models for years - they were an outlier for a while when the majority of providers were offering a single 94-98% maths model.

Naturally, in those days, most of the curacao casinos would be offering the lower models (often with undocumented RTP, although you could find out via the debug console) and the regulated casinos would be offering the 96% model...

How times have changed... I can find as many 91% PnG deployments as 96% now-a-days at the UKGC-regulated sites I visit, and I reckon it won't be long before WH try 87% - they already offer 88% slots from other providers. That'll be triple the house edge in less than five years...

 

[johnnybagel]

Seems pretty accurate to me

 

[goatwack]

Given the mass exodus to 'once considered somewhat dodgy' Crypto casinos, I suspect that many of these utopian regime hideouts are offering the higher RTPs as a necessity, and gap in the market.

Who's to say these salvation hubs for the disaffected UK (& others) players won't do a complete 180 and begin offering low-to-sub-90% games once they're effectively the last ones standing, by virtue of being the lesser of two evils?...

 

[nisosbar]

Who the f2ck came up with 87 and 84.....
Have you ever played those version?
Everytime I played a slot below 92% for more than 100 spins, I know there was a big problem with the return because of complete different behavior. Especially if it's a game you played often.
I tried hacksaw at 88%. Wow
400 dead spins instead off 250 before a dead bonus..... Nice activity
Fck those greedy casino operators that kept asking for lower bs like it.
And fck those providers to comply.
Fck offf

I can't recall exactly the name of the casino now, but they had a version of Rival's Scary Rich with an RTP of 84%, which shocked me because I didn't think any of their slots were that low in RTP.

The days when I could just play mindlessly and be entertained by slots with a low RTP - those days are gone.

 

[nisosbar]

Given the mass exodus to 'once considered somewhat dodgy' Crypto casinos, ...

Can I just say, I never understood - as a player - why it mattered all that much if a crypto casino was considered "dodgy". These aren't banks or government agencies, with which you are entrusting your livelihood. These are casinos, where you gamble some mad money for the chance to win big - you expect to lose everything you deposit, and if you win, great - you might still not get paid, but since it's mad money to begin with, you could absorb the loss, vowing never again to deposit at that particular casino. But if a 'dodgy' casino pays you, and - on top of that - pays you promptly, then what does it matter to a player (as an individual) whether or not they got paid from a 'dodgy' casino? Players can't and don't police the casino world, and I daresay the vast majority of us wouldn't want to do that.

 

[goatwack]

Can I just say, I never understood - as a player - why it mattered all that much if a crypto casino was considered "dodgy". These aren't banks or government agencies, with which you are entrusting your livelihood. These are casinos, where you gamble some mad money for the chance to win big - you expect to lose everything you deposit, and if you win, great - you might still not get paid, but since it's mad money to begin with, you could absorb the loss, vowing never again to deposit at that particular casino. But if a 'dodgy' casino pays you, and - on top of that - pays you promptly, then what does it matter to a player (as an individual) whether or not they got paid from a 'dodgy' casino? Players can't and don't police the casino world, and I daresay the vast majority of us wouldn't want to do that.

Why have combined sets of data and feedback for anything? Yes, if a player experiences no problems whatsoever at a perceived 'dodgy' casino and is having no issues, then all is wonderful.

Yet these things are aggregated and usually ranked, are they not? All in view to forewarning others that they may experience problems, I don't see what's terribly wrong with that. After all, there are those still trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in a vast landscape, based on their experiences.

I'm sure the Crypto casinos space is in rude health currently, but the bottom could just as easily drop out from that market too in the future, with no recourse. Nor is the suggestion that having to deceive the casino by masking my location via VPN, and using volatile Lego currencies under a cup 'o' cocoa jurisdiction instil anything other than suspicion to most, but there you go.

Doubtless there's decent Crypto joints out there, whilst there's also others that aren't. And when the less savoury ones decide they've soaked up all the ousted players from the UK and so forth, we'll see whom polices whom, and whether these high RTPs stay intact. Dodgy indeed!

 

[jasonuk]

Can I just say, I never understood - as a player - why it mattered all that much if a crypto casino was considered "dodgy". These aren't banks or government agencies, with which you are entrusting your livelihood.

I disagree, player feedback is particularly important in this way because you want to separate:

• "dodgy" off-shore casinos that generally play fair, but are not regulated by a competent jurisdiction, from:
• "dodgy" casinos that run pirated games, and operated by fraudsters that have zero intention of paying you (or worse, use your details for further fraud)

The first I can appreciate people will take a risk with, but with the health warning that something goes wrong and you have no recourse at all. Contrast with the second one, where you're being scammed and it's vital that everyone stays the hell away - we see countless threads on the forums of people being scammed, and with KYC checks becoming de facto at both regulated and unregulated operations alike, do you really want to send all your personal details and passport scans to a fraudster?

From other threads, remember the list of bullshit excuses - people will keep chasing for weeks, months and years for their money... except that withdrawal was never going to be honoured. Of course they're going to feel bad, they finally get the dopamine hit of winning, except they haven't... and now waste countless hours chasing shadows.

 

[nisosbar]

Why have combined sets of data and feedback for anything? Yes, if a player experiences no problems whatsoever at a perceived 'dodgy' casino and is having no issues, then all is wonderful.

Yet these things are aggregated and usually ranked, are they not? All in view to forewarning others that they may experience problems, I don't see what's terribly wrong with that. After all, there are those still trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in a vast landscape, based on their experiences.

I'm sure the Crypto casinos space is in rude health currently, but the bottom could just as easily drop out from that market too in the future, with no recourse. Nor is the suggestion that having to deceive the casino by masking my location via VPN, and using volatile Lego currencies under a cup 'o' cocoa jurisdiction instil anything other than suspicion to most, but there you go.

Doubtless there's decent Crypto joints out there, whilst there's also others that aren't. And when the less savoury ones decide they've soaked up all the ousted players from the UK and so forth, we'll see whom polices whom, and whether these high RTPs stay intact. Dodgy indeed!

First off, my remarks are not targeted at CM or what CM's function or core mission is. It's not that I'm arguing that it's 'terribly wrong' to help inform the public about bad or abusive casinos; that's a public good, almost by definition.

I was just sort of spitballing, but I guess if I crafted my remarks for a purpose, they were crafted with the aim of shedding light on what responsibilities are being alleged as being incumbent upon those who gamble online when it comes to playing at online casinos.

That is, what harm is brought forth when a player deposits at a dodgy casino? And can someone give specific examples, if possible - i.e., if 'money laundering', precisely how do depositing players become culpable agents in money laundering (or whatever crime is being alleged)? Money is laundered at pizza parlors - are we laundering money when we get a slice for lunch?

 

[nisosbar]

I disagree, player feedback is particularly important in this way because you want to separate:

• "dodgy" off-shore casinos that generally play fair, but are not regulated by a competent jurisdiction, from:
• "dodgy" casinos that run pirated games, and operated by fraudsters that have zero intention of paying you (or worse, use your details for further fraud)

The first I can appreciate people will take a risk with, but with the health warning that something goes wrong and you have no recourse at all. Contrast with the second one, where you're being scammed and it's vital that everyone stays the hell away - we see countless threads on the forums of people being scammed, and with KYC checks becoming de facto at both regulated and unregulated operations alike, do you really want to send all your personal details and passport scans to a fraudster?

From other threads, remember the list of bullshit excuses - people will keep chasing for weeks, months and years for their money... except that withdrawal was never going to be honoured. Of course they're going to feel bad, they finally get the dopamine hit of winning, except they haven't... and now waste countless hours chasing shadows.

You make a good point. The picture is complicated by the fact that there are so many online casinos, that there are degrees of dodginess. lol It's not a black/white picture.

The KYC question is a VERY good one. But let's keep in mind that KYC is a fairly new thing, that the initiative for this practice came about in the Obama years, when they implemented bank rules demanding an end to things like in those Bond films, anonymous numbered bank accounts for Americans. If it weren't for that piece of legislation, plenty of casinos would be fine not requiring it. In fact, there is a long discussion that could be had about how crypto and KYC are incompatible fundamentally - and I mean, as they exist in practice.

Anyway, we're getting into the weeds, but thanks for interesting discussion!!

 

[goatwack]

First off, my remarks are not targeted at CM or what CM's function or core mission is. It's not that I'm arguing that it's 'terribly wrong' to help inform the public about bad or abusive casinos; that's a public good, almost by definition.

I was just sort of spitballing, but I guess if I crafted my remarks for a purpose, they were crafted with the aim of shedding light on what responsibilities are being alleged as being incumbent upon those who gamble online when it comes to playing at online casinos.

That is, what harm is brought forth when a player deposits at a dodgy casino? And can someone give specific examples, if possible - i.e., if 'money laundering', precisely how do depositing players become culpable agents in money laundering (or whatever crime is being alleged)? Money is laundered at pizza parlors - are we laundering money when we get a slice for lunch?

Yet I'd imagine offshore casinos using dubious licences in unregulated markets, accepting payment methods that have little to no traceability and encourage online anonymity, aren't likely to operate on a completely transparent level.

I'm sure there exists a number of operators that exist purely to provide a service and let customers have an A1 day......but I'd wager that many more do not.

And the notion that one unaffected player's 'great' experience with any of these casinos trumps several others' bad ones, doesn't negate the fact that when playing at said joint, wilfully depositing money with them would be at the very least considered enabling them, would it not?

Try as I might, I fail to see how pizza parlours or car washes would somehow be conflated with a casino in Tobago that accepts players not within their jurisdiction, nor would the latter pride itself in player protection. Simply one of the many reasons I wouldn't entertain the notion of even bankrolling these clipjoints or strengthen them in any capacity. Maybe that's just me

 

[nisosbar]

Yet I'd imagine offshore casinos using dubious licences in unregulated markets, accepting payment methods that have little to no traceability and encourage online anonymity, aren't likely to operate on a completely transparent level.

I'm sure there exists a number of operators that exist purely to provide a service and let customers have an A1 day......but I'd wager that many more do not.

And the notion that one unaffected player's 'great' experience with any of these casinos trumps several others' bad ones, doesn't negate the fact that when playing at said joint, wilfully depositing money with them would be at the very least considered enabling them, would it not?

Try as I might, I fail to see how pizza parlours or car washes would somehow be conflated with a casino in Tobago that accepts players not within their jurisdiction, nor would the latter pride itself in player protection. Simply one of the many reasons I wouldn't entertain the notion of even bankrolling these clipjoints or strengthen them in any capacity. Maybe that's just me

Well, with a new casino, I'd want to do research, including looking at reviews here, but also the other casino review sites. I almost ALWAYS do that. But the conclusions I come to sometimes don't align with popular opinion. It is what it is.

 

[curremon]

Just about Any slot at Winz