WWTBAM (Who Wants to be a Millionaire Slot) BTG

[Sasukdcf]

hi guys long time no speak!

Main reason the font on here is so small I was finding it hard to read until I finally gave in and got some specs!!!

I have seen a couple of threads on this game and haven’t seen this question asked as such so if it has I apologise...:


I’ve been playing this a lot recently and echo many of the comments over the lifeline bullshit but I have 2 questions/observations that I wondered ring true with others.

1) is there not an argument that if the game gives you a percentage figure that it’s actually a real one?

( which it’s blatently not even close to being )

Giving you a false percentage surely is tantamount to fraud in essence.

The national lottery couldn’t get away with telling you odds of winning are x when in fact they are y for instance

It’s hard enough to get the feature as it is without losing in at least 50% of the time if not more which brings me to my next point.


What I have found without a shadow of a doubt is that the higher you stake the harder it is to get the feature and moreover it appears to be nigh on impossible to actually get to play it...

I had a good run on other slots recently and have been punting this quite hard from stakes of £5 to £20

I have yet to play a feature over about £7 having lost the first gamble every single time without exception, and that includes on an 83% ask the audience. ( the tablet did fly across the room )

It’s not been that many features I’ve manages to hit but I would estimate 12 features at say £7 or more with all of them losing on first lifeline.... and that includes 4 on the bounce at £10 stake

Like many I have always maintained all games play totally differently as you increase the stakes but this one appears to take the biscuit

Anyone agree/disagree from experience?

 

[Siohmy]

The only thing I’d say about the first one is that it would seem an odd way to go in showing these gamble elements and deliberately rigging it to lose more than it should. Hypothetically speaking it would appear from peoples arguments that BTG are going out of their way to highlight this as it is so “blatant”. Obviously an 83% chance of success equally means a 17% chance of failure or around 1 in 6. I’d be interested to see a significant, honest, set of results for the first gamble only.

As for the stakes issues. Well outside of feature buys I rarely venture over £1/spin so can’t really comment too much. If some games do change their maths over a certain stake level then I can only assume they become less volatile as they still have to play to their TRTP and are not hitting the monster wins as frequently. Not sure how much exposure some casinos can handle at large stakes so this observation has some merit. I thought the way casinos mitigated this risk was to limit the max stake level however.

 

[Sasukdcf]

I think you have hit the nail on the head there and although I have had this argument in the past with tracemonkey, and he was staunchly against my theory I can only go on personal experience which is vast and I think you are spot on re the volatility....

But again and I have raised this before the whole industry is so cloak and dagger it’s ridiculous....

The very fact that RTP is used as a measuring stick is in itself laughable as it’s a totally useless meaningless figure and actually trying to find out how it’s tested on what stakes etc is nigh on impossible....

But how the industry gets away with using a measuring stick that’s so pointless I have never understood!

Just to put that into an example.

If I play 1 spin at £10 and lose my rtp is 0 %

If I then play another spin at £1 and win say £3 my rtp for that session is 150% yet I am £7 down !!!

So how that’s in anyway helpful to a player has always been beyond me!!

I have initiated a subject access request from one of my regular casinos purely for that reason however they are saying they are not obligated to supply me with the info, which I’m not convinced is right but not had time to look into it as yet sadly!

And yes seeing the honest results of first gambles would be great but never gonna happen!!

Sure as hell ain’t as posted tho!!

Another thing that would be interesting tho..

Every now and then you get a very high ask the audience percentage... 93% for instance

Now as the features are “ pre determined” re outcome... does that mean if you chose the lowest percentage answer it would say correct...

Feature is so hard to hit I’ve never tried it!!

I’ve tried hitting second most popular answer a few times now as I have found if the top one is 60% to 70% you are very likely to lose...

And it always shows the second highest answer as being right...

I have only tried it 4 times ( maybe 5)

They have all lost! Shock

 

[brianmon]

I had a 96%, 1%, 1%, 2%, 'ask the audience' on a first gamble, and lost to a 1%.
Haven't played it since.
I wonder how many first time (and now one time) players, they've lost because of things like this?

I'm sure BTG thought they were being clever with 'loseable' features. But has it maybe cost them many, potentially, long-term players, and not been such a clever move?

 

[mack341]

I think you have hit the nail on the head there and although I have had this argument in the past with tracemonkey, and he was staunchly against my theory I can only go on personal experience which is vast and I think you are spot on re the volatility....

But again and I have raised this before the whole industry is so cloak and dagger it’s ridiculous....

The very fact that RTP is used as a measuring stick is in itself laughable as it’s a totally useless meaningless figure and actually trying to find out how it’s tested on what stakes etc is nigh on impossible....

But how the industry gets away with using a measuring stick that’s so pointless I have never understood!

Just to put that into an example.

If I play 1 spin at £10 and lose my rtp is 0 %

If I then play another spin at £1 and win say £3 my rtp for that session is 150% yet I am £7 down !!!

So how that’s in anyway helpful to a player has always been beyond me!!

I have initiated a subject access request from one of my regular casinos purely for that reason however they are saying they are not obligated to supply me with the info, which I’m not convinced is right but not had time to look into it as yet sadly!

And yes seeing the honest results of first gambles would be great but never gonna happen!!

Sure as hell ain’t as posted tho!!

Another thing that would be interesting tho..

Every now and then you get a very high ask the audience percentage... 93% for instance

Now as the features are “ pre determined” re outcome... does that mean if you chose the lowest percentage answer it would say correct...

Feature is so hard to hit I’ve never tried it!!

I’ve tried hitting second most popular answer a few times now as I have found if the top one is 60% to 70% you are very likely to lose...

And it always shows the second highest answer as being right...

I have only tried it 4 times ( maybe 5)

They have all lost! Shock

as far as I understood the ukgc regulations, there was an option for the game producer/casino to either display the slot's odds or the rtp and obviously they chose rtp as its largely meaningless especially if all games have roughly the same 96% rtp.

I've read that on a 96% rtp slot the casino profit is 4% and so if a 100,000 thousand is wagered the profit would be £4,000.

I also wonder at which point do they measure the rtp, to be an equal fair measure it ought be the same across all games, e.g after 5 million spins or something. It would seem odd to me to allow one game to be measured after 4 million and another after 7million and both claim 95.9% or whatever.

 

[Harry_BKK]

as far as I understood the ukgc regulations, there was an option for the game producer/casino to either display the slot's odds or the rtp and obviously they chose rtp as its largely meaningless especially if all games have roughly the same 96% rtp.

I've read that on a 96% rtp slot the casino profit is 4% and so if a 100,000 thousand is wagered the profit would be £4,000.

I also wonder at which point do they measure the rtp, to be an equal fair measure it ought be the same across all games, e.g after 5 million spins or something. It would seem odd to me to allow one game to be measured after 4 million and another after 7million and both claim 95.9% or whatever.

Usually more than 2 billion spins, some do more than 10 billion.

 

[mack341]

Usually more than 2 billion spins, some do more than 10 billion.

oh that many, but shouldn't it be the same number if it's a statistical measurement that means something?

 

[Harry_BKK]

oh that many, but shouldn't it be the same number if it's a statistical measurement that means something?

Let's put it this way. I have not seen a slot being tested with less than 2 billion spins. So that might be the minimum.

 

[mack341]

Let's put it this way. I have not seen a slot being tested with less than 2 billion spins. So that might be the minimum.

right so at around 2 billion most games might be near their target rtp.

I think there's a margin allowed on the live rtp analysis they have to do, so it could be 96% +/- 2%, at some point it will hit rtp and then shift off again I suppose.

makes you wonder how they account for huge wins like the new member had the other day on book of ra deluxe, a 1st spin bonus on £20 stake that paid £50,000+ [I think it was], if no one else plays at £20 stake, or very few, how does it absorb such a payout if many players are only playing on 10p stake and not affect their rtp share

seems like rtp and the testing process is similar to the question 'how long is a piece of string'

 

[Aryol]

Well, I just take the 8 Spins and only trying a bit more when I hit 4 scatters (when 10 FS are safe, then I try sometimes up to 14 or 16, happens not often^^)

I think that the gamble feature is not showing the true odds, but it is not rigged or something. Probably best longtime strategy is to stick with the highest % but I believe that the chance to lose free spins at all is a toxic design decision. It leads to losing streaks which tempting you to go risky until you got something back, and losing free spins 7 times in a row is nothing special for a BTG Game. Look at Extra Chili, you buy the feature like 20 times and it can lose everything at first gamble (or at first two gambles). This truly makes people go crazy...

To answer your question: I am not sure, I did not feel a significant change in behavior (at least nothing that would be enough for a proof). I usually play on 0,20 € WWTBAM and sometimes increasing to 0,80 € and sometimes this goes well and sometimes not. I mean higher stake, same balance means mostly fewer spins. Maybe the behavior changes on super high stakes to a different variance, but not sure.

 

[Luckyscouser45]

I despise this slot. Lost way to many spins stupidly gambling and the majority of my okish wins on the bonus have came from 8 spins anyway same as extra chilli always got bigger wins on 8 spins. Yesterday I got three bonus symbols which means 10 spins guarantee I didn’t gamble but got a shit bonus payout which begs the question why is this game set up to pay shit when u get the extra spins like on bonanza the +5 is shit and on chilli the +4 is shit

 

[colinsunderland]

I had a 96%, 1%, 1%, 2%, 'ask the audience' on a first gamble, and lost to a 1%.
Haven't played it since.
I wonder how many first time (and now one time) players, they've lost because of things like this?

I'm sure BTG thought they were being clever with 'loseable' features. But has it maybe cost them many, potentially, long-term players, and not been such a clever move?

Same here, exactly the same from memory, and I haven't played it since either.
Moral of the story, take the piss out your customers, they won't be customers for long!

 

[interlog]

right so at around 2 billion most games might be near their target rtp.

I think there's a margin allowed on the live rtp analysis they have to do, so it could be 96% +/- 2%, at some point it will hit rtp and then shift off again I suppose.

makes you wonder how they account for huge wins like the new member had the other day on book of ra deluxe, a 1st spin bonus on £20 stake that paid £50,000+ [I think it was], if no one else plays at £20 stake, or very few, how does it absorb such a payout if many players are only playing on 10p stake and not affect their rtp share

seems like rtp and the testing process is similar to the question 'how long is a piece of string'

I may well be totally wrong here, but size of the stake is not taken into account when calculating the RTP. It would be impossible to do so because how do you know how many spins are going to be made at a particular stake when doing that calculation if bet size is part of it?

 

[pinnit2014]

I may well be totally wrong here, but size of the stake is not taken into account when calculating the RTP. It would be impossible to do so because how do you know how many spins are going to be made at a particular stake when doing that calculation if bet size is part of it?

Maybe wrong, but surely that does impact on the RTP, especially when a lot of games have max cashouts?

 

[interlog]

Maybe wrong, but surely that does impact on the RTP, especially when a lot of games have max cashouts?

One for @trancemonkey perhaps?

 

[Sasukdcf]

Well, I just take the 8 Spins and only trying a bit more when I hit 4 scatters (when 10 FS are safe, then I try sometimes up to 14 or 16, happens not often^^)

I think that the gamble feature is not showing the true odds, but it is not rigged or something. Probably best longtime strategy is to stick with the highest % but I believe that the chance to lose free spins at all is a toxic design decision. It leads to losing streaks which tempting you to go risky until you got something back, and losing free spins 7 times in a row is nothing special for a BTG Game. Look at Extra Chili, you buy the feature like 20 times and it can lose everything at first gamble (or at first two gambles). This truly makes people go crazy...

To answer your question: I am not sure, I did not feel a significant change in behavior (at least nothing that would be enough for a proof). I usually play on 0,20 € WWTBAM and sometimes increasing to 0,80 € and sometimes this goes well and sometimes not. I mean higher stake, same balance means mostly fewer spins. Maybe the behavior changes on super high stakes to a different variance, but not sure.

Yes but that’s the argument we always get..: none of us have definitive data sets large enough to be classed as “ proof”

That’s always the “ get out clause” so you can only go on an overall view of your experience...

As for taking the 8 spins I wish I had posted this thread before!! I’ve had quite poor returns to date on the few times I took the 8 spins ... maybe I should have persevered with taking them a little more!!

 

[dunover]

I think you have hit the nail on the head****
Just to put that into an example.
If I play 1 spin at £10 and lose my rtp is 0 %
If I then play another spin at £1 and win say £3 my rtp for that session is 150% yet I am £7 down !!!
They have all lost! Shock

No, your RTP for the session would be 300%. Actually you will be £8 down - bet 11 and 3 back. So the right way to look at things to that point is that you've spent £11 and got £3 back thus far, so your current RTP is around 28%.

RTP is a transient figure and depending on the type of slot and its volatility, can take relatively few spins to achieve or millions.

The casino makes £40 on every thousand wagered on a 96% game, yes and no. If you deposited £1000 and made 1000 spins at £1 then the casino would expect to make £40 - if you quit then, so yes.
If you got your £960 back, then had another £960 spins at £1 you'd end up with just under £920 in your balance and the casino would have doubled their cash take on average, to a knacker over 8% of your deposit from 4%.

So in real terms your cash RTP reduces 4% on average every time you turn your deposit over (from the point of deposit!) and the casino in increments gets more of it.

So you end up losing EVERY PENNY of your £1000 deposit at £1 a spin, the cash RTP to you is 0% and the casino's is 100% BUT the game, or game performance RTP is exactly 96% as you on average would have turned that money over multiple times and your winning spins would be 96% of the total cost of those spins.

So people often tend to erroneously correlate game RTP with their cash balance.

 

[EkJR]

Sometimes for me on this game 60% wins more than 80+%. Have also lost one on 96% ..I mean, it's just ridiculous. The game at that level is saying your losing and you can't not gamble at those percentages

 

[Aryol]

Yes but that’s the argument we always get..: none of us have definitive data sets large enough to be classed as “ proof”

That’s always the “ get out clause” so you can only go on an overall view of your experience...

As for taking the 8 spins I wish I had posted this thread before!! I’ve had quite poor returns to date on the few times I took the 8 spins ... maybe I should have persevered with taking them a little more!!

Yeah it is pretty hard to proof something as a normal. I mean there is the word "random" even 13 % RTP could happen in 1000 spins. It is unlikely but if it happens "random" ...

8 spins mostly will sometimes return poor, but always better than 0 spins. But even 16 spins can return super bad. Extra Chili says that gambling the wheel is the best strategy but I do not believe that.

Yes my RTP is maybe overall higher, but there is a high chance that I need to invest more money at all to get a 24 spin feature. Then my RTP is maybe 0.2 % higher but my absolute loss is also higher.

(Btw. I am on my way to collect data for extra chili feature buys, It takes ages but If I collected enough I will share them here)

 

[trancemonkey]

Maybe wrong, but surely that does impact on the RTP, especially when a lot of games have max cashouts?

It doesn't impact the RTP because we test on one stake, not multiple stakes. Where games have a single RTP across all stakes (I.e most games) I believe the test houses will normally test min stake, max stake and some random stakes in between.

Some casinos keep track of RTP by stake, as well as overall RTP because this give a a clearly picture... But if you just look Cash Out / Cash In, you'll always get the true picture.

And yes, to some ones earlier point, if I load up a new game and play at 100 quid stake. Then 20 spins in a get a 1000x win, that game has paid out £100,000 to me. If no one ever plays that game on high stakes again, then it's possible that that game will always run at a loss. And this happens. There will be some games on some casinos that never make them any money.

I know you guys think it's all a big conspiracy but that's because some of you think it's a lot more complex than it actually is.

And why is RTP meaningless?

 

[trancemonkey]

Yeah it is pretty hard to proof something as a normal. I mean there is the word "random" even 13 % RTP could happen in 1000 spins. It is unlikely but if it happens "random" ...

8 spins mostly will sometimes return poor, but always better than 0 spins. But even 16 spins can return super bad. Extra Chili says that gambling the wheel is the best strategy but I do not believe that.

Yes my RTP is maybe overall higher, but there is a high chance that I need to invest more money at all to get a 24 spin feature. Then my RTP is maybe 0.2 % higher but my absolute loss is also higher.

(Btw. I am on my way to collect data for extra chili feature buys, It takes ages but If I collected enough I will share them here)

Gambling is statistically the best strategy, but of course that assumes an endless bankroll. But the law says we have to state best strategy where the strategy is not obvious. What is best statistically is possibly not the best for you... You must decide what to do

 

[trancemonkey]

Sometimes for me on this game 60% wins more than 80+%. Have also lost one on 96% ..I mean, it's just ridiculous. The game at that level is saying your losing and you can't not gamble at those percentages

At 96% you would expect to lose 1 in 25 gambles.

If the chance of winning is stated then it HAS to be correct... there is no way that the game would have passed GLI or BMM or any other test house if it told the player that you had X chance of winning but really that was Y

 

[snorky510238]

Well I have posted this before and the number is increasing by the week. How can it be random when every time I have walked away the answer it shows has always without fail been the highest percentage. This is probably factored in as a clever way of keeping the overall figures correct. I am talking around a hundred features and to never have been one of the lower percentages come on.

 

[TheAddict]

should have been wrote as "ask the audience of BTG employees"

 

[goatwack]

Game's terrible. Should be renamed Who Wants To Be Anally Mated

 

[Siohmy]

Well I have posted this before and the number is increasing by the week. How can it be random when every time I have walked away the answer it shows has always without fail been the highest percentage. This is probably factored in as a clever way of keeping the overall figures correct. I am talking around a hundred features and to never have been one of the lower percentages come on.

Think I have posted this elsewhere but I suspect that if you walk away the game does not even bother running the gamble and the answer shown is simply the highest percentage probably as another example of best strategy.

I certainly agree that, if this is the case, it is a bit poor though as it comes across as, it would have been this had you gambled. It is one area of the game I’d say is misleading. And yes, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it be anything other than the highest %age. Only just started looking though and I don’t often walk away.

 

[brianmon]

At 96% you would expect to lose 1 in 25 gambles.

If the chance of winning is stated then it HAS to be correct... there is no way that the game would have passed GLI or BMM or any other test house if it told the player that you had X chance of winning but really that was Y

Is it actually stated in the game rules that they ARE the odds of winning a gamble?
Or could the win/lose be pre-determined, like most other 'pick' features, and those graphics are just generated to simulate the actual game show?

BGT have said on here that they are the actual odds. But saying something on an internet forum, isn't particularly legally binding.

 

[trancemonkey]

Is it actually stated in the game rules that they ARE the odds of winning a gamble?
Or could the win/lose be pre-determined, like most other 'pick' features, and those graphics are just generated to simulate the actual game show?

BGT have said on here that they are the actual odds. But saying something on an internet forum, isn't particularly legally binding.

You are not allowed to mislead the player. And why would they lie...

 

[snorky510238]

It is misleading though as the answer is obviously predetermined so every choice should say 25% as they are the true odds. Apart from the 50/50 and surprise surprise I find I am wrong on that 75% of the time.

 

[EkJR]

Lost 8 spins on 83%, 89% and 91% last night on 3 consecutive features. Two were audience one was phone. It's just absolute bullshit and is the game blatantly stealing spins from a player. As said before, you win more gambles at 60% than the percentages stated above. It's like Chilli all over again where the 50/50 gamble wins more than the 60/40 gamble. Something absolutely stinks with these games.

 

[trancemonkey]

It is misleading though as the answer is obviously predetermined so every choice should say 25% as they are the true odds. Apart from the 50/50 and surprise surprise I find I am wrong on that 75% of the time.

No it isn't... the answer will likely be determined on the press of the button...

You know it's interesting because at impulse we did a game called Frantic where we told the player the chance for every gamble. What it told us was that actually telling people the odds was worse ..

This is because if you tell someone they have a 85% chance of winning, they FEEL like that should mean they should almost never lose. Yet they will lose every 6.5 gambles.

 

[aceking123]

No it isn't... the answer will likely be determined on the press of the button...

You know it's interesting because at impulse we did a game called Frantic where we told the player the chance for every gamble. What it told us was that actually telling people the odds was worse ..

This is because if you tell someone they have a 85% chance of winning, they FEEL like that should mean they should almost never lose. Yet they will lose every 6.5 gambles.

????
No wonder your slots dont pay ) 6.5?? 10 gambles at 85% hm 6.5 you should work for btg ) winding you up trance)

 

[Siohmy]

I’m still trying to get my head around why BTG would go out of their way to show gambles at 80% plus and then supposedly only be 50% behind the scenes.

If this were legit the case it would stand out far more than a few examples and the slot would die on its arse. As trace has said I suspect BTG may actually be concerned a perfectly fair gamble is being perceived as bent due to player perception of what 80% represents.

Having played poker I can tell you that I have lost numerous times with AA against other hands where I am at least a 4 to 1 favourite, and sometimes these runs go in batches (and no, not all at Pokerstars!).

I think the key thing is, can fixing the odds behind the scenes be done? Technically, of course, although getting them through testing should fail. Is there any need in the slightest to do it and if anything damage the slots reputation? Not from where I’m sitting.

 

[Greigssy]

£40 to get a bonus, so a 94% chance of the answer A being right and nope it's wrong, next bonus £10 later 10 spins paid £0.27
Bonuses on this feel like they have a no win scenario no matter what choices are made.

I had built up a nice balance from £6 on IR, DOA and Book of RA to £60 to get mauled on this slot, I wish could exclude myself from certain slots for set periods.

 

[Nate]

£40 to get a bonus, so a 94% chance of the answer A being right and nope it's wrong, next bonus £10 later 10 spins paid £0.27
Bonuses on this feel like they have a no win scenario no matter what choices are made.

I had built up a nice balance from £6 on IR, DOA and Book of RA to £60 to get mauled on this slot, I wish could exclude myself from certain slots for set periods.

Oh trust me... You would save yourself tons rather than chase a marketing ploy by BTG.

These guys a renowned for making their slots look like they have massive wins in their paytables. It's actually quite the opposite. You will probably only see 5k - 10k x stake once every 2-3 years... and that will be a screenshot from someone else... mostly on other forums and from some preferred streamers (Read: Marketing Partners).

Their slots are toxic pieces of crap. When they do hit, It's a MASSIVE occasion at the BTG Office ... The BTG rep will celebrate the win and even tag the entire forum

Nate

 

[Sasukdcf]

I have to agree here and question the maths..:

I have lost countless gambles including 5 on the bounce when playing higher stakes...

I’ve never had a percentage as high as 96%
But lost on high 80s and below way more times than I have won...

And to confirm ... if you walk away it’s ALWAYS top answer that was right....

I have also tried choosing 2nd too answer a few times as this always appears to be the one that comes up of top answer is wrong

That failed too

So best strategy in my opinion is take the 8 spins

Doesn’t mean I always do it... but definitely doing it more often now

 

[snorky510238]

I am starting to believe less and less concerning what I am told. There are to many coincidences. Games undoubtedly play better on release than ever after. A big thing was made about the 50 spins when this game was launched and low and behold right on cue someone hits it. I believe that is set up, a guarantee someone will hit it. What bad publicity for them if nobody did. Since then where are all the posts of big wins and people achieving 50 spins? They may exist but I haven’t seen a single one. Not even a post where someone made it past 20.

 

[shadow123]

Has anyone documented the outcome of going with the stated best stratagy over a decent run of features.

I spent 25 years working with odds while developing machines and have a fair idea of what certain chances
feel like. After playing 5 or so features on this game ,It was obvious that the gamble was as bent as a nine bob note as
they used to say.

 

[Sasukdcf]

I tend to agree and it feels all the way through you are up against it on all slots and that’s not just with the fact they are a negative expectation game anyway!!


Here’s a slight change of tact... have you ever noticed this on this game and bonanza and gold rush ( not sure that’s the right name but blueprint version of bonanza )

And this is fact....

Let’s say you are playing £2 a spin and have £200 starting pot and hit a losing streak and you’re pot dwindles...
Once you get down to around 20x stake remaining you will without any exception hit a decent win ..: not a large win but large enough to keep you playing some more after which point you normally not tend to hit bigger all and lose... now I’m not sure of the benefit or reasoning behind this as the individual players session will still be an RTP of 0% however I presume overall the little spike in RTP is a way of increasing the overall payout of the game knowing that the player will continue to play and lose..:

Does that make sense as a ligitimate reason for it happening every single time and if you don’t believe me try it!!

Seems to be the same on all stakes but only if you keep on same stake and have a large enough starting figure ( I know this co I tried starting at 20x stake level to see if I could manipulate to do it but then you just lose lol!!

There have been a few times I have thought .. oh maybe not this time then and it hits a decent win ( as I say not huge just enough to have big numbers come up on the screen and a bell and whistle or similar so say x10 to x20 ish

The worst for this is Sparta which thinking about it is also blueprint

I have lost count of the amount of times I have hit nothing until last credit and then hit a win or the feature...

Thoughts ?

 

[slotter999]

I tend to agree and it feels all the way through you are up against it on all slots and that’s not just with the fact they are a negative expectation game anyway!!


Here’s a slight change of tact... have you ever noticed this on this game and bonanza and gold rush ( not sure that’s the right name but blueprint version of bonanza )

And this is fact....

Let’s say you are playing £2 a spin and have £200 starting pot and hit a losing streak and you’re pot dwindles...
Once you get down to around 20x stake remaining you will without any exception hit a decent win ..: not a large win but large enough to keep you playing some more after which point you normally not tend to hit bigger all and lose... now I’m not sure of the benefit or reasoning behind this as the individual players session will still be an RTP of 0% however I presume overall the little spike in RTP is a way of increasing the overall payout of the game knowing that the player will continue to play and lose..:

Does that make sense as a ligitimate reason for it happening every single time and if you don’t believe me try it!!

Seems to be the same on all stakes but only if you keep on same stake and have a large enough starting figure ( I know this co I tried starting at 20x stake level to see if I could manipulate to do it but then you just lose lol!!

There have been a few times I have thought .. oh maybe not this time then and it hits a decent win ( as I say not huge just enough to have big numbers come up on the screen and a bell and whistle or similar so say x10 to x20 ish

The worst for this is Sparta which thinking about it is also blueprint

I have lost count of the amount of times I have hit nothing until last credit and then hit a win or the feature...

Thoughts ?

If it happens consistently then you are simply observing the maths of the game in action.

Unless you are trying to peddle more of the conspiracy stuff which is pretty rife on just about every thread these days.

I'd be happy to set you a challenge to try and prove / disprove your theory if you fancy it?

 

[Sasukdcf]

I’m not sure what I’m getting at to be honest !!

Just wondered if anyone else had noticed it and if not to look out for it...

From a conspiracy POV ... maybe if a better mathematical whizz than me explains how this occurance could benefit the long term RTP figures or similar....

I hold firm and always have that games change upon increase of stakes... ( different subject I know )

But yes happy to accept a challenge depending what it is !!

 

[Jono777]

Not read whole thread so this may have been previously mentioned.

Has anyone tried some (lengthy-ish) continually collecting the initial FS award and NOT gambling at all?

Asking as this seems the favorable feeling towards Extra Chilli which works on a similar principal.

IMO amount of FS doesn't really matter - If it wants to pay, it will via re-triggers, large Megaways, whatever. If that particular feature doesn't want to pay then it won't whether you have 1FS or 100!

 

[paul7388]

Not read whole thread so this may have been previously mentioned.

Has anyone tried some (lengthy-ish) continually collecting the initial FS award and NOT gambling at all?

Asking as this seems the favorable feeling towards Extra Chilli which works on a similar principal.

IMO amount of FS doesn't really matter - If it wants to pay, it will via re-triggers, large Megaways, whatever. If that particular feature doesn't want to pay then it won't whether you have 1FS or 100!

Rarely play millionaire as find it total crap.

But i did do a few sessions on demo and several features in real. Took 8 spins several times and also 10 spins lots as always lost gamble in the end.

Out of them all i never hit anything decent at all. Not enough spins to prove anything but from what i saw it is completely different to chilli. As you know i normally collect 8 spins on chilli and have always said if it was going to pay it will and all best wins were on 8 spins. That was before seeing biggest ever win on here that was also from 8 spins.

But millionaire seems totally different. You just don't get the feeling it will give anything on 8 spins. Out of quite a few features never once got a retrigger either whereas chilli gives them often.

Personally i would never touch millionaire again.

 

[Reelsoffun]

as the individual players session will still be an RTP of 0%

Erm no it won't unless they didnt get a single win from the session, even if you lost all your money you still could have won 85% RTP etc And thats what some people dont understand....

 

[Reelsoffun]

Rarely play millionaire as find it total crap.

But i did do a few sessions on demo and several features in real. Took 8 spins several times and also 10 spins lots as always lost gamble in the end.

Out of them all i never hit anything decent at all. Not enough spins to prove anything but from what i saw it is completely different to chilli. As you know i normally collect 8 spins on chilli and have always said if it was going to pay it will and all best wins were on 8 spins. That was before seeing biggest ever win on here that was also from 8 spins.

But millionaire seems totally different. You just don't get the feeling it will give anything on 8 spins. Out of quite a few features never once got a retrigger either whereas chilli gives them often.

Personally i would never touch millionaire again.

The math is totally different though to compensate for the higher chance of 117k ways appearing both in the base and feature, you only really get the bigger features from hitting 1 or more good 117k ways in the feature etc so its technically more volatile.

 

[Jono777]

I played it once, very unlikely to again, £10 down life time on it and its probably going to stay like that.

 

[judgenico]

right so at around 2 billion most games might be near their target rtp.

I think there's a margin allowed on the live rtp analysis they have to do, so it could be 96% +/- 2%, at some point it will hit rtp and then shift off again I suppose.

makes you wonder how they account for huge wins like the new member had the other day on book of ra deluxe, a 1st spin bonus on £20 stake that paid £50,000+ [I think it was], if no one else plays at £20 stake, or very few, how does it absorb such a payout if many players are only playing on 10p stake and not affect their rtp share

seems like rtp and the testing process is similar to the question 'how long is a piece of string'

my theory is different stakes equals different servers, if ive ever switched stakes on certain games ive certainly noticed a change in the way the games plays

 

[EkJR]

my theory is different stakes equals different servers, if ive ever switched stakes on certain games ive certainly noticed a change in the way the games plays

Seems to play ok on small stakes(below £1). Anything above seems to be a cash grab and amount of losses on the bonus ladder are mental.

 

[brianmon]

my theory is different stakes equals different servers, if ive ever switched stakes on certain games ive certainly noticed a change in the way the games plays

And there's usually a slight delay on the first spin after changing stakes

 

[Sasukdcf]

@Reelsoffun

Ok so what you have put has confused me as your theory is what I used to think but I was corrected on here a while back and told if you lose your pot and end up wit nothing in a session then your RTP is 0%

I previously worked it out using simple maths but was told that was wrong!!

So that said a medium win as you are running out of money would “ up” your overall RTP for the session then and therefore skew the figures ???