John hunter scarab queen

[avfcalex23]

Have just had (and counted lol) 193 spins before I landed three scatters. It’s virtually impossible to land 2 let alone 3 so when it came in I was excited to say the least.

This is a cash collect type slot with collect symbols on reel 5. Game pays really poor so I thought the bonus might be a big one when you finally hit it. It paid me £1.80 in 8 spins. Not even 4x my base bet.

I ask time and time again, how do these sites and slot makers get away with it? At some stage, I’m going to have to bite the bullet and do what a lot of people on this forum have done, and give it up and maybe just visit here to see people’s comments as I do enjoy reading the forum. But slots play has gone downhill so much in recent years. It genuinely use to be fun. I’ve had a couple of big wins, 5000x and 1,200x in the last year but that is it. Two from memory that stand out as WOW wins.

I saw a thread on here a while back but I can’t find it (I’m a slot developer ask me anything) type thread. I would absolutely love to know the following;

How can slots be defined as random? When they quite clearly are anything but

How can developers get away with paying £1.80 on a bonus feature you’ve spent almost £100 to finally get to

This particular slot above is 3/5 volatility and I’ve had slots 5/5 high volatile that have paid better than this.

 

[lockinlove]

This is pretty standard for this slot. I havent had low that before but it isnt surprising. It always seems like most of the rtp is in the jackpots on the coin spins.

Did you check the RTP on it too? You might be playing on lowered rtp.

Yes, as you can see from the winner screenshot threads etc I think a lot of players have quit due to the greed of casinos and their low rtp.

 

[X-Raided]

This is pretty standard for this slot. I havent had low that before but it isnt surprising. It always seems like most of the rtp is in the jackpots on the coin spins.

Did you check the RTP on it too? You might be playing on lowered rtp.

Yes, as you can see from the winner screenshot threads etc I think a lot of players have quit due to the greed of casinos and their low rtp.

These types of slots are the worst, but not as bad as the 3 pot bullshit slots flooding the markets.

 

[justdoit]

oh i have to many of 0 screems

 

[dunover]

View attachment 210034

Have just had (and counted lol) 193 spins before I landed three scatters. It’s virtually impossible to land 2 let alone 3 so when it came in I was excited to say the least.

This is a cash collect type slot with collect symbols on reel 5. Game pays really poor so I thought the bonus might be a big one when you finally hit it. It paid me £1.80 in 8 spins. Not even 4x my base bet.

I ask time and time again, how do these sites and slot makers get away with it? At some stage, I’m going to have to bite the bullet and do what a lot of people on this forum have done, and give it up and maybe just visit here to see people’s comments as I do enjoy reading the forum. But slots play has gone downhill so much in recent years. It genuinely use to be fun. I’ve had a couple of big wins, 5000x and 1,200x in the last year but that is it. Two from memory that stand out as WOW wins.

I saw a thread on here a while back but I can’t find it (I’m a slot developer ask me anything) type thread. I would absolutely love to know the following;

How can slots be defined as random? When they quite clearly are anything but

How can developers get away with paying £1.80 on a bonus feature you’ve spent almost £100 to finally get to

This particular slot above is 3/5 volatility and I’ve had slots 5/5 high volatile that have paid better than this.

So say it's an average of 200 spins to get the bonus and the RTP for the round is 25% of total game RTP, the base game is 71% and the house edge comes from the base game at 4%.

So the bonus round has 100% of 25% if you follow, no house edge.

You would therefore expect at every 200 spins the average pay to be 50x stake.

Then it's possible to get a 5 or 10,000x max win from the bonus so it's a high-volatility round.

You can't just have 4-figure pays with the remainder being 1-20x for example, you would have outcomes in the low hundreds-times too. So you would likely get a spread along the lines you've suggested (no pun) with frequent poor returns to pay for the max wins and 3-figure ones.

On Novo's Book of Ra it's slightly different with 1000x plus and single to low tens much rarer and more bonus rounds paying high tens or low hundreds x.

 

[Jono777]

Admin even giving out kisses nowadays

 

[Reelsoffun]

So say it's an average of 200 spins to get the bonus and the RTP for the round is 25% of total game RTP, the base game is 71% and the house edge comes from the base game at 4%.

So the bonus round has 100% of 25% if you follow, no house edge.

You would therefore expect at every 200 spins the average pay to be 50x stake.

Then it's possible to get a 5 or 10,000x max win from the bonus so it's a high-volatility round.

You can't just have 4-figure pays with the remainder being 1-20x for example, you would have outcomes in the low hundreds-times too. So you would likely get a spread along the lines you've suggested (no pun) with frequent poor returns to pay for the max wins and 3-figure ones.

On Novo's Book of Ra it's slightly different with 1000x plus and single to low tens much rarer and more bonus rounds paying high tens or low hundreds x.

Exactly, people are just not grasping how slots work and just how much these max wins cost in real terms regarding bonus frequency and value.

Just like the base game, many bonuses have to be low to pay for the bigger wins, it is literally just math.

 

[Lemon]

I wouldn't be happy with a bonus like that I admit, but the opposite of that would be a very nice hit and that's what people punt this filth for.

 

[avfcalex23]

Exactly, people are just not grasping how slots work and just how much these max wins cost in real terms regarding bonus frequency and value.

Just like the base game, many bonuses have to be low to pay for the bigger wins, it is literally just math.

I think that’s a tad harsh, I’m not thick and I’m aware that slots need to pay low to make up for the big wins they throw out once in a blue moon.

But to pay £1.80 on a bonus feature at 50p stake stinks.

 

[PMKFRUITPRO]

193 spins!!!!

Can take 5 times that to bonus as well!!

 

[Reelsoffun]

I think that’s a tad harsh, I’m not thick and I’m aware that slots need to pay low to make up for the big wins they throw out once in a blue moon.

But to pay £1.80 on a bonus feature at 50p stake stinks.

I didn’t mean to be, and wasn’t implying anyone is thick, I was just referring to the amount of comments lately about slots not being random or paying much lower bonuses, but with the shift in volatility it’s par the course unfortunately. Yes winning less than 5x stinks, but more and more do it. Unless the game has a bonus guarantee pretty much any slot out there is capable of dishing out below 5x bonuses, even bonanza can.

 

[megadam]

OP at least you're not being congratulated for such big wins like the following.

Unfortunately I've found that Pragmatics can be a bit savage on the frequency of giving you a really really shite bonus but will generally in my experience pay an average bonus better than other providers so as others have pointed out, swings and roundabouts. Somethings gotta pay for those monster hits though where they come from on Pragmatic's is anyone's guess.

 

[Siohmy]

So basically, as dunover alluded to, this slot may be very similar in profile to DOA. Reasonably frequent bonuses but many pay very little to compensate for the monster ones. Yet DOA is often sighted as a “classic”.
I haven’t played this one so don’t know how the base game would compare.

FWIW, the coin/collect symbol is perhaps my most hated of these variations of collect games. They are clearly popular (see Bass infestation), but genuinely cannot see the appeal at all. Each to their own I guess even if all the fans of this type of game are just plain wrong!