Cheating game
#21
(12-30-2016, 10:30 PM)russthebus Wrote: What the concern is if something that simple can get past a test process, then it can't be all the stringent.

From the various kerfuffles at Casinomeister over the years with online games doing dodgy things, I think it's pretty clear that the testing/regulation often isn't that stringent. (And they're just the ones that get noticed and/or proved by the players.)

And I'm not talking tinpot casino sites either, but at places such as Betfred.
Reply
#22
(12-31-2016, 07:52 AM)Sebastian Wrote:
(12-30-2016, 10:30 PM)russthebus Wrote: The technical standards for the end game gambles is quite clear that odds displayed will be the chance of the result, no house edge.

The did change, however the chance was stil clearly displayed at the point the player decided to gamble.

What the concern is if something that simple can get past a test process, then it can't be all the stringent.


Whilst that may be the case of the standard I'm sure many games do not meet it. Had a Zeus the other day with all three gamble wheels landing on the '6pm' area  Confused

Not exactly conclusive proof.
Reply
#23
(12-31-2016, 09:01 AM)Chop Wrote:
(12-30-2016, 10:30 PM)russthebus Wrote: What the concern is if something that simple can get past a test process, then it can't be all the stringent.

From the various kerfuffles at Casinomeister over the years with online games doing dodgy things, I think it's pretty clear that the testing/regulation often isn't that stringent. (And they're just the ones that get noticed and/or proved by the players.)

And I'm not talking tinpot casino sites either, but at places such as Betfred.

Sure, but they are just the face of the operation. Not that its excused..
Reply
#24
You sure that wasn't just a clock in the reflection?!!!
Reply
#25
(12-31-2016, 10:20 AM)russthebus Wrote:
(12-31-2016, 07:52 AM)Sebastian Wrote:
(12-30-2016, 10:30 PM)russthebus Wrote: The technical standards for the end game gambles is quite clear that odds displayed will be the chance of the result, no house edge.

The did change, however the chance was stil clearly displayed at the point the player decided to gamble.

What the concern is if something that simple can get past a test process, then it can't be all the stringent.


Whilst that may be the case of the standard I'm sure many games do not meet it. Had a Zeus the other day with all three gamble wheels landing on the '6pm' area  Confused

Not exactly conclusive proof.

Well even if you do it on the clock face hours the likelihood would be 12 x 12 x 12 - 1/1728 chance.

I've seen more than enough gambles to know they're not at the odds shown, they're what the machine wants to pay
Reply
The following 1 user Likes Sebastian's post:
megastreaklover01
#26
Why not just have a turbo gamble then maybe you wouldn't feel so mugged off! But the bookies would prefer the pie gamble, to give the impression that it's random otherwise people would only moan about the turbo always losing! Easier way to grab people's cash
Reply
#27
I still am in some disbelief that theres still people thinking they lose because its somehow rigged in disguise.
Reply
#28
(01-01-2017, 10:05 AM)Sebastian Wrote:
(12-31-2016, 10:20 AM)russthebus Wrote:
(12-31-2016, 07:52 AM)Sebastian Wrote:
(12-30-2016, 10:30 PM)russthebus Wrote: The technical standards for the end game gambles is quite clear that odds displayed will be the chance of the result, no house edge.

The did change, however the chance was stil clearly displayed at the point the player decided to gamble.

What the concern is if something that simple can get past a test process, then it can't be all the stringent.


Whilst that may be the case of the standard I'm sure many games do not meet it. Had a Zeus the other day with all three gamble wheels landing on the '6pm' area  Confused

Not exactly conclusive proof.

Well even if you do it on the clock face hours the likelihood would be 12 x 12 x 12 - 1/1728 chance.

I've seen more than enough gambles to know they're not at the odds shown, they're what the machine wants to pay

Can you give some examples?
Reply
#29
(01-01-2017, 11:53 AM)russthebus Wrote:
(01-01-2017, 10:05 AM)Sebastian Wrote:
(12-31-2016, 10:20 AM)russthebus Wrote:
(12-31-2016, 07:52 AM)Sebastian Wrote:
(12-30-2016, 10:30 PM)russthebus Wrote: The technical standards for the end game gambles is quite clear that odds displayed will be the chance of the result, no house edge.

The did change, however the chance was stil clearly displayed at the point the player decided to gamble.

What the concern is if something that simple can get past a test process, then it can't be all the stringent.


Whilst that may be the case of the standard I'm sure many games do not meet it. Had a Zeus the other day with all three gamble wheels landing on the '6pm' area  :s

Not exactly conclusive proof.

Well even if you do it on the clock face hours the likelihood would be 12 x 12 x 12 - 1/1728 chance.

I've seen more than enough gambles to know they're not at the odds shown, they're what the machine wants to pay

Can you give some examples?
Well yeah - all you need to do is take a gamble on the old Barcrest games (Rainbow, Progressive Rock etc) then look at the newer style gamble ala Blueprint pie..

The BP x2/x4/x5/x10 gamble I believe is genuinely random, must have paid too much out now they're changing to the pie.
Reply
#30
Different software providers producing different products... is that it?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I've never seen this before on a Golden Game! Peko 7 2,905 06-14-2014, 06:32 PM
Last Post: voodoo
  Grand Golden Game kidgloves 3 1,040 05-09-2013, 10:06 PM
Last Post: ring sting

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)