Hypothesis Of Big Online Casino Fake
The current theory for pokies configuration is common and widely accepted. And it is based on such thing like huge amounts of information for pokies configuration that is published in various reviews and, of course, such information is presented by different streamers, bloggers and all other industry’s representatives.
For sure most of you have already heard something about Random Number Generator, such notions like RTP, dispersion, pokie's pool. Most punters already heard of various hypotheses about pokies “reset to zero” at the beginning of the month, about the fact that you can check pokies for return rate while playing demo games and millions of other hypotheses.
But are these theories are actually the same as presented to us? No, and in my opinion, it’s nothing other than informational cascade*. I’ve been testing pokies over a number of years in more than 20 online casinos. Hundreds of millions spin in a great number of pokies and the number of factors became a starting point for reflection and consequently for creation of my own hypothesis.
*Informational cascade — is a self-reinforcing process where collective faith becomes more convincing due to increasing repetition in public discourse (Repeat something for a significantly long time and finally it will become truth).
I bet that most of those who play pokies on a regular basis (let’s say NetEnt - the most popular developer) faced a deja vu when the same pokie in different casinos acted identically for long game sessions, but not during 10-15 spins until the first bonus game appears. And it’s not about that a pokie doesn’t pay and naturally, it’s not about the pokie showing the same set of images. It is about, for example, the fact that Drive Multiplier Mayhem gives the certain number (15 exactly) of combinations where scatter symbols are shown on the 2nd and 3rd reels with a spin of the fourth reel and an attempt to get the 3rd to scatter there. Then a pokie gives a bonus game with a small win and right after that, a bonus game with all “nitro” collected for the max level game appear.
I can give the same examples for dozens of pokies. For example, identical behaviour was evidenced in Scruffy Duck pokie, certain patterns in Secret of Christmas, Copy Cats and many others. The most obvious manifestation of scenarios in NetEnt pokies I’ve evidenced in Space Wars, which can become a separate thread for discussion. I’ve seen such “recurring” scenarios not only in NetEnt pokies, but I’ve noticed them among such game providers as Microgaming, Yggdrasil, Amatic, Endorphina, Red Tiger and other developers. Of course, observation of such identical game sessions is only possible by playing in prolonged game sessions in different online casinos. And here comes the question: does random and RNG actually exist at all like it is claimed?
Also most punters, for example, faced the notion “pokie is on its pay streak”, especially when someone in the internet or streamers win a lot and all people aspire to play the same pokie keeping in mind that a pokie is on its pay streak right at the moment. And now let’s recall your game sessions in such cases. I’m sure most of you have got the situation when you open two browsers, different casinos, equal bet amount, and then you see quite a different exposure. In the first casino, your balance is totally set to zero without any bonus game during 500 spins in a row, and the other casino's result is fully opposite.
pokies by Red Tiger (not only) can show more interesting results. A player receives free spins, and then when a punter is offered three sectors to choose from (after choosing one a player sees the exact number of free spins) even before the choice is made the pokie already shows punter’s balance with a win amount taken into account. This fact shows that player’s choice doesn’t change the outcome at all, and in fact, any sector can be chosen, as the pokie has already made a “decision” about the number of spins, combinations set, and the amount of win to be paid respectively.
Mentioned above facts and many other things that will be discussed below gave me some sort of idea, and maybe a hypothesis, the hypothesis of a fundamentally different pokies’ configuration. To my mind pokies’ configurations boils down to this, when a pokie is on a development stage Artificial Intelligence creates game sequences of hundred millions of game combinations, i.e. peculiar rows with certain distances for winning and losing sessions. (Pic. 1):
Concerning RTP many so-called “advisors” tell us to play high RTP pokies and there are many reviews and ratings for such pokies. Does high RTP value is so important for the punter?
In my personal opinion that it is far from the truth and it’s not more than an illusory correlation*!
For a certain player’s game session the difference between a pokie with 98% and 96% RTP will NEVER be palpable. It’s due to the fact that RTP values are being aligned for millions or even billions spins distances. That’s the reason I was never interested in the RTP value of the pokie and I’m only interested in the pokie’s dispersion level and this criterion is more important for any punter as it can help to forecast game session expectations. More than that RTP value is not actually even for online casino owners as it is calculated on the basis of all casinos from the network and it can be higher for one single casino and lower for the other one respectively. This criterion was actually only for land-based casino owners where a certain pokie “aligned” the value and what is more for a rather short distance. In fact, this index for the online segment can only be interesting for the software developer, namely a game provider.
*Illusory correlation is a phenomenon of exaggeratedly close relations of variables, which in fact does not exist at all or significantly lower than was supposed.
Let’s get back to the game intervals topic. So, in my point of view, while opening a pokie for the first time a system “places” a player into a certain interval. Pic 2:
As it is displayed in the chart every punter is randomly placed into a certain place of the lane, i.e. it is a certain interval of the lane which is player’s starting point and then he will strictly follow it. Some punters can be placed into the beginning of the positive interval, some players will be placed in the middle of the end of the interval. Some punters similarly will be placed on the lane but for a negative interval. In my view, a player won’t randomly jump over the lane during further gameplay. A punter will get into the same lane during his second/third and fourth pokie sessions and he will be put into the same point of the lane where he finished his previous game sessions.
If you follow this hypothesis, it turns out that, after moving through the entire positive interval a player will get into a negative one and he will lose consequently. And many people would say that they won and, for example, won again after a come back in a week or so. Maybe that’s the original source for “set to zero” at the beginning of the moth theory followers. I suppose that the case is completely different. The core is that punters are unable to recognize endings of the intervals. I’ll give an example of my vision for such intervals on the Display 3. (win amounts are arbitrary):
As can be seen from the chart, there is a sequence of combinations which have certain sets of winning combinations with different intervals between them. Most players immediately leave a pokie right after a big win and in fact, there could be another win just after the previous one. It means that when a punter enters a pokie over a period of time he gets into the same place of the lane where he finished his previous game session and a big win comes just after several spins. It is exactly the case that makes the feeling of the pokie “paying form a single spin” and the feeling that a pokie was “reset to zero” and it is on its “pay streak”. But in fact, a player simply follows his own scripted lane. It is really hard to track a negative interval as naturally big wins appear from time to time, but for a long distance, a player will anyway lose.
Of course, such hypothesis generates many questions. I’ll try to consider some of them below. All my reasonings will be based on the described above hypothesis.
Does RTP exist at all?
You know, I’m convinced that RTP value really exists but it exists only within a script formation stage. Later on, the RTP value is not compliant with the original value. The game provider can always say something like “You try to observe a significantly short interval, but in future RTP value will be aligned”. All say that RTP is aligned within a long distance, but no one says what “long-distance” exactly is. As a result, the RTP value notion can be manipulated. Many will say that such companies like ECOGRA do really check. And do you believe the results they deliver? In times of total corruption, I would doubt the credibility of the information.
How does bet amount affect the game/ How does RTP is aligned?
Naturally when the script is being created a developer is not able to forecast bet amount of a future potential player. And to my mind, it doesn’t affect the outcome. A pokie will behave the same way for any bet amount. If someone wins by placing a big bet, a developer will align RTP value by placing players into negative intervals predominantly.
How pokies with high dispersion are designed?
The same way as pokies with low dispersion. I’m convinced that any player can get a mega win in several thousand bets that are scattered on “the way”. The only question is that a system will place some players closer to a win (that’s the reason some players get a huge win in several spins) and some people will be placed farther. And in order to hit a huge win, players that placed farther will have to pass the way of thousands or even dozens of thousands of spins. On picture 4 we took examples of x1000, x2000 and x4000 mega big winnings:
Do positive and negative players’ accounts exist?
IIn my opinion, in the form they are imagined, no. There are accounts that are mainly placed into “positive intervals”. So players will have positive results at first, but if a player doesn’t stop the game his result will be quite different. In the same way, the system can place a player’s account into “negative intervals” for some pokies. And the result here will be dependant on the players choice, i.e. whether a player opens these pokies or not. During tests, I repeatedly managed to get to the “plus” accounts.
Does a mobile pokie version is the same as a PC one?
Despite many people assure that a pokie’s mobile version is the same as a PC one, I can say with a lot of confidence that it’s not true. PC pokies and mobile pokies are different at all. I mean that if you are placed into a certain point of the interval in a PC pokie, you’ll get a completely different point of the interval in a mobile version of the pokie. That’s why if a pokie shows positive results on a PC version, it doesn’t mean at all that the pokie will behave the same on mobile. But there is a definite positive point. I’ve managed to get even a series of winning combinations on PC during tests, and when a pokie stopped to pay out at all as it has entered a negative interval, I’ve managed to hop into a positive interval with several series of big wins by switching to the mobile pokie.
Demo game, is it really possible to check the pokie for payout in it?
Many people try to convince us that it is the truth that demo-mode pokies act the same way as during the game for real money. Especially adherents of this hypothesis tend to think so about NetEnt pokies. I stick to a different point of view. Taking into account the described above hypothesis I think that a system predominantly places a player into positive intervals and only occasionally into negative ones. The game provider needs to show a player all the opportunities of the pokie and lure a player into the game. Indeed, if the idea that the pokies in the demo mode play in the same way as for real money is put into the minds of potential players, and at the same time in 80% of cases they are put in plus segments, then there will be much more people who want to play. Players are put into negative intervals only in order not to resonate in gambling society. Because if it is widely believed that pokies in the demo mode always play a plus, then much fewer people will believe that they also play for real money and want to continue playing on it.
Do players’ classes exist?
Possibly yes, but I’m not sure. And more to that I’m not sure that players’ classes somehow affect the gameplay. It may happen that it is only one of the factors that are taken into account by the system when placing a player into further pokies (after the analysis of previous game sessions).
Does the pokie’s pool exist?
Undoubtedly. But at the same time, most people are convinced that pokie’s pool is fixed for a particular casino. While testing pokies behaviour in completely different gambling establishments I’ve come to a conclusion that most likely pokie’s pool is common for all casinos (i.e. is fixed on game provider servers) More than that I think that pokie’s pool doesn’t affect a particular player. It’s just one more component as like as RTP which helps RNG work properly.
Where and how is the RNG applied and is it applied at all?
Certainly, RNG exists and as I’ve written above it is used during the development of the scenario at least. Moreover, I believe that RNG forms only a distance at this stage, i.e. when a bonus game should be issued, when a certain interval should start or end and general pokie’s behaviour by fixing win amounts (in arbitrary units - X bets) at the same time. Further, RNG interferes gameplay by correcting it. For example, how much winnings should be paid out in the planned bonus game taking into account players class, pokies pull and etc.
One more example: while placing 2-5 euro bets, the scenario planned to win 1000 bets, but taking into account the real bet of the player, pokie pool, RTP, class, etc., the RNG can adjust the winnings within 700-1300 bets.
Is gameplay fair in an online casino?
To my mind, it’s far from the truth. If to stick to the hypothesis, playing online casino is similar to a shooter game. Despite all the gaming “environment” (barriers, enemies), a player moves through the “corridor” with a predictable outcome. Moreover, I believe that for casinos themselves this game can hardly be called fair, as by correct usage of this hypothesis and applying a little analytics, you can predict the outcome of the sessions and abuse the game.
*Shooter — computer games genre.
Can I win at an Australian online casino?
Yes, you can! It is possible if stop playing disorderly, and learn how to analyze gameplay, forecast the ends of positive intervals. For me personally, I try to use the “not returning strategy the pokie that paid out a large win or a series of wins”, because then a minus interval will follow. The best option, I think, is to “go through” all pokies (or most popular ones that you like), and then leave a casino and continue playing on these pokies, but in another casino.
All this information is for informational purposes only and is nothing more than a personal opinion and reasoning of the author. This information is by no means an accusation anyone of anything, nor does it call or induce any actions.