AE: you sound like you're heading for a fall. Be careful.
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
I've been crunching the numbers for the Jackpot Party progressive system (as best as it's possible to in the absence of verifiable odds), and am increasingly reaching the conclusion that I just got obscenely lucky to walk away £700 up.
Something I've often wondered with the online machines - if you revisit a machine you've played before, it will be in the same state you left it (which is obviously essential for something like the Tomb Raider Secret of the Sword feature), so I assume that if you've won big on a machine and then return to it weeks later, it'll still need to play under percentage for a while to get back to its standard payout level. Whereas on a physical machine, many other punters would have taken their turn and taken that hit.
devilman wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Something I've often wondered with the online machines - if you revisit a machine you've played before, it will be in the same state you left it (which is obviously essential for something like the Tomb Raider Secret of the Sword feature), so I assume that if you've won big on a machine and then return to it weeks later, it'll still need to play under percentage for a while to get back to its standard payout level. Whereas on a physical machine, many other punters would have taken their turn and taken that hit.
It's a good question devilman and one that there's no clear answer to anywhere, I suppose you could open up a live chat session with support there and ask them, but my overall feeling is this.
For starters, the Tomb Raider game is an unusual one in that it does have a 'progression' system that's unique to your play sessions, and it remembers where it's up to. In all honesty I'm not sure how that fits into the profile of games that by law have to be completely random. I suppose what they could say is that the uncovering the artefacts is a random process, and the feature itself is random when you unlock it, so it's basically a random game within a random game.
For other games like Thunderstruck II where you unlock the four different bonus rounds I think it's more simple, they all have exactly the same long term expected return, they're just weighted differently. So when you choose from one of the four bonus rounds (once you've unlocked them all) you're just choosing four different variances, but all with the same expected return over time.
The other thing about Microgaming casinos is that their accreditation simply states that their slot games have an expected return over time of around 95%, they put up a certificate every month from an external auditor and this usually varies from about 94% up to about 96%, I suspect this is down to whether or not a big progressive or two has been hit, which would affect the overall percentage for the entire sire.
This is something I do like about Sky Vegas and Kerching, they give you exact figures for every single individual game, and assuming you can work out the variance for yourself (not hard to do), it's pretty simple to work out how you should get on. There's a game on the Kerching site which has an expected return of over 97%, which over thousands and thousands and spins will make a massive difference compared to a 94% expected return game.
Attachment:
return.JPG
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
>snip<
That last paragraph is very interesting
Quote:
The expected payback value is also based upon correct player choices for any games which involve main game and/or bonus game play strategy.
Does that mean for example at a bonus point where there are 4 choices and they are 1p / 1p / 1p / £500 if you get the 1p they can say it paid out £500 because it was actually there and the player just chose the wrong box ?
Mr Russell wrote:
AE: you sound like you're heading for a fall. Be careful.
Thanks for the comment I do appreciate it
However my days of fucking everything up with gambling are long gone, I just have too much to lose these days.These days it's small stakes, small risk, and as much for entertainment as for profit (except the pub £70 AWPs which are brutal fuckers where I stick religiously to the ones I know I can beat).
Online slots are just a nice little diversion after everyone's in bed, bit of fun for my money and if I win anything so much the better.
(Fast forward three months when I'm posting out of a cardboard box in a grubby shop doorway, lamenting the loss of everything I once held dear......)
Heh, I love that innocuous little paragraph:
What this means, I think, is that this supposed ~97% payout will only actually be realised if the player ALWAYS makes the optimal choice - in everything - which is of course almost impossible statistically over many games. Take the Rainbow Riches choose me 'wishing wells' for example; three of these (on freeplay at least) can frequently vary between x2 to x20 stake, depending on which is chosen, and sometimes the variance is even greater, with a really big multiplier on one of the wells. (It's the same story on 4 or 5 wells, except here the variance is even more pronounced; it can be between x50 and x500 stake, between five wells etc.).
No-one is ever going to choose the best 'well', the highest number of freespins or whatever, all of the time, every time. So, the casino gets to claim a higher - possibly much higher %payout than can ever actually be achieved?
As an aside, I always feel queasy reading posts like this from you mate. For some people, I've no doubt they can 'play the system' (if they can be arsed) and come away with a few quid each month. But you're not one of them mate, any more than I am. IMO, you should leave these sites and all fruit machines well alone.
Quote:
The expected payback value is also based upon correct player choices for any games which involve main game and/or bonus game strategy
What this means, I think, is that this supposed ~97% payout will only actually be realised if the player ALWAYS makes the optimal choice - in everything - which is of course almost impossible statistically over many games. Take the Rainbow Riches choose me 'wishing wells' for example; three of these (on freeplay at least) can frequently vary between x2 to x20 stake, depending on which is chosen, and sometimes the variance is even greater, with a really big multiplier on one of the wells. (It's the same story on 4 or 5 wells, except here the variance is even more pronounced; it can be between x50 and x500 stake, between five wells etc.).
No-one is ever going to choose the best 'well', the highest number of freespins or whatever, all of the time, every time. So, the casino gets to claim a higher - possibly much higher %payout than can ever actually be achieved?
As an aside, I always feel queasy reading posts like this from you mate. For some people, I've no doubt they can 'play the system' (if they can be arsed) and come away with a few quid each month. But you're not one of them mate, any more than I am. IMO, you should leave these sites and all fruit machines well alone.
jinx Zaphod lol.
zaphod79 wrote:
That last paragraph is very interesting
Does that mean for example at a bonus point where there are 4 choices and they are 1p / 1p / 1p / £500 if you get the 1p they can say it paid out £500 because it was actually there and the player just chose the wrong box ?
Quote:
The expected payback value is also based upon correct player choices for any games which involve main game and/or bonus game play strategy.
Does that mean for example at a bonus point where there are 4 choices and they are 1p / 1p / 1p / £500 if you get the 1p they can say it paid out £500 because it was actually there and the player just chose the wrong box ?
It is indeed very interesting zaphod, and it's a question I've never managed to get an answer to.
A game at Sky Vegas casino comes with this disclaimer:
Attachment:
capture2.JPG
My hunch here is that there is no 'player control' in any of these games, otherwise they're not random. I think every feature, every bonus round, every 'pick a box' and all that sort of stuff is completely pre-determined, it's just giving you a nice sound and light show to make it all look a bit more interactive. Moreover, I think the 'reveal' that it does (the Bullseye 'look at what you could have won' moment) on these sorts of rounds is just for show too.
If you had the time, the money and the inclination, you could play enough spins at small stakes on games that have these sorts of features, work out the numbers, and see if they add up or not or if indeed some of the expected return is being 'lost'.
Having being playing at online casinos for quite some time now, my feeling is there are no good and bad choices, the game has chosen what your prize for that spin is going to be as soon as it picks a number from the RNG, everything else is just window dressing.
The obvious one is the Jackpot Party Progressive feature at Jackpot Party, where the five levels of awards basically go (approx) £40 - £100 - £500 - £2000 - £15000. Each level of the game (allegedly) contains one 'go to the next level' star and four COLLECT squares, if it were the case that there was indeed a correct answer every JPP feature (and they come up quite a lot, you just almost always get binned off with 0 or 1 stars) then they'd be paying out the higher progressives all the time.
http://youtu.be/UDwoj1-y_dM
Captain Caveman wrote:
What this means, I think, is that this supposed ~97% payout will only actually be realised if the player ALWAYS makes the optimal choice - in everything - which is of course almost impossible statistically over many games. Take the Rainbow Riches choose me 'wishing wells' for example; three of these (on freeplay at least) can frequently vary between x2 to x20 stake, depending on which is chosen, and sometimes the variance is even greater, with a really big multiplier on one of the wells. (It's the same story on 4 or 5 wells, except here the variance is even more pronounced; it can be between x50 and x500 stake, between five wells etc.).
No-one is ever going to choose the best 'well', the highest number of freespins or whatever, all of the time, every time. So, the casino gets to claim a higher - possibly much higher %payout than can ever actually be achieved?
No-one is ever going to choose the best 'well', the highest number of freespins or whatever, all of the time, every time. So, the casino gets to claim a higher - possibly much higher %payout than can ever actually be achieved?
See my post above Cavey, I don't think that's how they work, although I fully accept that does make you wonder why they'd put the disclaimer in there in the first place.
Hmm, well, I seriously doubt that 'pick me' features such as the wishing wells on RR or whatever are totally predetermined regardless of which one is chosen. Otherwise, like you say, why then bother with the disclaimer in the first place.
No, I suspect they are, in fact, attractive from the casino operator's POV in that the *actual* %payout for such games will always be lower than the 'optimal' claimed value that may well draw the punters in in the first place? Nothing whatsoever would surprise me about any of it. *shivers*
No, I suspect they are, in fact, attractive from the casino operator's POV in that the *actual* %payout for such games will always be lower than the 'optimal' claimed value that may well draw the punters in in the first place? Nothing whatsoever would surprise me about any of it. *shivers*
Well I've sent this off to Kerching,
I'll be sending emails to the support addresses of all other major online casinos in due course.
----------
I'll be sending emails to the support addresses of all other major online casinos in due course.
----------
Quote:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Could you please clarify a disclaimer for me that the 'PAYS' section of each of the slots games on your site contains.
I quote:
------------------------
The expected payback value is also based on correct player choices for any games which involve main game and/or bonus game play strategy.
------------------------
My concern here is that no one is ever going to make the optimal choice all of the time. (An obvious example would be the Captain Quid's Treasure Chest bonus feature.) Does your stated return over time for a game (i.e.95%) assume that a player will ALWAYS make the optimal choices in such situations? Because if this is the case, the reality is that no player would ever achieve that 95% return over time.
I would much appreciate a response to the following questions:
1) Are any 'choice' situations actually just pre-determined results, and what the game shows you 'could have had' is simply there to add to the gameplay experience? (i.e. Ultimately there is no player choice and the game is completely random.)
2) Are there indeed 'good' and 'bad' choices, and that the stated 95% return over time assumes an average over time of good/bad/indifferent choices over a large number of plays from a large number of players and thus the aggregate effect is still a 95% return over time? (i.e. The choices do affect short-term return but the expected return over time, for all players, is still 95%.)
3) Or are there indeed 'good' and 'bad' choices, and that if the player does not make the optimal choice 100% of the time (i.e. effectively impossible), the stated 95% return over time will thus never be achieved?
Some of your slots are far more interactive than others and require far more choices than others, some have no player choice element whatsoever, you just press start and see what happens.
Is it the case that for a player to achieve the stated percentage return over time as per the 'PAYS' section of each game, he is better off playing games where there is no player interaction, or as per my questions above, does it not make any difference?
I hope you can appreciate that the behaviour of 'player choice' situations on your slot games could have a large impact on a player's chances to win and/or achieve the expected stated return, and would be much obliged if you could answer the questions above.
Best regards,
My name here.
Could you please clarify a disclaimer for me that the 'PAYS' section of each of the slots games on your site contains.
I quote:
------------------------
The expected payback value is also based on correct player choices for any games which involve main game and/or bonus game play strategy.
------------------------
My concern here is that no one is ever going to make the optimal choice all of the time. (An obvious example would be the Captain Quid's Treasure Chest bonus feature.) Does your stated return over time for a game (i.e.95%) assume that a player will ALWAYS make the optimal choices in such situations? Because if this is the case, the reality is that no player would ever achieve that 95% return over time.
I would much appreciate a response to the following questions:
1) Are any 'choice' situations actually just pre-determined results, and what the game shows you 'could have had' is simply there to add to the gameplay experience? (i.e. Ultimately there is no player choice and the game is completely random.)
2) Are there indeed 'good' and 'bad' choices, and that the stated 95% return over time assumes an average over time of good/bad/indifferent choices over a large number of plays from a large number of players and thus the aggregate effect is still a 95% return over time? (i.e. The choices do affect short-term return but the expected return over time, for all players, is still 95%.)
3) Or are there indeed 'good' and 'bad' choices, and that if the player does not make the optimal choice 100% of the time (i.e. effectively impossible), the stated 95% return over time will thus never be achieved?
Some of your slots are far more interactive than others and require far more choices than others, some have no player choice element whatsoever, you just press start and see what happens.
Is it the case that for a player to achieve the stated percentage return over time as per the 'PAYS' section of each game, he is better off playing games where there is no player interaction, or as per my questions above, does it not make any difference?
I hope you can appreciate that the behaviour of 'player choice' situations on your slot games could have a large impact on a player's chances to win and/or achieve the expected stated return, and would be much obliged if you could answer the questions above.
Best regards,
My name here.
I'd be interested to read any response mate, if only out of morbid curiosity.
Captain Caveman wrote:
I'd be interested to read any response mate, if only out of morbid curiosity.
I'll give it 50/50 at best on me getting a straightforward answer out of anyone.
Certainly the 'hosts' who turn up on the realtime chat at Jackpot Party from time to time weren't giving anything away, the best I got was them quoting the T&Cs back at me, which I politely explained I'd already read and found them vague, hence asking for the clarification.
My own take on it is that it seems very, very likely to me from the clause wording that the 'press start and see what happens' type pseudo-features are predetermined from the off (and are therefore not choices or features at all, merely de facto reel wins presented in a different way), whereas 'pick me' choices are real.
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Without wishing to sound rude, I find the last part of your quote hard to genuinely believe to be true, it's too much like a Skinner box.
Honestly dude it's true, indeed, this is partly why me and Cavey well and truly lost our shirts back in the day, because unbeknown to us there was a whole raft of tricks/cheats/exploits/etc on virtually all fruit machines, and we were just the mugs filling them up for the clued up players.
A really simple example, for a period of a few years in the 90s, all machines made by a manufacturer called JPM did something called 'numbering' - whereby the player watched the hi/lo gamble reel (which runs from 1-12) during normal play. If the hi/lo reel ever span to a 1 or 12, the machine had a jackpot in it. The more often you saw 1 or 12, the closer it was and the more jackpots you'd be able to get out of it.
If you didn't see a 1 or 12 at all, the machine was dead and would not pay out a jackpot.
If the machine was happy, you'd see it showing 1 or 12 less often, and when it stopped showing 1 or 12, you'd taken all the jackpots out of it.
You can test this behaviour in the emulator on the machines that do numbering, if you don't see 1 or 12, you'll never ever gamble a win to the jackpot or get it off the feature.
This is how on a Friday I've give my housemate a pound and he'd go to the Chinese over the road then come back with masses of food for us all. He'd watch the machine through the window and go over when it was the right time. He'd also do it in the pub - I'd bob along after lectures and have a few pints for a quid from time to time.
GovernmentYard wrote:
He'd watch the machine through the window and go over when it was the right time. He'd also do it in the pub - I'd bob along after lectures and have a few pints for a quid from time to time.
Plenty of machines had tell's - although just because a jackpot was due did not mean it would be 'cheap' to get.
Quote:
This is how on a Friday I've give my housemate a pound and he'd go to the Chinese over the road then come back with masses of food for us all. He'd watch the machine through the window and go over when it was the right time. He'd also do it in the pub - I'd bob along after lectures and have a few pints for a quid from time to time.
This is known as "sharking", basically someone watching machine(s) whilst they're being played, then jumping on them when the punter has finished/lost.
A risky business, especially in the rough as a bear's arse working men clubs that I used to frequent, and in many pubs as well. Back in my youth, I couldn't stand having some little snot boring holes into by back with their eyes, like some vulture, whilst I lost all my money - and frequently said so. Especially if it was the same individual all the time.
Fruit machine "pros" are a different matter; they by and large do not need to shark at all, merely deploy counter-intuitive "methods" that are frequently effective for much, if not all of the time, not just when a given machine has been filled up and/or is "happy".
Captain Caveman wrote:
Fruit machine "pros" are a different matter; they by and large do not need to shark at all, merely deploy counter-intuitive "methods" that are frequently effective for much, if not all of the time, not just when a given machine has been filled up and/or is "happy".
It's a bit of both these days Cavey, most of the £70ers that have, ahem, 'something' on them will have a tell/show that you look for first, and if that's there, you'll then deploy whatever sneaky little method happens to work on the machine in question. If it's not showing, you just walk away.
Believe it or not there's a whole family of current £70 jackpot AWPs that have a really basic show on the number reel just like JPMs and ACEs used to 10-15 years ago.
You play a few quid through, look for the show, and if it's there play out for a jackpot off two specific features. (One is true skill in all fairness, and the other requires a bit of reel position manipulation.)
Also, in an extra bout of sneakiness, the 25p/50p stakes on the machine are linked, but the £1 stake is maintained separately - so you can do the machine once on 50p stake, again on £1 stake, and if you're really lucky it'll chuck in the random invincible board too, which is paid for over a long time (like an old club machine's cashpot) and is therefore effectively free.
Got a bank of £225 on a single machine a few weeks ago in the one of my local pubs, crazy money for a pub fruit machine. (Unfortunately I didn't get a video of it for my channel as I'd already done the other machine in there, it was a Friday night, and I was starting to attract a bit of attention, whipping my phone out to video another big bank didn't seem like a good idea
) AtrocityExhibition wrote:
For starters, the Tomb Raider game is an unusual one in that it does have a 'progression' system that's unique to your play sessions, and it remembers where it's up to. In all honesty I'm not sure how that fits into the profile of games that by law have to be completely random. I suppose what they could say is that the uncovering the artefacts is a random process, and the feature itself is random when you unlock it, so it's basically a random game within a random game.
The main feature does seem to be random on that one - I've won up to £180 on it in the past and then I remember a couple of times where I actually won aboslutely nothing, which was gutting considering it can take a few hours of play sometimes to even hit the feature in the first place.
devilman wrote:
The main feature does seem to be random on that one - I've won up to £180 on it in the past and then I remember a couple of times where I actually won aboslutely nothing, which was gutting considering it can take a few hours of play sometimes to even hit the feature in the first place.
Yeah I had exactly the same experience with that game.
Once you start collecting the passports you feel compelled to keep playing it until you've got the lot, and then the feature itself can be absolutely rubbish.
Think it did a big fat fuck all for me once too as well, hit a TRAP straight away on the first location, and then Lara got her arse kicked by the baddy tart in the fight.
As ever with Microgaming slots though, peerless production values.
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
As ever with Microgaming slots though, peerless production values.
They do seem to put a lot of effort in. Lord of the Rings for example..
devilman wrote:
a few hours of play
A few hours? That must get costly.
MaliA wrote:
devilman wrote:
a few hours of play
A few hours? That must get costly.
Yup. I used to play machines at around £1 a spin (you can generally choose your stake on these things.. I remember one time where I was spinning at £45 a spin till I realised the settings were wrong - fortunately I actually was up afterwards). Aside from the main feature, the Tomb Raider one has two other smaller features that can help keep your money going while you try and get on the main one. Plus on a lot of spins, you'll often get small wins, which might not equal your stake, but stop you being drained too quickly.
MaliA wrote:
A few hours? That must get costly.
Depends what stake you're on, if you play the games on the lowest stakes (usually 1p per line, and most games have between 20 and 50 winlines) you can get a load of play for your money.
I deposited £100 at 32Red on Friday evening and have been playing on and off since then, and I've still got £20 left. I'd estimate I've had in the region of eight or nine hours play for £80. (I realise some people wouldn't exactly think of that as 'good value' but I've spent more than that on a night out at the pub and a taxi home in the past.)
You also need to be aware of what the variance of the machine you're playing is, medium-high variance machines can drain your bankroll pretty quickly on a bad run (but when they pay they tend to pay big), whereas if you stick to lower variance machines you'll generally get a pretty 'flat' experience but get a long time for your cash.
Obviously you'll always lose in the end but I basically write the money off when I deposit it and consider a win a bonus. (Plus when I do win I always buy something with it, such as the laptop I bought with my winnings at Jackpot Party, rather than leaving it sat in my casino account.)
I'm currently quite keen on this somewhat blatant Twilight-ripoff themed game.
devilman wrote:
Yup. I used to play machines at around £1 a spin (you can generally choose your stake on these things.. I remember one time where I was spinning at £45 a spin till I realised the settings were wrong - fortunately I actually was up afterwards). Aside from the main feature, the Tomb Raider one has two other smaller features that can help keep your money going while you try and get on the main one. Plus on a lot of spins, you'll often get small wins, which might not equal your stake, but stop you being drained too quickly.
Tomb Raider is a medium variance machine so it can be pretty harsh when the mood takes it.
If you're going to play it you need to make sure you've got the bankroll to see it out to a decent win. (If I was playing £1 per spin I wouldn't be comfortable with a bankroll of less than £300.)
Generally speaking for medium-high variance games you want about 300X your stake as your bankroll, for low variance games 100X is usually adequate.
Quote:
I'm currently quite keen on this somewhat blatant Twilight-ripoff themed game.
Its a complete clone of Thunderstruck II.
Will eat your money most of the time, but as you say can pay big. I've had a few £500 plus banks from Thunderstruck II in the past, all with a £20 stake
asfish wrote:
Its a complete clone of Thunderstruck II.
Will eat your money most of the time, but as you say can pay big. I've had a few £500 plus banks from Thunderstruck II in the past, all with a £20 stake
Will eat your money most of the time, but as you say can pay big. I've had a few £500 plus banks from Thunderstruck II in the past, all with a £20 stake
It's not a straight clone as they've rejigged the bonus rounds a bit
I'm also not entirely convinced they haven't changed the weightings a bit, it seems slightly less generous with reel wins and the wild reel feature doesn't come round as often, but the bonus rounds seem to pay a bit better.
Also, £20 stake? You rich or something?
I assumed he meant an overall stake rather than £20 a spin?
Do you ever play Lucky Shot or Frankencash, AE? They're probably my two favourites. Nice simple, polished games. The Lucky Shot main feature can be quite profitable too, particularly if you can get four gophers together rather than the more common three as the values get a lot higher. I'd love to have seen how much the feature paid out for getting five of them, but it's immaterial now as I've given up.
Do you ever play Lucky Shot or Frankencash, AE? They're probably my two favourites. Nice simple, polished games. The Lucky Shot main feature can be quite profitable too, particularly if you can get four gophers together rather than the more common three as the values get a lot higher. I'd love to have seen how much the feature paid out for getting five of them, but it's immaterial now as I've given up.
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Also, £20 stake? You rich or something?
I think he's talking about a £20 starting point / deposit (or he's playing on the demo version)
devilman wrote:
I assumed he meant an overall stake rather than £20 a spin?
Do you ever play Lucky Shot or Frankencash, AE? They're probably my two favourites. Nice simple, polished games. The Lucky Shot main feature can be quite profitable too, particularly if you can get four gophers together rather than the more common three as the values get a lot higher. I'd love to have seen how much the feature paid out for getting five of them, but it's immaterial now as I've given up.
Do you ever play Lucky Shot or Frankencash, AE? They're probably my two favourites. Nice simple, polished games. The Lucky Shot main feature can be quite profitable too, particularly if you can get four gophers together rather than the more common three as the values get a lot higher. I'd love to have seen how much the feature paid out for getting five of them, but it's immaterial now as I've given up.
Ahhh right that makes sense then, TBH having seen the videos on the Jackpot Party YouTube channel of people playing £200 PER SPIN (!!!!) I thought £20 per spin was quite conceivable.
Frankencash is a nice little game, very similar to Boogie Monsters and that winter themed one - they're all perfect examples of low variance games, lots of features and wins to keep things going.
Never tried Lucky Shot though and I won't be for the immediate future as my £100 from Friday night is now gone
May have another dabble next month though.
And here's that video of someone playing £200 per spin.
Seriously, who the fuck can afford that!?!?!?!
Seriously, who the fuck can afford that!?!?!?!
devilman wrote:
I assumed he meant an overall stake rather than £20 a spin?
Do you ever play Lucky Shot or Frankencash, AE? They're probably my two favourites. Nice simple, polished games. The Lucky Shot main feature can be quite profitable too, particularly if you can get four gophers together rather than the more common three as the values get a lot higher. I'd love to have seen how much the feature paid out for getting five of them, but it's immaterial now as I've given up.
Do you ever play Lucky Shot or Frankencash, AE? They're probably my two favourites. Nice simple, polished games. The Lucky Shot main feature can be quite profitable too, particularly if you can get four gophers together rather than the more common three as the values get a lot higher. I'd love to have seen how much the feature paid out for getting five of them, but it's immaterial now as I've given up.
Yes £20 over all playing £1.50 a spin. I had a limit on my account to stop me getting out of hand
I've found in the past that you never win, even when I was playing 20 a week I was loosing more often that not
You would be better off shoving £100 a month in the bank then spending it at the end of the year on something.
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
And here's that video of someone playing £200 per spin.
Seriously, who the fuck can afford that!?!?!?!
Seriously, who the fuck can afford that!?!?!?!
I think, right now, I could probably afford two. More if I raped the joint account.
Grim... wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
And here's that video of someone playing £200 per spin.
Seriously, who the fuck can afford that!?!?!?!
Seriously, who the fuck can afford that!?!?!?!
I think, right now, I could probably afford two. More if I raped the joint account.
Be sure to post the video on Youtube of both spins. Good luck!
devilman wrote:
Be sure to post the video on Youtube of both spins. Good luck!
To play at that stake you'd either have to be:
a) Insane, with a bankroll of maybe £1000 and you're just praying you hit a win big and quick.
b) An eccentric millionaire who can happily sit there playing online slots at £200 per spin.
c) About to lose your house, your family, everything, and then swing from the rafters.
Did you ever see the Louis Theroux documentary on Vegas? Some of the people there were just feeding hundred dollar bill after hundred dollar bill into the machines.
Madness.
Madness.
Gambling, addiction and me. BBC 3 9pm tonight, looks quite interesting.
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
Gambling, addiction and me. BBC 3 9pm tonight, looks quite interesting.
I bet i-(BANG! -Ed)
Goddess Jasmine wrote:
Gambling, addiction and me. BBC 3 9pm tonight, looks quite interesting.
Not too bad a programme. Didn't tell me much I didn't already know but perhaps a useful insight for others.
Got this ready to go on the iPlayer now, if I can just FINALLY get AE Jnr settled down I'll start to watch it.
I swear to god she needs less bloody sleep than we do, autism thing I know, but even so, it can get a bit trying
(And there's a 50/50 chance she'll be up at 3AM to start drawing pictures or making things out of Play-Doh.....)
I swear to god she needs less bloody sleep than we do, autism thing I know, but even so, it can get a bit trying
(And there's a 50/50 chance she'll be up at 3AM to start drawing pictures or making things out of Play-Doh.....)
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
(And there's a 50/50 chance she'll be up at 3AM to start drawing pictures or making things out of Play-Doh.....)
I'll take those odds. No.. wait..
devilman wrote:
I'll take those odds. No.. wait..
ISWYDT
Dunno if it belongs in the 'inappropriate sobbing' thread but I burst a leak or two.
Been there, done that - every emotion expressed, nearly every single statement made, it's been me. In particular the lad who said 'without my parents I'd be in jail or dead'.
What really came over was that sense of sickness, the absolute and indefatigable compulsion of an addiction that must be obeyed, whatever the cost.
Generally speaking I'm one of those 'the past is history don't dwell on it' sort of people, but when it comes to gambling I both want and need history, lest I ever forget the places to which it took me.
Been there, done that - every emotion expressed, nearly every single statement made, it's been me. In particular the lad who said 'without my parents I'd be in jail or dead'.
What really came over was that sense of sickness, the absolute and indefatigable compulsion of an addiction that must be obeyed, whatever the cost.
Generally speaking I'm one of those 'the past is history don't dwell on it' sort of people, but when it comes to gambling I both want and need history, lest I ever forget the places to which it took me.
Seems pretty appropriate blubbing to me. One particular comment that rang true (although pretty much all of it did) was the one about it not mattering if the building was on fire behind you... it wouldn't stop them gambling. When firmly in the grip of a gambling session, very few things would drag me away back to reality.
From the therapist guy in Vegas towards the end:
100% been there, the obvious one was the 'stupidest thing you've ever done' post I've already done (smashing my car up with a rock and then wandering out onto the pier and really wanting to chuck myself into the sea but just not quite yet).
The other one is the episode I can't bring myself to type up again (did it over on Fruit Forums back in the day though), when I trashed my best friend's house and ended up in fucking hospital after sticking a large shard from a broken mirror (that I'd just put my head through) into my skull.
Cool times, I really should change my sig, it's distasteful.
Code:
I am the architect of this destruction and despair,
I am a bad person who has chosen to harm the people I love,
Therefore I should kill myself as a gift to them.
I am a bad person who has chosen to harm the people I love,
Therefore I should kill myself as a gift to them.
100% been there, the obvious one was the 'stupidest thing you've ever done' post I've already done (smashing my car up with a rock and then wandering out onto the pier and really wanting to chuck myself into the sea but just not quite yet).
The other one is the episode I can't bring myself to type up again (did it over on Fruit Forums back in the day though), when I trashed my best friend's house and ended up in fucking hospital after sticking a large shard from a broken mirror (that I'd just put my head through) into my skull.
Cool times, I really should change my sig, it's distasteful.
MaliA wrote:
Based on my own experience, I'd certainly go along with the link between these family-friendly venues and the increasing number of problem gamblers. As a kid, although I used to play arcade games a lot when I was on holiday, I also used to put a fair few quid of my holiday money into 2p machines and I'd soon be establishing favourites and going out of my way to play the ones I wanted.
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
From the therapist guy in Vegas towards the end:
Code:
I am the architect of this destruction and despair,
I am a bad person who has chosen to harm the people I love,
Therefore I should kill myself as a gift to them.
I am a bad person who has chosen to harm the people I love,
Therefore I should kill myself as a gift to them.
Very recent memories of someone who followed that through to the end due to an alcohol addiction. Hard to understand to someone who's never felt the pull of addiction.
MaliA wrote:
But not that well fact checked
Quote:
While a typical British fruit machine has a £50 jackpot,
DavPaz wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
From the therapist guy in Vegas towards the end:
Code:
I am the architect of this destruction and despair,
I am a bad person who has chosen to harm the people I love,
Therefore I should kill myself as a gift to them.
I am a bad person who has chosen to harm the people I love,
Therefore I should kill myself as a gift to them.
Very recent memories of someone who followed that through to the end due to an alcohol addiction. Hard to understand to someone who's never felt the pull of addiction.
With alcohol or drug addiction, there's a more understandable compulsion, with the chemical highs involved. I'd find it hard to explain why I'm addicted to gambling as I barely register any increase in excitement/enjoyment with a win; winning money just means I can carry on gambling. I've always disliked referring to it as an illness in my own case as it can come across as a bit of a cop-out.
Still, I'm hanging on in there. Although Grim...'s simple mention of 'Hulk Smash' yesterday had me utterly craving to play the Hulk Playtech slot, another very slick game, but another that has taken a fair few quid/hours off me. Ended up watching a video of it on Youtube as a reminder and that was enough for me.
Page 4 of 24 [ 1158 posts ]