amarito75

casino:412530339296

casino:412529815715

casino:412299417480

casino:412009413746

Says the guy probably working for Titan. The "tell" is the "slick graphic" lmao How are they slick lol ? Fucking basic graphics and mechanics. Their algo sucks and is obviously geared toward maximum fuckery against the players. Titan are easily the worst among the new gen high volatility editors. TLDR: I disagree with OP, Titan games are ugly and dogshit

casino:410821838332

casino:410816463385

casino:400289381838

casino:400399999873

casino:399993596413

casino:399982374805

casino:398525856886

casino:400012850757

casino:396426574799

casino:391472576895

casino:388955962068

casino:387848293980

30x : casino:379707619047 10x: casino:379707056616 20x: casino:379708826103 40x: casino:379734470591

casino:378284446109

casino:374281743987

casino:370319127552

casino:366281029430

casino:357049548900

It's a good question, probably one of the most if not the most important for online gamblers. I've been reflecting and experimenting around this notion for some time. First of all, when you talk about this you need to see it in the most rational and cold way. We can classify the games in two categories : (1) the classical games where the rules and the distribution of the prizes are known. For instance most of the stake originals (BJ. Video Poker, Keno, Mines, etc). These are the most transparent we can have online. The only part that is generating some distrust is the RNG giving us ultimately the outcome of every play. But if I play a REAL LIFE (as in no possibility of cheating at all) Keno similar to Stake and I bet on drawing the exact 3 numbers I picked, the maths says the probability of hitting is indeed around 1.2145% and with a payoff of 81.5 offered by stake it gives us 1.2145% x 81.5 ~ expected value of 99% (2) the slot games where the RNG gives us an outcome which is translated in a particular configuration of the slot machine. Now the problem is that unlike the first category everything is in a black box, we don't know the probabilities of all the events and how the distribution is actually done. We can easily imagine that it's not a smooth and balanced distribution like the outcome of playing a real life heads or tails. The variance especially is unknown, but with the actual trends we know that it's getting bigger and bigger skewing the returns (one player may have a colossal win and the rest lose). Like everybody I complained at some point about how the games are rigged etc. But when I started looking a bit more seriously I realized the variance has a huge impact. Even for the simplest games (category 1) you can observe huge deviations from the target RTP, especially in the early stages, but as you accumulate thousands, 10000's of plays and even more, as the maths predict your RTP converge towards the theoretical 99%. And if you don't trust stake originals RNGs try doing it by yourself, you can easily simulate (I do it on an excel sheet) any of the basic games and see how many different paths you can take. For instance my favourite game is Video Poker I did simulate 1000 hands runs: you can end up +30units +150units but very easily underwater at -100 or -250units. Whereas the theoretical RTP of 99% tells me I should end up around -10units. Btw this is made entirely possible because Stake is one of the most transparent online casinos giving us access to the archives of all your bets. This is nearly impossible in most online casinos. So I'm very thankful to Stake to offer us the possibility of looking back at your gambling activity (even if it's often ugly in my case lol). So when I see people here complaining about stake originals without even looking at their archives and their actual results and RTP, without even considering the variance of their games. I mean a catastrophic session of 30 plays (or even 100 or 500) is often not significant to be a statistical anomaly. Show me stats with 200k or 1 million plays where you end up at 96% instead of 99% and I will start listening. Having said that about the classical games at 99% now if you look at the slots at 96% it gets more dicey. The distribution being totally hidden in a black box and with the variance unknown you could easily run below 95% or even 90% for a very very very very long time because the max wins never materialize to pull up your RTP to the theoretical 96%. But that is not all, I didn't realize until I started tracking all my plays in all the casinos that the rake is an incredible force, extremely difficult to beat. 95, 96, 97 and even 99% means the expected outcome is to lose. 96% means the casino takes 4% on all your wagers. Let's say you have a slot you like and you play very often, but you feel kind of cheated because you calculate you lost 200$ playing 1$ spins for hours and hours and the machine never seems to let you win enough to be in the green. But if you realize you already played 10000 spins, the rtp tax of 4% means your fair expectation is to lose 400$ (which is big when you play 1$ spins) so by losing only 200$ you're actually beating the RTP. Sorry if I strayed away from the original question about the need for transparency (which I agree with) but the first step for the more suspicious (and we should always be) is to look into the details of our gambling activity and share the results to see if there are suspicious patterns.

casino:355891309375