Slot beaters slot strategy: another wolf in sheep's clothing

Gambling systems - methods of structuring your betting with a view to negating or reducing the house edge - are as old as they are bogus. I put together a betting systems page a few years ago which describes some of the betting techniques employed and why they have no value. This post relates to one such system in particular.


A day or so ago I had my attention drawn to the slotbeater strategy discussion at Casinomeister, in which a player apparently lost money following the advice laid out on the slotbeaters slot strategy web page.


I took a close look at the page in question. Like all betting systems, it contains many inaccuracies:

The strategy we use is actually extremely simple, it's a bit like a roulette progressive method but the key difference is that each spin on a slot is not an 'all or nothing' bet, because you are always getting some return on your bets. This means you can progress very slowly with a significantly lower overall risk of losing.

The first & most important target is: to leave the slot with more credits than we start with.

Given that what we want is the bonus rounds and that on average they occur once every 130 - 150 spins, what we do is start with small bets & then gradually increase them the longer we go on. This is on the basis that the longer we go without the feature hitting, the more probable it is.

So we play say 100 spins at our minimum (depending on the slot, the minimum is usually either 2c or 5c per line). Then we increase the bets in small increments every 25 or 50 spins e.g. 2c, 4c, 6c, 8c.

If we get past say 250 - 300 spins with no feature, or the bank has dropped by more than our pre-set limit, we stop & try a different slot. Sometimes we alter the total bet by changing the number of win-lines as well as, or instead of, just changing the stake/line. And that's pretty much all there is to it.

The opening comment, to "leave the slot with more credits than we start with", is rampantly silly. If we could achieve this, casinos wouldn't exist.


The system is one of many variations of the Martingale progression, in which bets are increased in line with losses, based on the false premise that the longer the losing streak, the greater the liklehood of an eventual win. In this case, the sought after win is the bonus round:

...what we want is the bonus rounds and that on average they occur once every 130 - 150 spins. What we do is start with small bets & then gradually increase them the longer we go on.

The average frequency of bonus rounds is beside the point, as eventually there will be a drought of bonus rounds so extreme as to result in the loss of your entire bankroll before any wins are achieved, rendering the average hit rate irrelevant.

This is the reason that all martingale variants fail.


The author's most ill-informed claim follows on from this, in justification of the proposed increase in bets:

This is on the basis that the longer we go without the feature hitting, the more probable it is.

This is the gambler's fallacy in its purest form, the belief that the probability of an event somehow varies in relation to the occasion of its last occurance. In reality, it doesn't matter how many spins have taken place without a bonus round; the probablity of an occurance of the bonus round remains constant.

Assuming a probability of one in 150, whether a bonus round has just occurred or has not occurred in the last 500 spins, the probability is still one in 150. As such, the recommended bet increases serve to do nothing other than increase exposure to the house edge and cause greater loss.


Money management, the inveterate companion of gambling systems, gets a look in:

Money Management gives further targets which limits potential loss amount in a given month, but with no limit to how much can be won...

Before playing any game we set targets on how much we are prepared to lose and how much we are prepared to win...

Stop-losses and win limits are beneficial only insofar as they limit your exposure to the house edge and therefore limit your losses. Less play = less money lost.

Ironically enough, the martingalesque nature of the progression in question will in fact result in the loss of more money, not less. In order to restrain your losses to non-martingale levels, in a martingale progression, you would simply have to place fewer bets.


The description is concluded thus:

The philosophy here at SlotBeaters is not to go out & just ruthlessly play casino bonuses for profit as if it's some kind of boring job, but to experience the entertainment & fun of playing slots for real money, but without the risk of losing a fortune.

In reality, playing bonuses "ruthlessly for profit" can be quite entertaining, as with many money-making activities. Losing, the inevitable result of this system, is not at all entertaining. And while you may not lose a fortune if you observe sensible loss limits, you will still lose.

As such, the writer has it backwards.


All things being equal, this system is a lot more destructive than the usual martingale variants, which tend to advocate play on baccarat, roulette or blackjack, games with house edges up to eight times lower than slots.


In conclusion, to quote Richard Epstein:

The number of 'guaranteed' betting systems, the proliferation of myths and fallacies concerning such systems, and the countless people believing, propagating, venerating, protecting, and swearing by such systems are legion.

Betting systems constitute one of the oldest delusions of gambling history.

Betting systems votaries are spiritually akin to the proponents of perpetual motion machines, butting their heads against the second law of thermodynamcis.

Translation:

When you see people advocating betting systems, run away as fast as possible.


To end on a light note: the Casinomeister thread led to mention of the Monty Hall problem, of which I was entirely unfamiliar. It took me fully two days to understand the simple logic behind the counter-intuitive solution.

Fascinating. See if you can do better than I did.

Post a Comment

Rushmore casino: confiscation of winnings and deposit because player didn't log into account

The problems with Rushmore Casino are currently gathering pace. I previously reported on the Rushmore payments delays and problems that players were experiencing, and also the rather inexplicable confiscation of $5000 winnings a player suffered in late 2008.


Now, Rushmore Casino has confiscated player funds of around $1500 on the basis of no wrongdoing on the player's part whatsoever, nor does the casino claim the player did any wrong.

The player's fault was, in fact, to simply fail to log into his account for a period of time that Rushmore apparently considers excessive.


The matter was reported in the Rushmore: sucky rule to confiscate funds discussion at Casinomeister - where, incidentally, Rushmore had previously been one of the accredited online casinos.


The player reported thus:

I remembered a couple of days ago that I had a Rushmore account from a while back and tried to log on. I vaguely remembered some problem with fax back forms etc (probably my laziness) meaning I hadn't withdrawn and so I was expecting to see a healthy balance in there (1 or 2 thousand).

Instead I got an error message saying that I'm not allowed to log in. I emailed and was told that after 180 days accounts are closed. Fine, I thought - what happens to my money?

Apparently its "forfeited to the company".

This rule can be found in the Rushmore terms & conditions - see term 5 line J:

If you do not log onto your Casino account for a period of 180 days, any balance in your account will be forfeited to the Company.

This was backed up by a representative of the company:

13th October 2009

Hi all,

This players account was last logged in to back in December 2008.

As stated in our terms and conditions:

Rushmore Casino reserves the right, in its total discretion, to void any winnings and withhold any balance in Rushmore Casino account under any of the following circumstances: If you do not log onto your Casino account for a period of 180 days, any balance in your account will be forfeited to the Company.

Kind regards,

Louise

Rushmore, Cherry Red & Slots Oasis Rep.

This has to be one of the most astonishing and unfair licences to plunder player funds at will I have seen: if you do not log into your account for six months, Rushmore will wipe clean your balance - deposits, winnings, everything. The casino will not contact you beforehand in an attempt to help reunite you with your funds. There will be no advisory emails. They will just grab your cash.


This is irrespective of the fact that there are many reasons why a player might not log into a casino account for six months:

1) They're away from home.

2) They're ill.

3) Heaven forbid, they're dead.

4) They thought they had already withdrawn the money.

5) They withdrew it but the withdrawal was not successful at the casino end - this was in fact the case with the player in question.

6) They initiated the withdrawal process, transferring funds from the casino site to the main account of a multi-platform sports / casino / bingo (etc) site, then didn't request the final withdrawal.


Whatever the reason may be, the casino has no justification for confiscating the player's money on this basis. It costs nothing to keep the account open - casinos don't send bank statements or issue debit cards, and if they did this would cost no more than a few pennies at most.


In addition to which, there are laws against such anti-consumer behaviour.

In the UK, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 says as follows regarding funds which have been transferred from a dormant account to a "reclaim" fund:

1 - Transfer of balances to reclaim fund -

(2) The customer no longer has any right against the bank or building society to payment of the balance, but the customer has against the reclaim fund whatever right to payment of the balance the customer would have against the bank or building society if the transfer had not happened.

In other words, wherever your money is, it's still your money and yours to rightfully reclaim.


A followup HM treasury consultation document states:

The key principles underlying this scheme are:

Consumer protection: to ensure an ongoing legal right for account holders to reclaim their money at any time.

Reuniting: wherever possible, account holders should be reunited with the assets that are rightfully theirs.

Which, again, reinforces the customers' legal right to their money, however long the account in which it's sitting has seen no action.


Since Cyprus is a member of the European Union, and EU law is pretty much homogenous, then I am quite sure that Cyprus law will have similar, if not identical, requirements.

As such, Rushmore Casino is almost certainly in breach of the law.


And although such legislation would apply specifically to proper financial institutions like banks and building societies, there is no court that would rule in favour of the pseudo-financial institution of an online casino in such circumstances.


The Cyprus Consumers Association, based in Nicosia, Cyprus, where Rushmore Casino is located, says of its mission:

...to safeguard the consumers' rights and educate and represent the Cyprus consumers and all local and international relevant bodies dealing with consumer matters.

They may be a point of contact for anyone with issues with Cyprus-based operators.

Their various offices and contact details are listed on the contact page.


Bryan "Casinomeister" Bailey displayed a stance I can only describe as confused on this matter:

13th October 02:03 PM

When you sign up at an online casino, you agreed to the terms. It's your responsibility to abide by them whether you think they are fair or not. If you don't like them - don't sign up. It's pretty simple.

13th October 2009, 03:20 PM

Using my logic - you are bound by their terms and conditions that you agreed to when signing up. Are they obligated to make an exception? If so, why?

What about "We reserve the right to eat your children"?

Is that defensible with the "it's in the terms to which you agreed" argument?

13th October 2009, 03:09 PM

One thing everyone needs to remember - these are winnings, right? Not the actual funds that the player deposited - so in other words, the player is not out of pocket.

13th October 2009, 03:54 PM

Sure - in spirit, these are his funds, but technically speaking - he's not out of pocket if those funds never hit his bank account.

Yup. When you win money gambling at a casino, the money is not actually yours, only in a spiritual sense.

I knew I'd had that one wrong all these years.

13th October 2009, 04:42 PM

I'm not defending the casino

Well good heavens. He certainly had me and everyone else fooled.


Anyway, things came full circle and worked out right in the end, even if the path was well and truly confused:

14th October 2009, 08:38 AM

The Rushmore Group has been removed from the Accredited Casino section.

Here's why - even though this term is in their terms and conditions, I don't believe it was implemented fairly.

Thanks. After fully thirteen years of experience in the online gambling business, I'm glad we finally got there.


To put the finishing touches to this comedic performance, the complaints manager Max Drayman made possibly his most ludicrous statement to date in a gaff-prone career, on the subject of fraudsters:

13th October 2009, 04:42 PM

Fraudsters will often leave their winnings to simmer for a while, sometimes a long while, in the hopes that the details of their doings will be lost in the fog of time.

It's a tactic based on ignorance - most play records are digital and can sit on the shelf for quite some time without going off - but hey, they're fraudsters so what do you expect.

Yup. If a fraudster withdraws next week, he won't see his money. But if he leaves it a month, he might - because the audit trail will have somehow gone cold. Or at least, that's what Max thinks they think.

Or maybe he doesn't think.


Rushmore Casino is a rogue casino that delays payments, offers vague and unsubstantiated excuses to withhold payment, and will wipe out your potentially substantial balance if you happen to not log into an account which you thought you'd withdrawn from, anyway.


Rushmore will probably be at the 2010 International Casino Exhibition in London in January.

I think I'll be having a word with them about this.

Post a Comment

Paddy Power affiliates: non-payment on �2500 deposit and breach of contract

I recently removed Paddy Power for rogue behaviour after the casino attempted to renege on a player payment for bogus reasons, breaching their terms and conditions in the process.

It’s now the turn of the Paddy Power affiliate programme to play games with one of their customers, again regarding bogus withholding of payment and again in breach of contract.


On this latest occasion, the customer reported the affiliate programme’s justification thus in the GPWA Paddy Power discussion:

The reason why you have not earned money for that player thus far is because they signed up as a Paddy Power Casino customer but actually played on Paddy Power Games. We do not offer cross-channel commission to affiliates as standard, but may consider doing so on a case-by-case basis if we can see that they are sending us good traffic. Please also note that we do not charge for any negative earnings as a number of other affiliate programs do.

What I would say to you as a relatively new affiliate (at least to our program) is just to concentrate on building up the volume of traffic to start with, and your commission total will soon start to build. If you can generate 20 or 30 accounts like that one in the next couple of months, we?ll be happy to reward you with cross-product commission.

The rep says that “cross-channel commission” is not offered, meaning that if the link went to the the casino, but the customer played in another section of the site - sportsbook, games etc - then the referring agent doesn’t get paid.


In the first place, irrespective of the terms of the contract, this is grossly unfair. If a player reaches the Paddy Power website through an affiliate site, then that affiliate should receive credit irrespective of the particular part of the site the referring agent is linked with, as without the affiliate in question Paddy Power would never have acquired the player.

In fact, this is little more than a license to steal.


In the second place, and more importantly, Paddy Power is in fact in direct breach of their own terms and conditions:

4.2

Subject to your complying with Paddy Power's instructions with regard to tracking customers accessing the Paddy Power Sites via the Links on your Site, Paddy Power shall use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that whenever a customer links to the Paddy Power Sites through these Links and they subsequently place a bet or otherwise transact with Paddy Power, the relevant customer is identified as originating from your Site.

What they do NOT say anywhere in the terms is:

We do not offer cross-channel commission to affiliates as standard, but may consider doing so on a case-by-case basis if we can see that they are sending us good traffic.

The affiliate representative appears to have made this up - it is listed nowhere.


His latter comments bear reiterating for the sheer brass-necked attitude they demonstrate:

If you can generate 20 or 30 accounts like that one in the next couple of months, we'll be happy to reward you with cross-product commission.

Well, how nice. Since “that one” generated a �2500 deposit, then if the affiliate in question will send players worth around �75,000 in deposits, Paddy Power will honour the original terms of the contract.


What about just honouring the contract as it stands, and paying the customer?


Maybe that’s too much to expect.

Post a Comment

Slots

I think I enjoyed writing this page as much as any on the site to date:

Slots

A bit of history, description of the old mechanical reels, the RNGs of modern slots, slot clubs, how slots can fit into a low-cost gambling venture, and a plethora of relevant pages and articles.


I even stepped sufficiently out of character to add a few cartoon graphics.

Slots do wierd things to a fellow.

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 |