BetSoft Non-Payment of Jackpot

[cjmoles]

I would like the forums opinion on whether I should have won the jackpot. -snip-

Of course did you win the Jackpot!

Your original bet was a max bet. Then you won 4 max bets with the 3 airplanes on 2 paylines and each of the 4 free spins are technically a max bet.

The slot do not run without a bet and whether you paid directly or won the 4 max bets does not play any role for to be eligible for the Jackpot.



-> "Jackpot cannot be multiplied" confirms that Jackpots are eligible during free spins. They can not be multiplied, but they are clearly eligible!

Betcoin.ag is of course saying that BetSoft is to blame.  Who can I dispute this with?

Did you sign a contract with Betsoft? If not, then betcoin.ag would be your contract partner.

If you buy a car, the seller is your contract partner and not the producer or software provider!

I said betcoin.ag would be your contract partner, because there is no juridical valid contract between you and the domain betcoin.ag or however they call it. So from a juridical point of view, you can consider everything you get from Betcoin as a gift.

If you would know who the operator of Betcoin is, then you could sue them in the applicable jurisdiction...  

This guy is manipulating the truth again.  The image above is not associated with the game in question....He is lying!  The game in question was called "The Glam Life" and if you look closely, you'll find that there is no "Elfania" symbol in the "The Glam Life."

Instead of double posting for the campaign, why not edit the two into one post?
Ah, but that's right! You need those precious cents!


EDIT: Looks like you've finally followed some advice!

The fact of the matter is not the game. That's irrelevant. They don't include the exclusivity rule of jackpots on max bet there. In fact, the red message in there means that the jackpot can be won in the Free Spins mode, as it's under that topic.

No....the red message means that the "jackpot cannot be multiplied" because that's what it states but, again, that is not even the same game that was played.

Hence their Terms of Service conflict with that very reality: "Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."
http://archive.is/XcDrD

Why, do you think that play money rounds should qualify for jackpot bonuses?

You can see yourself. Please, tell me why this would happen. After all, you're so knowledgeable.

It is relevant.  It is not truthful to pretend that the rules for one game ("Greedy Goblins") apply to another totally different game ("The Glam Life") which has its own rules.  The fact is that only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot as was specified in the rules of the real game played "The Glam Life" and free spins are not max bet spins because "maximum" and "free" have antithetical definitions.  Maximum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum  Free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

See, when one knowingly bases their own information on information that is demonstrably false, then their own conclusions are already demonstrably false.  

[actmyname]

It is relevant.  It is not truthful to pretend that the rules for one game ("Greedy Goblins") apply to another totally different game ("The Glam Life") which has its own rules.  The fact is that only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot as was specified in the rules of the REAL game "The Glam Life" and free spins are not max bet spins because "maximum" and "free" have antithetical definitions.  Maximum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum  Free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

See, when one knowingly bases their own information on information that is demonstrably false, then their own conclusions are already demonstrably false. 

"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" was Betcoin's phrasing to attempt to solidify their argument of "free spins do not award jackpots".

They have that in the sentence prior: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses"

So, if the terms don't coincide with the game rules, then certainly there's a problem. Which one takes precedence?

My arguments have had nothing to do with Glam Life, by the way. I was only arguing about the Terms of Service and the game information. By linking these two, you clearly haven't fully understood what I was stating.

[game-protect]

It is relevant.  It is not truthful to pretend that the rules for one game ("Greedy Goblins") apply to another totally different game ("The Glam Life") which has its own rules.  The fact is that only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot as was specified in the rules of the REAL game "The Glam Life" and free spins are not max bet spins because "maximum" and "free" have antithetical definitions.  Maximum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum  Free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

See, when one knowingly bases their own information on information that is demonstrably false, then their own conclusions are already demonstrably false.

The spins were free for him because he won them, but they were still max bets, otherwise he would have not get the 1000 credits...

This guy is manipulating the truth again.  The image above is not associated with the game in question....He is lying!  The game in question was called "The Glam Life" and if you look closely, you'll find that there is no "Elfania sign"  in the "The Glam Life."

This is because you do not know what logic is! If Elfania free spins qualify for the Jackpot, then The Glam Life or any other similiar spin game qualify as well for it. It is as simple as that.

As I already explained to you, Betcoin has no juridical valid Terms of Service, but now we have at least a picture that confirims that free spins are eligible for Jackpots.

[TwitchySeal]

What information was inaccurate? Betcoin's, right? Because they only implemented the rule about max bets after jasonort began to complain.

No, Twitchy lied to you there too....

Please stop making shit up about me.

The max bet rule didn't change. 
They added the following to their terms:

"Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."

These "software provider rules" that disqualify Jackpots during bonus rounds and freespins are not made public and likely don't actually exist.
Of course, it's tough to prove this when Betcoin ignores anyone who asks and Betsoft has a policy of not communicating with players.
I suspect whoever wrote this new term doesn't realize that many of their progressive jackpots can only be won during a bonus round.

Betcoin altered the ToS without changing the "Last updated" date to try and stealthily sneak in some rules. That's a serious problem.

The complaint was already submitted, recorded, and was being negotiated so there was no retroactive manipulation.  The rules needed to be clarified so that nobody else would think that "maximum" meant "free."  

JasonOrt satisfied all requirements for the progressive jackpot according to the rules at the time.
They changed the rules retroactively and did not pay him the jackpot.

Maximum means the greatest or highest amount possible.  JasonOrt bet highest amount possible for the denomination specific jackpot.  In other words, he bet the maximum.

I don't have all this free time to engage in weird debates, gamble, and do whatever I feel like because I'm dumb and poor....

Just because you're dumb and poor now doesn't mean you will be forever.  I believe you are capable of creating a less dumb future for yourself where you enjoy a less poor lifestyle.  I hope you do.


https://www.casinolistings.com/forum/gambling/online-casinos/28043/questioning-betsoft-jackpots?page=1

"Good Girl, Bad Girl" is designed to function within those distribution frequencies

When you make a claim like this, you should explain how you know it to be true.   Otherwise, it would be silly for anyone to believe you.

....If you dig a little deeper, you'd realize that it's not like other games....the jackpots are mutually exclusive by design.

Each denomination has 2 independent jackpots.  You can't win them both in a single spin.  This means they are mutually exclusive.
Is that what you meant?  I think you might be confused.

It's really nothing unique for a game to offer multiple proggressive jackpots.  Most of the time, these jackpots are "mutually exclusive". It's just another way of saying you can't win more than one jackpot in a spin. 

At the copa offers 3 progressives.  You can't win more than one in a single spin. They are mutually exclusive.
PartyPoker offers "The BigOne" slots.  It's 5 independant progressives.  You can't win more than one in a single spin.  They are mutually exclusive.
Any time you see a "Mini" "Medium" "Max" type progressive game, they are almost always mutually exclusive.

 Here look at the game: http://casinogamesonnet.com/?game=good-girl-bad-girl&id=742 THE JACKPOTS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BY DESIGN!

lol^^^

[cjmoles]

It is relevant.  It is not truthful to pretend that the rules for one game ("Greedy Goblins") apply to another totally different game ("The Glam Life") which has its own rules.  The fact is that only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot as was specified in the rules of the REAL game "The Glam Life" and free spins are not max bet spins because "maximum" and "free" have antithetical definitions.  Maximum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum  Free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

See, when one knowingly bases their own information on information that is demonstrably false, then their own conclusions are already demonstrably false.  

"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" was Betcoin's phrasing to attempt to solidify their argument of "free spins do not award jackpots".

They have that in the sentence prior: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses"

So, if the terms don't coincide with the game rules, then certainly there's a problem. Which one takes precedence?

My arguments have had nothing to do with Glam Life, by the way. I was only arguing about the Terms of Service and the game information. By linking these two, you clearly haven't fully understood what I was stating.

The terms state: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."  This--> "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses" and this -->"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" are not opposing clauses.

Free spins never qualified for the jackpot, in "The Glam Life;" otherwise, the jackpot would have dropped when the combination was hit on the free spin. If free spins don't qualify, shouldn't that be clarified for the player who doesn't understand the difference between "max" and "free" and the mechanisms that link the two to avoid future confusion?  

Look: "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot."  "Only," is a big word in law and logic.  However, this is what the affiliate shills are trying to demonstrate that clause means: "only max bet spins, but sometimes free spins, qualify for the jackpot," but the word "only" actually really means "only"....it is exclusionary, not inclusionary.

But, this is my point....the affiliate shills, the competitor shills, and the pro-regulatory shills are manipulating the truth, confusing the facts, and recruiting the ignorant to  further their own perverted agendas.

It is relevant.  It is not truthful to pretend that the rules for one game ("Greedy Goblins") apply to another totally different game ("The Glam Life") which has its own rules.  The fact is that only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot as was specified in the rules of the REAL game "The Glam Life" and free spins are not max bet spins because "maximum" and "free" have antithetical definitions.  Maximum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum  Free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

See, when one knowingly bases their own information on information that is demonstrably false, then their own conclusions are already demonstrably false.

The spins were free for him because he won them, but they were still max bets, otherwise he would have not get the 1000 credits...max "award" and max "bet" are opposites.

He bet nothing on the spins that were "free" that's what "free" means, costs nothing, no risk, no bet.  A "max bet" implies a max risk, thus the word "bet."  There is no risk in something that is free.  That's why the rules stipulated that "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot"....it literally meant that "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot."  It is not hard to understand for most that "maximum" and "free" have opposite meanings.  If the spins didn't cost anything then he wasn't betting anything and, therefore, he couldn't lose anything because it was not a bet.

This guy is manipulating the truth again.  The image above is not associated with the game in question....He is lying!  The game in question was called "The Glam Life" and if you look closely, you'll find that there is no "Elfania sign"  in the "The Glam Life."

This is because you do not know what logic is! If Elfania free spins qualify for the Jackpot, then The Glam Life or any other similiar spin game qualify as well. it is as simple as that.

Hah! I don't know what logic is?  Shut up stupid! Stop trying to cover up your obvious attempt at deception by appealing to logic.  Why do the games have different rules, then? Do you really think that your lies are being believed....You guys aren't going to find too many people to rip-off here because I would hope that this group is a little more intelligent than those you're used to scamming.


As I already explained to you, Betcoin has no juridical valid Terms of Service, but now we have at least a picture that confirims that free spins are eligible for Jackpots.

The only thing confirmed here is that you are a sorry example of a scam artist.

Red font added by me in the above for brevity.

[actmyname]

The terms state: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."  This--> "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses" and this -->"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" are not opposing clauses.

Free spins never qualified for the jackpot, in "The Glam Life;" otherwise, the jackpot would have dropped when the combination was hit on the free spin. If free spins don't qualify, shouldn't that be clarified for the player who doesn't understand the difference between "max" and "free" and the mechanisms that link the two to avoid future confusion? 

Look: "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot."  "Only," is a big word in law and logic.  However, this is what the affiliate shills are trying to demonstrate that clause means: "only max bet spins, but sometimes free spins, qualify for the jackpot," but the word "only" actually really means "only"....it is exclusionary, not inclusionary.

But, this is my point....the affiliate shills, the competitor shills, and the pro-regulatory shills are manipulating the truth, confusing the facts, and recruiting the ignorant to  further their own perverted agendas.

Yet again you fail to see my point. The game rules for Greedy Goblins shows that the jackpot can be won with a freeroll. There is the sentence, "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" under the freeroll section. The terms of service, however, state that, "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses". Hence, the game rules are contradictory with the Terms of Service. What is so hard to understand about this?

[ajareselde]

The terms state: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."  This--> "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses" and this -->"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" are not opposing clauses.

Free spins never qualified for the jackpot, in "The Glam Life;" otherwise, the jackpot would have dropped when the combination was hit on the free spin. If free spins don't qualify, shouldn't that be clarified for the player who doesn't understand the difference between "max" and "free" and the mechanisms that link the two to avoid future confusion?  

Look: "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot."  "Only," is a big word in law and logic.  However, this is what the affiliate shills are trying to demonstrate that clause means: "only max bet spins, but sometimes free spins, qualify for the jackpot," but the word "only" actually really means "only"....it is exclusionary, not inclusionary.

But, this is my point....the affiliate shills, the competitor shills, and the pro-regulatory shills are manipulating the truth, confusing the facts, and recruiting the ignorant to  further their own perverted agendas.

Yet again you fail to see my point. The game rules for Greedy Goblins shows that the jackpot can be won with a freeroll. There is the sentence, "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" under the freeroll section. The terms of service, however, state that, "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses". Hence, the game rules are contradictory with the Terms of Service. What is so hard to understand about this?

Glam life != Greedy goblins, but you have a point , the rules around everything should be much more airtight, but that's far from justifying the shill attacks,
and 1001 same threads that serve no other purpose other than to bash and redirect gambling traffic to certain other sites.

[cjmoles]

The terms state: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."  This--> "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses" and this -->"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" are not opposing clauses.

Free spins never qualified for the jackpot, in "The Glam Life;" otherwise, the jackpot would have dropped when the combination was hit on the free spin. If free spins don't qualify, shouldn't that be clarified for the player who doesn't understand the difference between "max" and "free" and the mechanisms that link the two to avoid future confusion? 

Look: "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot."  "Only," is a big word in law and logic.  However, this is what the affiliate shills are trying to demonstrate that clause means: "only max bet spins, but sometimes free spins, qualify for the jackpot," but the word "only" actually really means "only"....it is exclusionary, not inclusionary.

But, this is my point....the affiliate shills, the competitor shills, and the pro-regulatory shills are manipulating the truth, confusing the facts, and recruiting the ignorant to  further their own perverted agendas.

Yet again you fail to see my point. The game rules for Greedy Goblins shows that the jackpot can be won with a freeroll. There is the sentence, "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" under the freeroll section. The terms of service, however, state that, "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses". Hence, the game rules are contradictory with the Terms of Service. What is so hard to understand about this?

First, the statement "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" means that the jackpot cannot be multiplied....whatever other assumptions one insinuates from that clause is just an assumption and in noway a statement of fact.  Second, "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" is not contradictory to "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses."  In fact, they are complementary statements.

This is actually what the terms state:

"Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."  http://archive.is/XcDrD (Text bolded by me)

Yes, it may be confusing to some when you omit information, but when you re-insert the omitted information, then it unsurprisingly makes sense again.  Notice the bold in the above....omitting that information changes the clarity of the argument.

What information was inaccurate? Betcoin's, right? Because they only implemented the rule about max bets after jasonort began to complain.

No, Twitchy lied to you there too....

Please stop making shit up about me.

The max bet rule didn't change.  
They added the following to their terms:

"Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."

These "software provider rules" that disqualify Jackpots during bonus rounds and freespins are not made public and likely don't actually exist.
Of course, it's tough to prove this when Betcoin ignores anyone who asks and Betsoft has a policy of not communicating with players.
I suspect whoever wrote this new term doesn't realize that many of their progressive jackpots can only be won during a bonus round.

Betcoin altered the ToS without changing the "Last updated" date to try and stealthily sneak in some rules. That's a serious problem.

The complaint was already submitted, recorded, and was being negotiated so there was no retroactive manipulation.  The rules needed to be clarified so that nobody else would think that "maximum" meant "free."  

JasonOrt satisfied all requirements for the progressive jackpot according to the rules at the time.
They changed the rules retroactively and did not pay him the jackpot.

Maximum means the greatest or highest amount possible.  JasonOrt bet highest amount possible for the denomination specific jackpot.  In other words, he bet the maximum.

I don't have all this free time to engage in weird debates, gamble, and do whatever I feel like because I'm dumb and poor....

Just because you're dumb and poor now doesn't mean you will be forever.  I believe you are capable of creating a less dumb future for yourself where you enjoy a less poor lifestyle.  I hope you do.


https://www.casinolistings.com/forum/gambling/online-casinos/28043/questioning-betsoft-jackpots?page=1

"Good Girl, Bad Girl" is designed to function within those distribution frequencies

When you make a claim like this, you should explain how you know it to be true.   Otherwise, it would be silly for anyone to believe you.

....If you dig a little deeper, you'd realize that it's not like other games....the jackpots are mutually exclusive by design.

Each denomination has 2 independent jackpots.  You can't win them both in a single spin.  This means they are mutually exclusive.
Is that what you meant?  I think you might be confused.

It's really nothing unique for a game to offer multiple proggressive jackpots.  Most of the time, these jackpots are "mutually exclusive". It's just another way of saying you can't win more than one jackpot in a spin.  

At the copa offers 3 progressives.  You can't win more than one in a single spin. They are mutually exclusive.
PartyPoker offers "The BigOne" slots.  It's 5 independant progressives.  You can't win more than one in a single spin.  They are mutually exclusive.
Any time you see a "Mini" "Medium" "Max" type progressive game, they are almost always mutually exclusive.

Here look at the game: http://casinogamesonnet.com/?game=good-girl-bad-girl&id=742 THE JACKPOTS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BY DESIGN!

lol^^^

Okay...I'm going to ignore the misquotes because I know that you cannot help yourself and it is second nature for you to fabricate information to suite your argument.

However, in the study conducted by casinolistings.com their regression studies only considered Betsoft progressives and they treated the two jackpots on that same game, in that study, as though they were independent events, then they concluded that something must be wrong with the software because some jackpots weren't won at all while others were won at higher frequencies. Do you know why?  Because the mother fuckers were mutually exclusive!  If you're playing for one, it is impossible to win the other!  But, no, they didn't consider that fact, so they concluded:

"Firstly, jackpots on certain games and specific coin sizes are never won at all at Bovada, despite being won many times a week at Slots.lv, even though the numbers show that the amounts being wagered and contributed to these jackpots are much higher at Bovada. It does indeed look as if some of these jackpots are "locked" or unable to be won. The odds of this just being random luck are astronomical."  (https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games)

LOL....Really?  Isn't it funny that the only game he found in his study that demonstrated such behavior is the only game in his study that is designed to demonstrate that behavior?  They're "locked" because people are playing in "Bad Girl" mode!  <--- Look at the data!

And, the difference between the other games on the other sites you mention (which weren't included in casinolisting's study, I might add) is that "Good Girl, Bad Girl" let's the players decide which mode to play....it's not random!  That means that it is not only mutually exhaustive, but it is also collectively exhaustive in most modes!

Do you understand what that means, or are you just totally incompetent of rational thought altogether?

[TwitchySeal]

https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games
LOL....Really?  Isn't it funny that the only game he found in his study that demonstrated such behavior is the only game in his study that is designed to demonstrate that behavior?  They're "locked" because people are playing in "Bad Girl" mode!  <--- Look at the data!

And, the difference between the other games on the other sites you mention (which weren't included in casinolisting's study, I might add) is that "Good Girl, Bad Girl" let's the players decide which mode to play....it's not random!  That means that it is not only mutually exhaustive, but it is also collectively exhaustive in most modes!

Do you understand what that means, or are you just totally incompetent of rational thought altogether?

The default is to play both the good girl and the bad girl at the same time.
Players have the option to switch to only good or only bad also.  
I had a real life lol when I realized you've covninced yourself that everyone must just be switching from both to just the "Bad Girl" mode.

They're "locked" because people are playing in "Bad Girl" mode!  <--- Look at the data!

Okok, let's look at the data.  I'll explain it to you.

These are all from Nov till Feb

Here we have the .1 denom "Good Girl" from Bovada.
The average jackpot is $840 and it appears to be getting hit regularly.
After Feb 13th it doesn't get hit and grows to over $4,000


Same thing except on Slots.lv
Average Jackpot is close and clearly there is less action on this site.


Now lets look at the .1 denom "Bad Girl" Jackpot at Slots.lv
Clearly this jackpot offers more variance.  Only 16 winners but the average jackpot is about twice a much as "good girl"
(also note: no winner after Feb 13th)


Finally the .1 "Bad Girl" Jackpot On Bovada
It was already over $350k because nobody had ever hit it.
Nobody hit it during this time period while it increased by nearly $100,000


The .05  and .25 denoms had nearly identical graphs see:?
Bovada Left, Slots.lv Right
Good Top, Bad Bottom



Bovadas Bad Girl Jackpot was locked for all the denominations above.
It was unlocked for the .02 denom though, see:


Notice that out of all the graphs I've walked you through, not a single jackpot was hit after Feb 13th?

[cjmoles]

https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games
LOL....Really?  Isn't it funny that the only game he found in his study that demonstrated such behavior is the only game in his study that is designed to demonstrate that behavior?  They're "locked" because people are playing in "Bad Girl" mode!  <--- Look at the data!

And, the difference between the other games on the other sites you mention (which weren't included in casinolisting's study, I might add) is that "Good Girl, Bad Girl" let's the players decide which mode to play....it's not random!  That means that it is not only mutually exhaustive, but it is also collectively exhaustive in most modes!

Do you understand what that means, or are you just totally incompetent of rational thought altogether?

The default is to play both the good girl and the bad girl at the same time.
Players have the option to switch to only good or only bad also.  
I had a real life lol when I realized you've covninced yourself that everyone must just be switching from both to just the "Bad Girl" mode.

They're "locked" because people are playing in "Bad Girl" mode!  <--- Look at the data!

Okok, let's look at the data.  I'll explain it to you.

These are all from Nov till Feb

Here we have the .1 denom "Good Girl" from Bovada.
The average jackpot is $840 and it appears to be getting hit regularly.
After Feb 13th it doesn't get hit and grows to over $4,000


Same thing except on Slots.lv
Average Jackpot is close and clearly there is less action on this site.


Now lets look at the .1 denom "Bad Girl" Jackpot at Slots.lv
Clearly this jackpot offers more variance.  Only 16 winners but the average jackpot is about twice a much as "good girl"
(also note: no winner after Feb 13th)


Finally the .1 "Bad Girl" Jackpot On Bovada
It was already over $350k because nobody had ever hit it.
Nobody hit it during this time period while it increased by nearly $100,000


The .05  and .25 denoms had nearly identical graphs see:?
Bovada Left, Slots.lv Right
Good Top, Bad Bottom



Bovadas Bad Girl Jackpot was locked for all the denominations above.
It was unlocked for the .02 denom though, see:


Notice that out of all the graphs I've walked you through, not a single jackpot was hit after Feb 13th?

Dude...STFU!  Anybody with half a mutant brain cell would choose the mode that had the highest jackpot....Especially those who are spending thousands of dollars in max bets to hit the jackpot.  If you had a choice to spend 5 to win 10, or 5 to win 5000.....would you still choose to spend 5 to win 10? (<--nevermind, don't answer that---I'm assuming you have at least half a mutant brain cell which I'm seriously reconsidering)  And, if you had the intelligence to understand the data, then you you'll notice that is exactly what happened....people were playing in "Bad Girl" mode because the jackpots were higher.  There was no "unlocking" and "locking" like you guys suggest....LOL....Players had the choice to play in the mode which they thought would be most profitable to them and when they did that it excluded the possibility that the other event could occur because it is not only a mutually exhaustive event, but it's also a collectively exhaustive event.  It is a design specific to that game which you guys insist is faulty among all the other Betsoft games that were being tracked because it displays "odd" behavior compared to the other games!  The data only demonstrates that the behavior is not, in fact, "odd" but that the game is working exactly how it was designed to work!  LOL  You guys are just stooopid, that's all!

And....pages and pages of spewed bullshit doesn't make the bullshit any more valid!  It's still just a bunch of spewed bullshit used to dilute the truth.

[marlais]

Dude...STFU!  Anybody with half a mutant brain cell would choose the mode that had the highest jackpot....Especially those who are spending thousands of dollars in max bets to hit the jackpot.  If you had a choice to spend 5 to win 10, or 5 to win 5000.....would you still choose to spend 5 to win 10? (<--nevermind, don't answer that---I'm assuming you have at least half a mutant brain cell which I'm seriously reconsidering)  And, if you had the intelligence to understand the data, then you you'll notice that is exactly what happened....people were playing in "Bad Girl" mode because the jackpots were higher.  There was no "unlocking" and "locking" like you guys suggest....LOL....Players had the choice to play in the mode which they thought would be most profitable to them and when they did that it excluded the possibility that the other event could occur because it is not only a mutually exhaustive event, but it's also a collectively exhaustive event.  It is a design specific to that game which you guys insist is faulty among all the other Betsoft games that were being tracked because it displays "odd" behavior compared to the other games!  The data only demonstrates that the behavior is not, in fact, "odd" but that the game is working exactly how it was designed to work!  LOL  You guys are just stooopid, that's all!

And....pages and pages of spewed bullshit doesn't make the bullshit any more valid!  It's still just a bunch of spewed bullshit used to dilute the truth.

The graphs look pretty damning to me. So you're suggesting that after February 13, all the players of this particular game simultaneously switched their playing style to one where they couldn't possibly hit the jackpot? Seems a little far fetched.

If you can't make a cogent point without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you should just stop, because you have already lost the argument.

[TwitchySeal]

Dude...STFU!  Anybody with half a mutant brain cell would choose the mode that had the highest jackpot....Especially those who are spending thousands of dollars in max bets to hit the jackpot.  If you had a choice to spend 5 to win 10, or 5 to win 5000.....would you still choose to spend 5 to win 10? (<--nevermind, don't answer that---I'm assuming you have at least half a mutant brain cell which I'm seriously reconsidering)  And, if you had the intelligence to understand the data, then you you'll notice that is exactly what happened....people were playing in "Bad Girl" mode because the jackpots were higher.  There was no "unlocking" and "locking" like you guys suggest....LOL....Players had the choice to play in the mode which they thought would be most profitable to them and when they did that it excluded the possibility that the other event could occur because it is not only a mutually exhaustive event, but it's also a collectively exhaustive event.  It is a design specific to that game which you guys insist is faulty among all the other Betsoft games that were being tracked because it displays "odd" behavior compared to the other games!  The data only demonstrates that the behavior is not, in fact, "odd" but that the game is working exactly how it was designed to work!  LOL  You guys are just stooopid, that's all!

And....pages and pages of spewed bullshit doesn't make the bullshit any more valid!  It's still just a bunch of spewed bullshit used to dilute the truth.

The graphs look pretty damning to me. So you're suggesting that after February 13, all the players of this particular game simultaneously switched their playing style to one where they couldn't possibly hit the jackpot? Seems a little far fetched.

If you can't make a cogent point without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you should just stop, because you have already lost the argument.

He's hoping that those who quickly skim through this mess of a thread will only take note of his above average vocabulary/decent grammar and assume he must be making some sort of valid point. 

#cjmoled

[game-protect]

First, the statement "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" means that the jackpot cannot be multiplied....whatever other assumptions one insinuates from that clause is just an assumption and in noway a statement of fact.  Second, "Note: JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" is not contradictory to "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses."  In fact, they are complementary statements. -snip-

"JACKPOT CANNOT BE MULTIPLIED" = FREE SPINS QUALIFY FOR THE JACKPOT BONUSES within the FREE SPINS MODE description is of course contradictory to the by Betcoin hand written "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses."

Only a brainless would be not able to realize this...

[cjmoles]

Dude...STFU!  Anybody with half a mutant brain cell would choose the mode that had the highest jackpot....Especially those who are spending thousands of dollars in max bets to hit the jackpot.  If you had a choice to spend 5 to win 10, or 5 to win 5000.....would you still choose to spend 5 to win 10? (<--nevermind, don't answer that---I'm assuming you have at least half a mutant brain cell which I'm seriously reconsidering)  And, if you had the intelligence to understand the data, then you you'll notice that is exactly what happened....people were playing in "Good Girl" mode because the jackpots were better valued.  There was no "unlocking" and "locking" like you guys suggest....LOL....Players had the choice to play in the mode which they thought would be most profitable to them and when they did that it excluded the possibility that the other event could occur because it is not only a mutually exhaustive event, but it's also a collectively exhaustive event.  It is a design specific to that game which you guys insist is faulty among all the other Betsoft games that were being tracked because it displays "odd" behavior compared to the other games!  The data only demonstrates that the behavior is not, in fact, "odd" but that the game is working exactly how it was designed to work!  LOL  You guys are just stooopid, that's all!

And....pages and pages of spewed bullshit doesn't make the bullshit any more valid!  It's still just a bunch of spewed bullshit used to dilute the truth.

The graphs look pretty damning to me. So you're suggesting that after February 13, all the players of this particular game simultaneously switched their playing style to one where they couldn't possibly hit the jackpot? Seems a little far fetched.

If you can't make a cogent point without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you should just stop, because you have already lost the argument.

No, that's what YOU'RE saying.  Maybe read it a couple more times or something....I don't know...Maybe the words I used were too big?....I don't know why you're confused....I wrote it in English so I don't know how you can interpret me saying anything such as what you asserted, but I guess that's your style....if you guys can't figure it out, then just make something up, right?

You know, lying and being deceptive isn't going to help you increase your player field at SwC because it's only proving what type of people you have playing there....But, maybe all eight of you can get together and teach each other how to palm cards, or something when action's slow; I don't know.  I heard that another collusion crew was discovered playing there a few weeks back....Maybe if you spent more time trying to stop the collusion on your own site instead of making false stuff up on other sites, then maybe you could increase registration honestly....you guys are something else!

[marlais]

The graphs look pretty damning to me. So you're suggesting that after February 13, all the players of this particular game simultaneously switched their playing style to one where they couldn't possibly hit the jackpot? Seems a little far fetched.

If you can't make a cogent point without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you should just stop, because you have already lost the argument.

No, that's what YOU'RE saying.  Maybe read it a couple more times or something....I don't know...Maybe the words I used were too big?....I don't know why you're confused....I wrote it in English so I don't know how you can interpret me saying anything such as what you asserted, but I guess that's your style....if you guys can't figure it out, then just make something up, right?

You know, lying and being deceptive isn't going to help you increase your player field at SwC because it's only proving what type of people you have playing there....But, maybe all eight of you can get together and teach each other how to palm cards, or something when action's slow; I don't know.  I heard that another collusion crew was discovered playing there a few weeks back....Maybe if you spent more time trying to stop the collusion on your own site instead of making false stuff up on other sites, then maybe you could increase registration honestly....you guys are something else!

Perhaps your points would be clearer if you could dial it back for a minute and drop the sarcasm, conspiracy theories, and personal attacks. You have only succeeded in derailing your own half-baked argument.

[cjmoles]

The graphs look pretty damning to me. So you're suggesting that after February 13, all the players of this particular game simultaneously switched their playing style to one where they couldn't possibly hit the jackpot? Seems a little far fetched.

If you can't make a cogent point without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you should just stop, because you have already lost the argument.

No, that's what YOU'RE saying.  Maybe read it a couple more times or something....I don't know...Maybe the words I used were too big?....I don't know why you're confused....I wrote it in English so I don't know how you can interpret me saying anything such as what you asserted, but I guess that's your style....if you guys can't figure it out, then just make something up, right?

You know, lying and being deceptive isn't going to help you increase your player field at SwC because it's only proving what type of people you have playing there....But, maybe all eight of you can get together and teach each other how to palm cards, or something when action's slow; I don't know.  I heard that another collusion crew was discovered playing there a few weeks back....Maybe if you spent more time trying to stop the collusion on your own site instead of making false stuff up on other sites, then maybe you could increase registration honestly....you guys are something else!

Perhaps your points would be clearer if you could dial it back for a minute and drop the sarcasm, conspiracy theories, and personal attacks. You have only succeeded in derailing your own half-baked argument.

Maybe I was a little harsh, I apologize, I am frustrated...but look at your own tone as well.  Here I will try to explain again without all the extra garbage Twitchy inserts to confuse the point.  My reference was to this data found at the casinolistings website quoted in the blue text below:

Statistically improbable progressive jackpot results

After being alerted to potentially "locked" Betsoft jackpots that are seemingly unable to won by a member of our forum, BlackjackAA, back in September of last year, we set out to monitor and record the values of multiple Betsoft jackpots using our jackpot tracking software. We chose Bovada and Slots.lv to be our test subjects as they have a large customer base and a full collection of Betsoft games. After almost nine months of recording jackpot values we can say with certainty that there is something seriously wrong with these games. In a comparison between Bovada and Slots.lv we have identified two major issues.

Firstly, jackpots on certain games and specific coin sizes are never won at all at Bovada, despite being won many times a week at Slots.lv, even though the numbers show that the amounts being wagered and contributed to these jackpots are much higher at Bovada. It does indeed look as if some of these jackpots are "locked" or unable to be won. The odds of this just being random luck are astronomical.  (https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/06/warning-avoid-all-betsoft-slots-and-casino-games)



You can play the game for free here: http://casinogamesonnet.com/?game=good-girl-bad-girl&id=742

The problem is that this game is designed such that the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won.  And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.  Once it's chosen, the other jackpot cannot be won. This game is different than the other games because it is not a randomly distributed jackpot but rather a jackpot that is based on human choice which is motivated by non-random factors and incentives.  That's why the author concludes, "the odds of this just being random luck are astronomical."  He's right, it's not "just random luck" but that's not because the game is crooked, it's the way the game is designed. When those numbers came out, I don't believe he realized that that was the way the game was designed, so of course it's going to look aberrant....if it was any other game then it would have been aberrant.  It's not surprising that this game was the only game that demonstrated that astronomically improbable behavior.

I also have issues with the other points the author makes, but I have made no reference to them thus far.  All the graphs that Twitchy spewed all over my argument are totally unrelated to this one simple point that I tried to demonstrate. But, in general, there are no references to player populations, no parameters for demographics, no tolerances for market trends, no current event considerations....etc.  You know, college grants and loans were issued in January....no significance?

See....I wrote this again....and again it's going to be diluted with all this other unrelated stuff to obscure the point I made....so forgive my frustration beforehand....I'm just trying to present an honest evaluation and it's constantly being derailed.  I've never cheated anybody, never scammed anybody, and I try my best to state things the way I see them....that's all.
 

[TwitchySeal]

The problem is that this game is designed such that the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won.  And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.

Cjmoles thinks that everyone decided to try and win the $350k+ Badgirl jackpot on the right (which nobody ever won) instead of the much smaller Goodgirl Jackpot on the left (which was hit over 100 times)

[cjmoles]

The problem is that this game is designed such that the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won.  And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.

Cjmoles thinks that everyone decided to try and win the $350k+ Badgirl jackpot on the right (which nobody ever won) instead of the much smaller Goodgirl Jackpot on the left (which was hit over 100 times)

-snipped senseless TwitchyTroll trash for brevity.

Twitchy, you know I meant to say "Good Girl" instead of "Bad Girl" and your just trying to misrepresent the case again as usual!  But, that's beside the point, you can see the numbers, you can look at the game, and you can read the data, then you can ask a friend to explain the data to you if you don't quite understand what you're reading.  If you would spend more time trying to be truthful and honest instead of a multi-accounting, lying, photo shopping, scam recruiting, East Coast pro-regulatory shill that talks to himself then maybe you could find a place to play.  It's not my fault that you got kicked out of the poker room....it's your own fault.  Start trying to be honest and you might find somebody to play with you.

[TwitchySeal]

The problem is that this game is designed such that the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won.  And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.

Cjmoles thinks that everyone decided to try and win the $350k+ Badgirl jackpot on the right (which nobody ever won) instead of the much smaller Goodgirl Jackpot on the left (which was hit over 100 times)

Twitchy, you know I meant to say "Good Girl" instead of "Bad Girl" and your just trying to misrepresent the case again as usual!  But, that's beside the point, you can see the numbers, you can look at the game, and you can read the data, then you can ask a friend to explain the data to you if you don't quite understand what you're reading.  If you would spend more time trying to be truthful and honest instead of a multi-accounting, lying, photo shopping, scam recruiting, East Coast pro-regulatory shill that talks to himself then maybe you could find a place to play.  It's not my fault that you got kicked out of the poker room....it's your own fault.  Start trying to be honest and you might find somebody to play with you.

I didn't even notice you mixed them up to be honest.

You're theory is that everyone chooses the option to go for the bigger jackpot and nobody chooses to go for the smaller.

How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) is getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the jackpot that everyone is choosing?

[cjmoles]

The problem is that this game is designed such that the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won.  And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.

Cjmoles thinks that everyone decided to try and win the $350k+ Badgirl jackpot on the right (which nobody ever won) instead of the much smaller Goodgirl Jackpot on the left (which was hit over 100 times)

--snipped unrelated TwitchyTroll trash--

Twitchy, you know I meant to say "Good Girl" instead of "Bad Girl" and your just trying to misrepresent the case again as usual!  But, that's beside the point, you can see the numbers, you can look at the game, and you can read the data, then you can ask a friend to explain the data to you if you don't quite understand what you're reading.  If you would spend more time trying to be truthful and honest instead of a multi-accounting, lying, photo shopping, scam recruiting, East Coast pro-regulatory shill that talks to himself then maybe you could find a place to play.  It's not my fault that you got kicked out of the poker room....it's your own fault.  Start trying to be honest and you might find somebody to play with you.

I didn't even notice you mixed them up to be honest.

You're theory is that everyone chooses the option to go for the bigger jackpot and nobody chooses to go for the smaller.

How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) is getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the jackpot that everyone is choosing?

No, that's not my theory.  Here, again in quotes, is my point I made earlier:

"The problem is that this game is designed such that the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won.  And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.  Once it's chosen, the other jackpot cannot be won. This game is different than the other games because it is not a randomly distributed jackpot but rather a jackpot that is based on human choice which is motivated by non-random factors and incentives.  That's why the author concludes, 'the odds of this just being random luck are astronomical.' He's right, it's not 'just random luck' but that's not because the game is crooked, it's the way the game is designed. When those numbers came out, I don't believe he realized that that was the way the game was designed, so of course it's going to look aberrant....if it was any other game then it would have been aberrant.  It's not surprising that this game was the only game that demonstrated that astronomically improbable behavior."

And here it is said differently:

If it were a game that followed a RANDOM distribution model then the authors conclusion that "the odds of this just being random luck are astronomical" would be a valid observation.  However, it isn't a game that follows a random distribution model so the analysis is invalid.  TO BE CLEAR, WHICH JACKPOT IS WON IS NOT A RANDOM EVENT AS ASSUMED, BUT INSTEAD AN EVENT WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY AND COLLECTIVELY DETERMINED BY HUMAN CHOICE MOTIVATED BY THE INCENTIVE TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT. It's not a random event so it can't be interpreted as a random event, then juxtaposed into a normal distribution frequency, classified deviant, and still be a sound argument.  When he states "the odds of this just being random luck are astronomical," he's right because they weren't random luck at all.