Search results

that's what every one of us did, we just took longer and called it research

right, i've calmed down and read the thing properly instead of reacting to my own site being on a list. bit that actually matters for this thread isn't the 33 names. its that mgcb did 45 in april and 33 now, and the release points at industry research showing casino players moving toward the...

mbit is on there? seriously? damn just give me a minute, thats literally my live dealer site. for two years i couldn't find anything nearly as good. especially good one for live tables

Then I can't settle it and neither can anyone else here, which is the honest end of that. I said six decks earlier like I knew. I didn't. I read it on a page that says six in its text and eight in its own description, and I picked the one in the text because it was in a sentence. That is not...

That is actually more useful than if it had said a number. Can anyone find it stated in the game at all, on any site? Because if it isn't in the info panel then every figure any of us quotes for this game, mine included, came off a review page rather than out of the product.

Since the variants keep coming up, the two to actually get your head round are the ones where the rules change rather than the presentation. Power Blackjack takes all the 9s and 10s out of an eight deck shoe, then lets you double, triple or quadruple down. Removing high cards is bad for you and...

I've seen both too and I can't settle it for you. The write up I trust most says a six deck shoe in the body text and eight decks in its own page description, which is not a great look for either of us. The in game info panel is the thing to check and I'd trust that over anything written about...

Because it removes any relationship between one round and the next. In a shoe game the cards that have gone are gone, so the composition of what's left changes as you play. That's the entire basis of counting. Reshuffling after every round means the deck is always full, always the same, and...

Right, I have been waiting three years for a thread where I get to post this, so bear with me. Everyone assumes the RNG tables pay better because there is no dealer to pay for. Everyone. I believed it myself until I went and looked. They don't. First Person Blackjack runs 99.29% on the main...

That's a fair correction and I'd rather have it than not. Withdrawn as stated. The half a percent on the headline config stands on its own without the probability dressing, which is the part I actually cared about.

Here is the comparison that reframes most of the complaining, and I say it as someone who thinks these games are thin. Sweet Bonanza Super Scatter, July last year. 6x5, top RTP 96.51%, max win 50,000x, Super Scatter prizes at 100x, 500x, 5,000x and 50,000x, and buys at 100x and 500x. Sweet...

The game's info panel should state the RTP for the build you have open, so start there. Past that you are comparing against the provider demo and trusting the operator. Not a satisfying answer. It is the answer.

No, and the difference matters for what @Greenpickle is describing. An ante bet raises your stake per spin and improves your odds of triggering the feature naturally. On Gates 2500 the normal bet costs 20x and the ante tiers cost 25x, 55x and 110x. You are still spinning. A buy skips the base...

Which is roughly four times the eight-year revenue estimate, in one year, on 2023 volumes. Either the estimate was conservative or something in the modelling assumed behaviour change. I'd guess the second, and the behaviour change they assumed is people gambling less.

Because a committee vote is the first of four things that have to happen. It cleared Ways and Means 38-5 on 16 September, attached to a 98-page digital asset tax bill. It still needs the full House, then the Senate, then a signature. Congress is out until after the midterms. And it's riding on...

You're not reading it wrong. Here's the mechanism laid out, because a lot of people in here are going to need it. - It's in the One Big Beautiful Bill, signed July 2025, effective for tax years beginning after 31 December 2025 - You deduct the lesser of 90% of your losses, or your total winnings...

That's the whole thing in one sentence and it's slightly infuriating to read.

It bothers me a great deal. It's also better than the thing it replaced, which was nothing. You're in Nevada. Your position is that a company should be licensed by the state before it takes your money, and you're right, and I'd want that too. But Texas has had thirty years to give me a...

Different companies, same product category. Kalshi is the exchange that's been fighting the states in court. DraftKings has its own version called Predictions. Robinhood and Crypto.com run them too. The court rulings about Kalshi set the rules everyone else has to live under, which is why a case...

Yep. I noticed that too and I don't have an answer for it. Either there are two states where something else applies, or the 47 figure is out of date, or the ad is rounding. DraftKings didn't respond when the Review-Journal asked them about the ads at all, so nobody's explained the gap.