Quote from: TwitchySeal on August 14, 2016, 11:29:31 AM

Quote from: cjmoles on August 14, 2016, 10:07:10 AM

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.

CJmoles thinks the reason one jackpot is never won is because everyone chooses to play for the other jackpot instead.

Quote from: cjmoles on August 13, 2016, 10:47:20 PM

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?

people were playing in "Bad Girl" mode because the jackpots were higher.

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

He thinks everyone just picked whichever mode had the highest jackpot, resulting in the other mode never hitting.

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

--snipped TwitchTroll trash for brevity--

My theory is that most people both ways, good and bad, at the same time and contribute to both jackpots with every spin.
When the bonus is triggered, sometimes they choose bad, sometimes they choose good.
Someone who's up a lot of money is more likely to choose bad, someone who wants their money to last is more likely to choose good.
Most players will check it out each, "just to see"

It's pretty funny to see all the different ways you try to defend a casino that doesn't even bother trying to defend themselves.

Any thoughts on the whole "this issue is between the player and a business that refuses to communicate directly with players and nobody knows who runs it or owns it?
Wouldn't it be funny if it was the same people that owned Betcoin?

"Cj, How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the big jackpot that everyone picks?" That is very strange, indeed, if nobody picks it, yet it is won over 100 times! It doesn't seem like it should be won at all if it wasn't played....Something's obviously wrong with that data too.
But, I do know that the smaller jackpot has a much higher probability of hitting than the larger one, by design, because I read the rules before I played.

1) Playing both ways costs twice as much to play, so it wouldn't make sense to throw away money on propositions that have a minimum expected return when one can get twice as many spins at the proposition that provides the greatest possible expected value for the same price.

2) Choosing which mode to play is independent of any bonus round...(It's a Betsoft game, not the RTG version)(play it free here: http://casinogamesonnet.com/?game=good-girl-bad-girl&id=742)

3) Nobody likes arguing with trolls, so why would they open up a dialogue with them?

4) Wouldn't it be funny if it was owned by casinolistings.com who's getting tons of clicks for their affiliate program from this negative publicity while still receiving money from affiliates who provide Betsoft software?

Having addressed your points, I will re-iterate my point for clarity. My point is that no valid conclusion can be attained from data that comes from a non-random source if it is treated as though it were random. To say that same more loosely: One cannot logically say, "Look at this non-random data; it doesn't appear to be random at all; therefore, it must be faulty." The study was seriously flawed and if the people conducting it are actually qualified enough to make that determination, then they will quickly perceive the error....If they are qualified and they don't perceive the error, then they may be motivated by some other factor rather than truth.