And, the odds against hitting the "Bad Girl" jackpots are much greater than the odds against hitting the "Good Girl" jackpots; that's why the smaller, "Good Girl," jackpots were hit most often. Furthermore, nothing in the data demonstrates that everybody was playing for the larger jackpot; in fact, the data shows quite the opposite; there were MANY people playing for the smaller, much easier to trigger, "Good Girl" jackpots, and fewer players playing for the larger, much harder to trigger, "Bad Girl" jackpots.
Nothing proves the chance for hitting the "Bad Girl" jackpots are lower. In fact, you even state, "there were MANY people playing for the smaller... "Good Girl" jackpots". Don't you think that the Good Girl jackpots were hit because they were played more often, rather than the odds being lower?
Furthermore, why are you using information from a source you've deemed wrong? We've already shown the graphs were from Casinolistings, and their data.
Also, you want to notice how Bovada has no recorded wins for 5 cent, 10 cent, 25 cent, and $1? (Like shown on the graph)
Good job switching the topic from Greedy Goblins' contradiction with Betcoin ToS to now just BetSoft issues, which you for some reason are refuting.
Last thing to point out: previously you were saying that people would rather pay for the larger jackpot. Well, then why would it be that the data shows more have gone for the two cent games instead of the higher coin games?
Greedy Goblins has nothing to do with anything here. The game in question was the "Glam Life." Somebody else (I wonder Who) is the person who switched the topic to "Greedy Goblins" in an attempt to manipulate the facts. The terms associated with "Greedy Goblins" has nothing to do with the "The Glam Life."
And, no I didn't say people would play for the "larger jackpot," I tried to say that intelligent people will play for the jackpot that has the best value....the best return for their investment. If the lower paying jackpot has better expected value (EV) then intelligent people will play that mode and vice versa. It's math.
And, data and interpretation of data are two different things....I don't have any evidence that the data is wrong; in fact, I actually trust casinolistings motivations....I have a problem with the interpretation of the data and the methodology employed in the study. I'm not sure, but I am surmising the data was collected by scraping the jackpot figures from a user account and then importing them into graphing software....Now, that may be practical but it's far from perfect because there are factors such as downtimes, lags, unknown contributions, ...etc which the graphing software has to extrapolate to maintain a smooth graph. So, while I don't doubt the integrity of the casinolisting's data, nor their motivation (per se), I do have a problem with the conclusiveness of the interpretation because there are too many unknown factors that are adjusted for by assumption.
--snip--
cjmoles
Please look at my first post in this thread. Look at the screenshots of my spin, of the paytable at the time of the spin, and at the proof that TwitchySeal provided proving that Betcoin adjusted their TOS after the fact to account for the free spins round. After looking this over answer this question for me: Should I have been paid the jackpot? All of this debate about statistics is confusing and can be interpreted a million different ways. But my spin is simple. Either it should have won or it shouldn't. If your answer is that it should have won, then Betsoft is scamming players and stealing their money. And Betcoin by not standing up for their player and continuing to use this software is complicit in this scam.
I don't pay any attention to TwitchySeal's proofs unless the sources are cited and referenced because he has a tendency at photo-shopping evidence and manipulating facts.
But, to answer your questions: Betcoin changed their terms to comply with the terms that Betsoft clarified to negate future misinterpretations....They didn't change them to screw you out of your claim which you had already made and recorded; they didn't have to give you anything. Should they have not clarified the rules so others could fall subject to the same conflict? Your claim was that you should've won the jackpot on the "freespin" because they never said that it wasn't possible. The "real" question here is whether or not a "freespin" can be interpreted as "maximum bet spin." It is obvious that "freespin" wasn't intended to imply "max bet spin" because it wasn't coded into the software or the jackpot would've dropped. Your problem was with the interpretation of the rules....not that you had won the jackpot and they didn't pay you. Betcoin has to comply with the rules of the Betsoft game; they don't have the power to change Betsoft's rules, even if they wanted to change them. You didn't win the jackpot but they paid you something out of their own pocket because of the confusion. That jackpot is not the casino's to give away, it belongs to the players who contributed to it and it would've been wrong for them to give it to you because everybody else who contributed to it, and played by the rules, would've been wronged and could've made their own claim.
There are numerous reasons why "freespin" and "max bet spin" have different meanings. One has to do with the contributions the two add to the jackpot, another has to do with how taxes are kept and reported, and so forth. Should you pay taxes on free things? Should non-contributing spins qualify....etc. All of these factors must be taken into account when deciding if the term "free" is synonymous with the term "maximum." The rules clearly stated that only "max bet spins" qualify....and "freespin" does not fall under the definition of a "max bet spin."
Yes, I can see how it can be confusing because the "freespin" was triggered as the result of a "max bet spin" and that's why they clarified the language, but considering all the factors involved in differentiating the two terms, it's obvious that "freespin" was never meant to be interpreted as a "max bet spin."