Age Verification
This website contains age-restricted material including nudity and explicit content. By entering, you confirm being at least 18 years old or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from.
I am 18+ or older - Enter
I am under 18 - Exit
Our parental controls page explains how you can easily block access to this site.

Ostatnie posty - Strona 537

  Forum

TheEmu
Dołączył: Jul 2012
7424 post(y/ów)

Summer Sale - Q&A

Wszystko o iStripper
July 1, 2021, 111 odpowiedzi
@PSEUDO6ISME

The text you quote, and the whole post it came from, had nothing to do with the gambling games. It was a reply to an implicit suggestion that a particular kind of special offer, one that would correspond to a permanent price reduction if repeated often enough, be made far more frequently than it is.

However, as you reintroduced the topic of gambling, what is your evidence for your apparent view that games the here have "the odds are set for mostly against you"? As far as I can tell the overall odds for the games neither favour Totem nor the players (or at least are not greatly biased either way). But the data available to me do not allow me to be at all certain of this. Of course most players lose out, but some make large gains.

Let me illustrate this point with a very simple type of game. Consider a game in which the organisers sell 1000 lottery tickets for 1 euro each, draws one at random and gives the winner a prize of 1000 euros. This is an absolutely fair game in which each participant has the same chance of winning and the organisers gain no monetary reward - nevertheless there will be 999 losers for every winner.

As far as the individual players are concerned the game would be exactly the same if the organisers bought one of the tickets for themselves, the only difference is that the organisers themselves are taking the same risk of losing as the ordinary players and have the same chance of winning the 1000 euro prize. So still an absolutely fair game.

When such a game is repeated very many times then on average the gains and losses even out both for the organisers and for the players, but because the organisers participate in all the games while an individual player participates in far fewer the organisers can be more sure of their result than any individual player. This is still an absolutely fair game though now there is an asymmetry between the organisers and the players because the organisers can be more sure of breaking even than an individual player, but the organisers also now have a small risk of making a much bigger loss than any player (and an equally small chance of making a much bigger gain).

When there are several different prizes, a few of high value and many of low value the analysis is more difficult - but there can still be an absolutely fair game, one that does not favour the organisers, in which almost everybody will lose out but this is compensated for by the high value prizes. All of this for games that would be absolutely fair in all respects.

Because we mainly see posts from the those that have lost out on the games we get a distorted view of them.

This is not to say that the games are fair in the way I have described, only that from the results that we see we can not tell if they are or not.