Recent content by CatMatt

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 Withdrawn as stated.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.

They're counting DraftKings Predictions, which is a different product under a different regulator. Their own line is that Predictions operates in Nevada plus 47 other states. That includes Hawaii and Utah, which ban every form of gambling there is. So it isn't a sportsbook in 50 states. It's a...

Wellp if anyone trying to work out where their site actually sits, the map is roughly this now: - Curaçao post-LOK: hardest to get, real ownership disclosure, crypto held in entity wallets only with personal wallets banned outright. A seal that verifies means something it didn't mean in 2023. -...

Ha. That one I'd not connected.

The numbers here are unusual enough to be worth laying out. BetMakers EBITDA: A$14m unaudited, twelve months to 30 June Targeted cost savings: A$30m by end of year two Enterprise value: A$267m So the synergy target is more than double the earnings being acquired. You're not buying a profit...