Roshtein Review

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 225 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #87479
    Winningbird WANTED $574
    Outlaw

    Ey sheffield isnt that bad haha

    #87525
    Seyahkram1977 WANTED $676
    Outlaw

    Ahhh Sheffield where you say “ put your hands on your thighs “  and people cover their eyes

     

    might be too Yorkshire that one

    #87539
    Winningbird WANTED $574
    Outlaw

    Never heard that one ? it would be more.. cover yer eyes or shut yer eyes. I’m so confused ?

    1
    #87543
    eejit101 WANTED $300
    Outlaw

    Winningbird wrote:

    Never heard that one ? it would be more.. cover yer eyes or shut yer eyes. I’m so confused ?

    This explains the kids.

    #87549
    Xbobmad WANTED $715
    Outlaw

    Roshtein – his name is an anagram of horniest ??

    1
    #87552
    eejit101 WANTED $300
    Outlaw

    also an anagram of “no shit re”

    #87554
    Eightblack WANTED $445
    Outlaw

    Also ‘the irons’

    #87556
    eejit101 WANTED $300
    Outlaw

    Also “i shorten”.

     

    He is already short.

    #87541
    jamie_evans WANTED $18
    Outlaw

    On the question of what I think of Roshtein, I find him extremely annoying and unpalatable.

    Whether he is fake or not?  Put it this way: On the surface, no gambler is going to continuously sustain 6 or 7 figure losses annually without (1) becoming destitute quite quickly, (2) having so much money that revenue from affiliation is irrelevant, or (3) making more in affiliation revenue than losses from play.

    We can safely rule out options 1 and 2, because he isn’t destitute and he is and always has promoted the use of his affiliation links.  That leaves us with him making more in affiliation than he loses in play.  And though this sounds like an option which grants legitimacy to his operation, and we know what affiliate bonuses can do to overall RTP, I still think he’s almost completely fake, and here’s why.

    A few months ago clips started surfacing on YouTube of Roshtein opening a slot in demo mode, which coincidentally loaded up with the same balance as in his “real” account.  Now that by itself is not conclusive evidence that he’s not playing with real funds, but it does get you thinking.

    The game in question was Rise of Merlin, designed by Play’n GO.  Rise of Merlin is a hosted game (just like most modern games), meaning that Play’n GO do not distribute the binaries of the game itself to casinos, rather they host it on their own network and the casinos plug in to it via APIs.  So in this model, opening a game primes a new session in which the provider makes an API call to the casino, who return to them your account balance.  Initiating a spin then triggers the the provider’s system to generate a result, and make an API call back to the casino to (1) notify them of what that result is, and (2) retrieve – by response – the updated balance.

    For Roshtein to have opened a game in demo mode, and the balance to be the same as his so-called real balance, the casino would have had to prime a new session using the amount of his real balance.  If this were the case then, without logic to determine whether the real balance were sufficient to be used for demo mode, a player with a zero balance would simply not be able to demo the slots.  This is counterproductive to the ambition of the casino, which is to get you to play for real.  Why would a developer even go through the extra effort of retrieving the real balance, and performing logic on it, knowing that in most cases where demo mode is used the player doesn’t have sufficient real funds, when a standard amount can be used for all cases.  It doesn’t make sense.  That leads me to the conclusion that, at least in the stream where he is supposedly exposed, the real account balance and demo account balance is one in the same.  And there can be two possible reasons for this.

    Let’s suppose that the casino he is using maintains a balance for a player’s demo account.  This would mean that Roshtein would be able to move from game to game and the balance would naturally be maintained.  But we do see Roshtein clicking the button for real play, not demo, so how can this be possible?  Simple.  There are plenty of ways to fake this:  URL rewriting could be used to overwrite a casino API query parameter to change all real requests to demo; A couple of lines entered in the browser console could change all real links in to demo ones; The browser could have a script extension installed which manipulates the links, etc.

    The possibility that sits best with me is that Roshtein is actually playing on a pre-production version of the casino system.  Anyone who works in development or operations of systems like these knows that before updates to systems are released they’re tested against a live-like environment, where all of the dependencies and relationships to other parts can be tested before “go-live”.  Having been an architect of many such environment I know that the ambition when designing pre-prod, integration or sandbox environments is to provide as much functionality as possible with the constraint of not being able to interact with production systems or data.  It’s not just casinos who have pre-production environments, it’s payment providers too.  And, as such, a test environment for the casino will be configured to use a test payment system.  Although it is possible to completely fake a cash out or deposit, the technical complexity becomes an order of magnitude greater.  I think this best explains how Roshtein can be seen, live, making deposits and withdrawals.  He is using test or arbitrary card details.  But how can we see the URL is the same as we would be visiting when playing for real money?  How does Roshtein get a pre-production system when others get a production one?  This is probably the simplest little hack in all I will write about.  A pre-production server will have a different public IP address to a production one, and most likely a different DNS host name.  It is really quite trivial to change the IP address which your computer uses for a host name.  There is a file which you can add entries to override normal name resolution behavior for given hosts, referred to as the local machine hosts file, or LMHOSTS.

    So what do I think of him? He’s an annoying little phony.

    #87612
    Biohazard WANTED $671
    Outlaw
    #87640
    eejit101 WANTED $300
    Outlaw

    Thats Sigma. Thats their job to give those out. What a dick.

     

    As for the post above – A test version of the casino uses real games. Clicking real or fun will be the same sadly. The game API and integrations, especially for casinos where they use aggregators, will be unaffected. Its 100% possible that deposits can be faked, and weird proof can be given, but what happened on his stream i still cant work out. It looks like he is in real mode. Or the casino has some nuts system that somehow gets around this but thats very expensive work.

     

    From my side ive no idea how it happened but its odd. But there is no way he is playing real moeny deposits with those bonuses.

    #87654
    Rbreen91 WANTED $493
    Outlaw

    Roshtein

    Ron Shite

    #87657
    benq99 WANTED $229
    Outlaw

    Roshtein   TWAT IN A HAT

    #87660
    eejit101 WANTED $300
    Outlaw

    Elf on an STD riddled shelf

    #87649
    jamie_evans WANTED $18
    Outlaw

    The links aren’t the same.  What you’re probably seeing is the container URI without any query parameters.  The game is normally presented in an IFrame, so if your were to look at the src attribute of the IFrame tag you’d see different URLs.  In every single case where I’ve seen (and I supect every case full stop), especially in the case of Play’n GO, the demo mode is differentiated by using a different URL / route to the content pages.

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 225 total)