Skill Gaming requires updated approved list, transparency, and reconsideration (presented by experienced skill game players)
contact support
Willow Curry
We are experienced skill gaming players in Second Life who have observed that certain skill games may lack sufficient skill elements to be considered true skill games. We believe some regions may be violating Second Life's policies and online gambling laws through practices like variable odds and odds shifting, and by restricting or removing opportunities for skill-based choices.
We will provide greater detail on our method, our findings, and standout information in either a comment or a linked document, due to character limit.
SUMMARY:
When LL originally approved skill gaming, it was player versus player, but it has shifted to player versus house over the years. With that change comes a series of considerations of what would constitute a skill game, what practices are allowed by region owners and the games themselves, and if certain practices would not only remove the skill aspect in part or in full, but would violate national and international gambling laws in the process.
We have observed alarming patterns suggesting that certain skill games may no longer offer enough skill elements to be considered true skill games. After a player has a successful session, there appears to be a significant and unusual odds shift, decreasing chances of winning in subsequent sessions and often minimizing or removing skill components. We've recorded instances where skill is barely present, such as games offering few or no "wilds," which are crucial skill elements, effectively turning the games into pure chance-based gambling, violating policies and laws.
Our documentation shows that a number of recorded games fail to meet criteria that differentiate them from gambling. We have also noted times when regions appear to be manipulating odds to disadvantage players after a more successful session, removing skill-based opportunity and providing variable odds, which would be illegal.
KEY DATA POINTS:
- Accepted games and their updates do not appear to have any recent reviews by LL, and new content may violate policies.
- Our players typically report an average win/loss ratio of about 1:5 when payouts range from 3x to 6x over the past few months. On "bad luck" days, win/loss ratios average between 1:8 and 1:10, rarely worse than 1:10.
- In certain regions, after a strong session (e.g., 1:2 or 1:3), outcomes drop sharply, with losses increasing to over 1:20 the following day (recorded up to 1:40+), even when games are played optimally. This pattern is confirmed by multiple players.
- During these odds shifts, games reduce or remove skill-based elements. Recorded sessions show a surprising number of games suddenly receiving fewer than three "wilds", critical for progression and points. This makes the game chance-dominated, potentially constituting unlawful gambling practices.
- Under Linden Lab's policies, many games played during these periods violate rules as they offer little or no opportunity for skill. If odds shifts exist, they not only constitute gambling but may also be illegal under gambling laws.
- There is reason to believe that the opportunity for skill input can be variable and possibly manually set, making the presence of skill itself subject to chance. Manual control of odds and odds shifting may constitute gambling fraud and would be illegal.
- New laws and regulations have updated requirements for skill gaming. It appears Linden Lab has not kept updated with these changes, risking serious legal issues
- Previous proof of skill appears to be player vs player, where now it's player vs house
- The primary factor in win/loss should be player ability for a game to qualify as skill gaming. If the amount of skill a player can use is heavily randomized or reduced, the game no longer qualifies as skill gaming.
REQUESTS:
- Conduct and require an up-to-date validation and review of all approved skill games and regions
- Provide transparency regarding the expected skill/chance rates offered by machines, especially if settings are manually adjusted
- Enforce consistency in skill game odds across all games and players, prohibiting any bias or alterations, in compliance with skill gaming and gambling regulations.
- Prohibit illegal variable or player-based odds shifting
- Investigate and take appropriate action against regions found in gross violation of policies and laws.
- Acknowledge that differences in points based on skill do not necessarily make skill the dominant factor, particularly in player vs. house games where odds can be manipulated.
- Update the gaming policy to clarify that skill games, including skill opportunities, should not be significantly determined by chance, as this constitutes gambling.
- If compliance cannot be ensured, reconsider the allowance of skill games within Second Life.
Log In
Isabella Cinder
although this is not my fish to fry, and it makes sense that the Land team has no control over this matter, the issue with online gambling and Law abiding is a serious one that I'm not confident the support channel would be enough to deal with it in a timely manner, so I took the liberty to ask for a proper feedback channel inside the feedback channel for this sort of thing, while also bringing awareness to this post.
bets of luck
Willow Curry
Isabella Cinder I'm not sure why this got put in here, not sure why it was, as it got moved here shortly after I made it. I do agree with the fact that support would not be the appropriate way to go, and sadly the times that our members did contact support, nothing changed. I'll absolutely agree with a compliance channel, as it feels odd to not have something like that in an area designed for feedback. Thank you!
A
Abnor Mole
contact support
Thank you everyone
I hear your concerns. Unfortunately the Land & Public Works team isn't directly involved in overseeing the skilled gaming program. The best thing to do in this case is to create a support ticket with your concerns as you have outlined them so it can be brought to the attention of the Lindens in charge of that program.
Willow Curry
Abnor Mole I did not put this in Land and Public Works, it was moved in here and I'm not sure why. If you can move it to where it would be more appropriate, that would be appreciated, but this was not a choice I made.
That said, many of us have filed tickets with this exact information and nothing has happened. Not one of us has been contacted, and not one thing has changed. We're not talking about just a few issues, this borders on serious problems falling under legality issues, and possibly can constitute gambling fraud by the practices we were seeing patterns of. This goes beyond a simple review of a single incident, and a call to investigate everything top to bottom, as we've gathered enough evidence and filed tickets before and nothing has changed.
Isabella Cinder
Deep respect for the captains who continued playing in order to assemble this comprehensive report. Not all heroes wear capes.
Willow Curry
I've attempted to find a way to add the information we gathered in an external link but it errors when I do so here's the things of note:
We're a group of 8 skill game players. We noticed some unusual patterns and decided to start recording our wins/losses, the points, and in some cases how many wilds/jokers/other non-randomized elements that are required for proper game progression outside random numbers. We also recorded sessions and reviewed them when these unusual patterns were happening.
As we're a group that plays quite extensively, we understand wins and losses happen. We also don't want to do anything but see fair play return, as what we've found seems to call that into question in ways we can't ignore. After sharing our wins/losses we used a few simple things to check our rates, and then took that further to record the amount of skill we believe each game was even offered.
Unfortunately, in general, a rather significant amount of games would have offered so little opportunity for skilled play that they were basically slot-machine play. In other games, where wins and losses cannot be determined by completion of the board in itself but instead by additional bonuses that much be obtained through wilds or other symbols, again a significant amount of games offered little to no opportunity for this. Even in the best way of arguing what skill and choices do exist in these games, the need for them to be the prominent factor in determining a win or loss is simply not present.
Willow Curry
When LL allowed skill gaming, it was based on player vs player. Which, to a degree, made sense to do because it was not variable against anyone. You got what the game gave you, same as everyone else (even if the randomization differed) as it was reasonably consistent enough to note that skill gave higher scores to add to the competitions. However, games now are player vs house, and with that, a level of control may exist that can put this not only outside skill gaming and into gambling, but may violate gambling laws if used and abused beyond an acceptable level.
For instance, we noted that in one specific region we tested on, if players had a better win/loss ratio and came out on top, within 24-48 hours the region seemed to suddenly provide a consistency in games that remove so much skill opportunity, and in cases where further points gathering was needed would lower the amount of those showing up to a staggering level. This meant that games within said region appear to shift to a degree that change the odds drastically and consistantly. In both skill gaming and gambling laws, changing the general odds without the awareness of the player for any reason and by any method is illegal.
Unfortunately, this has called us to question a lot of the current state of Skill Gaming in Second Life. While this is speculative in some ways, the recordings of our games show some alarming results. In the same region, where players averaged a 1:5-1:6 win/loss rate over thousands of games, with at worst people seeing rarely higher than a 1:10 win/loss, if the players had it kick up to 1:3ish, within a short time after their session, the odds in that region seemed to massively shift. In the exact same region, we had players after 24 hours suddenly have average win/loss rates of 1:25+, even having one person register 1:40+, which is 4x the amount of losses that is recorded even on the worst days.
Willow Curry
This leads to a number of questions, problems, and possible legality issues. If there are odds shifting for any reason without player awareness, that could push the skill game outside legal allowances and may even constitute gambling fraud. In many games, we're calling into question the idea of a "skill-dominant gameplay" and asking for an updated consideration and approval, as even for our group we have noticed too many games that offer so little or even in some cases literally zero opportunity for skill play in comparison to the overwhelming randomization. But most of all, if there exists a way to "punish" players by shifting odds to substantial amounts (or in reality, ANY amount), this is both in violation of LL's policies on skill gaming and more importantly violates gambling laws as it is fraud by definition.
Skill gaming needs serious reconsideration and correction if these things are absolutely happening. Odds shifting should not be happening at all to ensure fair play exists. As well, many games do not offer enough consistent skill-over-randomization opportunity to constitute skill gaming, and even the ones that do have the skill portion offered by randomization as well.
I apologize for the word salad in some parts here, I'm trying to summarize about 20k words of information because LL is not letting me attach our longform findings. But there's enough here to prove something is very wrong with Skill Gaming that goes beyond just skill vs chance and possibly into illegal methods of controlling games beyond the expected odds.
Willow Curry
It does not seem to be letting me post an external link to our findings. I'm not sure why, but the amount of information cannot be posted directly due to limitations.
Is there a reason a google doc would not be allowable to post here?