Jackpot average
€5,663,671

Payout
96.4%

Amount of each spin that goes to the jackpot
4%

One suggested calculation goes like this

The 4% taken to the jackpot matches 0.04*96.4=3.856% of the payout. Since the payout is 96.4% we need another 3.6% of payout. Break even is at 3.6/3.845=0.9363 of the average Jackpot. 0.9363*5,663,671=5,302,786.89 so the break even is reached at a Jackpot at roughly €5.3M. Play only when the Jackpot is higher than this and you will get a positive EV.

This means that the game Mega Fortune had a positive expected value during the late summer 2011 and at the end of 2013. At the time of writing the Jackpot is at €1,916,676 and at a negative expected value, and it will probably have a negative expected value for at least another 3 months, unless the Jackpot is hit before then.

I started selling runes, sojs, jewels and other uniques on eBay in early 2001. By mid 2001 I had my first webshop godlyitems.com ready. I duped, I boted and I traded. I sold tens of thousands of items. Some of them at ridiculous prices. It was certainly no charity but nevertheless I made many people happy.

The business seemed to have potential so by 2004 I moved to rpgstash.com with the intent to offer more games and services. This was the time when I started looking into search engine optimization. After having aquainted myself with the mundane task of on site optimization, I quickly moved over to directory submissions. This job was too tedious so I hired some indians to do it for me. In the end it was probably not worth the money or the submissions themselves for that matter. After that I started looking into keywords based on adwords keyword tool, half of the time forgetting to set match type to exact, and then buying domains and creating satellites based on those keywords.

This was all good and well but what truly made a difference was the aquisition of a few old expired domains with pre-existing page rank. The only seo strategy that will prevail on the ever changing web I reckon.

At it’s peak towards the end of 2007, RPGStash averaged around 8000 visits per day with a bounce rate around 50-60%. After that it went downhill. And quickly at that. Our market niche in the game Runescape was lost due to a major game update, and there was not really anything we could do about it. At the same time the Diablo 2 market was consumed by competitors with better technology. With both games gone it was just memories of good days left. I left the ship in 2010 and have not looked back since. Too much competition and too much pressure from game companies. I have been threatened with law suits, I have had hosting accounts shut down, and I have had my files held hostage. But never once did I break any law. It’s just the way it works. Big guy bullies small guy. I have had enough of that for a few life times.

My partner still runs the show though. He has registered a company in Hong Kong and sorted out hosting in Netherlands to minimize problems with game companies. The cms is also changed to Prestashop to keep maintainance at a minimum. Currently site has around 8K visits per month but it is on the rise. A long way to go but it’s going in the right direction. Best of luck to him in RPGStash vs China round 2.

-The cases of Mike Goorman, John Ripås, Unni Drougge multi-

It can be risky to fuss with an SEO guy. It is becoming increasingly common for employers or potential romantic pair will check you on the web. Meanwhile, anyone who can master search engine optimization quickly and easily ruin it for you. Completely anonymously SEO guy make sure you never get that working interview or to tjeje / guy you’re dating never hear back from them. This blog entry will show how fast and easy it is for a skilled SEOs 1 to cause problems for a company or a person you dislike. An SEOs who work with links 2 does not even take the time to blog about his nemesis. It might be enough to bump the existing pages in search results. All this is completely anonymous and ospårbart.

So-called reputation management online is still a relatively new phenomenon. But as reported by DN and SvD so watch four out of ten recruiters go online and at social media can cost you the job. Even the Employment Service writes that social media is becoming increasingly important in recruitment.

Below are some examples of cases where people have “messed with the SEO guy”.

Mike Goorman

To make a long story short, got a German lawyer named Mike Goorman annoy me greatly for a few years ago. I had just purchased a German domain . A site was created on the domain and everything was hunky-dory. Then there will a pre-written e-mail with false allegations to 3 on page content from Mike Goorman. When the error was pointed out rather more funny business 4 and claim 5 . Furthermore Goorman ignored my questions and made ​​sure to lock my domain extra fast when my answer does not please him 6 . My work with the domain is thus wasted. No big thing but I still chose to blog about it all (now removed) and to ensure that the item was shown at the top of search results for searches on \ “mike goorman “. A few months later I get another email from Mr. Goorman where he writes that they may soon have to activate the domain without any of the preceding claims. My blog is not mentioned in this mode. The domain active again and all is back fine. Not surprisingly, however, I contacted again and they ask me to remove the blog post. So far, the lawyers had conducted themselves well. They had solved the original problem and asked me to remove the negative information from the network. But then they moved to it by using a trick that seems to be common among attorneys who are active online. Suddenly, I got emails from two different lawyers in the same firm. They tried to put more pressure on me 7 . As icing on the cake \ ‘t be Mike Goorman not help but send a little small threat:

Believe me, I do not wish to Escalate this matter … -Mike Goorman

Mike Goorman are right that he does not want to escalate. He would only risk a Streissand effect, that the negative information is spread even more as a direct result of trying to get away with threats and lawsuits. Enough about Mike Goorman, the next man to shave is …

John Ripa

So-called Google-cleaning has been on the fashion and soon appears SVT documentary, \ “You are Googlad ” (Broadcast March 22). The documentary tries to Johan ensure that anyone who googles the name \ “John Ripa “ in the first place will see John Ripa’s web site about himself. This is therefore the same problem as in the case of Mike Goorman where you want to get rid of problematic information from search results. If you can not get the negative information off-picked as one trying to fill up the search results pages with sanitized information. In the case of John Ripa deals mostly with two strongly negative sides. First, a blog post by Alex Schulman , accusing John Ripa for using both creative cutting techniques and lies to get to the interesting content to its documentary Dope Forever (Not online but there is a seemingly dead torrent here ). And then another one article for information about John Ripa must have used a similar approach to get to an interview for a documentary fur hunters. It also looks like you have cleaned off criticism from Wikipedia Posted on John Ripa from an IP on national television. See discussion at Wikipedia here and the original wikipedia post here . I am not alone in finding that John Ripa main problem is that people write negatively about him, but that they actually seem to be justified to do just that. Just when google cleaning began to produce results has anyone begun to link to the two negative items , and prompt puttat them up to the first page of search results again. Another little lighter cases are …

Unni Drougge

Unni Drougge wrote about the search consultants in an article on IDG. The Chronicle contains conscious or unconscious errors 8 , lace to 9 and provokes 10 in a manner that is common among columnists who would otherwise find it difficult to be seen. To do this usually among SEOs called a link baiting or possibly trolling. It’s simply to concoct something that gets enough attention to other bloggers or writers spontaneously to link to link bait. Unni Drougge has been 100% successful here and that is just taking off his hat for a successful work. Unni Drougges Chronicle raljerar then proceeds to write that someone will get angry and register unnidrougge.net. While this provocation go home and sure enough, someone is anonymously registering domain and creating the page . The page turns out to be a harmless link bait itself (which this article falls for), but still shows how quickly and easily you can set up an anonymous page in someone else’s name.

Johanna Sjodin

While the example shows how easily and quickly it could be be done to really create problems similar to what has befallen Johanna Sjodin : Another person with the same name has a blog that scares people, and this has created problems for the former Johanna Sjodin.

Finally,

The above examples are still pretty nice, factual and does not use any real fulheter. A sufficiently enraged SEOs would be able to write completely fictional things during his alteregos name. He can create fake articles with very kompromenterande content and post them on sites that are completely trustworthy out. Debate articles, blogs and forum posts which are pushed up in search results could become a real nightmare to deal with.

Without claiming that there’s an absolute pattern, we have all observed that couples usually end up doing what she wants to do. And to make it worse, she usually gets what she wants by claiming that it’s best for both of them to do what she wants to do. This game explains why drama queens usually get what they want, and what can be done to even out the odds.

The Battle of the Sexes

John and Jenny plan to go out together during the night. John wants to go to the football game and Jenny wants to go to the concert. But both would rather go together than alone.

Each player gets 3 points if they go together to the event they prefer, 1 point if they go together to the other event and 0 points if they don’t go together.

Here are the different possibilities.:

So, what is going to happen?

Possibility 1: Concert or football

So far, the game is easy and it’s easy to see which move is the best, based on the first player’s move.

John thinks like this:

• If Jenny chooses to see the football, he will also go to the football and get 3 points instead of 0 for going to the concert.
• If Jenny chooses to go to the concert, it will not give John the perfect night, but he follows her and gets 1 point instead of 0 points.

John tries to guess Jenny’s move and then follows it.

Jenny is reasoning in the exact same way. She wants to be with John and chooses whatever she thinks he’s going to choose.

If they can communicate, both will go to the football, or both will go to the concert.

Nash equilibrium is achieved since neither John nor Jenny has anything to win from single-handedly change their strategy. They both would have to do it together in order to have anything to win from the strategy change. This applies to games where both players know the other player(s) decisions. For example the traffic direction is a Nash equilibrium, all agree on left side traffic or all agree on right side traffic. A middle choice is not possible since it will give a lower score for all players.

This requires that the players can quess what strategy the other players will choose. An example where the players have no clue about the other players strategy is the traffic in some third world cities. All players drive randomly and a third equilibrium is met because nobody has anything to win from choosing a specific strategy. All drivers keep flipping a coin every morning. Heads or tails decides if they drive on the left or the right side on the particular day.

The good thing with this is that both players benefit from cooperating in their strategy. Unfortunately there are still two equivalent outcomes and it’s still impossible to predict if they will go to the football or to the concert.

But there’s more possibilities to add to the game.

Possibility 2: Correlated equilibrium

If the game is repeated, as is often the case in a relationship, there is a good compromise that both John and Jenny can benefit from agreeing on. Every time they face a similar scenario, they could flip a coin to decide where both om them go. Over time the result would even out and they would both get an average of 2 points per game.

If John and Jenny flip coins individually, they would instead get an average of 1 point per game. In a sound relationship, both players choose the correlated equilibrium.

But the eccentric girlfriend will not tolerate this. To get what she want, Jenny will use a new strategy.

Possibility 3: Changing the rules

Jenny really wants to go to the concert and she wants to convince John that it’s best also for him to go there. An all too common scenario from reality.

Here’s a rastic strategy that she can use: She takes out a twenty dollar bill from her purse and announces:

John, I really want to go to the concert. And if I think that there’s even a possibility of us not going, it would drive me nuts. I would have to distract myself by burning this twenty dollar bill.

I’ll go to the next room to think about it. Knock the door when you have decided if you want to go to the football or to the concert. But think of what’s best for both of us!

Jenny has introduced a new strategy into the game that is called burning money. In this game she first chooses whether or not to burn the money and then both players decide to which event they are going.

To burn her money will cost Jenny 1 point. Now, how will this game play out?

We create a matrix of all the possibilities and then analyse it.

Jenny has two moves to make: She can burn her money or not, and she can go to the football or to the concert. Her choices are located to the left in the matrix.

John also has two moves to make. He needs to choose what to do if Jenny burns her money and what to do if she isn’t. His choices are abbreviated as “if she burns her money, I will go to the concert, and if she’s not burning her money I will go to the football game” and so on.

The matrix looks like this:

The possibility that Jenny keeps the money and goes to the football game is not consistent with the rules she has just introduced so that possibility can be crossed out. Thanks to the threat of burning the money, she has made sure not to be able to get any points at all by going to the football. Both players realise this and strike it out in the matrix.

By adding the points in the remaining columns, we can see that John’s option to go to the concert no matter if Jenny burns the money or not will give 2 points. The remaining columns give a total och 1, 1 and 0 points.

We can also see that Jenny’s strategy to keep the money and go to the concert is her strongest strategy with 6 points, compared with the other rows that give 2 or 0 points.

The result is as follows: Equilibrium is met by Jenny keeping her money and going to the concert, and by John going to the concert whether Jenny burns her money or not. The choices are not up for discussion and John has nothing to win from even suggesting going to a football game in the future.

They go to the concert, exactly like Jenny wanted! As a bonus, she has also convinced both herself and John that John’s decision is for the best of both of them.

Burning the money as a strategy in real life

This game is a reminder of how spoiled brats operate in real life. They don’t always destroy for themselves or their surroundings. They just need to threat and act a bit grumpy in order to force others to do what they want.

There can also be a non-verbal or perceived threat to break up och refuse sex. This would give both players minus points, but the outcomes of the matrix would remain the same. Also keep in mind that in 70% of all relationships and marriages, it’s the man that feels like he has more to lose from a break up. This would give Jenny minus points if the threat is realised, but John would get even more minus points. John’s strategy to always follow Jenny to the concert will then be even more favourable when compared to the other strategies.

Further, the ability to be able to destroy for yourself, or say “my way or the highway” can often be seen as a strength. It gives an appearance of fearlessness and uncompromisingness, which is often backed up by underlying resourcefulness. Fearlessness is therefore seen (especially by women) as a very attractive and sexy characteristic, as explained by evolutionary psychology. Contrary to what our western upbringing tries to teach us, we are all attracted to some amounts of ruthlessness and fearlessness.

It’s not a coincidence that the bad boy in class that defies the teacher and risk getting detention is also popular among the girls. This is also a factor that makes relations where one part is abusive last longer than they should.

Another characteristic that makes some people prepared to show ruthlessness is what’s called “sense of entitlement” in evolutionary psychology. It means that you have a feeling of deserving to get what you want. That it’s your right to get what you want. This is also a characteristic that can make a person appear attractive in a relationship, since it subcommunicates that the person is in some way extraordinary. The phenomenon is further described in the post about egoism versus egocentrism.

How John can defend himself

John has a few ways of striking back.

• He can threat to preemptively burn his own money, which can make Jenny realise her own silliness.
• The best real life strategy is probably to withdraw attention from Jenny whenever she pulls drama. If he feels that he’s in a position to play a power game, that is. This is the complete opposite to what most boyfriends would do, and it subcommunicates that he’s prepared to play the most drastic strategy that follows:
• He can end the game once and for all. Spoiled brats can grow up and change, but it’s a question of how fast and if it’s worth the effort.

There are probably ways to deal with destructive persons, but the best thing is usually to realise that it’s not worth the effort. To break up and end the game is the most obvious strategy, but as the game above has shown, it’s usually enough to just act as if you are prepared to break up.

I woke up but remained at peace. He said “You should know why we are here!” in a harsh way that I later realized was just a theater. I said no and he said he was from the Swedish IT crime unit. Behind him came two more Swedish police officers from the local police unit, also in plain clothes. Behind them was a man in black suit and tie, later introduced as a special agent David Black with the FBI.

I still was calm and assured when they asked for permission to let the FBI agent enter the room and ask questions, as their search warrant did not grant him permission.
By the way, the warrant was signed by James von Reis, a prosecutor that is a public figure from taking on numerous high-profile IT cases in Sweden. He’s the evil personified. The Devil walking the earth. I will load my water pistol with holy water and gun him down with it.

Anyway, Knowing I had nothing to be afraid of, I said sure, whatever. One of the local policemen flashed a gun and the FBI agent flashed his badge. I remained unimpressed. Okay Okay, it was kinda cool to see an FBI badge being flashed like in the movies. The agent was nowhere as cool as Fox Mulder though.

When I insisted in saying that I didn’t know why they were there, the police from the IT crime unit explained that I was under investigation for hacking a U.S. Military e-mail server. At the time my student dorm room was pretty spaced out with a lot of computers, synthesizers and books so the police seemed to be sure of themselves that they had found the hacker. There was a wait of about half an hour in my room so I got up to get dressed and one the police almost jumped at me, thinking that I was gonna start a fight or something.

However, I just got dressed and then showed the suit from the FBI my studio equipment. He was disappointed that I didn’t even have any passwords on my computers. But I wasn’t TOO concerned about disappointing him.

The interrogation report

Then they gathered my computers and we took off to the police station. I pictured myself telling my grandchildren about how I was brought to the police station totally out of the blue. It felt totally unreal. Unfortunately the policemen assured me I wasn’t dreaming. They agreed it was something to tell my grandchildren nonetheless.

At first they put me in an office where there was an inspector working with some papers. They said I could wait there because they didn’t feel the need to lock me up.

I was obviously very tired after only 3 hours of sleep and sat down comfortably with my legs on another chair. This made the senior police upset and I felt like telling him to screw himself because they were the ones f**king with me and not the other way around. But clearly it would have been no use arguing with a police that was not connected to my case in any other way than baby sitting me in his office.

After some, actually quite good, breakfast at the office they let me know that the investigation needed more time so they had to put me in the remand prison. I had to change to prison clothes and my stuff was gathered by a bored looking guard. He gave me a curious look when he read in the papers that I was in custody suspected of computer hacking. And a second look when he wrote down the contents of my wallet, where I had a condom. Why he found that noteworthy, I don’t want to know. I prefer not to think about what they might try behind the walls of a remand prison.

Case dismissed by the prosecutor

I was put in a little cell with a TV but there was nothing interesting on. The police said they had also visited my parent’s house so I wanted to call my mom to calm her down. I knew she would worry about me so I wanted to tell her there wasn’t really anything to worry about. They didn’t allow that but they let me write a letter (that I never got the time to send).

A couple of hours and a lunch later they came to the cell and I let them know I didn’t have time for this and they said it took longer than expected. They asked me if I wanted a lawyer but I said I didn’t need one. Then they again asked if I allowed the FBI agent to attend to the interrogation and I said sure, why not? There was an interrogation with me, the IT unit police and the FBI agent. Again he asked me if the agent could ask me questions directly in English. Again I said sure.

During the Interrogation they started to look more and more bored as they realized I was not going to confess to anything. They also dropped their tough façade so we could talk in a relaxed manner. And they had forgotten to dim the room and point a bright lamp at my face from the very beginning.

One funny quirk was that the FBI agent was looking through all my CDs during the interrogation and he said that I spelled porn wrong as I had a CD with a Jenna Jameson porn movie on it. I explained that sometimes on the Internet, people spell it pr0n. He said: Oh, like they spell warez?

They asked if my brothers could have done the hacking but I of course said that I trusted them and that they wouldn’t do anything like that. I now realized that they were probably interrogating my brothers as well, but apparently our stories matched, as I knew they would. I mean, even if we had been up to mischief, we’d at least get a matching story prepared, wouldn’t we? They also explained that I was the main suspect because I was the big brother sibling that had been moving out from my parents’ place first.

I did then tell them that one person that had been in our house earlier was into this sort of things. That person was in the same school class as my youngest brother and I didn’t want them to mess with my brother. I was informed that the alleged hacking was done with my father’s dial-up Internet account. They then claimed to have evidence that the hacking had been performed from the house early in the morning but they didn’t push it further once I said that’s not really possible. At the end of the interrogation they had already given up the case and I was released.

The next day at the University, everybody in my class were giving me curious smiles as my friend had told them I missed the exam because of sitting in an interrogation with the FBI. It was kinda funny because they didn’t really know if I really did it or not. Everything was cool and back to normal, except that they still had my computers and it was hard to prepare for the upcoming concert without my studio computers. But I managed it.

PS. It turns out I had an alibi. It appears I was doing the military service as a fire fighter at the time of the crime… Or did I?