Fortune Tiger vs Fortune Rabbit: 10,990 Demo Spins Compared

Two small grids from one drawer

Both machines are PG Soft's answer to the three-reel fruit machine, and each carries one rule on top of its lines. Fortune Tiger keeps nine cells on five fixed lines and adds a respin that picks one symbol at random. The reels are rebuilt from that symbol, the wild and blanks, and they keep spinning while anything new sticks. Whenever all nine cells take part in a win, the spin pays ten times over, on an ordinary spin or at the end of a refill. Fortune Rabbit stretches the middle reel to four cells and runs ten lines over its ten positions. It also prints prize tiles worth half a stake to five hundred, and five or more of them pay their sum. Its feature is a run of eight spins where only tiles can land, with no retrigger behind it.

Sheet figures come from the Game Information documents PG Soft publishes for each game, Fortune Tiger and Fortune Rabbit, both last updated 8 July 2025. The one-in-N figures are our reading, taking each frequency row as triggers per spin. Line pays are the printed coefficients at the stakes our sessions ran, 3.00 and 6.00.

Two logs on one definition

The portal logged Fortune Rabbit on 2 August 2026, 2,624 paid spins at 6.00 on all but one, and Fortune Tiger two days later at a flat 3.00 over 2,825. The odd Fortune Rabbit spin went through at 12.00 after the autoplay stake moved and paid nothing, so the staked total reads 15,750.00, six credits above 2,624 at 6.00. Both logs are read on paid spins alone, so Fortune Spins and respins add nothing to the count. The six-session pools at the foot of the page are summed by money alone. Every distribution, clock and gap in between comes from these two logs, 5,449 paid spins with every spin in the registry. Every share below is money over money on the stakes the wallet actually took. A feature's payout is everything the wallet credited from the stake that opened it to the settlement, the opening spin's own line win included. Both session reports print their registries that way, and everything else the wallet credited counts as base game.

Sources: the session reports FTGR-20260804-01 and FRBT-20260802-01, each on this portal with its checkpoint table. The Fortune Rabbit report also prints 126.58%, which is the same log with its 105 stake-neutral Fortune Spin entries carried on both sides. On paid spins alone it reads 127.65%, and that is the figure the card carries. Fortune Tiger's 63 respins carried no stake and are set aside the same way. The Fortune Rabbit review counts 587 paid spins that paid at the spin itself, a hit frequency of 22.37%. Six of those opened a feature, their own line win sits with the feature on this page, and the base-game rows therefore count 581.

Between the features: a line against a count

The base games are where the two machines look most alike on the surface and least alike in the money. Fortune Tiger paid on one paid spin in four, and seven payouts in ten were worth at least the stake. The cheapest line on its board is a 0.6x row of oranges, and every other line pays the stake or more. Fortune Rabbit paid once in every four and a half spins, with just over half of its payouts smaller than the stake. Three of its seven line symbols pay under a bet on a ten-line board, and a fourth pays exactly one. For the same reason the medians sit apart, with a paying Fortune Tiger spin returning 1.2 stakes in the middle, a single line of oranges or firecrackers. Fortune Rabbit's base game lives on carrots and firecrackers until the tiles line up.

Fortune Rabbit's column counts the 581 paying spins outside its feature windows. Six more opening spins won on their own, and those wins sit with the features by the definition above. Fortune Tiger's respins settle inside the spin that opened them, so its 713 are all of its base-game payouts.

The tail tells the rest, starting with Fortune Tiger's tenfold, which landed sixteen times on ordinary spins, one in 175 of them. Those sixteen screens paid 2,430.00, three tenths of the base game's money from half a percent of its spins. Fortune Rabbit has no multiplier, and its base-game tail is the tiles. A count of five landed on an ordinary spin and paid 732.00, which outpaid fourteen of the fifteen features. One machine keeps its big base-game event behind a rule, whereas the other keeps it behind a count. In these two logs the count paid the larger single spin and the rule paid more often.

The feature: a refill against eight tile spins

Twenty-eight Fortune Tiger refills settled in the log, and eleven of them paid under ten units, less than four stakes. The refill decides most of a feature at the draw, before a held symbol has landed. A drawn orange can't pay more than 90.00 even on a full screen, and a drawn bag pays 300.00 for the same picture. Twelve of the 28 refills ended on a winning full screen and took the tenfold; the other sixteen paid a line or two at face value. The median feature therefore came to 7.2 stakes and the mean to 24.3, and the twelve screens are the whole of that gap.

Fortune Rabbit's fifteen features ran eight spins each on tile-only reels, and the count did the rest. Nothing paid under 2.5 stakes, the median sat at 32.5, and the largest reached 127. The largest came from two spins of one round that carried almost the whole of it. The sheets say the feature should carry a third of Fortune Tiger's return and a quarter of Fortune Rabbit's, 31.85 of 96.81 points against 25.24 of 96.75. Against the money staked, the logged features returned 24.06% on the tiger and 22.27% on the rabbit, under the 31.85 and 25.24 points the sheets price them at. As a share of what came back they were 20.31% and 17.4%, and both base games paid above their sheets, 94.4% and 105.4% of stakes against 64.96 and 71.51 points. On paper the refill is the richer feature of the two by a clear margin. In the sample the median tile feature was four and a half times the median refill, and the refill made up the difference by arriving nearly twice as often.

Two random clocks

Neither machine has a scatter, so both clocks are the studio's own random draw, and the two sheets price them differently. Fortune Tiger's 0.99% row reads as one trigger per 101 spins, and the log landed 28 in 2,825, one per 100.9. It is as close a match as a sample of this size can give, with an exact 95% Poisson interval spanning one per 70 through one per 152. Fortune Rabbit's 0.77% row reads as one per 130, and the log ran slower, 15 in 2,624 or one per 175. Its interval runs one per 106 through one per 313, wide because fifteen events cannot pin a rate.

The gaps between features show what random looks like at this length. Fortune Tiger's ran from one paid spin, two refills back to back, to 496, and ten of the 27 gaps were twenty spins or shorter. Fortune Rabbit's ran from 10 to 586, with the long one sitting between its fifth and sixth features and covering 3,516.00 in stakes. In stake units the two longest waits were 496 bets and 586, so the shorter clock didn't buy a shorter worst case. The observed gaps are consistent with independent random draws and say nothing beyond that (n = 28 and 15).

Six sessions by money

The pool is every session of each build the network has logged, the portal's own and one on each of its two dedicated sites. All ran at the portal's stake, and the pools are summed by money on paid spins. Fortune Tiger's three sessions come to 5,876 spins and 128.37%, and Fortune Rabbit's to 5,114 and 129.02%. All six closed ahead, which says more about six afternoons than about two machines whose sheets print 96.81% and 96.75%.

Sister figures are as published on fortunetigercasino.org, fortunetigerslots.org, fortunerabbitplay.com and fortunerabbitslots.net. The Fortune Tiger sister logs did not count features, so its clock is the portal session's own. The largest results are of different kinds: a single spin on one machine, a feature or a single outcome within one on the other, and the cards carry those labels.

Who each board suits

The two reviews score the machines a fifth of a point apart, 7.0 for Fortune Tiger and 6.8 for Fortune Rabbit, and the gap isn't about the money. Both builds print their paytable, rule and cap, keep the return and the trigger rate in a document on the studio's site, and take the same deduction for it. The fifth of a point is for the refill, which can be watched symbol by symbol, against a count that resolves in one picture.

A player who wants the meter to move picks the tiger, and the log says why. It paid on a quarter of its spins, seven payouts in ten covered the stake, and its longest silence was 19 spins. Its features are small more often than not, and the money arrives in the tenfold screens. Those came 28 times in 2,825 spins and carried 42% of what the log returned. A player who would rather wait for a count picks the rabbit, and the log says why too. Just over half its base-game payouts came in under the stake, one silence ran 37 spins, and one wait between features ran 586. Every one of its features paid at least 2.5 stakes, which the tiger's refills cannot claim. I would expect nothing from either random draw that the sheet doesn't already say, and a short run on either board may hold no feature at all. The deepest falls from a peak were 167 stakes on the tiger and 125 on the rabbit, and neither log is a forecast of the next one.

The full session tables, the frame captions and the rules pages sit with the two reviews, Fortune Tiger and Fortune Rabbit. Both builds run free on the Demo Shelf on the same demo source our sessions used, and 18+ applies there as it does with money.