500jps observation

[RUDE]

[Please explain sir how a S16 manual would be copied from a 'compensated' machine.

I bought the Slotto about 6 months before 'compensated' (B3) machines started turning up so short of a psychic manual-writer I'm not sure how this would happen.

I do understand JG's explaination and was always under the impression that this was how S16's worked. However, if a machine can modify the odds to help it meet percentage (which mine and PMK's experimentation goes a long way toward proving) then it's 'controlled randomness' (which can never be called truely random.

Ok I will. The reference to percentage control within the original Slotto manual came under the section regarding doing a full RAM clear. It's called copy and paste.

I've done my block in time and time again here trying to explain random machines. It seems years of the existence of casinos isn't enough for some. I'll say it again: try listening to someone who's actually done the maths and coded such machines, rather than listening to urban legend. Believe me it's a damn sight more reliable.

I have every respect for your opinion, however, I can state, catagorically, that after a RAM reset, the percentae payout on a v1.3 (It think) Slotto DOES go back to 50% (it says so on the screen in test mode!)

[TheMission]

[Please explain sir how a S16 manual would be copied from a 'compensated' machine.

I bought the Slotto about 6 months before 'compensated' (B3) machines started turning up so short of a psychic manual-writer I'm not sure how this would happen.

I do understand JG's explaination and was always under the impression that this was how S16's worked. However, if a machine can modify the odds to help it meet percentage (which mine and PMK's experimentation goes a long way toward proving) then it's 'controlled randomness' (which can never be called truely random.

Ok I will. The reference to percentage control within the original Slotto manual came under the section regarding doing a full RAM clear. It's called copy and paste.

I've done my block in time and time again here trying to explain random machines. It seems years of the existence of casinos isn't enough for some. I'll say it again: try listening to someone who's actually done the maths and coded such machines, rather than listening to urban legend. Believe me it's a damn sight more reliable.

I have every respect for your opinion, however, I can state, catagorically, that after a RAM reset, the percentae payout on a v1.3 (It think) Slotto DOES go back to 50% (it says so on the screen in test mode!)

A screen shot please.

[TheMission]

Machines with 500 jackpots that WERE truly random would be too dangerous for player and arcade.

You mean like that well dodgy 'roulette' thing that they have in casinos. Christ on a bike, what are you on?

[ob]

Machines with 500 jackpots that WERE truly random would be too dangerous for player and arcade.

You mean like that well dodgy 'roulette' thing that they have in casinos. Christ on a bike, what are you on?

Yes I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree totally here, do you not realise that a truely random machine on a 90/92% payout would be EXTREMELY unlikely to run to a loss over a month, it would not be at all dangerous for the arcade.

What I THINK you fail to understand is that a machine on 90/92% payout on £1/£500jp, the random chance of the jp, is PROBABLY (yeh I'm pulling figures out my head but it will be something huge believe me) something in the region of 1/1million, or at least 1/100000, the chance then of multiple jp's in a week is VERY REMOTE.

Ok here comes the maths part:

Random games with a target percentage of 92% statistically will have an average payout of 92% and the range of possible values it actually pays out will have a normal distribution with a mean of 92% and a deviation based on the distribution of wins, if there are more high value wins on the payout scedule (ie. hard setting), there will be a larger deviation, more smaller wins on the payout schedule (ie. soft setting), there will be a smaller deviation.

Just to be clear here is a hard setting (ie £1 a spin): (1-10 integer like JG's example)

1: lose
2: lose
3: lose
4: lose
5: lose
6: lose
7: lose
8: lose
9: lose
10: win £9.20

Extremely soft:

1: win 92p 2: win 92p etc.etc. every number winning 92p.... obviously no one is gonna play a machine on this setting, I'm simply using it to show a hard vs soft setting

Obviously machines will be running on billions of numbers not 10, but this makes no difference whatsoever.

Anyhow, on a soft setting I can imagine the chance of the machine running to over 100%, over £10K of credits played is somewhere in the 0.01 - 0.02 % chance. On a hard setting perhaps 1% at most. With 4 machines in an arcade, there will be literally no chance more than 1 is paying over 100%.

Right I am prepared you are going to rubbish this, and might I add I have a maths based degree, so I know what I'm talking about on this score.

Roulette is TRUELY random and pays to 97.2% ( or 98.6% on casinos with red/black ), and yet do they have losses over the month on it?!?!? no!

Just understand please one thing... random games WILL reach the percentage or NEAR it, eventually, if as an arcade owner you understand this, you can take the occasional loss on a particular machine one week, as another week it may totally take the piss and pay way under 92%...

OK and finally I'm saying all this ASSUMING THE MACHINES WERE RANDOM, I'm not refering to actual machines.

[borgcontact4]

Sorry to add to this cauldron but I believe this needs to be understood. All machines in Nevada, and there are quite a few are truly RANDOM. That is to say when you play one credit off you are faced with the possible outcome of a jackpot, doesn't matter if its $50 or MegaSlots $25,000,000 jp.
Now I ask you, are their Casinos in fear of random machines?
I pick Nevada as they were the first territory in the world to introduce gaming standards and test machines for RNG's.
Let me just say, I have prepared, for my company, a machine for USA , New Jersey, actually, and the RNG I used, was not considered to be sufficient for their standards. Let me say, it was a Bill Gates RNG, yes, Windows, and it is a very decent RNG, but not good enough for the testing laboratory in USA.
I also see earning from various UK test locations and confirm that Section 16 machines would with regularity produce a adverse for the arcade on a weekly basis but they all know that as it was RANDOM, I don't think, they accepted it and had a right beano. Now all the fuss is about getting back to £2.00 stake, it wont help them as we have seen the end of enriched periods. I think we could have a new post on enriched periods which may help explain some of the misconceptions being aired. I can take this way further as the truth is always more difficult to believe than peoples beliefs.

[JG]

As a slight diversion.

To Casino,

I think you misunderstood my explanation of changing stake chages percentage. I was implying in each case that there were ten possible outcomes which could be selected at random, it was not demonstrative of a block of outcomes that would be played in sequence by the machine. It was an illustration that you can have 'truly random' in a game that has a 'target percentage' and a 'changing target percentage' with 'changing stakes'.


Let's put it another way. I have a non weighted die. For £1, I will let you throw the die fairly and squarely and if you roll a SIX, I will pay you £3.
However if you stake £2 with me, on the roll of the die, if you roll a SIX, I will pay you £10.

On the '£1 stake' I am giving you a return of £3/£6 or 3/6*100(%)

On the '£2 stake' I am giving you a return of £10/£12 or 10/12*100(%)


Both staked games are random, truly random and both pay different percentages. It would not mean the first game were 'compensated' if I were to say it had a target percentage of 50% payout. Neither, if you were lucky enough to roll SIX, say five times out of six throws, would it imply a pre-programmed 'streak'.



This case is progressing very pleasantly. It seems we have a wealth of evidence which we can investigate from both The Mission and borgcontact. However, it seems the case in point at the moment is the claimed 50% payout start out screen on Slotto Test mode. What is the meaning of this? Please, I hope a picture can be provided.

[RUDE]

Sadly a pic isn't possible as I no longer have the machine.

I'm sure regular posters here (PMK, Dunhamzzz, PAR, GaryChandler etc.) who know me (and may have seen said Slotto) will support what I'm saying as fact...why would I lie???

It was interesting to experiment with but due to a severe lack of gameplay I sold it again quickly so I didn't lose too much money.

[jonnyg323]

I try not to get involved with these topics for a very good reason - i detest cat B machines in every way, and wish the gambling act hadnt happened...but this is another story.

Could it be that your definition of random is wrong? Allow me to explain.

Yes, the machines work to a percentage. Over a long period of time, they will pay out 92%. So that means to an extent they cannot be "random" in the sense that this will affect the way they play overall.

BUT, is it not the case that they could be random in a smaller time-scale, i.e. a day. If i can explain. Imagine you're playing a DOND - the machine wishes to compensate you after youve put in a good deal of money, so you get to the superboard and it intends to pay you £105. It has two methods of doing this - either through repeating cash values endlessly or a mega streak. Is it not the case that it is random as to whether it gives it through either method?

So maybe, just maybe, these machines are random in the sense that you could win £500 on cashino thru a feature, or thru a full screen. Random in that, although you know that a machine WILL at some stage have to make its target payout, it will do it in a random fashion? In other words..the RNG has several codes which will make it spin in big wins or features. Lets say for arguments sake there are 10000 ways it can award a jackpot total amount within 10 spins. It can either give a full-screen and thus pay out altogether, or could draw it out, giving £50 x 10. Maybe it is random AS TO WHICH WAY IT MEETS IT TARGET PAYOUTS [excuse caps...just to emphasise what I am saying!].

To sum up what is a complicated post, here is my idea.

1) A machine MUST meet a target payout.
2) If a machine, over a very long period of time, has gone below its target by a significant degree, it will have to pay out a lot to make up for this.
3) Maybe IT IS RANDOM AS TO WHICH WAY IT CHOOSES TO MEET THIS. It could be within 100 spins, giving £5 wins every time, or within 300 spins, simply giving away 1 full screen and lots more smaller wins. or it could just pay out two jackpots one after the other. It could be random in the way it goes about meeting its percentages.

So maybe thats wat they mean. Not random in the sense that it could lose the arcade shiteloads of money, but random in the way it makes its target payouts.

Phew - that was a long 'un! Thats me out, i never again want to get involved with this!

[cashino]

I try not to get involved with these topics for a very good reason - i detest cat B machines in every way, and wish the gambling act hadnt happened...but this is another story.

Could it be that your definition of random is wrong? Allow me to explain.

Yes, the machines work to a percentage. Over a long period of time, they will pay out 92%. So that means to an extent they cannot be "random" in the sense that this will affect the way they play overall.

BUT, is it not the case that they could be random in a smaller time-scale, i.e. a day. If i can explain. Imagine you're playing a DOND - the machine wishes to compensate you after youve put in a good deal of money, so you get to the superboard and it intends to pay you £105. It has two methods of doing this - either through repeating cash values endlessly or a mega streak. Is it not the case that it is random as to whether it gives it through either method?

So maybe, just maybe, these machines are random in the sense that you could win £500 on cashino thru a feature, or thru a full screen. Random in that, although you know that a machine WILL at some stage have to make its target payout, it will do it in a random fashion? In other words..the RNG has several codes which will make it spin in big wins or features. Lets say for arguments sake there are 10000 ways it can award a jackpot total amount within 10 spins. It can either give a full-screen and thus pay out altogether, or could draw it out, giving £50 x 10. Maybe it is random AS TO WHICH WAY IT MEETS IT TARGET PAYOUTS [excuse caps...just to emphasise what I am saying!].

To sum up what is a complicated post, here is my idea.

1) A machine MUST meet a target payout.
2) If a machine, over a very long period of time, has gone below its target by a significant degree, it will have to pay out a lot to make up for this.
3) Maybe IT IS RANDOM AS TO WHICH WAY IT CHOOSES TO MEET THIS. It could be within 100 spins, giving £5 wins every time, or within 300 spins, simply giving away 1 full screen and lots more smaller wins. or it could just pay out two jackpots one after the other. It could be random in the way it goes about meeting its percentages.

So maybe thats wat they mean. Not random in the sense that it could lose the arcade shiteloads of money, but random in the way it makes its target payouts.

Phew - that was a long 'un! Thats me out, i never again want to get involved with this!

I see your point, but it is contradictory, because by your very example the percentage-meet period is finite, governed by number of spins, as indeed it has to be for the benefit of both player and owners. The roulette percentage is not finite, indeed it may never meet the 97.2%, up or down, statistically possible.
This means by your argument, and ALL the others in favour of the alleged randomness, that the outcome of a spin most certainly CAN AND WILL be affected by a previous one. Yes, our UK 'random' software would NEVER pass US scrutiny!
In all your examples you put (for arguments sake admittedly!) the last 'spin' (or RNG selection haha!) as a win to 'cap' your mathematical example off so the wins add up to what figure you exemplify to be the 'set percentage'.
This means that the previous spin being winless meant that the next one HAD to be a win.
Not truly random therefore!
I think to summarize it's best to agree to disagree; the machines have CONTROLLED randomimity! We argue the CONTROL is obvious, you lot argue the RANDOMIMITY it obvious!

[TheMission]

What never ceases to amaze me on this forum is how, whenever this topic rears it head, half-baked "I reckon cause I played one for half an hour" theories appear. I notice that requests to see my stats for a production S16 are conspicuous by their absence. I was prepared to put my money where my mouth is on that one - and suddenly the conspiracy theorists have gone strangely silent.

The first S16 I produced dropped a £500 jackpot within four hours of being put on site. As a result its percentage payout remained well over 100 for weeks. £10k through a S16 was bugger all: 5000 games at £2 a go. As a comparison, clubbers were meant to be evaluated over 100,000 games for a true picture.

ob - I must say your example of jackpots demonstrates where you are not seeing the whole picture. They are generated by a 'pre-spin' random decision (typically about 1/10000 or less), but most importantly, NOT affected by past payouts - and therein lies the difference. A S16/random Cat B3 doesn't give a toss about its past payouts; a compensated machine does.

Anyway, my offer still stands. All I can say once again is this: been there, done that. Done stats, done C/C++ code, produced machines. They WERE random. I am hoping that at some point someone, somewhere, will see that as carrying a little more credence than 'the bloke down the pub.'

[dav777]

Ow my head hurts, so can i still bang a tenner in these in the attempt of a jp? oh ok i think i will...

[mr lugsy]

suppose you got the t shirt aswell ,...just a joke , perhaps you could shed light on my original question before this all went sideways, i have observed on our elvis and a nearby arena elvis that a jpt seems to come in an unexplainable ammount of times by any random hypothesis,early in a play session ,twice with my own eyes ive seen this "phenomenon"1st cred, once more by a close friend with witnesses and again buy a regular punter who was gobsmacked.... at least another 6 times i can recall while playing on 50p ihave dropped 125 within a fiver.3 times 500 with 20 pounds ,ihave surveiled cctv for hours uncountable and make a point of watching this machine when anybody walks up to it,many many times ive seen a quick hit pay off on this machine,.....but rarely does it drop the biggun when played for a greater ammount of time even when wads go in. have i indeed seen an improbable long odds occurrence or maybe there is something else about this machine ? i hope you dont try to f##k me with your obvious knowledge of machine code and mathematics,as these are true accounts with more than "a couple of hours" study gone in.

[JG]

The Mission can you PM whatever it was you were offerring to PM a while ago please. I'll cast my eye over it and see what is what. Many thanks.


GR

[jonnyg323]

I try not to get involved with these topics for a very good reason - i detest cat B machines in every way, and wish the gambling act hadnt happened...but this is another story.

Could it be that your definition of random is wrong? Allow me to explain.

Yes, the machines work to a percentage. Over a long period of time, they will pay out 92%. So that means to an extent they cannot be "random" in the sense that this will affect the way they play overall.

BUT, is it not the case that they could be random in a smaller time-scale, i.e. a day. If i can explain. Imagine you're playing a DOND - the machine wishes to compensate you after youve put in a good deal of money, so you get to the superboard and it intends to pay you £105. It has two methods of doing this - either through repeating cash values endlessly or a mega streak. Is it not the case that it is random as to whether it gives it through either method?

So maybe, just maybe, these machines are random in the sense that you could win £500 on cashino thru a feature, or thru a full screen. Random in that, although you know that a machine WILL at some stage have to make its target payout, it will do it in a random fashion? In other words..the RNG has several codes which will make it spin in big wins or features. Lets say for arguments sake there are 10000 ways it can award a jackpot total amount within 10 spins. It can either give a full-screen and thus pay out altogether, or could draw it out, giving £50 x 10. Maybe it is random AS TO WHICH WAY IT MEETS IT TARGET PAYOUTS [excuse caps...just to emphasise what I am saying!].

To sum up what is a complicated post, here is my idea.

1) A machine MUST meet a target payout.
2) If a machine, over a very long period of time, has gone below its target by a significant degree, it will have to pay out a lot to make up for this.
3) Maybe IT IS RANDOM AS TO WHICH WAY IT CHOOSES TO MEET THIS. It could be within 100 spins, giving £5 wins every time, or within 300 spins, simply giving away 1 full screen and lots more smaller wins. or it could just pay out two jackpots one after the other. It could be random in the way it goes about meeting its percentages.

So maybe thats wat they mean. Not random in the sense that it could lose the arcade shiteloads of money, but random in the way it makes its target payouts.

Phew - that was a long 'un! Thats me out, i never again want to get involved with this!

I see your point, but it is contradictory, because by your very example the percentage-meet period is finite, governed by number of spins, as indeed it has to be for the benefit of both player and owners. The roulette percentage is not finite, indeed it may never meet the 97.2%, up or down, statistically possible.
This means by your argument, and ALL the others in favour of the alleged randomness, that the outcome of a spin most certainly CAN AND WILL be affected by a previous one. Yes, our UK 'random' software would NEVER pass US scrutiny!
In all your examples you put (for arguments sake admittedly!) the last 'spin' (or RNG selection haha!) as a win to 'cap' your mathematical example off so the wins add up to what figure you exemplify to be the 'set percentage'.
This means that the previous spin being winless meant that the next one HAD to be a win.
Not truly random therefore!
I think to summarize it's best to agree to disagree]

Cashino, i think you have missed my point somewhat. I wasnt arguing against compensated play at all; in fact my arguments point towards it! In that sense, we agree that it DOES affect the way the machine plays.

What i was trying to get at was that it is the way in which the machine goes about compensating which is random. A clever twist of the word by the manus perhaps!

[JG]

I understand and have made the same point in my much earlier 'Vivid's Card Shark is random' posting.

The fact that many s16s stated 'this machine is 100% random' implies total randominity. I suppose if it was 100% random it could turn into an elephant at any time. I haven't heard any reports of this, but you never know. All a big tax haven for a while wasn't it? I think a few manufacturers went totally random, and a few had an element of control. I think that's the proper story isn't it? wasn't it? Eh?