500jps observation

[TheMission]

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.

Believe me, I won't try and f##k you - I'm not that way inclined! I have not played these for any length of time, but I will try to offer a possible explanation...

Compensated machines change their odds depending on what they have paid out, so if the machine is miles ahead or behind, the chances it offers will reflect this i.e. a 78% pub AWP might not play a game at 78% if someone has just landed a sizeable win. I've recently done a machine on which the chance of a hold is zero if it is behind by more than 50 quid, and this is reflected in the overall percentage return from game to game.

A random machine can, either by manual or automatic methods, have its payout profile changed, but the key thing is that the percentage return from game to game is consistent. I'm referring to the balance of wins to which 'ob' referred to above.

On the original PGS, the operator could select 'hard' or 'soft' profile. I might be wrong, but it sounds like the machines you are referring to switch profiles themselves depending on play i.e. go into attract mode - switch to an 'all or nothing' setup; after a period of continuous play - switch to a s**t load of small wins.

Like I said the key thing is that the mathematical percentage return remains unchanged. This is not true of a compensated machine.

For your example I'll use ob's analogy of a roulette wheel. Suppose I told you that for your first ten games, you were only allowed to bet on single numbers, after that, anything you like. You might be a jammy git and land your 35-1 in those first ten games - you might not. After that you can do any bet you like i.e. Red/Black Even/Odd etc. Mathematically all bets on roulette return the same over time: there is no 'best bet' as such. You can play 'a big win occasionally' or 'small wins a lot'. Percentage wise they are identical.

Anyone confused? I am!

[trayhop123]

glad thats all sorted then














now was that random sarcasm or percentagd based?

[TheMission]

It never is sorted though. Someone will always come along and kick it off again! Anyway, JG: will send you those stats. You understand I need to do a bit of blanking out of manu/model/symbols for commercial reasons.

[cashino]

[quote="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]

It was qualified 'experts' like yourself that 'tested', manufactured and marketed Thalidomide in the 1960's.......

[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]

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!

Then we meet on common ground at last. 'Twist' indeed, and thus not properly random to the mathematical purist and the player both....

[jonnyg323]

Precisely!! How can a machine be truly random in the purest sense when it has a %? It must just be how it goes about compensating which is random. Can we all agree on this?

[mr lugsy]

i'll agree that its time to file this one away until the next time. thanx to all for their input. 1 more point i'd like to add is that manufacturers could be more responsible with claims on machines, 100 % random, 50/50 rpt chance, and my own favourite the "cash full" light, spring to mind.

[RUDE]

I sort of agree.

Any machine or game can be random AND have an anticipated percentage payout (roulette was given as an example). Instead of having changes of winning shown as odds eg. 19/20 they are represented as percentages (95%). So, showing a percentage payout doesn't mean the machine ISN'T random.

However, if a machine changes the chances of winning on every spin, although the result of that spin is still random, the machine isn't 'truely' random as it's manipulating odds to play toward a percentage.

When we go back to our rouleltte example we see that this IS TRUELY RANDOM as the odds are the same on every spin (even if, say, someone had the table maximum come in on the same number 3 times in a row).

Would an S16 extend the odds if someone got 3 pots?? If, like myself, you believe it would then surely this would prove that, although it's got random elements to the game, it isn't 100% random.

In PMKs example with slotto, if the machine starts at 50% and wants to get upto 94% quickly it will simply increase the odds of getting a JP on each spin. Each spin continues to be random but the machine will modify the odds of a big win to keep it close to its target%.

This is what I understand as "controlled randomness" and seems to be a popular opinion on here.

This is, of course, only my opnion. The experiences are real but without seeing the code I don't know (although I suspect) this is actually what happens.

[mrdave]

I can't think of any other form of consumer spending where so much money is turned over yet no-one knows the EXACT details of how these machines work, and payout percentages correlate to randomness.

Between just a small number of posters on here we must have spend many thousands between us on these S16 or B3 machines without knowing with any certainty the definition of random, nor do the machine owners or manufactuers feel any desire to fully explain to us.

Scary thought!

[TheMission]

I can't think of any other form of consumer spending where so much money is turned over yet no-one knows the EXACT details of how these machines work, and payout percentages correlate to randomness.

Between just a small number of posters on here we must have spend many thousands between us on these S16 or B3 machines without knowing with any certainty the definition of random, nor do the machine owners or manufactuers feel any desire to fully explain to us.

Scary thought!

I must have imagined typing my previous posts in this thread then, along with all the others that have gone before.

What all these threads have demonstrated it that people believe what they want to believe, and no amount of factual information will ever change that. They ask for the information, then just stick their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la, la, can't hear you."

One more time.....

The mathematical chance of spinning a coin and getting heads is 0.5 (50%). After one spin, it will either have landed heads (giving 100% success) or tails (0% success). Does it now change the chance of landing heads on future spins to get back to the target 50%? No, it doesn't. But after 1 million spins you can be certain it'll have landed heads not far off 500,000 times i.e. 50%. So how did it work to that percentage and still be random, after starting at 0 or 100?

Thank you and good night

[RUDE]

Well actually what I said is exactly correct and there is no room for speculation because I said it which makes it FACT.

Anyone who disagrees with me is obviously an idiot with his brain up his arse, not a real player and has the intelligence of a small root vegetable.

I am fruit machine guru, a god of machine coding, you must all bow down before me and agree with my theory because there can be only one...MINE!

Right, that's it! We've all decided that I'm right and everyone else is wrong (for no other reason than 'I said so').

So no more crackpot theories based on nothing more than "Experience", "Experimentation" and "Research"...losers!

[cashino]

I can't think of any other form of consumer spending where so much money is turned over yet no-one knows the EXACT details of how these machines work, and payout percentages correlate to randomness.

Between just a small number of posters on here we must have spend many thousands between us on these S16 or B3 machines without knowing with any certainty the definition of random, nor do the machine owners or manufactuers feel any desire to fully explain to us.

Scary thought!

I must have imagined typing my previous posts in this thread then, along with all the others that have gone before.

What all these threads have demonstrated it that people believe what they want to believe, and no amount of factual information will ever change that. They ask for the information, then just stick their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la, la, can't hear you."

One more time.....

The mathematical chance of spinning a coin and getting heads is 0.5 (50%). After one spin, it will either have landed heads (giving 100% success) or tails (0% success). Does it now change the chance of landing heads on future spins to get back to the target 50%? No, it doesn't. But after 1 million spins you can be certain it'll have landed heads not far off 500,000 times i.e. 50%. So how did it work to that percentage and still be random, after starting at 0 or 100?

Thank you and good night

Right, after agreeing I'm gonna chucka big spanner in the works You mention roulette randomimity, what you haven't mentioned (a fucking big part of the argument!!!!) is that YES! it would pay 97.2% out over a period of time IN NUMERICAL ODDS, but UNLIKE s16 machines the stake is NOT the same for every spin, and the calculation assumes every number is backed over time with an equal amount of cash. If 37 players all stick a quid on and one wins obviously, yes the house makes 2.8%
But if we bet black next spin for 1k and it comes up, the house is minus a huge percentage.

Only savants like me seem to understand the impact of the third dimension in odds, TIME, it comes up in lottery sequences from new lotteries around the world, called the 'xxxx effect' (can't remember the bugger's name)
Anyway your example above says no spin affects the next, they are all random 50% chances, but becasue YOU imposed a million spin limit, if the first 450000 spins were all heads (I know there isn't that many atoms in the visible universe...!) then tails would have IN YOUR EXAMPLE a TEN-TIMES higher chance of coming out thereafter, NOT 50-50!
And the machines do NOT have an infinite period to pay their percentage out, therefore at certain spins the previous history MUST HAVE AN EFFECT ON SUBSEQUENT SPINS AND DON'T TRY TO GET OUT OF THAT ONE BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID IT YOURSELF BASICALLY!!

[mr lugsy]

cashino , you are wasted on fruit machines ,you should host question time or indeed seek a more interlectual profession me thinks. i have read some of your other posts ,are you still concerned with machineguard? or have you got to the bottom of this one?

[borgcontact4]

I am sorry but I have to have a smile and small chuckle to myself reading these posts. OK i am a coder for a manufacturer and have tried to point out that random and what manufacturers understanding of random differ to some extent.
Let me take you back to a basic fruit machine, mechanical, three reels with a fixed number of fruit symbols lets us say 16 different symbols. The handle is pulled and the wheels free spin, 16 positions each reel can stop on.
Now at this point one can see that if the reel does free spin without any influence then it is like a roulette wheel 16 spaces so lets just assume friction cogs etc have no bearing.
Now by creating a payout table with say one cherry on the first reel is a small win. Here the second and third reel don't come into it.
So if you want to pay out for one cherry then the number of cherries on the first reel matter for calculating the frequency of landing. One cherry 16-1, 2 cherries 8-1, 4 cherries 4-1.
Now if one expands this across the three reels with the odds increasing and decreasing depending on how many win symbols and combinations can occur then one can see that with a true random set of spinning reels one can have a percentage payout.
The first company I worked for was AFD in 1976 and we had a machine called ******. I was given the maths table, which was a print out that was on A4 paper but was 10inchs high. It was quite something then let me tell you.
OK to move on to when stepper motors were introduced, they are motors that control the reels, free running, was no longer!!!. Manipulation was now available to interested design and manufacturers.
I won't attempt to go into detail regards features but to keep it simple one can set a machine to whatever payout percentage one wants in any form.

Now Bar X was the first machine that produced an enriched period. All this did was store up in a bank a small amount from each credit and at a pre-programmed point , would then release this bank in varying amounts to the normal wins cycle. A player who stumbled into this period is rewarded handsomely. Like hitting pay dirt.
Now its does not take too much to imagine what this sort of thing will do. The players love it the arcade owners love it and the manufacturer loves it, but the powers to be, government powers don't. So now they have the power to stop it under the act of 2005 introduced last year.
We and all other manufacturers cannot produce machines with enriched periods. We must use a random number generator which is approved and we must not compensate a £500 machine. We can however compensate a £35.00 machine but we must say it is compensated. If we make a random £35 machine then we must say it is random and it has to be approved again.
So in a nutshell the Gaming Act will work in favour of joe public. The Act will not help in any way shape or form help semi or pro players, it works against them. Now the manufacturers know only too well that we need to keep all the players we can, so it is a challenge.
Anyway hope I have helped a little but just one point for cashino a Casino will not let you bet 1K on the Roulette outside board, they are not stupid, inside bets and outside table bets are controlled so the point is you are right. But wrong!!
Hope i have helped a tad.

[mr lugsy]

enlightenning stuff borg ,but there is no need to panic pros and core players with the new law and rules for new machines .there are enough legacy machines out there on sites and in arcades as well as vast warehouses holding many thousands of second hand cabinets,for the player to rest assured that the awp will be around for many years to come.