borgcontact: 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.
So roulette odds are NOT totally random then!!
The casino 'manipulates' them via the stake:return ratio, for their protection........ermmmmmm....just like we ranscepts were suggesting the machines do too.............d'oh!
500jps observation
-
TheMission
- Senior Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
WHAT? That must be the biggest pile of bollocks I have ever read on here. Do you actually understand anything about mathematics? People like you are a danger to themselves when it comes to gambling. I afraid you'll find that S16s DID have an infinite period to pay their percentage, unlike S34 AWPs and clubbers.cashino wrote: 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!!
I didn't impose a million spin limit - I was demonstrating how the running percentage closes in on the theoretical figure the more spins you make. And like I said before, I've been there and done it. If you can't accept that, you're a bloody idiot.
OMG!!!!! this is SO fucking stupid it's obscence... RANDOM GAMES, be they roulette, slots, whatever have a average percentage of xx%... THEY DO NOT TRY AND REACH THIS PERCENTAGE OVER A SET AMOUNT OF SPINS/CASH... THIS IS JUST AN AVERAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HENCE PAST RESULTS HAVE NO RELEVENCE TO FUTURE GAMES!!!!
I can't believe people are so stupid to STILL not understand this BASIC concept.
I can't believe people are so stupid to STILL not understand this BASIC concept.
Why does everyone who disagree's with certain opinions be:
"A Bloody Idiot"
"Fu**ing Stupid"
etc.
This is a forum for sharing ideas and experiences. Unless you have absolut 100% proof that you're right then, please by all means share your ideas but don't slag off those who don't agree.
Stop it with the attitude, it makes you look childish and doesn't do your argument ANY favours.
"A Bloody Idiot"
"Fu**ing Stupid"
etc.
This is a forum for sharing ideas and experiences. Unless you have absolut 100% proof that you're right then, please by all means share your ideas but don't slag off those who don't agree.
Stop it with the attitude, it makes you look childish and doesn't do your argument ANY favours.
Forgive the little dears, they swear when they are on the back foot, after all THEY are the only people on here who have a knowledge of mathematics, and this should be accompanied by a good parallel of logic, but they can't see the 'wood for the trees' and their limit of logic causes frustration. These 'flat-worlders' are merely expressing their self-doubt in their once-steadfast beliefs, by swearing. Let them be.ChangingStakeCancelsHold wrote:Why does everyone who disagree's with certain opinions be:
"A Bloody Idiot"
"Fu**ing Stupid"
etc.
This is a forum for sharing ideas and experiences. Unless you have absolut 100% proof that you're right then, please by all means share your ideas but don't slag off those who don't agree.
Stop it with the attitude, it makes you look childish and doesn't do your argument ANY favours.
Makes me laugh the trap I just got them into about 'randomimity'.
I pointed out the casino possibilities, they then responded "the casino wouldn't allow 1k bets outside the ring" so they ADMIT collectively that for the insurance against unnatural losses that the casino payout is 'compensated' effectively, or limited (practically.)
A casino, short term, can afford payouts of tens/hundreds of thousands AND YET SAFEGUARDS THEMSELVES!
And then with another breath they tell us that sec16's etc. , placed in many poxy back-street arcades with relatively small profits/turnovers are totally random and NOT limited in a similar way to protect the operators, as roulette is in casinos?????
No logic. Nonsense.
Sorry to descend to their level, but BOLLOCKS!!
If that were the case, how come on £2 spin Riches say you could win 500 gold pot on one spin, but not on the next spin as this 'random' machine resets it to £250?? Thus the previous spin has affected the possible outcome of the next one, or is that too simple for you to see?ob wrote:OMG!!!!! this is SO fucking stupid it's obscence... RANDOM GAMES, be they roulette, slots, whatever have a average percentage of xx%... THEY DO NOT TRY AND REACH THIS PERCENTAGE OVER A SET AMOUNT OF SPINS/CASH... THIS IS JUST AN AVERAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HENCE PAST RESULTS HAVE NO RELEVENCE TO FUTURE GAMES!!!!
I can't believe people are so stupid to STILL not understand this BASIC concept. (or how to spell 'relevance' lol...)
LOL UY
jonny out, have a nice argument lads.dmac wrote:This discussion is painful.
OB give up fella, you know you're right - it's not worth it.
I don't think it's painful at all. I think it's interesting to hear other peoples opinions.
Obviously I have mine which I believe to be true. Others will have theirs.
It's not the subject that's the problem, it's the serious attitude people like 'ob' and 'the mission' have when people disagree with their, equally speculative, opinions.
Yours is little better telling ob to 'give up because he knows he's right'. Imagine if this approch was taken in political debate "oh give up Gordon, David's obviously a fu**ing idiot and is too thick to understand your policies"....see my point??
It's a shame that quite an interesting thread has been ruined by abusive, agressive and immature posts by a small number of members who can't accept others points of view.
I'm going to sound like I'm playing for the '100% random' brigade again, but,
i) The pot could go down to £250 and still the machine could be operating within the ethos of S16. It just means the odds of getting golds on a spin have to be refactored. This is not compensating the game, as each spin is still a seperate entity so to speak. It is pushing the boundaries of the genre. You could jump on after the £500 gold has gone and get the £250 pot and feel you were cheated as the previous spins had reduced your profit. If the machine was playing totally fair then you had MORE CHANCE of landing the £250 than if it was at £500, so horses for courses....
ii) Imposing house limits on betting is not the same compensation as, say, a Frenzy starting the bonus on 'taxi' as it is due a 'streak'. The limits are there to start off with and do not change with player win frequency.
To re-iterate my position on this. I have no proof that s16s were rigged. I have a handful of stories, most hearsay, one with 'interesting' results witnessed. As a result I am prepared to suggest that cms games are not as '100% random' as perhaps they should be. As for the other manufacturers? Who knows? Although I suspect, I get an inkling Barcrest s16s weren't quite as 100% random as they should have been either. This is speculation, but I do love a good conspiracy theory. I'll elaborate later if the thread goes in that direction.
There are also few ways we could attack s16s with regard to the law they operate within.
Example: 8 Liner. Each line is supposed to be a seperate line, a seperate entity, entirely unaffected by any other line. If I'm lucky enough to get bars on line one, bars on line two, I have jackpot. Hardly 'independent' lines are they? I suppose they get around it by saying 'the independent events' are generated within the machine, not within the context of the reels, and the reels, be they video or analogue are just a sum representation of the final, total result of your bet(s). Sailing close to the wind, but they could have had s16 Road Hoggs, Andy Capps back in the '90s, took them a while to think of it! Even s16 Super Nudge Gamblers? Maybe. Not sure.
If the machine were 100% random, I strongly disagree that a run of player jackpots would scare off operators. I suspect that some machines are not truly random as within this type of game, it totally enhances the ability to 'mess' with a player's mind and 'suck him in' thereby generating more play. Just my hunch.
Any news on that Pm yet Mission?
i) The pot could go down to £250 and still the machine could be operating within the ethos of S16. It just means the odds of getting golds on a spin have to be refactored. This is not compensating the game, as each spin is still a seperate entity so to speak. It is pushing the boundaries of the genre. You could jump on after the £500 gold has gone and get the £250 pot and feel you were cheated as the previous spins had reduced your profit. If the machine was playing totally fair then you had MORE CHANCE of landing the £250 than if it was at £500, so horses for courses....
ii) Imposing house limits on betting is not the same compensation as, say, a Frenzy starting the bonus on 'taxi' as it is due a 'streak'. The limits are there to start off with and do not change with player win frequency.
To re-iterate my position on this. I have no proof that s16s were rigged. I have a handful of stories, most hearsay, one with 'interesting' results witnessed. As a result I am prepared to suggest that cms games are not as '100% random' as perhaps they should be. As for the other manufacturers? Who knows? Although I suspect, I get an inkling Barcrest s16s weren't quite as 100% random as they should have been either. This is speculation, but I do love a good conspiracy theory. I'll elaborate later if the thread goes in that direction.
There are also few ways we could attack s16s with regard to the law they operate within.
Example: 8 Liner. Each line is supposed to be a seperate line, a seperate entity, entirely unaffected by any other line. If I'm lucky enough to get bars on line one, bars on line two, I have jackpot. Hardly 'independent' lines are they? I suppose they get around it by saying 'the independent events' are generated within the machine, not within the context of the reels, and the reels, be they video or analogue are just a sum representation of the final, total result of your bet(s). Sailing close to the wind, but they could have had s16 Road Hoggs, Andy Capps back in the '90s, took them a while to think of it! Even s16 Super Nudge Gamblers? Maybe. Not sure.
If the machine were 100% random, I strongly disagree that a run of player jackpots would scare off operators. I suspect that some machines are not truly random as within this type of game, it totally enhances the ability to 'mess' with a player's mind and 'suck him in' thereby generating more play. Just my hunch.
Any news on that Pm yet Mission?
-
borgcontact4
Excuse me for having to point this out again but all known Section 16 machines were not, WERE NOT, random. They all adjusted the random number generator. This is a fact and can be easily verified shown by playing the machine over a period of time, not hours. Will you please wake up to the fact the manufacturers do this. And will you please understand that this is now not done on B3 machines.
Read the Technical Standards posted on the gaming Commission site.
Read the Technical Standards posted on the gaming Commission site.
-
mr lugsy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5776
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:19 pm
- Location: looking over your shoulder
- Contact:
do the old s16 video cabinets e.g pts have a virtual reel band that they generate a landing position on the screen from? or did they generate a completely random screen of symbols from the entire possible outcome every game?
on pts rarely do you see melons in any significant quantity ,though they are only 2 bucks for 5 of them ,on this point i am sure a run on melons is unlikely. it seems very unlucky indeed . are some of the possible outcomes un used? if so who is behind this ?
on pts rarely do you see melons in any significant quantity ,though they are only 2 bucks for 5 of them ,on this point i am sure a run on melons is unlikely. it seems very unlucky indeed . are some of the possible outcomes un used? if so who is behind this ?
-
TheMission
- Senior Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
Could you please explain exactly how my opinion can be "speculative" when I have been doing the stats and writing the code for production S16s/random Cat B3s for three years?ChangingStakeCancelsHold wrote:It's not the subject that's the problem, it's the serious attitude people like 'ob' and 'the mission' have when people disagree with their, equally speculative, opinions.
Fail. I know of S16s that were. I wrote them.borgcontact4 wrote: Excuse me for having to point this out again but all known Section 16 machines were not, WERE NOT, random.
With that one statement you demonstrate your utter stupidity. It doesn't matter how much you bet. Forget 'table limits'. The percentage is the ratio of payout/stake. Double the stake, you double the payout. The ratio (and therefore the percentage) is EXACTLY THE SAME.cashino wrote:But if we bet black next spin for 1k and it comes up, the house is minus a huge percentage.
Christ al mighty.
PS. JG - I haven't forgotten! I will send later this evening
I always say this, but they can run to a percentage as the in-game features can be compensated according to the cash in/cash out levels.
If someone absolutely skanks a Rainbow Riches say, and 3 leps roll in straight after, you can bet they'll go for like a fiver or something rubbish. Seen these do £60 odd on machines with big pots.
If someone absolutely skanks a Rainbow Riches say, and 3 leps roll in straight after, you can bet they'll go for like a fiver or something rubbish. Seen these do £60 odd on machines with big pots.
"Sixty percent of the time, it works, every time!"