was ina arcade today and watched this guy gamble £20 up to £500 with the gamble option. I think it was a Rainbow Riches of a Reel King but if honest not sure - anyway they won £20 from the feature. They they gambled it up to £500. It was the gamble choice where on the left it states the double value, middle is the normal value and the right nothing. You press start and you get one - sure you know the one i mean. Anyway....
Today saw someone gamble £20 to £40, £40 to £80, £80 to £160, £160 to £320, and £320 to the jackpot £500, just wondering if you guys have seen this done much, it was a first for me
rainbow riches gamble
-
Mr McStreak
I quite often have a gamble on the Rainbow riches (and other machines on the 777 cabinets), it can be risky on big wins but it's usually good for turning 50p/£1 wins into a fiver and as JG says it gives the game another dimension.
The most i've ever gambled is £1.50 to £200, at that point i just didn't have the bottle!
The most i've ever gambled is £1.50 to £200, at that point i just didn't have the bottle!
Re: rainbow riches gamble
Hmmm I bet it was still 1 in 3 odds when going for the final gamble from £320 to £500. What a rip.andybing1978 wrote:
Today saw someone gamble £20 to £40, £40 to £80, £80 to £160, £160 to £320, and £320 to the jackpot £500, just wondering if you guys have seen this done much, it was a first for me
Confucius say "man who know wombat know more than stupid looking monkey"
The earliest version of RR in ladbrokes was really generous on the gamble wheel. Back a while ago, I made alot of money off getting JP's by utilising this. So did a few others who cottoned on.
Then of course they changed it.
Then of course they changed it.
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
I've heard that the gambles on Barcrest B3's are random, so if you're going from £50-£100 it's a genuine 50/50 chance of the win. The fella explained it to me like there being 1,000,000 balls in a machine, half are win and half are lose one is generated as soon as you decide to gamble and the outcome is shown on the pie (don't get why the RNG doesn't just choose from 2 balls in cases like this?!)
I'm not sure how close it is to the truth but he seemed like a genuine fella who knew his stuff, and if that is the case then getting a high win from say a £1 win would be highly unlikely.
If you was to go for as close to 50/50 as possible each gamble it would take 10 gambles to reach the JP from £1, take the 'randomness' of flipping a coin 10 times for example and try getting 10 heads/tales in a row, it's less likely than most people think and you probably have more chance of hitting the £500
I'm not sure how close it is to the truth but he seemed like a genuine fella who knew his stuff, and if that is the case then getting a high win from say a £1 win would be highly unlikely.
If you was to go for as close to 50/50 as possible each gamble it would take 10 gambles to reach the JP from £1, take the 'randomness' of flipping a coin 10 times for example and try getting 10 heads/tales in a row, it's less likely than most people think and you probably have more chance of hitting the £500
-
HorseRacingKing
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:13 am
-
Barry Trotter
- Senior Member
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:43 pm
Why?blackmogu wrote:The earliest version of RR in ladbrokes was really generous on the gamble wheel. Back a while ago, I made alot of money off getting JP's by utilising this. So did a few others who cottoned on.
Then of course they changed it.
Why would they change a "true odds" gamble?
The gamble costs the game nothing. It doesn't matter what you start with, as long as the odds of going from one value to another are true... i.e if you're going from £20 to £100, the odds of winning are 1 in 5.
When will people understand that random is RANDOM!! You don't need to control it cos its RANDOM. You can have a very bad run of luck on a random game, just like you can have a run of very good luck!!
Sheesh!
Slightly OT, I spotted a RR Pots of Gold with both the Silver and Bronze pots both higher than the Gold, today.
Gold Pot on £253.xx (so had clearly just been won within the last £150 of plays)
Silver Pot on £377.xx (ie. £22,700 credits played since it was last won)
Bronze Pot on £302.xx (ie. £25,200 credits since last won)
Not often you could get the pots and be praying you don't get the Gold one!
During that time a Chinese woman beside me playing the older version of Rainbow Riches gets the pots twice in the space of half an hour, for £90 and £400 respectively. Now that's annoying.
Gold Pot on £253.xx (so had clearly just been won within the last £150 of plays)
Silver Pot on £377.xx (ie. £22,700 credits played since it was last won)
Bronze Pot on £302.xx (ie. £25,200 credits since last won)
Not often you could get the pots and be praying you don't get the Gold one!
During that time a Chinese woman beside me playing the older version of Rainbow Riches gets the pots twice in the space of half an hour, for £90 and £400 respectively. Now that's annoying.
This machine may at times offer a choice where the player has every chance of bankruptcy
uhh no, no no no no ni nnnnniiiiiiiii
im sorry barry, but its not that simple.
im sorry barry, but its not that simple.
Barry Trotter wrote:Why?blackmogu wrote:The earliest version of RR in ladbrokes was really generous on the gamble wheel. Back a while ago, I made alot of money off getting JP's by utilising this. So did a few others who cottoned on.
Then of course they changed it.
Why would they change a "true odds" gamble?
The gamble costs the game nothing. It doesn't matter what you start with, as long as the odds of going from one value to another are true... i.e if you're going from £20 to £100, the odds of winning are 1 in 5.
When will people understand that random is RANDOM!! You don't need to control it cos its RANDOM. You can have a very bad run of luck on a random game, just like you can have a run of very good luck!!
Sheesh!
Played and witnessed this gamble thousands and thousands of times; alot of the time people trying to force it out;
In general I have noticed that it is a poor method, which leads to a long term loss; I have had a mate try and convince me you can do this on ladbrokes ones a few months ago...
At the time, he said he had played 10 out in a row for profit, I told him, yep you've just been lucky, I'd quit whilst you're ahead... Ooops didn't take this advice and the next 3 he played were mammouth losses, (£1000+), one of which lost £400 to £500 after just £10 in, then taking £1200+ and still having not given it. This example proves how uncompensated this gamble is.
As the gamble is random and 100% payout what you put into the gamble in the long run (ie. wins you gamble) is on average what you get out of it(wins you take from the gamble).
Sypder I dont see why you can't accept the gamble can be random, as it is a 100% gamble it is not affecting the base percentage of the random reels game; there is no need to rig/compensate the gamble. Any experience otherwise is simply coincidence. Those people you say are DOING them in the bookies, what you mean is chancing their arm that they fluke the £500 on it, before they are £500 in, by LUCK! Surely several £1000+ losses I have seen conclude this once and for all!
In general I have noticed that it is a poor method, which leads to a long term loss; I have had a mate try and convince me you can do this on ladbrokes ones a few months ago...
At the time, he said he had played 10 out in a row for profit, I told him, yep you've just been lucky, I'd quit whilst you're ahead... Ooops didn't take this advice and the next 3 he played were mammouth losses, (£1000+), one of which lost £400 to £500 after just £10 in, then taking £1200+ and still having not given it. This example proves how uncompensated this gamble is.
As the gamble is random and 100% payout what you put into the gamble in the long run (ie. wins you gamble) is on average what you get out of it(wins you take from the gamble).
Sypder I dont see why you can't accept the gamble can be random, as it is a 100% gamble it is not affecting the base percentage of the random reels game; there is no need to rig/compensate the gamble. Any experience otherwise is simply coincidence. Those people you say are DOING them in the bookies, what you mean is chancing their arm that they fluke the £500 on it, before they are £500 in, by LUCK! Surely several £1000+ losses I have seen conclude this once and for all!