FOBT roulette is rigged (again)
I second George's analysis - I made the same calculation and came to the same conclusion, but I was too lazy to voice my thoughts.
"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?"
If we're saying that the FOBT are not rigged, why is that the payouts and perceived fairness in different bookmakers chains vary. From my experience over the years I would rate the payouts from the bookmakers in the following order:
William Hill
Betfred
Ladbrokes
Corals
Tote
I would be intersted to see what other peoples view is surrounding preferred bookamkers to play roulette.I was chatting to a guy the other week who was playing £100 spins in Hills and ended up winning £800. He was adamant that the roulette in Totes was a completely rigged and he has never won a £100 spin (spread across 12 numbers) in nearly 30 bets in there. I must admit my experience of playing roulette in Tote is pretty abysmal. I remember winning on £10 bets and every time I upped the bet, to say £30 it was a lose everytime.
Could there be a correlation between the biggest network of roulette terminals probably the big 3 listed above and the perceived fairness. On a smaller network such as Tote you would be less likely to get the big wins as there would be less people to spread the liability. Just a thought...I await for someone to completely debunk my observations!
William Hill
Betfred
Ladbrokes
Corals
Tote
I would be intersted to see what other peoples view is surrounding preferred bookamkers to play roulette.I was chatting to a guy the other week who was playing £100 spins in Hills and ended up winning £800. He was adamant that the roulette in Totes was a completely rigged and he has never won a £100 spin (spread across 12 numbers) in nearly 30 bets in there. I must admit my experience of playing roulette in Tote is pretty abysmal. I remember winning on £10 bets and every time I upped the bet, to say £30 it was a lose everytime.
Could there be a correlation between the biggest network of roulette terminals probably the big 3 listed above and the perceived fairness. On a smaller network such as Tote you would be less likely to get the big wins as there would be less people to spread the liability. Just a thought...I await for someone to completely debunk my observations!
Bit of info from Ladbrokes annual report. (Audited by PwC, so no guarantees there ;-) )
http://investors.ladbrokesplc.com/downl ... tDec09.pdf
Pages 9-10 are the relevant ones.
These show that in 2009 the total UK profit Ladbrokes had on all machines was £282.5m or £244.2m depending whether you use Ladbrokes prefered measure (including Fair value adjustments, free bets and VAT), or the International Financial Reporting Standards measure.
Some interesting commentary on the machines as well - average profit was £685 per machine.
Other stuff of interest:
Amount staked on machines is £8.8bn, compared to other Uk amount staked over the counter (OTC) of £2.7bn, however revenue of OTC is approx 50% higher than machines - showing the profitability of the normal betting is much higher.
http://investors.ladbrokesplc.com/downl ... tDec09.pdf
Pages 9-10 are the relevant ones.
These show that in 2009 the total UK profit Ladbrokes had on all machines was £282.5m or £244.2m depending whether you use Ladbrokes prefered measure (including Fair value adjustments, free bets and VAT), or the International Financial Reporting Standards measure.
Some interesting commentary on the machines as well - average profit was £685 per machine.
Other stuff of interest:
Amount staked on machines is £8.8bn, compared to other Uk amount staked over the counter (OTC) of £2.7bn, however revenue of OTC is approx 50% higher than machines - showing the profitability of the normal betting is much higher.
-
barafear799
- Junior Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:19 pm
- Location: London
They are not a spinning wheel - we all know that (I think) - the arguement does continue (if people want it to) as to whether or not they are random or even rigged. As Spyder says about the feel, it just doesn't "feel" right when it spins in a losing number - looking at this from both sides of the fence, I'm sure we all say the same if we had a bet on Man Utd to beat Burnley last year - they were "supposed" to have won -
I do like the theory about the different bookmakers though.
I once used to play "infrequently" in a Stanley shop - it was the only Stanley shop south of Birmingham (I think) - they'd bought out a local independent - but playing their machines made you feel like you were the only "loser" in the whole country playing them - within 3 or 4 spins, almost an absolute guarantee that you'd be down (regardless of what stake, what numbers, what game you played) - cover 33 numbers and one of the other 4 would be GUARANTEED to come out (obviously if you cover just the 4 numbers, then you could be there until closing time and not see them) -
The same sort of thing "tends" to happen if you play them at other "quiet" times - so maybe if you're feeling desperate and go in before 930am (there's a shop in Liv St Station in London which opens at 8am!!!) - or popping home from a late night at the office and calling in at 7pm or something -
then again, go in on a saturday afternoon - you think the whole country should be fairly busy - but more often than not Saturdays are a really bad day to play them too -
in fact, my belief is that anytime to play them is a bad time - but people do - because of addiction - and ultimately because of false advertising!!!
Of course we cannot prove that they are fixed - they are advertised as "Roulette" but already we know they do not follow the "half stake back on even money shots when zero shows" - how about looking at their other roulette games - such as Will Hill have a lucky 8 game - from memory here - I think it has 51 numbers (0,00,1-49, and an extra number called "lucky 8") - u don't win if you bet on no.8 and lucky 8 comes in - they are separate!!!! - that's 52 numbers isn't it?
Anyway - based on normal roulette odds of paying out 35-1 about a true 36-1 chance, you'd expect odds of 51-1, or maybe 50-1 - but I believe (from memory again) that the odds are only 47-1!!! Great - I haven't looked at the "help screen" - but I'm sure it probably still says it pays out 96 or 97% - it will claim that when lucky 8 comes in it activates a bonus!!!
there is a "jackpot" pool for when lucky 8 comes in - I've never seen it that high - never much more than £50, more often than not £15-25
Basically, even if u did not cover "lucky 8" - it'll spin a "wheel" of 8 numbers - 7 of them are losers, one of them will win you the pot!!! Woopeee!!!!!
Is this how they justify odds of 47-1 (against real odds of 51-1) and still claim to pay out 97%?
There are also the "bonus roulette" games - where when you win you can "gamble" your winnings, and they might be doubled, trebeld, halved, or more likely "reduced to zero"!!!!
I'm sure with them, because they are "paying 35/1" - they must "fix" them somehow to ensure the "true 97% payout"
Sorry - anyone who has played them for any length of time, to varying stakes, must surely edge towards the belief that they are not "true"
On all these forums, you get the people who "patronise" people who hold this viewpoint who say that as it is a game of negative expectation, if you lose, that's exactly what is supposed to happen!!!!
However, there should also be a fair chance that you can win!!! (with a house edge of "only" 3%, then that chance be somewhere in the region of 40%+)
Ladbrokes quoted figures (profits of £280m on turnover of £8.8bn) fit in nicely with the 3% profit margin. But then you wouldn't expect them not to!!!
I am also aware that the % profit is on your turnover, not on what you put in.
So you go in with £50, play £20 a spin for 10 spins - that's turnover of £200, with your 3% edge against you, you'd expect to be down £6
however, this is all too simplistic! And I think this is where the fobts make their mark - they will be quick to correct any variation away from the -3% per spin.
So heaven forbid that you get a win, you can be fairly sure that the next few spins will correct that.
With a normal roulette wheel, casino based, that will not ALWAYS happen. with a fobt it does!!! They know where you place your bet - it's nothing to do with "following" your behaviour. You could pick a different set of 30 random numbers for each spin - if it wants to "correct" the %, it will do it.
Reading the other thread about FOBTS, and seeing the youtube link in the first post, that pretty much sums it up!!
I don't have any "qualms" about them - I just feel they are marketed in the wrong way (as did casinos when they first came into shops) - they are marketed very strongly as roulette - they are not roulette!!! They have a graphical image of a roulette wheel, table and ball - they "supposedly" pay the same odds as roulette - but that's it - they are pretty much the same as fruit machines (sorry - wrong forum to make that comparison) - but most "normal" people who play fruit machines (past or present) probably do not "expect" to win when they insert their money.
The main diff between the two is the level of stake - in the "old days" - even if one was "hooked" on fruit machines, it'd take a long time to lose "life changing/family crisis" amts of money - I know - people could play all day long etc etc - FOBTS with their higher stakes and "instant" loss-making abilities - are just ruthless in their efficiency - bookies are limited to only 4 machines per shop (or 8 if they manage to blatantly screw the law!!!) - so fobts need to make sure they are making the max amt of money - so no point in letting someone play at £1 a spin - just clear them out of their money, and out of the shop - so the next person with fresh money can get on them -
amusement arcades can pretty much have loads of machines -
just some more random ramblings - wonder if many people agree with me?
I do like the theory about the different bookmakers though.
I once used to play "infrequently" in a Stanley shop - it was the only Stanley shop south of Birmingham (I think) - they'd bought out a local independent - but playing their machines made you feel like you were the only "loser" in the whole country playing them - within 3 or 4 spins, almost an absolute guarantee that you'd be down (regardless of what stake, what numbers, what game you played) - cover 33 numbers and one of the other 4 would be GUARANTEED to come out (obviously if you cover just the 4 numbers, then you could be there until closing time and not see them) -
The same sort of thing "tends" to happen if you play them at other "quiet" times - so maybe if you're feeling desperate and go in before 930am (there's a shop in Liv St Station in London which opens at 8am!!!) - or popping home from a late night at the office and calling in at 7pm or something -
then again, go in on a saturday afternoon - you think the whole country should be fairly busy - but more often than not Saturdays are a really bad day to play them too -
in fact, my belief is that anytime to play them is a bad time - but people do - because of addiction - and ultimately because of false advertising!!!
Of course we cannot prove that they are fixed - they are advertised as "Roulette" but already we know they do not follow the "half stake back on even money shots when zero shows" - how about looking at their other roulette games - such as Will Hill have a lucky 8 game - from memory here - I think it has 51 numbers (0,00,1-49, and an extra number called "lucky 8") - u don't win if you bet on no.8 and lucky 8 comes in - they are separate!!!! - that's 52 numbers isn't it?
Anyway - based on normal roulette odds of paying out 35-1 about a true 36-1 chance, you'd expect odds of 51-1, or maybe 50-1 - but I believe (from memory again) that the odds are only 47-1!!! Great - I haven't looked at the "help screen" - but I'm sure it probably still says it pays out 96 or 97% - it will claim that when lucky 8 comes in it activates a bonus!!!
there is a "jackpot" pool for when lucky 8 comes in - I've never seen it that high - never much more than £50, more often than not £15-25
Basically, even if u did not cover "lucky 8" - it'll spin a "wheel" of 8 numbers - 7 of them are losers, one of them will win you the pot!!! Woopeee!!!!!
Is this how they justify odds of 47-1 (against real odds of 51-1) and still claim to pay out 97%?
There are also the "bonus roulette" games - where when you win you can "gamble" your winnings, and they might be doubled, trebeld, halved, or more likely "reduced to zero"!!!!
I'm sure with them, because they are "paying 35/1" - they must "fix" them somehow to ensure the "true 97% payout"
Sorry - anyone who has played them for any length of time, to varying stakes, must surely edge towards the belief that they are not "true"
On all these forums, you get the people who "patronise" people who hold this viewpoint who say that as it is a game of negative expectation, if you lose, that's exactly what is supposed to happen!!!!
However, there should also be a fair chance that you can win!!! (with a house edge of "only" 3%, then that chance be somewhere in the region of 40%+)
Ladbrokes quoted figures (profits of £280m on turnover of £8.8bn) fit in nicely with the 3% profit margin. But then you wouldn't expect them not to!!!
I am also aware that the % profit is on your turnover, not on what you put in.
So you go in with £50, play £20 a spin for 10 spins - that's turnover of £200, with your 3% edge against you, you'd expect to be down £6
however, this is all too simplistic! And I think this is where the fobts make their mark - they will be quick to correct any variation away from the -3% per spin.
So heaven forbid that you get a win, you can be fairly sure that the next few spins will correct that.
With a normal roulette wheel, casino based, that will not ALWAYS happen. with a fobt it does!!! They know where you place your bet - it's nothing to do with "following" your behaviour. You could pick a different set of 30 random numbers for each spin - if it wants to "correct" the %, it will do it.
Reading the other thread about FOBTS, and seeing the youtube link in the first post, that pretty much sums it up!!
I don't have any "qualms" about them - I just feel they are marketed in the wrong way (as did casinos when they first came into shops) - they are marketed very strongly as roulette - they are not roulette!!! They have a graphical image of a roulette wheel, table and ball - they "supposedly" pay the same odds as roulette - but that's it - they are pretty much the same as fruit machines (sorry - wrong forum to make that comparison) - but most "normal" people who play fruit machines (past or present) probably do not "expect" to win when they insert their money.
The main diff between the two is the level of stake - in the "old days" - even if one was "hooked" on fruit machines, it'd take a long time to lose "life changing/family crisis" amts of money - I know - people could play all day long etc etc - FOBTS with their higher stakes and "instant" loss-making abilities - are just ruthless in their efficiency - bookies are limited to only 4 machines per shop (or 8 if they manage to blatantly screw the law!!!) - so fobts need to make sure they are making the max amt of money - so no point in letting someone play at £1 a spin - just clear them out of their money, and out of the shop - so the next person with fresh money can get on them -
amusement arcades can pretty much have loads of machines -
just some more random ramblings - wonder if many people agree with me?
-
steveseagull
- Senior Member
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:11 pm
- Location: west sussex
Well those figures are solid fuel for the not rigged brigade. They all seem to imply a 3% edge or thereabouts.
£3000 AVERAGE per day STAKED on each individual terminal.
£98 gross profit per day, per machine on average.
£685 gross profit per machine, per week.
Within the realms of possibility to achieve, still seems a tad far fetched, but like I say, could be done.
The stats all add up and sheer volume of shops, circa 2000, makes for huge profits.
The figure I find hardest to believe in all of that is that Ladbrokes have that many shops.
I'd imagine some staff get mixed up over turnovers and profits.
So is this it? FOBT is NOT rigged?
£3000 AVERAGE per day STAKED on each individual terminal.
£98 gross profit per day, per machine on average.
£685 gross profit per machine, per week.
Within the realms of possibility to achieve, still seems a tad far fetched, but like I say, could be done.
The stats all add up and sheer volume of shops, circa 2000, makes for huge profits.
The figure I find hardest to believe in all of that is that Ladbrokes have that many shops.
I'd imagine some staff get mixed up over turnovers and profits.
So is this it? FOBT is NOT rigged?
JG
Unless of course they are not reporting their figures accurately.
I am happy to run a statistically significant experiment in Ladbrokes.
Can someone donate the £9m total stake (still only 0.1% of total staked) or whatever that would be required?*
* I know it wouldn't actually require £9m as even on massively rigged machines paying 50% you would make £4.5m back or something...
I am happy to run a statistically significant experiment in Ladbrokes.
Can someone donate the £9m total stake (still only 0.1% of total staked) or whatever that would be required?*
* I know it wouldn't actually require £9m as even on massively rigged machines paying 50% you would make £4.5m back or something...
yeah but surely that percentage is only right if people play with an exact mathematical system.
people who walk in with £100 and spend half an hour playing with small bets, then realise they are £60 down, put 2 £20 bets on within 1 minute and walk out saying its robbed them
the two £20 bets may not have been covering enough numbers to even their chances of hitting, due to lack of understanding or patience of the player the machines can take way more than the 3(theres no percent sign on my phone)
obviously over a long period of time, the house edge eats away at your stake, but once you start betting over your head, the only way to realistkicly recover that money is to bet at that stake all the time, hope that the house edge eats away at that bankroll, and you get a lucky series of hits to recover your loss,
however, more or less everyone ive ever witnessed bets above their bankroll
on poker they say to make sure you have 40xthe big blind.. on roulette people bet stupidly, hoping to hit high early..
f fobt are random, then my 'luck' is outstanding, and i should be playing the lottery more often.
people who walk in with £100 and spend half an hour playing with small bets, then realise they are £60 down, put 2 £20 bets on within 1 minute and walk out saying its robbed them
the two £20 bets may not have been covering enough numbers to even their chances of hitting, due to lack of understanding or patience of the player the machines can take way more than the 3(theres no percent sign on my phone)
obviously over a long period of time, the house edge eats away at your stake, but once you start betting over your head, the only way to realistkicly recover that money is to bet at that stake all the time, hope that the house edge eats away at that bankroll, and you get a lucky series of hits to recover your loss,
however, more or less everyone ive ever witnessed bets above their bankroll
on poker they say to make sure you have 40xthe big blind.. on roulette people bet stupidly, hoping to hit high early..
f fobt are random, then my 'luck' is outstanding, and i should be playing the lottery more often.
-
barafear799
- Junior Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:19 pm
- Location: London
I have no "interests" in these machines - other than almost certainly being (sadly) addicted to them - it could easily have been me in that youtube video - however, whether I am addicted or not, I still feel cheated that I feel that I am being scr***ed because the machines "feel" rigged.
Merely a coincidence - here's what happened to me today - I came into "town" and needed to get a train - parked up nearby - went to catch train - it had been cancelled - next one was a 40 min late - and might also have been cancelled - there's another line closeby (20 min walk) - so I decided on that - however, the walk takes me past 2 bookies (W Hill & Ladb) - decided to pop in and play a "cheeky" 20 - it was about 11am - stuck my 20 in - and just randomly put some 25p chips alpong all the streets and 6-lines - starting from 0/1/2/3 split and randomly covering most of the splits all the way down to 28/29/30 - last hit of the screen I meant to put another chip on 28/29/30 street -but I hit the 3rd dozen box - so I let it ride - spun the wheel - and 36 comes in - a loss - cut a long story short - next 5 spins were all losers!!! - 33,35 both came in. 17 came in (which happened to have a gap in my random tapping of chips) - so even that (a fav number) was a small loser -
So covering all 37 numbers in some way or other (but obviously 31-36 were "relatively big losers" and zero too) - I had 6 losers on the bounce - obviously my 20 had gone and another 20 had gone in -
I won't go into too much detail - but over the next 10 spins or so - 36 came in again - having seen 33,35,36 (twice) - i then decided that 34 (a habitual loser for me as it is a neighbour of 17, and I don't generally cover it) is probably gonna come in (I don't believe in patterns or anything - I just felt the machine was "killing" me - so it would "pick" another loser pretty soon) - so I cover 34 straight up - and also the splits with 31 and 35 (so at least if they came in I would lose quite so much) -
anyway - next 3 spins, and 36 came out twice more!!
I then changed my bet slightly - covered all the numbers from 7 thru to 33.
Next spin: 36
Then: 2
Then: 4
Now far be it for me to say that they are rigged!!
Anyway - the next bit is for added "interest" - I collected some remnants - I needed to pay for the train fare - so up to the counter to collect - whilst there (I was obviously fuming inside - for being so stupid to have played them - and also feeling cheated out of my cash) - the cashier said "next time you want to play them, rather than putting the money in the machine, come up here and you can get a free scratchcard!!! You might win!" - I didn't mean to be rude to her - I laughed out loud - and said something like "at least Ladbrokes do comedy to cheer you (me) up" - she missed the irony in my voice - and said "no really, you could win" - and I replied "no-one has any fucking chance of winning on those things" - she replied "With that sort of attitude you won't be allowed in here anymore" - I said "Bar me"
Yes - if only I could self-exclude myself - however, there's about 15 bookies with 3 miles of where I live or work. Then I often travel elsewhere -
it'd be easier if I could just stop myself!!!
Here's another little thing to try in a betting shop:
Go in with £500 cash - go up to the counter and try and place a bet on some random 14/1 shot on the horses (or 10/1 shot or whatever) - inevitably when they refuse to take the bet - ask if if's ok for them to load it onto the machines for you to play a few numbers (the equiv of a 10/1 shot!) - see what they say
Ok - cynics will say in a single spin you are limited to only winning £500 - whereas the horsebet was a £5k liability for the shop!!!
But play a few spins - and surely the shop might be facing the same sort ofliability with "average" luck!!!
Now - before I sign off - how many people on here reckon I would have seen the same set of numbers (36 numerous times, 35,33, 2,4, etc,etc) if I had bet £20 a spin just covering the 7 lowest numbers (incl zero) and the 6 highest numbers......
The % theorists (ie: those who believe the machines are not fixed - and that a -3% edge will make you lose) will claim "I just hit an unlucky streak" (ie: why my % loss in my little session was probably way in excess of 3%)
But from experience - from people's experiences on here - and elsewhere - these losing streaks are all too common (far more common than any win streak!!!)
Sorry to rant!!!
Merely a coincidence - here's what happened to me today - I came into "town" and needed to get a train - parked up nearby - went to catch train - it had been cancelled - next one was a 40 min late - and might also have been cancelled - there's another line closeby (20 min walk) - so I decided on that - however, the walk takes me past 2 bookies (W Hill & Ladb) - decided to pop in and play a "cheeky" 20 - it was about 11am - stuck my 20 in - and just randomly put some 25p chips alpong all the streets and 6-lines - starting from 0/1/2/3 split and randomly covering most of the splits all the way down to 28/29/30 - last hit of the screen I meant to put another chip on 28/29/30 street -but I hit the 3rd dozen box - so I let it ride - spun the wheel - and 36 comes in - a loss - cut a long story short - next 5 spins were all losers!!! - 33,35 both came in. 17 came in (which happened to have a gap in my random tapping of chips) - so even that (a fav number) was a small loser -
So covering all 37 numbers in some way or other (but obviously 31-36 were "relatively big losers" and zero too) - I had 6 losers on the bounce - obviously my 20 had gone and another 20 had gone in -
I won't go into too much detail - but over the next 10 spins or so - 36 came in again - having seen 33,35,36 (twice) - i then decided that 34 (a habitual loser for me as it is a neighbour of 17, and I don't generally cover it) is probably gonna come in (I don't believe in patterns or anything - I just felt the machine was "killing" me - so it would "pick" another loser pretty soon) - so I cover 34 straight up - and also the splits with 31 and 35 (so at least if they came in I would lose quite so much) -
anyway - next 3 spins, and 36 came out twice more!!
I then changed my bet slightly - covered all the numbers from 7 thru to 33.
Next spin: 36
Then: 2
Then: 4
Now far be it for me to say that they are rigged!!
Anyway - the next bit is for added "interest" - I collected some remnants - I needed to pay for the train fare - so up to the counter to collect - whilst there (I was obviously fuming inside - for being so stupid to have played them - and also feeling cheated out of my cash) - the cashier said "next time you want to play them, rather than putting the money in the machine, come up here and you can get a free scratchcard!!! You might win!" - I didn't mean to be rude to her - I laughed out loud - and said something like "at least Ladbrokes do comedy to cheer you (me) up" - she missed the irony in my voice - and said "no really, you could win" - and I replied "no-one has any fucking chance of winning on those things" - she replied "With that sort of attitude you won't be allowed in here anymore" - I said "Bar me"
Yes - if only I could self-exclude myself - however, there's about 15 bookies with 3 miles of where I live or work. Then I often travel elsewhere -
it'd be easier if I could just stop myself!!!
Here's another little thing to try in a betting shop:
Go in with £500 cash - go up to the counter and try and place a bet on some random 14/1 shot on the horses (or 10/1 shot or whatever) - inevitably when they refuse to take the bet - ask if if's ok for them to load it onto the machines for you to play a few numbers (the equiv of a 10/1 shot!) - see what they say
Ok - cynics will say in a single spin you are limited to only winning £500 - whereas the horsebet was a £5k liability for the shop!!!
But play a few spins - and surely the shop might be facing the same sort ofliability with "average" luck!!!
Now - before I sign off - how many people on here reckon I would have seen the same set of numbers (36 numerous times, 35,33, 2,4, etc,etc) if I had bet £20 a spin just covering the 7 lowest numbers (incl zero) and the 6 highest numbers......
The % theorists (ie: those who believe the machines are not fixed - and that a -3% edge will make you lose) will claim "I just hit an unlucky streak" (ie: why my % loss in my little session was probably way in excess of 3%)
But from experience - from people's experiences on here - and elsewhere - these losing streaks are all too common (far more common than any win streak!!!)
Sorry to rant!!!
i def think these have become harder to win on. 3/4 years ago i used to win a lot but now i hardly ever seem to win
i notice i harldy ever win to start off with. it always seem to wait untile i got down to my last £10.
i think smaller betting shops are the worst. i hardly ever seem to win on there.
and when i bet smal stakes like £5 a spin i do ok but if i go stupid and bet 20/30 a spin i tend to always lose
another thing i dont like is in small shops i always feel they or watchin me behind the counter.
i notice i harldy ever win to start off with. it always seem to wait untile i got down to my last £10.
i think smaller betting shops are the worst. i hardly ever seem to win on there.
and when i bet smal stakes like £5 a spin i do ok but if i go stupid and bet 20/30 a spin i tend to always lose
another thing i dont like is in small shops i always feel they or watchin me behind the counter.
-
barafear799
- Junior Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:19 pm
- Location: London
yes I've played them plenty Spyder - and yes on occasion I've played two at a time - on some it does spin the same number - other times it doesn't. Certainly with the old Ladbrokes machines (going back a couple of years) it was far less likely to.
However, the much more interesting post (nothing personal Spyder, and only because it pretty much agrees with me!) is the next post -
last 3/4 years - even in the last year they have become nearly impossible to win on - and this should not be the case with a true random game with "only" a 3% edge to the house. Small stakes - hmmm - but even nowadays with small stakes it screws u over in double quick time - to such an extent that if you spread your small stake (lets say £10) over between 25-30 scattered numbers across the board - you almost expect it to hit a loser - probably a small loser to start with (something you've just got a small corner or split on) - but within 3 spins, you expect to see one of the numbers to wipe out your £10.
And heaven forbid - if you ever get a good number (this depends on how you bet I guess - my "good" numbers will only ever win me a max of prob 70-100% profit on my spin stake - others will pile up big on a small selection of numbers - so they may well win 300%+ on a good number) - anyway - if u do get a good number, you kinda know in your bones that pressing repeat will bring a losing number next spin -
I've even tried to "out-think" the machine (dangerous) thinking that when I press start there are probably another couple of hundred people pressing start on the same "network" who are gonna get the same number as me - therefore, if the "machine" automatically scans everyone's bets to produce a "return" of 97% (or as a lot of us suspect, maybe 95% or lower!) on all those bets, then to improve your chances, you should maybe avoid those "popular" numbers on the board!!
That begs the question - what are the popular numbers -
well - I think zero has to be popular (personally I rarely cover it)
17,26,29,32
In fact, a lot of the middle column numbers
8.11.23 being near neighbours too
prob 20 too being that it is pretty much in the "middle of the board"
I've pretty much said that the middle column is popular!!! There must be some others that are more popular than others -
however - using this "ingenious" method (ie: ignoring those numbers) just had the same results again!!!
Just look at the run of winning numbers when I decide not to cover them!!!
I've never seen so many 17s and 29s in my life -
All of which rather debunks the theory that you are playing the same "spin" as hundreds of others -
yes I agree in the same shop - on a fair proportion of occasions, it does spin the same number - but that's only gonna be a max of 4 -
And interesting to know anyone's experiences if, for example, one machine has a couple of quid staked on, lets say, 4 numbers (4 x 50p straight up bets) - and the other machine has £100 spread over 30 different numbers - so between the two there are 3 uncovered numbers -
then again - anyone with a sane mind will not try this experiment - because I think most people would expect a very quick reduction in the £100 stake's bank balance in not too many spins.......
However, the much more interesting post (nothing personal Spyder, and only because it pretty much agrees with me!) is the next post -
last 3/4 years - even in the last year they have become nearly impossible to win on - and this should not be the case with a true random game with "only" a 3% edge to the house. Small stakes - hmmm - but even nowadays with small stakes it screws u over in double quick time - to such an extent that if you spread your small stake (lets say £10) over between 25-30 scattered numbers across the board - you almost expect it to hit a loser - probably a small loser to start with (something you've just got a small corner or split on) - but within 3 spins, you expect to see one of the numbers to wipe out your £10.
And heaven forbid - if you ever get a good number (this depends on how you bet I guess - my "good" numbers will only ever win me a max of prob 70-100% profit on my spin stake - others will pile up big on a small selection of numbers - so they may well win 300%+ on a good number) - anyway - if u do get a good number, you kinda know in your bones that pressing repeat will bring a losing number next spin -
I've even tried to "out-think" the machine (dangerous) thinking that when I press start there are probably another couple of hundred people pressing start on the same "network" who are gonna get the same number as me - therefore, if the "machine" automatically scans everyone's bets to produce a "return" of 97% (or as a lot of us suspect, maybe 95% or lower!) on all those bets, then to improve your chances, you should maybe avoid those "popular" numbers on the board!!
That begs the question - what are the popular numbers -
well - I think zero has to be popular (personally I rarely cover it)
17,26,29,32
In fact, a lot of the middle column numbers
8.11.23 being near neighbours too
prob 20 too being that it is pretty much in the "middle of the board"
I've pretty much said that the middle column is popular!!! There must be some others that are more popular than others -
however - using this "ingenious" method (ie: ignoring those numbers) just had the same results again!!!
Just look at the run of winning numbers when I decide not to cover them!!!
I've never seen so many 17s and 29s in my life -
All of which rather debunks the theory that you are playing the same "spin" as hundreds of others -
yes I agree in the same shop - on a fair proportion of occasions, it does spin the same number - but that's only gonna be a max of 4 -
And interesting to know anyone's experiences if, for example, one machine has a couple of quid staked on, lets say, 4 numbers (4 x 50p straight up bets) - and the other machine has £100 spread over 30 different numbers - so between the two there are 3 uncovered numbers -
then again - anyone with a sane mind will not try this experiment - because I think most people would expect a very quick reduction in the £100 stake's bank balance in not too many spins.......