Do you have a link?
If you only have one coin to play, true, but most people expect to play more than once.
And of course nobody with at least one coin left to play would walk away if the window contains more than one coin.
I’ve been in bars where the poker machines (amusement only) paid off if they knew you.
Agree with the last sentence. And the first. But NOT the one in the middle. And that’s also the error some other posters made.
“Success” is not about how I’ll do with the next pull of the handle. It’s how I’ll do as I spend the e.g. 20 coins in my initial stake making 20 pulls. When I walk up to the machine I expect to see an empty window. As you say, if not, then the previous player screwed up.
My first pull is therefore a guaranteed loss of: I’m at -1 coins. But might put 0, 1, or maybe even 100 coins into the window to be reliably harvested with my second coin. So I’m thinking about what I might get for my 2-coin investment. If I draw a zero on the first coin then I’m looking at spending 2 coins for zero payout, but to have 1, 2, 5, or maybe 100 coins as the guaranteed payout for my third coin. etc.
So it would be to the player’s mathematical advantage to play as long as their future expectation of coins received is greater than their past record of coins invested + the coins expected to be invested to get to that next large expected payoff.
That is very, very different from your
It would be to the players advantage to play as long as there were more than one coin in the window …
Further, gamblers, and especially slot machine gamblers, are NOT logical mathematical maximizers. Instead they are playing emotions.
So it would be to the player’s emotional advantage to play as long as their future hope of coins received is greater than their past record of coins invested; the large expected payoff is emotionally increasingly likely with each successive miss. Each coin invested in a losing pull isn’t a loss; it’s a necessary step towards a win.
Vegas et al is totally funded on the difference between optimal mathematical play and optimal emotional play. Joe and Jane Average tourist/gambler do not play to win; they play to feel good. Very large fortunes accrue to folks who understand that difference and cater to it.
That’s pretty interesting and a bit goofy.
The results of the slot machine described by the OP clearly can be influenced by skill, although it’s not a particularly high skill. Anyone possessing the skills of looking and counting will earn better returns than a player who plays without that skill.
I agree with everyone that this is not likely enough of a distinction to get around gambling laws, although it would depend on exactly how those laws were written.
Blackjack is a game of skill, so much so that casinos have big lists of people who are a little too skillful at it and who they don’t allow to play any more, but it’s still generally disallowed as gambling in most places.
Thank you for posting that link. My source is the magazine “Invention & Technology” from Fall 2000 (Volume 16, #2). Here is the relevant paragraph:
“Around 1917 Mills (Herbert S. Mills) and another leading manufacturer, Watling, each offered an “O.K. Operators Bell,” a machine supposed to be okay with the law in all territories, no matter how tight the local regulations. It could sell gum, pay in trade checks, or tell fortunes. It employed “future pay” dropping the player’s winnings into an inaccessible receptacle to be released only on the next pull of the handle. Since the player always knew exactly what he would get back, he was obviously not gambling. Reform-minded legislators were left scratching their heads.”
And on a standard slot machine, anybody who has the skill of scooping up coins without missing any has an advantage over someone without that skill.
I get what you’re saying, and you’re not wrong, although I think it’s interesting to think about the ways in which this is actually a skill game in a way that other slot machines are not. All gambling does require the skill of not leaving one’s winnings behind, but beyond that they may differ.
Blackjack is a skilled game only when iterated. Skilled players win at blackjack only when they play it repeatedly.
A slot machine is not a skilled game regardless of how many times you play it (unless, I supposed, you’re exploiting a flaw in it machine).
This machine is 100% skill if you play it once, but repeated play devolves to no skill.
I agree with that only partially. It certainly applies to card counting, which requires iteration, but not to basic strategy - essentially, knowing by heart the probability tables that tell you which action (hit, stand, or - if available - double down or split) to take for any given combination of player’s cards and dealer’s face-up card. You can’t eliminate or overcome the house edge with basic strategy alone, but you can significantly reduce it, and that effect is worthwhile even in a single game.
The discussions about games where greater or lesser amounts of skill are involved has been an interesting offshoot. I’d wonder if there has been a decision of “its not really gambling” for games where one person’s skill makes for a decided advantage.
The interesting point here is that penny-ante games between friends of equivalent skill would be gambling, but a game where one person was so skilled that they held an overwhelming advantage over the other players would not be gambling. Therefore police raids on penny-ante games would be more justifiable than raids on some high-stakes games.
Getting back to my original question: There is one way to look at this I hadn’t thought of before. Treat the first coin fed into the special slot machine as an “entry fee” to the game.
I step up to the machine and there’s no coins showing in the window. I pay the first coin with no expectation of return - just so I can continue to play. This is a classic entry fee. Continuing to play is gambling.
I step up to the machine and there’s only one coin showing in the window. I pay the first coin and receive a coin - but I would only do this because I expect to profit from playing again. This is an entry fee that is rebated. Continuing to play is gambling.
I step up to the machine and there is more than one coin showing in the window (see earlier posts for how this might happen). I pay the first coin and receive several coins in return. This is just what some casinos do: Entice people to enter by giving them, say, a roll of quarters. In this case, it is the casino that expects the person to stay and gamble - the person eventually losing the original “enticement” money and then more.
So, in any of the three scenarios, one party to the transaction is gambling, and the slot machine is a gambling machine.
Pinball machines. Weren’t gambling, were gambling, weren’t gambling again.
I don’t know of any place where pinball machines are currently gambling, but there were certainly American states where they were gambling for a while.
As I’ve understood it, partly because they were used as gambling machines in some locations, and partly because even if they aren’t used for gambling, they were judged in the same moral category of “worthless addictive time-wasting money-traps” as slot machines.
In most jurisdictions, penny-ante home games are considered gambling, but there’s more to the question than just “is it gambling?” to determine if it’s legal. Gambling where money just changes hands between players (possibly below some limit) is usually legal, while gambling where there’s a “house” that takes some cut is usually heavily regulated and illegal if not run according to those regulations.
I think there’s an even simpler way to look at it. Rather than an up-front entry fee, there’s an after-the-fact claim fee.
Elaborated: Consider it a regular slot machine. Insert a coin and spin, and you have a chance of a jackpot. The only difference is, if a jackpot comes up, the award is not dispensed immediately to the player; a second coin is then required to claim the winnings (with the incidental effect of producing another spin). If no jackpot is scored, and no winnings are available, the player returns to zero, and has the option to try again.
“Claim Fee” is a winner. It says exactly what is going on, and resolves the concern about whether this is gambling or not. THANK YOU.
Agreed the claim fee model is probably the best way to interpret it.
I’ll just note you’ve conflated size of stakes with skill level of player(s). That’s not necessarily so. Plenty of unskilled fatcats play for silly big money and plenty of skilled players play small-stakes with friends.
As to skill vs luck vs what is gambling, there’s an element of skill and of luck in everything. Hence the origin of the sports bromide: “Any given team can beat any other given team on any given day.” Skill will win out in the long run, but not necessarily in the short.
On the other side, there’s a famous bit by W.C. Fields I tried to find to share here but could not.
He’s talking to a woman clerk at a hotel and asks where he might find a poker game. She’s shocked! to hear such a thing. “But that’s gambling!” she gasps. Fields, in his trademark style says sotto voce to the audience “Not the way I play it!”
You are correct. One could imagine a game (and I was) where there’s no way for skill to help you at an individual hand, but card counting could give you an edge later. Blackjack is not that game.
Are you thinking of Baccarat?
I don’t know how to play Baccarat. I’m just saying that such a game could exist, but I was incorrect to say that Blackjack is one. Maybe Baccarat is such a game.