In Illinois and likely elsewhere, lottery officials publish the number of unclaimed prizes remaining in an instant scratchoff game. So, using the link below and selecting, for example, $10 ticket price > $1 Million Mega Money game, we can see that all 3 of the largest prizes have alread been claimed.
https://www.illinoislottery.com/about-the-games/unpaid-instant-games-prizes
According to the manufacturer, you can view the entire list of upcoming prizes for the machine. If I had to guess, I’d predict that the list is deliberately designed to be slow to interact with, so that it’s impractical to view the outcomes of the next 1000 pulls, but it seems to be there in principle.
It’s not like that stopped anyone from playing ordinary slot machines.
But if you put in a coin and a previously unknown future prize in the pipe is revealed, that is still a game of chance - just like playing 21 - should I hit or stay? Just because you have the option of quitting before you get to that prize does not make the new prize less of a random chance.
The only way to have a previously-unknown prize is if you didn’t look, because the machine (as I understand it) shows all future prizes. It’s like Blackjack if there are no other players, and the dealer will show you the entire shoe upon request.
And not shuffle afterwards?
I mean, I don’t get the “all future prizes” thing. If every prize is visible, say the next 1000, it would be easy to figure out how much in and out you will get, and so whether it’s even worth playing.
Would it be easy? A computer screen shows you thousands of numbers and you just add them all up in your head while sitting in front of it, while keeping track of how many you add up?
So you put in a few “big prizes,” but you don’t tell anyone how many there are.
It’s a variation on the punchboard game:
The operator sells a punchboard or break-open tickets (we always called them “Nevadas”) to an establishment–say, a bar or a pub or somesuch. Just making up numbers here, but let’s say that the jar of Nevadas or the punchboard is sold to the bar/pub for $100. There are 100 tickets or holes, and each chance costs $1. In the jar of Nevadas or on the punchboard, are (for example) four $10 prizes, four $5 prizes, and five $2 prizes. Net profit to the bar/pub is $30, assuming all Nevada tickets or punches are sold.
Thing is, nobody knows how many big prizes remain on the board, or in the jar. The seller won’t disclose it, except to say to the pub/bar, “You buy this jar/board for $100, charge $1 a chance, and if you sell every ticket or every hole, you’ll profit to the tune of $30.” And the game is advertised as “Win up to $10 on every chance!”
What you don’t do is to advertise the game as “One big prize for $25!” Because once that $25 is won, enthusiasm will wane.
So you don’t have one big prize, you have a few. But each is still big enough to return on an investment. And nobody knows how many prizes there are (could be seven at $10, could be 35 at $2, could be 14 at $5, or any mixture of same), so even after one prize has been won, people will continue to play.
Not my preferred game, but I guess some people like it.
As glowacks said, I don’t think it’s that easy. Particularly for the kind of person that is likely to frequent slot machines in the first place.
Unlike regular slot machines, one of these can be legitimately “hot” or “cold” (as opposed to mildly cool all the time). Presumably, the machine will rarely be left in a very hot state (i.e., a big jackpot in the next few pulls). But even then, there are probably limits–if there’s a $1000 jackpot, 600 pulls away (for $1 pulls), clearly that’s hot, but may not be achievable: maybe the user doesn’t have enough cash to get there, or maybe the location closes before it’s possible to make that many pulls, or maybe it’s just that viewing the list that far out is so slow and annoying that it’s impractical.
Could someone good at math make money by inspecting machines until they find a hot one? Yeah, but the machines could be designed to limit how much money you make. If it’s impossible to make more than, say, $15/hr, it’s not going to be worth it to many people.
So basically a form of faux gambling that relies on people being stupid and lazy. What are the odds of that? 
Anything really illogical is a result of a business contorting itself to comply with the letter of a regulation while roundly and profitably defeating the spirit.
They’ve found a loophole where they can have something that’s functionally gambling that isn’t legally gambling.
In theory a player could avail themselves of all the it’s-not-gambling features to grind out a usually small but fully predictable profit given enough time and enough effort. In practice they (mostly) just play it as a regular slot machine where each result, though fully knowable in advance, is a total surprise as it comes up.
Which actually is a nice intro to the various intellectual takes on the very notion of “probability”. Which can be viewed either as likelihood of something unknowable, or as likelihood of something fixed and knowable at least in principal, but as yet unknown at least to the decision-maker.
How about just letting people play regular old slot machines?
You forget how strong the blue-nose contingent is in the USA. The government and business love the revenue, but they need to fig-leaf that reality from the busy-bodies.
It’s only functionally gambling if the players are idiots. Which, admittedly, applies to the vast majority of folks who will be playing these games, but not everyone. Which will have the effect that these games won’t be gambling for anyone.
It only takes a small number of smart players to ensure that no machine will ever be left in a “hot” state. Those few smart players will always win, with no chance of losing, and the many dumb player will always lose, with no chance of winning. Always-win and always-lose are neither one of them gambling.
Good point. Although if the machine design make the always-win play too, too onerous then only very rarely will any machine be “gamed” like that by a smart player.
And in fact from the business’s POVs, they need to make the smart play close enough to impossible that it is rarely done. If too many people play the always-win trick too often, the public will eventually get wise and nobody will be willing to play the must-lose role of patsy. At which point the machine ceases to be profitable for the retailer to operate, and then for the manufacturer to sell. So they want to sell the promise that the machine can be out-smarted, while 99.9% failing to deliver on that promise.
Overall I’m reminded of a bit from a classic W.C. Fields movie:
Fields’ character: I think I’ll go down to the hotel lobby and play some poker.
Plump Society Matron character: Gasp! But, but, that’s gambling!
Fields’ character: (sotto voce) Not the way I play it.
The company is, right now, betting on the stupidity of the typical person. That’s famously not a way to go broke.
What this really shows is that the laws against gambling are too narrow, because the negative traits of gambling, what those laws are trying to target, aren’t just found in gambling.
W.C. Fields: “Ah yes, I remember the time… I had three aces, he had four. Now normally, that doesn’t bother me - but I know what I dealt him.”
I wonder if that’s really it. We’re not talking about roulette wheels and poker, just slot machines. It’s no different than playing the lottery except you have a better chance of winning more than you spent. And the same blue noses spend plenty of time at bingo halls. I think that government wants to hold on to their control over gambling. From the state house down to local authorities it’s a power they have over others that they don’t want to give up.
It’s definitely one factor along with a bunch of others: popular opinion and resistance from other types of legalized gaming. Another major factor is who gets what cut.
Over the years Chicagoland has gone from horse racing to lotteries to river boats to a casino and now to slots. With each iteration, there is significant power on both sides. It’s not like the government is running roughshod over the populace.
I guess I’m a blue-blood. I would prefer not to have slots, but at the same time I don’t feel like I get to tell other adults what they can’t do.
I’ve been through casinos, both local and in Vegas and Atlantic City - more as a tourist than anything else, since I’m aware of the odds. There seems to be a specific clientele, who probably can least afford to give away their money - although presumably their enjoyment is in dreaming of hitting the jackpot.
Plus there’s the law of diminishing returns. When every bar has slot machines in a side room, it means a fancy casino is less of a draw than when you had to travel through many states just to get to one. Whether the player can see every future jackpot and determine when to stop to maximize profits, or if it’s a complete game of chance, the net result is always going to be the house comes out ahead. Otherwise, what’s the point? Charities have better things to do with their money (although maybe some casino patrons probably could use some charity).
I found this description from a manufacturere of these games:
“In the No Chance Game, chance has absolutely no role in any possible outcome. Each and every prize to be awarded is predetermined and placed in the list of prizes before the software is loaded into the machine.
The player may view the entire list of prizes that will be awarded at their balance, in the order in which they will be awarded. Therefore, every outcome which may entitle the player to money is entirely predictable by the player!”
The wording is confusing. But I think the game reveals the results of the next spin, and also tells you the amount of the next winning spin. It doesn’t tell you how many losing spins it will take to get there. That info comes incrementally.