[QUOTE=Pochacco]
I’m on the east coast visiting the in-laws which is always SUCH a treat. Part of the fun is my brother-in-law who is in his mid-40’s and still lives with his parents.
[/QUOTE]
I think I know who the suckers are in this story. There’s two of them and neither of them are your brother-in-law.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
…the common assumption that a random distribution is also uniform.
[/QUOTE]
The strategy that I mentioned counts on the distribution not being uniform.
Because the distribution is not uniform then all you need some indicator of fewer distribution periods.
That indicator is someone giving up on a machine.
Trunk, the die isn’t programed to come up six a certain number of times but your program does or your payout wouldn’t be correct.
I wrote that it “mostly works” but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Nobody loves a rollicking discussion about probability more than I do, I assure you. But I have found that the easiest principle of probability to remember when it comes to casinos is that they are not going to have any machines that you can “beat” the odds on. If they did, they wouldn’t make any money. Heck, in the example I gave about the 99% payout, they are telling you that right in the ad.
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
The strategy that I mentioned counts on the distribution not being uniform.
Because the distribution is not uniform then all you need some indicator of fewer distribution periods.
That indicator is someone giving up on a machine.
Trunk, the die isn’t programed to come up six a certain number of times but your program does or your payout wouldn’t be correct.
I wrote that it “mostly works” but I wouldn’t bet on it.
[/QUOTE]
This is wrong.
Ok, say I have a die. On a 6 you win, on anything else I win. The payoff is 1/6. Do you agree? If not why not and if so what’s the difference between this and a slot machine in terms of guaranteeing a payoff?
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
The strategy that I mentioned counts on the distribution not being uniform.
Because the distribution is not uniform then all you need some indicator of fewer distribution periods.
That indicator is someone giving up on a machine.
Trunk, the die isn’t programed to come up six a certain number of times but your program does or your payout wouldn’t be correct.
[/QUOTE]
The die is programmed to come up six 1/6th of the time.
Just like my program in my slot machine is programmed to come up with a 95-100, 6% of the time.
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
The strategy that I mentioned counts on the distribution not being uniform.
Because the distribution is not uniform then all you need some indicator of fewer distribution periods.
That indicator is someone giving up on a machine.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming I’m reading this right, you’re arguing that non-uniform periods in the distribution indicate a higher probability of certain outcomes, due to the need for the distribution to be uniform over time. This is wrong. Because uncorrelated random numbers are used to determine individual outcomes, the time scale over which uniformity is required is so much longer than any individual non-uniform pockets as to make them meaningless.
Or, to put it another way, the fact that it hasn’t hit after many spins is absolutely no indication whatsoever that it is more likely to hit in the near future than any other machine. (Read that again, maybe out loud, until it sinks in.)
The program uses the same mechanism as the die, namely randomness. There is no further programming than that in determining whether or not a payout occurs. They could just as easily have a midget in there rolling dice and shoving coins through the slot.
(emphasis mine) :dubious:
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
They could just as easily have a midget in there rolling dice and shoving coins through the slot.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe that’s why you’re not allowed to shake the machines.
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
Trunk, the die isn’t programed to come up six a certain number of times but your program does or your payout wouldn’t be correct.
[/QUOTE]
For this, :smack: ; you set the payout for how much the 6 pays out.
But I’ll reiterate the assertion that the payout would not be uniform and the best judge of the non-uniformity would be someone walking away. True that the 6 doesn’t have to come up next.
Also I lumped straight payouts with progressive machines.
[QUOTE=Count Blucher]
Before we had kids, my wife & I would occasionally gamble. And you’re right there is no system for slots. Sure, management always picks 1-2 machines to pay lots of small jackpots near the entrance to the casino floor, but thats just to lure people to walk in (96% seems high; more like 75%).
[/QUOTE]
In Illinois, at least, casinos are required to disclose their payout rates, which the Illinois State Gaming Board publishes. I can’t seem to find the payout rates, but IIRC, in Illinois the average is around 90%, with the more expensive slots having higher payout rates (approaching 95% or so) than the penny slots, which hover in the 80s.
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
For this, :smack: ; you set the payout for how much the 6 pays out.
But I’ll reiterate the assertion that the payout would not be uniform and the best judge of the non-uniformity would be someone walking away. True that the 6 doesn’t have to come up next.
Also I lumped straight payouts with progressive machines.
[/QUOTE]
So how do you know it’s about to “hit”? It could just as well be interpreted as streaking cold. Some people look at a machine that’s hitting left and right as being “hot.” Others look at it as being completely milked and not worth playing. Who’s right? Neither. In long term events like slots or coin flipping or whatever, things that appear to be patterns will emerge.
pssst…
You want a guaranteed 104% return?
Try a U.S. savings bond.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
His conversation consists entirely of complaints about his girlfriend.
[/QUOTE]
So…he’s 40 years old, has a gambling problem, lives with his parents (in the basement “office?”) and has myriad health issues. What’s the complaint he has about his girlfriend? That she sprang a leak?
re: slots. Though I’ve never played, I have heard that the machines nearest the door are set to have a higher payout than the ones inside, in order to lure more patrons deeper into the casino. Anyone hear about this? Is it true?
[QUOTE=Swampwolf]
So…he’s 40 years old, has a gambling problem, lives with his parents (in the basement “office?”) and has myriad health issues. What’s the complaint he has about his girlfriend? That she sprang a leak?
[/QUOTE]
Heh. I was thinking similarly as I read, “He must be complaining that she has incredibly low self esteem and poor judgment.”
BTW, I just adore that on this board we can have a thread in the Pit evolve into a tutorial on probability.
[QUOTE=Hampshire]
pssst…
You want a guaranteed 104% return?
Try a U.S. savings bond.
[/QUOTE]
Where’s the fun in that? Next you’ll be recommending hard work and clean living.
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
For this, :smack: ; you set the payout for how much the 6 pays out.
But I’ll reiterate the assertion that the payout would not be uniform and the best judge of the non-uniformity would be someone walking away. True that the 6 doesn’t have to come up next.
Also I lumped straight payouts with progressive machines.
[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the odds of winning or the expected value, then?
[QUOTE=Hampshire]
pssst…
You want a guaranteed 104% return?
Try a U.S. savings bond.
[/QUOTE]
Once you figure how little you are earning annually, you might decide the risk/return profile for the slots is more to your liking!
Great, somebody woke up the math nerds.
[QUOTE=Will Repair]
Software engineers are perfect?
They’ve passed the “Law of Averages” you know, the one physicists have had so much trouble getting enacted?
[/QUOTE]
:eek: Nearly 1500 posts here and you still believe in the Law of Averages?!
More reading, less posting, is my advice to you. 
-FrL-
It is my understanding that non-Indian-Reservation gambling is legal in certain situations in California, but ONLY if the economic setup is such that the player is not playing against the house. That is, the house doesn’t care at all whether a player wins or loses. So, for instance, poker is legal, because if a player loses a huge pot, the house didn’t win it, another player did. And there’s a version of blackjack that they play in which the players play against each other and the house rakes a set fee per hand.
Thus, slot machines in California have to be set up so that they are guaranteed by programming, not just by probability, to pay out their certain percentage. (Because the house has to guarantee that its profit will be precisely $.05 per spin, regardless of outcome, or something… it’s effectively charging a usage fee, not gambling-vs-the-player.) So for California slots (assuming I understand this issue correctly and the situation hasn’t changed), there is a sufficiently long period (64K spins?) over which, if you have counted and seen that it has paid out poorly, you are 100% guaranteed to win if you play for a while.
But it wouldn’t surprise me if that were no longer the case.
[QUOTE=featherlou]
Great, somebody woke up the math nerds.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know - who poked them? 