So, basically, you're proud of being a sucker?

The BBQ Pit
101

I see your point and the two quotes do seem to conflict, but I’m not convinced your quote proves randomness. The quote is clearly stating that a RNG decides the outcome, but of course that random # can go into an algorithm that uses many other variables. In fact, it must. Otherwise the cycle may become predictable. RNG’s are not truly random, but rather they are designed to approximate randomness by adding enough complexity to prevent prediction. The presence of a RNG does not equal discrete and random outcomes.

The very fact that ‘near miss’ displays are legal tells you that gaming laws don’t really require random outcomes. Is this surprising? It’s man with more money than sense vs. computer… now there is a bet I’d be happy to take.

Further: “according to Griffiths and Parke (2003), EGMs in the United Kingdom do indeed run through a prize sequence over a relatively short time frame (see also the discussion on adaptive logic fruit machines in U.S. patent #6,666,765, Patent Public Search | USPTO)” – Nigel Turner, Center for Addiction

That ain’t Nevada, but in my cynical opinion anything the rest of the word has thought of, Las Vegas has perfected long ago.

102

I have two systems for slots,the first is that I never play them.

The second is if I ever get the opportunity and site for one I will get one and that way I’ll always win even if now and again someone gets a little rebate,some or all of which will probably go back in the machine over a period of time.

Apart from that its so uncool telling somebody that you’ve won a few bob on a m/c its not quite the same as Texas hold 'em or Bacarrat for suavity effect is it?

103

Okay, fair enough. I wonder if you can point me to something that documents this?

-FrL-

104

The question is: what does the random number determine?

In other words, what is the meaning of “outcome”?

I think that the article, and laws about “near miss” situations, pretty clearly implies not that the casinos are fudging the order of player win/losses, but that they are messing with your head with respect to the displays. It’s a machine completely controlled by computer chips. The dials can display any damn thing they’re programmed to display. So you put in your quarter, hit the button and the machine comes up with a random number. If that number is big enough, it stops the dials so you see three Liberty Bells. If the number isn’t big enough, it stops the dials on some non-winning combination. Any non-winning combination.

Of course, the casino wants you to feel like you almost won, so it doesn’t stop on utter crap, it stops on Liberty Bell-Liberty Bell-Cherry, or it stops with Liberty Bells on the line above where they need to be. That way you feel like, had the stars been aligned slightly better, your Bells would be ringing and happiness would ensue.

If they wanted to (and it were legal) they could program the machines so that every non-winning spin was one click off from the jackpot. My guess is that they used to do more or less just that and were told to knock it off by the Nevada gaming commission. “More or less” because it would (probably) become obvious that they were messing with your mind if it were every time.

Similarly, if I ran a casino I would have speakers in the ceilings that made the jackpot sound at regular intervals. There are so many obstacles to line of sight that when you’re sitting at the machine you hear the jackpot noise and can’t see who just won. But you know that somebody out there just did, and it could be you next!

105

The part that you quoted says nothing more than that the prizes are distributed so that there are a few large prizes rather than many small ones. It doens’t say anything about fudging the sequence of wins and losses, etc. In fact I would be surprised if it was legal to do so.

106

It may be instructive to imagine a simple slot machine. Let’s say there are 3 wheels, each with the numbers 1-6. The wheels are independent of each other. All numbers have an equal chance of coming up (1/6th). This can be simulated with 3 dice of different colors, say red, blue, and green. Now let’s say that 3 1s pays $1, 3 2s pays $2, and so on up to $6 for 3 6s. There are 6[sup]3[/sup], or 216 total possible results. Only 6 of those are winning results, so there is a 1/36 chance of winning something on a given spin. If the payouts for the winning spins were averaged out so that any result won, the payout would be:

sum of 1 to 6 = 21
21 / 216 = 0.0972~

So 9.72~ cents on each spin. Make the cost to play 10 cents per spin, and the payout percentage is then 97.2~%.

Now, a random distribution is not a uniform distribution. Similar results have a tendency to clump together, giving the appearance of hot and cold streaks. In a room of 1000 identical machines, some will be paying out more than average, some less, and most about normal. Casinos uses lights and noises to make you notice the payouts and keep your attention away from the other machines.

107

Building on sturmhauke’s example there are several outcomes that are “almost” winners. For example 1-1-2 or 3-2-3. If we go for just the most dramatic, the spins where the first two numbers match and the third is just one click away make you think “I’m going to win I’m going to win I’m going to… damn. So close!” This is much more exciting than getting 1-2-3, because as soon as you see the second number click into place you know you’ve lost and you’re just waiting for the last reel to stop spinning so you can pull the lever again.

Five times out six the second number doesn’t match the first number. That’s not fun to watch. As soon as you see the second number you’re thinking “where’s the drink girl? Man it sure is late…” instead of “…and then I’ll buy a yacht. And a Lear!”

If I were an unscrupulous casino owner (is there any other kind?) and I had computerized slot machines, I would program them to roll the dice and replace some of the boring loser spins with “almost win” spins. Spins where all three numbers are different are extremely dissatisfying. So let’s get rid of them. Computer rolls three dice: red, blue and green. If all three are different then display R-R-G. This still loses because red is different from green, but it was a more exciting loss.

The nice thing about my new slot machine is that it has exactly the same payout percentages as before, but now it always looks like you were about to win. That is, you always have two numbers that are the same.

The type of manipulation that I’m talking about is the type that seems to be regulated in Nevada. Note that it doesn’t change your chances of winning at all, nor does it change the distribution of wins. Just the player’s perception of their chances.

108

There’s a woman on my block who used to run a bar/restaurant with slots in it.

She said the food and drink barely broke even.

But, she made a killing on the slots.

109

No, but RNG are very good at approximating randomness and there are a number of ways of tweaking the randomness in order to make to the system unpredictable.

But it’s easy to factor in ‘near miss’ without all the programming. Random number between 0 and 100, if the number is > 95 payout otherwise if number is higher than > 60 show a near miss. People will happily interpret a streak.

OK, EGMs in the UK are different from the casino machines. And, yes, they’re clearly programmed to a greater degree. Several machines will indicate in a subtle way that they’re going to give you the jackpot and there are other sequences you can spot that indicate greater or lesser fortune coming up.

However all that means is that it’s decided the outcome of the next few spins a bit in advance, no need for complex programming.

Casino machines are different, and I’ve never noticed or heard of similar systems or any clustering of winning. In fact I’m sure I’ve heard that they’re required to calculate the spin when the button is pushed and not before but I’ve not cite for that currently.

Oh hell yeah, but LV is about doing it the cheapest way possible. This thread demonstrates that people will find patterns quite happily without the need for complex programming to put them there.

SD

/is off to Vegas in three months. Three months today in fact. Woo!

110

Not a great cite but from here

So traditional Vegas style slots are truly independently random game-per-game. In addition, the constant generation of random numbers (and only using the live one) effectively blocks any chance of cracking the system. I believe Video Poker falls into that category too, but I could be wrong on that point.

There are other types of slots, and these are clearly more devious, but I can’t remember seeing one in a casino in the UK and certainly not in the US.

111

How are they different? Modern slots are essentially electronic gaming machings.

This is my point! Modern slots are not electronic approximations of mechanical slots, they are programmed (however simply) to engage the gambler and provide a predictable return.

Are you serious? Las Vegas is all about returns. They will gladly make incredibly large investments as long as the return justifies it. And with electronic gaming, returns are all but guaranteed. Have fun in Vegas.

112

Picture of a LV style slot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/liltree/1200775331/
Picture of a UK style fruit machine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/racheal_walker/124243545/

The LV ones have a spin button, holds and a nudge feature if you’re lucky. The UK ones have holds and nudges and skill stops and fruit shoots and money snakes and jackpots and cashpots and … you get the idea.

The UK ones give you a longer game on average but still have fixed payouts. In fact, because you can affect the amount of the payout (depending how you play the feature) they may be required to rejig things on the fly to make that payout. Certainly I’ve seen them go into ‘no-lose’ mode where you get the jackpot regardless of what you do.

The casino style machines ones are designed to be faster and simpler.

However, none of that is important. The reason you don’t see the UK style ones in Vegas (or other casinos) is because non-randomness like that is not permitted in Nevada (and most other places).

Chill. All I’m saying is that casino slots don’t do that. Of course the machines could have extra programming, and the ones you find in pubs in the UK certainly do but the ones in casinos (which is what we were talking about) don’t.

The law (in Nevada) says that they must be approximations of the system they represent. I.e. if it looks like it spins a set of wheels that stop at a random point then it must do that it can’t have programming for streaks. So they are, in fact, not programmed to ‘engage the gambler’ they’re programed to pretend to be a mechanical slot.

Another cite to add to the one I posted earlier, from here

Of course they’ll make huge investments to get bigger returns. But as I’ve shown it’s against the law to use the tricked out machines.

The point I was making is that they’ll not spend money unnecessarily. People are already convinced there’s hot and cold streaks, but there isn’t, so why bother adding them (even if they could).

113

Just stay away from the buffets at casinos that advertise loose craps.

114

“It’s not a bug, it’s a FEATURE!”

115

I saw a photograph hanging on my Uncle Al’s fridge. Taken at a Atlantic City Casino, he was standing there with a big grin, under a big sign that said, “$6,000. winner”!

I asked him if he thought that he won more or lost more at the casinos, he laughed and acknowledged that he loses a lot more than he wins.

I bring that up only to indicate the veracity of my source. Uncle Al knows very well that the casino takes more than it gives in the overwhelming majority of events.

But he did tell me how some retirees squeak a little money out of the casinos on a daily basis.

Yes, it’s a system, and I’ll relate it here, but it’s not particularly revelatory. I am not a mathematician, so I can’t confirm that it conforms to the principals of any physics that I’ve heard about, nor having ever stepped foot in a casino, I can’t personally confirm that it is done on a practical level either.

But I do know my Uncle Al, and while he regularly tells stories that appear to be too outrageous to be true, they have always always checked out. Anyway, enough build up, sorry, I just want you to reflect on the fact that, in Life, math and physics are not really reliable friends, they are more like The Man. You’d love to stick it to him, but more often than not, you get busted.

So, my Uncle Al says that these retiree’s walk around the casino, with a pocket full of chips, and they listen. They listen for the sound of good cheer, the yelp of success, the sound of hands slapping a back. They are looking for the sound of a winner, on a winning streak.

Now, I do understand the Law of Independent Averages, but if you’re going to flip that coin one hundred times, I’ll bet that somewhere in there, there are going to be five or six heads in a row. I don’t know what you call that, but it happens. By listening, these retirees try to get into the middle of it.

They only put a little money down, and they only play along for a couple or rolls (or spins, or whatever), but they try and ride a person’s winning streak, by betting along with him or her.

My Uncle Al says, that by hanging around the casinos all day, these retirees can earn $50. to $100. a day, on top of their Social Security.

Anyway, that’s a system, and I imagine it works. My Uncle Al says so. Think a little outside the box, think a little bit in the reality of the world, not only where you’ve been taught to go, but where you see possibilities.

116

That’s not a system, that’s a superstition. Winning streaks don’t predict anything - they just occur by chance and end the same way.

117

Who said anything about “predicting”? You say that “they occur”, and that is my point. “Streak” implies that they last for some discernible time.

118

Sure there are streaks. Like you said, you flip a coin 100 times you’ll see a few 5 or 6 in a row heads. But you’ll also see a few 1, 2, 3, or 4 heads in a row.
So how do you know when a streak is occuring until it’s done? You don’t. And neither do these supersticious senior citizens.
There is no possible way of “jumping into the middle” of a streak. At the “jump in” point one of two things will happen, the streak ends, or the streak continues. 50/50.

119

Your uncle Al tries to jump in the “middle” of a winning streak - so he thinks that an ongoing winning streak is likely to continue. That would mean that the streak is predicitive of further wins. And that just ain’t how it works. Winning streaks happen, but they can only be discerned retrospectively - you can’t see them coming. Five wins in a row does not predict a sixth or seventh win in a row.

120

As others have noted, the sound of a winner on a winning streak is the same as the sound of a winner just before the streak ends. Past results don’t predict the future (that’s pretty much the definition of ‘random’).