- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
What are the odds of getting 5 Rams on Thunderstruck (that's 10 Rams, in 5 pairs, for the pedantic
)
Just curious......
)Just curious......
Scattered Odds
- Thread starter vinylweatherman
- Start date
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
30 symbols on each reel, one Ram, 3 positions in view, 1 in 10 chance per reel, 1 in 10n5, 1 in 100,000 
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Location
- Planet Earth
30 symbols on each reel, one Ram, 3 positions in view, 1 in 10 chance per reel, 1 in 10n5, 1 in 100,000
I thought the first 4 reels had 30, and the final had 44?
This makes it 3/30 * 3/30 *3/30 * 3/30 * 3/44 = ~1 in 150,000
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Location
- Bexhill on sea, England
This is correct: Data from cjb, verified by Professor Zoozie:-
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/probabilities.10822/?highlight=Probabilities
Interestingly, even though Tomb Raider has different numbers of symbols per reel to Thunderstruck, the odds of 5 scatters is roughly the same at 150,440/1.
Data analysed & verified by Doctor King:-
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/probabilities.10822/?highlight=Probabilities
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2005
- Location
- Denmark
Yes, correct.
The reels was found both by me and also by another member independant of each other. And this is why I am so certain that we have the reels correct for Thunderstruck.
Some other 5-reel slots can have more than 1 scatter/reel. I think Isis has
2 scatters on the first reel etc.
Zoozie
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Why
The reason I asked this was because only a short while into the Casino Action tournament this happened:-
The reason I asked this was because only a short while into the Casino Action tournament this happened:-
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Location
- Albuquerque, NM
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Best way to play these.
200 for 5 natural hammers, and prize fund of 1000.
Despite spinning at 18p, I won 200 on the session.
I suppose this rarety was the highlight though, even if only 90.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Rare
This rarety is getting commonplace now!
That's 3 times in 8 days, only TWO actually spent spinning Thunderstruck at Casino Action.
This rarety is getting commonplace now!
That's 3 times in 8 days, only TWO actually spent spinning Thunderstruck at Casino Action.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
I'VE NEVER HIT THEM!!!!!! IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!
That's amazing VW, now how about you share some around eh?
That's amazing VW, now how about you share some around eh?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Location
- Albuquerque, NM
polli hits them twice a week
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Jeez. I must have played well over 1 million spins on Tstruck, probably closer to 5 mil and only ever hit 5 scatters once, right in teh first month of playing. You guys are making me jealous
Jeez. I must have played well over 1 million spins on Tstruck, probably closer to 5 mil and only ever hit 5 scatters once, right in teh first month of playing. You guys are making me jealous
Hey Simmo,
I would be glad to trade you all my 5 scatters for just a few of your posted screenies.
AussieDave
Banned User
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2005
- Location
- Australia
I got the 5 scatters in Spring Break twice in one session, thought that was pretty impressive.
Got the things a week ago, though, as per usual just dropped bet to $2.25 spin...Nice win all the same.
Got the things a week ago, though, as per usual just dropped bet to $2.25 spin...Nice win all the same.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Clear
Clearly
They are more likely to come when the bet size is low. I have played Thunderstruck for three years without the 5 Rams, and then when I am betting REALLY low (after the 5 hammers for $200 as well as the tourney prizes), I get them twice one week at the same casino, and again the following week at another.
This must surely be proof that MG slots are rigged to look better at low wager amounts, I find generally that the top win to stake ratio is far higher when betting small than when betting big
There are of course exceptions to this general rule, such as my hit of 8000 with 4 Thors in the bonus round while spinning at 11.25, and a freaky 5 scatters at Spring Break to start the spins again at 11.25. This is actually a bug in the software when betting 11.25, because it is an uneven amount the software is fooled into seeing it as 11p per spin 
Clearly
They are more likely to come when the bet size is low. I have played Thunderstruck for three years without the 5 Rams, and then when I am betting REALLY low (after the 5 hammers for $200 as well as the tourney prizes), I get them twice one week at the same casino, and again the following week at another.This must surely be proof that MG slots are rigged to look better at low wager amounts, I find generally that the top win to stake ratio is far higher when betting small than when betting big
There are of course exceptions to this general rule, such as my hit of 8000 with 4 Thors in the bonus round while spinning at 11.25, and a freaky 5 scatters at Spring Break to start the spins again at 11.25. This is actually a bug in the software when betting 11.25, because it is an uneven amount the software is fooled into seeing it as 11p per spin
In jest, right? Have they changed their program? I'm not buying it. If they don't spin exactly the same at one fenig one line as they do at max bet, they are a crooked slot.
T-struck has never been good to me, but neither have vinyl nor lady's night. I attributed it to bad ho.
T-struck has never been good to me, but neither have vinyl nor lady's night. I attributed it to bad ho.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Location
- UK
I still believe that slots pay out ONLY when they have money to do so and although i can never prove this im also fairly sure that each coin size you play on has its OWN kind of bank. In other words, if a slots ready to pay out on a 1 p coin size doesnt mean its going to pay out on a 5 p coin size. I have noticed that you can turn a slot from playing badly into a slot that plays well just by changing your coin size. This is what leads me to believe that each slot has various levels of `takeins` and `payouts`
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Yes
Sometimes this works, I once turned 50 into 1000 on Munchkins by constantly changing both coin size and coins per line during a session. I bet from around the 1 / 2 level, all the way up to 18 using various combinations. It did seem like I was able to take the payouts from different "pots", just like on a UK Fruit Machine, by this constant changing.
On other occasions though, I find the slot just as dead at any combination. Munchkins does seem to have a signature for this dead spell, which is just a single scatter every few spins, but never a pair. When a bonus round is near, I get scatters as pairs just as often as single. It is as though the games can run either in phase or out of phase, by which I mean that where there are a number of cards or reels to be independently determined, they either cooperate with each other to produce good starting combinations, or they are as different as possible, meaning starting combinations are always poor, which in card games means a long losing streak (VP). In Blackjack, the deck seems to switch from "10 rich" to "10 poor" as though it was in a real casino, despite the fact that the deck is supposed to be shuffled each hand. If a deck is "10 poor", this heavily favours the dealer over the player, and the result will be the dealer winning many hands they really should have lost. In a 10 poor deck, strategies like a double come off badly as low cards are often dealt, while low cards make it easy for the dealer to escape from a bad starting hand, against which you may have doubled down. Where the deck is 10 rich, doubling down often is rewarded with a 10 card, while the dealer will often bust from anything under a 7 up.
I have played VP, where every deal is just a high card, and a high pair if I am lucky, yet on other occasions I am regularly getting dealt 2 pair, 3OK and more, and even if I keep missing the good conversions I do well from the good starts. It can vary from game to game, it is often the case that some games are hitting well, but with hundreds of games it is harder to stumble upon the hot game before the bankroll has gone.
While there is much randomness, I strongly suspect some kind of controlling envelope function is used to convert the RNG output into an artificially streaked session, which can be in either direction. While the mathematics behind this conversion are kept secret, the statement "we use a state of the art RNG" means little if the raw output goes through any kind of algorithm that changes which random number leads to which card, or reel stop, depending on the chosen streak alignment for that game.
The cat is out of the bag, MG have already been rumbled over the doubling game in VP having a predetermined outcome regardless of the card selected by the player, in effect a short cut. Short cuts could exist in other games, perhaps a starting hand in VP is NOT the result of 5 independent RNG associations with 5 cards, but a single RNG against a given 5 card pattern. Such a short cut would seem to explain the uncommon streakiness of the games, as the outcomes have fewer mathematical "degrees of freedom" than the traditional RNG to card/reel stop model would suggest.
Sometimes this works, I once turned 50 into 1000 on Munchkins by constantly changing both coin size and coins per line during a session. I bet from around the 1 / 2 level, all the way up to 18 using various combinations. It did seem like I was able to take the payouts from different "pots", just like on a UK Fruit Machine, by this constant changing.
On other occasions though, I find the slot just as dead at any combination. Munchkins does seem to have a signature for this dead spell, which is just a single scatter every few spins, but never a pair. When a bonus round is near, I get scatters as pairs just as often as single. It is as though the games can run either in phase or out of phase, by which I mean that where there are a number of cards or reels to be independently determined, they either cooperate with each other to produce good starting combinations, or they are as different as possible, meaning starting combinations are always poor, which in card games means a long losing streak (VP). In Blackjack, the deck seems to switch from "10 rich" to "10 poor" as though it was in a real casino, despite the fact that the deck is supposed to be shuffled each hand. If a deck is "10 poor", this heavily favours the dealer over the player, and the result will be the dealer winning many hands they really should have lost. In a 10 poor deck, strategies like a double come off badly as low cards are often dealt, while low cards make it easy for the dealer to escape from a bad starting hand, against which you may have doubled down. Where the deck is 10 rich, doubling down often is rewarded with a 10 card, while the dealer will often bust from anything under a 7 up.
I have played VP, where every deal is just a high card, and a high pair if I am lucky, yet on other occasions I am regularly getting dealt 2 pair, 3OK and more, and even if I keep missing the good conversions I do well from the good starts. It can vary from game to game, it is often the case that some games are hitting well, but with hundreds of games it is harder to stumble upon the hot game before the bankroll has gone.
While there is much randomness, I strongly suspect some kind of controlling envelope function is used to convert the RNG output into an artificially streaked session, which can be in either direction. While the mathematics behind this conversion are kept secret, the statement "we use a state of the art RNG" means little if the raw output goes through any kind of algorithm that changes which random number leads to which card, or reel stop, depending on the chosen streak alignment for that game.
The cat is out of the bag, MG have already been rumbled over the doubling game in VP having a predetermined outcome regardless of the card selected by the player, in effect a short cut. Short cuts could exist in other games, perhaps a starting hand in VP is NOT the result of 5 independent RNG associations with 5 cards, but a single RNG against a given 5 card pattern. Such a short cut would seem to explain the uncommon streakiness of the games, as the outcomes have fewer mathematical "degrees of freedom" than the traditional RNG to card/reel stop model would suggest.
If you guys are right, there are no fair slots on the net to play. Because if MG would do this without informing players, nothing is sacred.
A machine must not be programmed to to do anything more than increase your return volume when you increase your bet. Anything else is not a fair program, or they are not actually using a RNG, in either case I wouldn't play them.
Tell me it ain't so Microgaming, tell me it ain't so!
And yes, there is a Santa Clause, I saw him on HO-HO-HO he even gave me presents
A machine must not be programmed to to do anything more than increase your return volume when you increase your bet. Anything else is not a fair program, or they are not actually using a RNG, in either case I wouldn't play them.
Tell me it ain't so Microgaming, tell me it ain't so!
And yes, there is a Santa Clause, I saw him on HO-HO-HO he even gave me presents
Thumbing back through a couple of threads I see webzcas making the strongest statement, as well as Simmo! and tim5ny relating it 3rd hand from MG, and Zoozie first hand with charting. MG odds are(were) not adjusted/adjustable.
Assuming the 'state of the art RNG' is similar to a vegas machine; it will cycle at least 100 times per second and have a cycle life of 4,000,000,000, meaning it will cycle in less than 500 days.
Put a string of random 1 and 0 together, 4 billion units long, and you will have clumps. There will be random occurances to 'back up' any anecdotal claim you can proffer.
But if MG doesn't categorically state that they do not, and operators cannot adjust the odds we will be left with our own conclusions.
If they don't come out and explain why the software updates started getting funky lately, we will imagine all kinds of things about them.
Assuming the 'state of the art RNG' is similar to a vegas machine; it will cycle at least 100 times per second and have a cycle life of 4,000,000,000, meaning it will cycle in less than 500 days.
Put a string of random 1 and 0 together, 4 billion units long, and you will have clumps. There will be random occurances to 'back up' any anecdotal claim you can proffer.
But if MG doesn't categorically state that they do not, and operators cannot adjust the odds we will be left with our own conclusions.
If they don't come out and explain why the software updates started getting funky lately, we will imagine all kinds of things about them.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Funkified
Talking of funky updates, I have updated a few casinos with this months releases, and I noticed again the trend for each game, old and new, updating again. What was different this time is that in many cases this was NOT just downloading and verifying a checksum, I noticed that the old games really were fully updating, noted by the continual packet exchange through my modem. When just checking, there is a brief flicker while the checksum downloads, followed by a pause while it is checked - this time, the checks triggered the full download of a number of new games.
To my earlier point about the streak envelope. An example might be the 5 cards for the starting hand at any Video Poker. If only one ramdom number is used, it could be equated to, say, 52% just a high card, 48% a pair or better. The result would determine the class of hand drawn, and an algorithm would just make up that structure from appropriate cards for display. Simplifying the draw would probably not be an option, as the mathematics would only behave if the discards were replaced by independently drawn cards. This would give interesting behaviour, while you would forever get bad starting hands over good, the draw will occasionally come good by pure chance, giving the isolated big hit which is quickly swallowed up over the next few hands.
Another possibility is that the first card is selected ramdomly, but the other four are selected through a weighting envelope such that the cards will either favour working with, or against, the previously drawn cards - streak enhancement. The envelope will be designed to replicate a fair proportion of weightings such that the overall return on the game is exactly as it should be. This would benefit the business, as it would provide for winning streaks that players will remember, and they will have many of these streaks to remember! To compensate, there will be long losing streaks to balance the return.
This would also work on slots, and would explain certain "patterns" that seem to repeat, such as on 5 reel drive, there is a very marked run of some 30 or so spins without a single win on any of the 9 lines, but a scatter win or two hits around the middle of the run. Much of the rest of the time, the slot hits something small on nearly every other spin, and occasionally something big.
On the Thunderstruck slots, it seems that you either hit lots of scatters, or lots of wins, mostly small. This leads to many bonus rounds being void of any wins except for a couple of hits on two scatters. Very occasionally, a bonus round hits at the changeover, and leads to many hits and a big total - just seems everything comes together. There is also the possibility of a big total from just one very big hit in one of the free spins, which will pretty much be the entire contribution. Bonus rounds starting from 4 scatters seem poorer yielding than those started by three.
There is also the question of why the previous hand is saved, and why a bad run thus continues even the next day when you log in and play on from that last hand the previous day. This last hand COULD be used to continue the streak weighting, although there is no proof it has such a use. The last hand is stored on the server, and is not just localy stored as the last state - indeed the server subjects play to a delay for "refreshing state" just so that it can recover and display the last spent hand, yet, MG claim they took a short cut with the doubling game because they said players did not welcome a delay while a second transaction resolved the players choice of card - why is one unnecessary delay OK, but another needs a short cut work around?
Talking of funky updates, I have updated a few casinos with this months releases, and I noticed again the trend for each game, old and new, updating again. What was different this time is that in many cases this was NOT just downloading and verifying a checksum, I noticed that the old games really were fully updating, noted by the continual packet exchange through my modem. When just checking, there is a brief flicker while the checksum downloads, followed by a pause while it is checked - this time, the checks triggered the full download of a number of new games.
To my earlier point about the streak envelope. An example might be the 5 cards for the starting hand at any Video Poker. If only one ramdom number is used, it could be equated to, say, 52% just a high card, 48% a pair or better. The result would determine the class of hand drawn, and an algorithm would just make up that structure from appropriate cards for display. Simplifying the draw would probably not be an option, as the mathematics would only behave if the discards were replaced by independently drawn cards. This would give interesting behaviour, while you would forever get bad starting hands over good, the draw will occasionally come good by pure chance, giving the isolated big hit which is quickly swallowed up over the next few hands.
Another possibility is that the first card is selected ramdomly, but the other four are selected through a weighting envelope such that the cards will either favour working with, or against, the previously drawn cards - streak enhancement. The envelope will be designed to replicate a fair proportion of weightings such that the overall return on the game is exactly as it should be. This would benefit the business, as it would provide for winning streaks that players will remember, and they will have many of these streaks to remember! To compensate, there will be long losing streaks to balance the return.
This would also work on slots, and would explain certain "patterns" that seem to repeat, such as on 5 reel drive, there is a very marked run of some 30 or so spins without a single win on any of the 9 lines, but a scatter win or two hits around the middle of the run. Much of the rest of the time, the slot hits something small on nearly every other spin, and occasionally something big.
On the Thunderstruck slots, it seems that you either hit lots of scatters, or lots of wins, mostly small. This leads to many bonus rounds being void of any wins except for a couple of hits on two scatters. Very occasionally, a bonus round hits at the changeover, and leads to many hits and a big total - just seems everything comes together. There is also the possibility of a big total from just one very big hit in one of the free spins, which will pretty much be the entire contribution. Bonus rounds starting from 4 scatters seem poorer yielding than those started by three.
There is also the question of why the previous hand is saved, and why a bad run thus continues even the next day when you log in and play on from that last hand the previous day. This last hand COULD be used to continue the streak weighting, although there is no proof it has such a use. The last hand is stored on the server, and is not just localy stored as the last state - indeed the server subjects play to a delay for "refreshing state" just so that it can recover and display the last spent hand, yet, MG claim they took a short cut with the doubling game because they said players did not welcome a delay while a second transaction resolved the players choice of card - why is one unnecessary delay OK, but another needs a short cut work around?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Five
Guess what
Guess what
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
Unbelievable!
I'm really starting to wonder about the randomness... and if you'd have made the same hits at 9 per spin etc...
I'm really starting to wonder about the randomness... and if you'd have made the same hits at 9 per spin etc...
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Very odd, I am having nowhere near 150,000 spins between hits, more like 15,000!
All these have been betting ONE COIN, as is the case for the older video slots (5 Reel Drive). Seems the Rams are hitting as often as the 5 Cop Cars do on that game.
It would not matter if I was spinning at 9, for despite the Rams, I am down on the session this tournament. I also had a set of wild hammers in a bonus round, which pays pretty much the same as a 5 Ram start.
KK bets low, and claims to make a long term profit on MG slots - there certainly does seem to be an advantage in microbetting. If the outcome was independent of bet amount, it should return the same at higher bets, however for a bet of 1-80 instead of 18p I would need 10x the bankroll. The variance at 18p seems to be around the 200 range, so it would take a deposit of 2000 to run this at 1-80, and risking 20,000 to run the slot at 18. Such risks are being reserved for the Grand Privvy $50,000 tournament first prize in May - I do NOT want to end up broke before that starts!
Apart from the gargantuan first prize, it has a live scoreboard, and is firmly in my sights. I will probably go for the runner up $4,000 prizes unless the situation in the US leaves the field clear for us rest of worlders
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Location
- UK
Which casinos is it that run these live score board tournaments? Oh and good luck VWM tho im sure you wont need it
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Location
- san marino
Never seen all 5
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Location
- UK
What a beauty. 
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Location
- TN
Nobody has brought this up. At B&M casinos it's well known the higher denom the higher the return. Why would MG make all denoms return the same %? Penny returns 96% and $1 returns 96%, that would make most dollar players penny players because pennys generally would get more play and return more to the player in the long run than say a dollar setting.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2004
- Location
- Location, Location!
It's not so much the overall percentage return, more the likelihood of hitting nice big wins... It's a lot easier (overall) for a casino to pay out a nice big five scatter win when it's 200 - as opposed to 20,000 - regardless of the overall percentage.
I'm totally undecided on the whole thing. I've always assumed everything was fair and straight up - dunno any more!
You are correct that dollar machines have a higher payout percentage. But a multidenominational machine will pay out exactly the same if you are betting a penny per line or a dollar. So the MG 'machines' are exactly like the penny machines in Nevada. I don't know any other state's regulations.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Location
- TN
Multi-denom video and reel machines in Nevada are capiable of having different %'s for each denom
When did this start?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Location
- TN
They've always done it. Video machines it's menu selectable and reel machines it's selectable via the VFD display during set up since the newer machines only have 1 set of chips and the operator selects the return for each denom.
I'm either misunderstanding your statements or I disagree. Can you back that up? I'll do some research too before I argue ignorantly.
Just to be sure what we are talking about:
You are saying that an IGT multidenominational slot in Vegas can payout a different percentage for $1 coins than for $.01 coins?
Thanks.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Location
- TN
Yes the operator of an IGT video, reel, vision or reel touch machine can select different returns for each denom on that machine.
I'll look through my papers and see if I can find the instructions to change this specific setting.
I'll look through my papers and see if I can find the instructions to change this specific setting.
Might be arguing your side here...
100. For licensees that have not installed an “On-Line Slot Metering System” approved by the Board pursuant to
Regulation 14 Technical Standard 3, when multi-game or multi-game/multi-denomination machines are initially
placed on the casino floor and when the active paytables within the slot machine are changed, the theoretical hold
percentage used in the slot analysis report is a simple average of the theoretical holds, as set by the manufacturer,
of all the active paytables of the slot machine. The slot analysis report is revised to indicate the new simple
average theoretical hold percentage whenever a change is made to the active paytables within the slot machine.
Note 1: For multi-game and multi-game/multi-denomination machines, a new machine number is not assigned
when paytables are changed within the same library of paytables.
Note 2: The theoretical hold percentage needs to be obtained for each active paytable when multi-game/multidenominational
machines have different paytables for each denomination within a game that are activated for
play.
101. For licensees that have installed an “On-Line Slot Metering System” approved by the Board pursuant to
Regulation 14 Technical Standard 3, that is connected and communicating with the slot machines to read and
record the coin-in amount by paytable or by wager type of the slot machine, the system is utilized to complete the
following procedures that applies only to multi-game and multi-denomination/multi-game machines and for slot
machines which have a difference in theoretical hold percentage which exceeds 4 percent for a single-coin play
versus maximum-bet play:
Wow.
100. For licensees that have not installed an “On-Line Slot Metering System” approved by the Board pursuant to
Regulation 14 Technical Standard 3, when multi-game or multi-game/multi-denomination machines are initially
placed on the casino floor and when the active paytables within the slot machine are changed, the theoretical hold
percentage used in the slot analysis report is a simple average of the theoretical holds, as set by the manufacturer,
of all the active paytables of the slot machine. The slot analysis report is revised to indicate the new simple
average theoretical hold percentage whenever a change is made to the active paytables within the slot machine.
Note 1: For multi-game and multi-game/multi-denomination machines, a new machine number is not assigned
when paytables are changed within the same library of paytables.
Note 2: The theoretical hold percentage needs to be obtained for each active paytable when multi-game/multidenominational
machines have different paytables for each denomination within a game that are activated for
play.
101. For licensees that have installed an “On-Line Slot Metering System” approved by the Board pursuant to
Regulation 14 Technical Standard 3, that is connected and communicating with the slot machines to read and
record the coin-in amount by paytable or by wager type of the slot machine, the system is utilized to complete the
following procedures that applies only to multi-game and multi-denomination/multi-game machines and for slot
machines which have a difference in theoretical hold percentage which exceeds 4 percent for a single-coin play
versus maximum-bet play:
Wow.
Last edited:
I always implicitly trusted the gambling gurus at casinocitytimes and not once in over two years have I ever seen one say that this is the case, in fact they have alluded if not outright stated that the opposite was true.
That's complete and utter BS and if I'm reading it right totally not fair imo. I don't care which denomination is a higher payout. It just ain't right, and unless I'm mistaken or can be assured that the percentage is.... NO, if that is the case, I'm done with slots onland, period, and done online until I can see audits and payout percentages wherever I play. Period.
Thanks, brianzz. I want to see more... jetset? Spearmaster? GM, webzcas? Bryan? Stanford? John Robison?
That's complete and utter BS and if I'm reading it right totally not fair imo. I don't care which denomination is a higher payout. It just ain't right, and unless I'm mistaken or can be assured that the percentage is.... NO, if that is the case, I'm done with slots onland, period, and done online until I can see audits and payout percentages wherever I play. Period.
Thanks, brianzz. I want to see more... jetset? Spearmaster? GM, webzcas? Bryan? Stanford? John Robison?
Above typed in the heat of the moment.
ANYBODY
Please.
This epiphony, if true, makes me feel like an absolute fool for ever dropping a fennig in a slot.
If, indeed this is true NGC, I not only eat every word I said in the FL thread, but am either going to quit gambling or become the biggest freakin advantage player that ever walked his baraka through a door.
I thought bad was bad and fair was fair, and I'm a little pissed nobody is speaking to this derail.
Chime in or forever hold your peace.
wtf
Santa clause just died while having sex with my mother
ANYBODY
Please.
This epiphony, if true, makes me feel like an absolute fool for ever dropping a fennig in a slot.
If, indeed this is true NGC, I not only eat every word I said in the FL thread, but am either going to quit gambling or become the biggest freakin advantage player that ever walked his baraka through a door.
I thought bad was bad and fair was fair, and I'm a little pissed nobody is speaking to this derail.
Chime in or forever hold your peace.
wtf
Santa clause just died while having sex with my mother
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Location
- TN
In defense of the casino city times people, although most times they do just write what they think people want to see, these newer reel multi-denoms are sorta new, so they probably wouldn't know. If I didn't hawk the manuals for the games I wouldn't have ever known either.
I've always thought MG games were sorta shady with the returns when you played penny as opposed to playing dime, but that's just me, always leary of anything online, especially after the news broke that RTG can turn them up and down on a whim.
I've always thought MG games were sorta shady with the returns when you played penny as opposed to playing dime, but that's just me, always leary of anything online, especially after the news broke that RTG can turn them up and down on a whim.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Location
- -
Hey lojo.
First off, I appreciate your frustration. This scenario makes the low-rollers pay for the wins of the bet-max players. I know at least a couple of European countries where it would be impossible to homologate a machine like that. (including Belgium - lol we're not even allowed to have idle music
). If it's not being explicitely mentioned it is simply un-acceptible. And if it is (it's commonplace for videopoker and some other games), it needs to be obvious to the player. But, and once again, I can really only speak for 3Dice, I'm totally missing the motivation a casino would have not to advertise it.
I think that those b&m casino's originally pushed for this to maximise the play they had given the fact that they can only fit a certain number of machines and thus players. But in that case, it would be in the casino's best interest to make sure that the players know that playing max-coins is going to give them a better percentage. (exactly like for VP). (and in the original post, Brianzz calls it 'well-known')
I personally feel the situation is entirely different for online casino software tho. There are by very definition as much machines as there are players, so its not really in the casino's interest to 'push' the player into a play strategy he doesnt like. It's not like someone else who 'would play max' is waiting behind you to take your seat ..
So apart from that I agree 100% it shouldnt be there for slots - and certainly not if its not explicitely mentioned, I fail to find a reason why anyone would not advertise it if they do something like that. Actually, if it were not advertised, I would expect a (!!malicious-unfair!!) casino to do it the other way around .. give low rollers a higher percentage than high rollers .. think about it ..
In conclusion, and only speaking for 3Dice, we certainly have no different payout percentages for slots based on the denomination, and have absolutely no motivation to do so. And once again, I wont stick out my neck for any other online sw providers, but I would be honestly surprised if they did.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2003
Look at all the great hits and bonus rounds that Swede has posted in the Winner's thread playing Thunderstruck, Ladies Night, and Spring Break. It had always got me wondering if something's fishy because his bet was always .36 cents . His ratio of great hits seemed far above average per session. I've never said anything about it before until this thread came along.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Location
- -
Some slots at Wagerworks change their payout depending on the denomination used (I presume the casino can change whichever ones they want) but if you go to the "payback" page and click through to the end, it tells you what the return is - so it's no secret.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Location
- canada
my completely uneducated take on it.
i tend to agree that different denominations would pay from different prize pools as it were. players playing with 1c-5c coins are probably in the majority, thus the machines take in more of these low value coins and thus pay out more of these back to the players. conversely, the machines get less traffic in 25c-$1 coins, so the payouts are lower. after all, a machine would not pay your win in pennies if you were betting dollars, and it wouldn't chip up your win and pay out in dollar coins when you are spinning with pennies. for online, and with modern live machines, this really shouldn't be a factor since it is all digital cash anyway.
but i also think that those who bet 45c a spin as compared to $4.50 will get to see ~ten times as many spins for their money and thus hit the bonus rounds ten times as often. for the sake of visualisation, i could see a bag of numbered balls that had one ball for every possible combination of reels, but for ease of use translated to the pay amount. if i drew 5000 numbers (with replacement of course) from the bag housing the pay scale for the 45c play, i would have many more draws at getting the various high prizes (and bonus rounds=free draws at multiplied winrate), and arguably might come out with more profit than drawing 500 numbers from the bag with payouts adjusted to $4.50 a spin.
there are of course the same amount of balls in both bags since the game stays the same, but having ten times as long to play and catching many more low-denomination wins along the way increases your chance of drawing the sizeable wins and even winning 5 bucks on a 45c spin seems significant. if you take 400 spins @ $4.50 to hit the bonus round, that's a large dent to your stack and only a 100x bet win will satisfy, the rest is peanuts since some single spins will pay back 25-50 bucks and keep you spinning a while longer.
but also in line with the "separated prize pools" idea is the notion that as you step up the bet denominations, exponentially fewer people can afford to bet this much, since the rich can play for pennies as well, the lowest levels are most inclusive and thus you see far more spins, and subsequently wins, at the lower coins. how many $11.25 spinners are there compared to $2.25, 90c, 45c? if you are playing for such an amount that you go broke before 500 spins on a bad session, then you don't get any reliable feel for how the machine pays out at that bet limit. if you only ever buy in for 100 spins at a low stake ($45 = 100x.45), in short order you would swear off slots for good because it would appear hopeless of ever hitting the elusive scatters. now imagine that person had played for 4.50 how much more unfair it would seem based on his sample results. more spins for your money and more spinners at lower levels makes the wins appear more frequently at the smaller stakes.
i am sure if we simulated two players spinning infinitely, one at 45c and the other at $4.50, that their wins would approximate each other (to the ratio of bet size of course). but if there is some point when the $4.50 player goes broke, the 45c player would be able to continue playing far longer assuming his bankroll was more than a tenth of the other player's, and by the time the lowballer busts out he may have hit the feature many times over what his rival who busted much earlier had done in his session. am i just blowing wind, or do i make a point?
i tend to agree that different denominations would pay from different prize pools as it were. players playing with 1c-5c coins are probably in the majority, thus the machines take in more of these low value coins and thus pay out more of these back to the players. conversely, the machines get less traffic in 25c-$1 coins, so the payouts are lower. after all, a machine would not pay your win in pennies if you were betting dollars, and it wouldn't chip up your win and pay out in dollar coins when you are spinning with pennies. for online, and with modern live machines, this really shouldn't be a factor since it is all digital cash anyway.
but i also think that those who bet 45c a spin as compared to $4.50 will get to see ~ten times as many spins for their money and thus hit the bonus rounds ten times as often. for the sake of visualisation, i could see a bag of numbered balls that had one ball for every possible combination of reels, but for ease of use translated to the pay amount. if i drew 5000 numbers (with replacement of course) from the bag housing the pay scale for the 45c play, i would have many more draws at getting the various high prizes (and bonus rounds=free draws at multiplied winrate), and arguably might come out with more profit than drawing 500 numbers from the bag with payouts adjusted to $4.50 a spin.
there are of course the same amount of balls in both bags since the game stays the same, but having ten times as long to play and catching many more low-denomination wins along the way increases your chance of drawing the sizeable wins and even winning 5 bucks on a 45c spin seems significant. if you take 400 spins @ $4.50 to hit the bonus round, that's a large dent to your stack and only a 100x bet win will satisfy, the rest is peanuts since some single spins will pay back 25-50 bucks and keep you spinning a while longer.
but also in line with the "separated prize pools" idea is the notion that as you step up the bet denominations, exponentially fewer people can afford to bet this much, since the rich can play for pennies as well, the lowest levels are most inclusive and thus you see far more spins, and subsequently wins, at the lower coins. how many $11.25 spinners are there compared to $2.25, 90c, 45c? if you are playing for such an amount that you go broke before 500 spins on a bad session, then you don't get any reliable feel for how the machine pays out at that bet limit. if you only ever buy in for 100 spins at a low stake ($45 = 100x.45), in short order you would swear off slots for good because it would appear hopeless of ever hitting the elusive scatters. now imagine that person had played for 4.50 how much more unfair it would seem based on his sample results. more spins for your money and more spinners at lower levels makes the wins appear more frequently at the smaller stakes.
i am sure if we simulated two players spinning infinitely, one at 45c and the other at $4.50, that their wins would approximate each other (to the ratio of bet size of course). but if there is some point when the $4.50 player goes broke, the 45c player would be able to continue playing far longer assuming his bankroll was more than a tenth of the other player's, and by the time the lowballer busts out he may have hit the feature many times over what his rival who busted much earlier had done in his session. am i just blowing wind, or do i make a point?
NGC or cctonline
Somebody bust this ball or tell me it isn't true
I want to see this settled. I crap you not, I'll quit gambling or become an advantage player.
I insist (itoldyouso not withstanding) that EVERY slot maker chime in on this thread.
No apologists will be accepted, we are down to the nitty gritty.
DECLARE or piss off.
3Dice says, does anyone else?
Somebody bust this ball or tell me it isn't true
I want to see this settled. I crap you not, I'll quit gambling or become an advantage player.
I insist (itoldyouso not withstanding) that EVERY slot maker chime in on this thread.
No apologists will be accepted, we are down to the nitty gritty.
DECLARE or piss off.
3Dice says, does anyone else?
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Location
- canada
you tossed me a thanks but don't think i made a point? i know nothing about slots but i feel the frequency of the rarest/highest wins being posted on here at low bet amounts is just because far more people spin far more times at these bets than higher ones. if money was no object i would reckon that the winrate would be the same no matter the size of the bet. this sort of thing would require simulations to formalize a theory, but i think it's just the variance of playing for higher stakes that means fewer actual wins occur because exponentially fewer spins take place at those levels.
as regards the argument for non-max-coin bets hitting less often, provided all the lines have been bet on, it shouldn't affect the frequency of hitting, only the requisite payout being a lower multiple based on the coins bet. a way to observe this, since we know the reels of some of the more popular slots, we could calculate the mean returns and run a simulation to see if betting 1/line versus max/line show a statistically significant difference in returns.
i don't know of any way to tell with any certainty if the scatters are hitting "fairly" for whatever coin size and coins/line, because they just hit every once in however many times, but randomly distributed throughout the machine's life. it would take millions of spins to determine if a certain group of reel combos (ie those where a scatter is displayed on one of the three panels on each of five reels) was occurring in tune with mathematical expectation. how often anyone spinning on tstruck or vwm himself is going to hit them and at what coin is entirely unpredictable. vw's chakras just must have aligned this week or whatever, i'm sure he won't see them again till christmas, especially if he rides the trend and steps up his bets.
use less words and I'll hear ya
edit:
It has been established (please prove wrong) that multidenomininational machines have seperate paytables inside them. We could be wrong? How do you feel about that. I feel raped.
edit:
It has been established (please prove wrong) that multidenomininational machines have seperate paytables inside them. We could be wrong? How do you feel about that. I feel raped.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Location
- canada
ok, how's this:
(fabricated figures for example)
# spins on tstruck, march, 45c = 50000
# spins tstruck, march, $4.50 = 5000
scatters hit @ 45c = 150
scatters hit @ 4.5 = 15
500x bet win during free spins @ 45c = 10
500x bet win during free spins @ 4.5 = 1
proportionally the amount is the same but physically/actually there are far more wins at the lower level. if all the 500x bet winners posted here you'd see ten at 45c and only one at $4.50. each low bettor's win was worth (500x0.45)=$225, and the single highroller took (500x4.5)=$2250, as much as all the lowrollers combined. but of the eleven screenshots, only one was at a high stake. it is the shift in perception from sheer number to proportion that makes lower stakes seem more favourable to win.
you personally are just as likely to win on the next spin whether it's for a nickel or your life savings, but the more spins you take and the lower your risk of ruin, the more of the "rare"/bonus/jackpot win amounts you'll see. if you bust out in <100 spins, you think it's rigged; however if you hit the feature in <100 spins you feel great. but if you stop playing either way, then you are on one side or the other of the average (good or bad luck for the session). the larger the sample size of spins you see, the closer the observed results are to the mathematical and the true expectation.
edit: yes i read the thread. however, these changes should be reflected to the player. it was said that the machines were programmed to pay better for higher coin size, in which case the player is not getting raped, only pleasantly surprised when he wins more than he expected. of course, i understand the fear is that the tables are shorted without telling the player, but i ask how can this be? if you get a winning line, and the payout is any less than the paytable shows, then you know the machine is paying on a different scale than what's displayed to you. this is dishonest and you don't need to stand for it.
but if you think the machine wins less often or is less likely to display large wins with some coin sizes or coins/line than others, this is very cumbersome to prove to a statistically significant degree. and if it is the case, this would have to be programmed into the operating code somehow (and as you say, possible to detect and strategize against the non-random patterns) and if they are going to shaft non-max bettors or high-rolling bettors, why wouldn't they shaft the low-coins-at-max bettors just the same? if they thought they had a way to rig the machines, it would be applied universally and not just to certain coin sizes or coins/line, imo.
(fabricated figures for example)
# spins on tstruck, march, 45c = 50000
# spins tstruck, march, $4.50 = 5000
scatters hit @ 45c = 150
scatters hit @ 4.5 = 15
500x bet win during free spins @ 45c = 10
500x bet win during free spins @ 4.5 = 1
proportionally the amount is the same but physically/actually there are far more wins at the lower level. if all the 500x bet winners posted here you'd see ten at 45c and only one at $4.50. each low bettor's win was worth (500x0.45)=$225, and the single highroller took (500x4.5)=$2250, as much as all the lowrollers combined. but of the eleven screenshots, only one was at a high stake. it is the shift in perception from sheer number to proportion that makes lower stakes seem more favourable to win.
you personally are just as likely to win on the next spin whether it's for a nickel or your life savings, but the more spins you take and the lower your risk of ruin, the more of the "rare"/bonus/jackpot win amounts you'll see. if you bust out in <100 spins, you think it's rigged; however if you hit the feature in <100 spins you feel great. but if you stop playing either way, then you are on one side or the other of the average (good or bad luck for the session). the larger the sample size of spins you see, the closer the observed results are to the mathematical and the true expectation.
edit: yes i read the thread. however, these changes should be reflected to the player. it was said that the machines were programmed to pay better for higher coin size, in which case the player is not getting raped, only pleasantly surprised when he wins more than he expected. of course, i understand the fear is that the tables are shorted without telling the player, but i ask how can this be? if you get a winning line, and the payout is any less than the paytable shows, then you know the machine is paying on a different scale than what's displayed to you. this is dishonest and you don't need to stand for it.
but if you think the machine wins less often or is less likely to display large wins with some coin sizes or coins/line than others, this is very cumbersome to prove to a statistically significant degree. and if it is the case, this would have to be programmed into the operating code somehow (and as you say, possible to detect and strategize against the non-random patterns) and if they are going to shaft non-max bettors or high-rolling bettors, why wouldn't they shaft the low-coins-at-max bettors just the same? if they thought they had a way to rig the machines, it would be applied universally and not just to certain coin sizes or coins/line, imo.
Similar threads
