RTG Random Jackpots - check this out!

[SlotMonster]

IMHO the chances of hitting the RJ should be 50 times (20/0.4=50) higher when doing $20 spins compared to 40 cent spins.

Freddy

So the Jackpot will not be completely Random
I disagree: everyone should have even chances to hit the RJ! And it doesn't matter are you high or low-roller!

[hippo925]

my impression is that the rj is random. it's been discussed before, but i believe that it's like a sequential lottery. .20 = 1 ticket while $20 = 100 tickets. each rj is calculated to hit at a certain point so that if it was "due" at, let's say, the next $20 in bets, the .20 better would hit it in 100 spins while the $20 better would hit it in one spin. (assumming you are the only one playing at that time)

any claim that bet size does not affect the chance of hitting a rj would have to be false.

think of it this way, we are sold 100 tickets sequentialy and the number 75 is randomly chosen to be the winner. i buy one, babs buys one, kakata buys 5, then nashvegas buys 70 , he would hit the rj.

but if nash bought first at 70 and kakata bought second at 5, kakata would hit the rj. obviously, whoever bets more has a mucher higher chance of hitting regardless of what number was randomly chosen.

anyway, that's my thinking.

[kakata]

I have had 4 of em in my gambling on line.......3 of em at either 20 or 40 cents ,the 4th one, which was actually my first one ever, was at $1 bet at Crystal Palace , cause that was the minimum bet.( Yes I did get paid)

[kakata]

my impression is that the rj is random. it's been discussed before, but i believe that it's like a sequential lottery. .20 = 1 ticket while $20 = 100 tickets. each rj is calculated to hit at a certain point so that if it was "due" at, let's say, the next $20 in bets, the .20 better would hit it in 100 spins while the $20 better would hit it in one spin. (assumming you are the only one playing at that time)

any claim that bet size does not affect the chance of hitting a rj would have to be false.

think of it this way, we are sold 100 tickets sequentialy and the number 75 is randomly chosen to be the winner. i buy one, babs buys one, kakata buys 5, then nashvegas buys 70 , he would hit the rj.

but if nash bought first at 70 and kakata bought second at 5, kakata would hit the rj. obviously, whoever bets more has a mucher higher chance of hitting regardless of what number was randomly chosen.

anyway, that's my thinking.

I love the last part of your post.Thanks

[RobWin]

my impression is that the rj is random. it's been discussed before, but i believe that it's like a sequential lottery. .20 = 1 ticket while $20 = 100 tickets. each rj is calculated to hit at a certain point so that if it was "due" at, let's say, the next $20 in bets, the .20 better would hit it in 100 spins while the $20 better would hit it in one spin. (assumming you are the only one playing at that time)

any claim that bet size does not affect the chance of hitting a rj would have to be false.

think of it this way, we are sold 100 tickets sequentialy and the number 75 is randomly chosen to be the winner. i buy one, babs buys one, kakata buys 5, then nashvegas buys 70 , he would hit the rj.

but if nash bought first at 70 and kakata bought second at 5, kakata would hit the rj. obviously, whoever bets more has a mucher higher chance of hitting regardless of what number was randomly chosen.

anyway, that's my thinking.

Hippo, what is your rationale on that thought ?

On your second point there you say "whoever bets more has a much higher chance of hitting"...this should not be the case if it is True Randomness, but whomever plays more should have a better chance of winning the RJ no matter the bet size...statistical odds you know...

[hippo925]

Hippo, what is your rationale on that thought ?

On your second point there you say "whoever bets more has a much higher chance of hitting"...this should not be the case if it is True Randomness, but whomever plays more should have a better chance of winning the RJ no matter the bet size...statistical odds you know...

another way of looking at it is that someone who spins 100 spins at .20 has the same chance of hitting the rj as someone who bets $20 at one spin. does that make sense? otherwise, if everyone had the exact same chance regardless of bet, then anyone who bets more than .20 is contributing to the rj in an unfair amount.

[hippo925]

I love the last part of your post.Thanks

that was before i knew you've won so many of them but then again, how can you ever have too many!!!

[SlotsWizard]

This has been debated several times before.

1. The mathematically fair way to decide a winner is to give those who bet bigger a greater chance of winning the jackpot, like the Rapid Fire jackpots at Cryptologic casinos.

Example:
Bet 0.20 to get 1 chance to win per spin
Bet 0.40 to get 2 chances to win per spin
Bet 1.00 to get 5 chances to win per spin
Bet 2.00 to get 10 chances to win per spin
Bet 5.00 to get 25 chances to win per spin
Bet 10.00 to get 50 chances to win per spin
Bet 20.00 to get 100 chances to win per spin
Bet 100.00 to get 500 chances to win per spin

2. The mathematically unfair way to decide a winner is to have each spin - regardless of bet size - have an equal chance of winning.

Example
On each spin, the RNG picks a random number for the player of between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The winning number is predetermined to be 353,791,663,505,284,629. If they match, the player wins the jackpot, and bet size has nothing to do with it.

iNetBet has repeatedly stated that method #2 is how the jackpots operate. If I remember correctly through, that statement was refuted by Club World (at least a year ago, probably longer) who claimed that method #1 is how the jackpots operate.

I'm inclined to believe that #1 is actually how the jackpots operate, because it's fair (in the mathematical sense) as well as logical. It may not seem to fair to us low rollers, but if it didn't work that way it would be extremely unfair to the high rollers - as well as those low rollers who occasionally cross the line into high rollerdom. If bet size didn't matter, we would all be betting a 0.01/spin trying to hit the jackpot.

[RobWin]

This has been debated several times before.

1. The mathematically fair way to decide a winner is to give those who bet bigger a greater chance of winning the jackpot, like the Rapid Fire jackpots at Cryptologic casinos.

Example:
Bet 0.20 to get 1 chance to win per spin
Bet 0.40 to get 2 chances to win per spin
Bet 1.00 to get 5 chances to win per spin
Bet 2.00 to get 10 chances to win per spin
Bet 5.00 to get 25 chances to win per spin
Bet 10.00 to get 50 chances to win per spin
Bet 20.00 to get 100 chances to win per spin
Bet 100.00 to get 500 chances to win per spin

2. The mathematically unfair way to decide a winner is to have each spin - regardless of bet size - have an equal chance of winning.

Example
On each spin, the RNG picks a random number for the player of between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The winning number is predetermined to be 353,791,663,505,284,629. If they match, the player wins the jackpot, and bet size has nothing to do with it.

iNetBet has repeatedly stated that method #2 is how the jackpots operate. If I remember correctly through, that statement was refuted by Club World (at least a year ago, probably longer) who claimed that method #1 is how the jackpots operate.

I'm inclined to believe that #1 is actually how the jackpots operate, because it's fair (in the mathematical sense) as well as logical. It may not seem to fair to us low rollers, but if it didn't work that way it would be extremely unfair to the high rollers - as well as those low rollers who occasionally cross the line into high rollerdom. If bet size didn't matter, we would all be betting a 0.01/spin trying to hit the jackpot.

Let me say SlotsWizard, that was a great post concerning the math but I do disagree with your statement "fair way to decide a winner is to give those who bet bigger a greater chance of winning" bigtime and here's why:

Since we are talking about "Random Jackpots" I think that we could both agree that the local lottery is also a random jackpot right...now lets for argument sake say Bill Gates partakes in the same lottery each week that you and I partake in...now lets just say he buys 2000 tickets each week out of a possible 2500 that were sold, now he should have a mathematical chance of 80% of winning, correct, because he has purchased 80% of the tickets based on your statement above.

So here's my question: Why would the other 500 ticket buyers continue to purchase a ticket each week knowing that Bill has an 80% chance of winning each week or a 60% better chance than any of those ticket purchasers have ?

Would you continue to purchase a ticket each week knowing those were the odds against you...to me that sounds like the anaology you were presenting there...which should not be the way the "Random Jackpot" works no matter how much you bet...

If it is to be "Truly Random" then Joe Blow that does his $0.20 cent bets should have the same chance of winning as does Captain Whale with his $20 or $100.00 bets...

On another point I just noticed, aren't you saying the exact same thing in Statement #1 & Statement #2...or maybe I am reading that wrong...

[parpol]

Hello I won or 3 , with 1 bet of $ 10 and 2 bet of $ 5.