Rushmore Casino Experiences

[USA2112]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

Yes, but this is rare, it seems that it is all too common for the jackpots to get very high before hitting at Rushmore. If they were truly random, the RJ's at Rushmore would, over the long term, hit at the same average value as at other RTG casinos.

A simple comparison could be made between Club World, iNetBet, and Rushmore, logging the value at which the RJ's hit. With a long enough dataset, we would be able to see if there was any statistical significance in the hypothesis that Rushmore RJ's behave differently to others on the RTG platform. All three are considered reputable RTG casinos, so the comparison should be fair. The bigger the sample, the more significant any result would be.

I agree it is rare, as to averages, there's been progressive pots go for years before hitting and other times the same progressive will pay in six months, so I don't see how averages can be used. Now to make an assumption because of what seems to be the normal average is possible, whether it will happen is the question.

To compare random jackpots in different casinos isn't possible, even if it does seem logical. You would have to consider the amount players at each casino, players playing at any given time amount of bets etc, etc, and when it's all said and done none of this is what determines the outcome of a random jackpot in the first place, so I wouldn't see this being an accurate result.

Hey more power to who ever could figure out when random jackpots are going to pay or should pay, let me know and I will be there.

[lauram]

Ill join that group with you. I have noticed that if rtg casino has 4 5 slot games with rj around same amount all 4 or 5 go same time. Then day or so later the other set goes with it. Thats all i have been able to notice as far as seeing the rj go as for how much you play per line im not sure on that either i have heard many players hit with 20 cent spins.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by USA2112

I agree it is rare, as to averages, there's been progressive pots go for years before hitting and other times the same progressive will pay in six months, so I don't see how averages can be used. Now to make an assumption because of what seems to be the normal average is possible, whether it will happen is the question.

To compare random jackpots in different casinos isn't possible, even if it does seem logical. You would have to consider the amount players at each casino, players playing at any given time amount of bets etc, etc, and when it's all said and done none of this is what determines the outcome of a random jackpot in the first place, so I wouldn't see this being an accurate result.

Hey more power to who ever could figure out when random jackpots are going to pay or should pay, let me know and I will be there.

All completely irrelevant. The result of one RTG casino having more bets placed on their games than another would be that their RJ's would cycle faster. It would NOT, and COULD not result in them storing up more contributions before hitting, unless, of course, they were not truly random, such as using time, rather than amount played through, to determine when they hit.

Each $ played contributes 1c to the RJ, and the other 99c pays for the base game. Each $1 played gives a fixed chance of the RJ being hit from that dollar, thus for a certain number of bucks played through the game, there is a fixed chance that the RJ will hit during that play. RJ's will hit at various amounts, but overall the fixed nature of these controlling factors would lead to all RJ's at ALL RTG casinos following the same long term pattern of hitting at the same mean value, with the same distribution about that mean. If one RTG casino demonstrates a long term departure from that mean, they have clearly tampered with these controlling variables, lessening the fixed chance of a hit per dollar played would result in the RJ's consistently hitting at a higher long term mean value, and obviously less often. The same effect would result from keeping the chance of hitting per $ played, but increasing the contribution to 2c to the RJ, and only 98c to the base game.

It is actually possible to calculate the chance of an RJ hitting per $ played given enough data about the values of the RJ's when hit, and knowing the rate at which each $ staked adds to the pool. This value should work out about the same at all RTG casinos, within the normal error bounds expected because the sample is not infinite. It is possible to calculate how likely (or how significant) a result is for a given sample size, and this can be expressed as the chance that the results show something significant, or that what they show can be classed as "noise" and not actual trend, due to limits in the sample size. Having done this, you can calculate a table giving the likelihood of an RJ holding out for a particular high value. There will be some that hold out beyond 20K, and others that hit again almost as soon as they hit first. If there is a casino where a large number of their RJ's hit where this probability table expresses the chance of this happening as very low indeed, then something could well be amiss.

This can be likened to other games. In Blackjack, the dealer will get lucky streaks, but what if the dealer ALWAYS had these lucky streaks session after session, ad nauseum - we soon have players crying "foul!" What then if a long sample showed the dealer won 65% of games, say over 100,000 hands - then we might say the game was certainly rigged, and that this could not be the result of a fair deck/shoe of cards.

[USA2112]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

All completely irrelevant. The result of one RTG casino having more bets placed on their games than another would be that their RJ's would cycle faster. It would NOT, and COULD not result in them storing up more contributions before hitting, unless, of course, they were not truly random, such as using time, rather than amount played through, to determine when they hit.

Each $ played contributes 1c to the RJ, and the other 99c pays for the base game. Each $1 played gives a fixed chance of the RJ being hit from that dollar, thus for a certain number of bucks played through the game, there is a fixed chance that the RJ will hit during that play. RJ's will hit at various amounts, but overall the fixed nature of these controlling factors would lead to all RJ's at ALL RTG casinos following the same long term pattern of hitting at the same mean value, with the same distribution about that mean. If one RTG casino demonstrates a long term departure from that mean, they have clearly tampered with these controlling variables, lessening the fixed chance of a hit per dollar played would result in the RJ's consistently hitting at a higher long term mean value, and obviously less often. The same effect would result from keeping the chance of hitting per $ played, but increasing the contribution to 2c to the RJ, and only 98c to the base game.

It is actually possible to calculate the chance of an RJ hitting per $ played given enough data about the values of the RJ's when hit, and knowing the rate at which each $ staked adds to the pool. This value should work out about the same at all RTG casinos, within the normal error bounds expected because the sample is not infinite. It is possible to calculate how likely (or how significant) a result is for a given sample size, and this can be expressed as the chance that the results show something significant, or that what they show can be classed as "noise" and not actual trend, due to limits in the sample size. Having done this, you can calculate a table giving the likelihood of an RJ holding out for a particular high value. There will be some that hold out beyond 20K, and others that hit again almost as soon as they hit first. If there is a casino where a large number of their RJ's hit where this probability table expresses the chance of this happening as very low indeed, then something could well be amiss.

This can be likened to other games. In Blackjack, the dealer will get lucky streaks, but what if the dealer ALWAYS had these lucky streaks session after session, ad nauseum - we soon have players crying "foul!" What then if a long sample showed the dealer won 65% of games, say over 100,000 hands - then we might say the game was certainly rigged, and that this could not be the result of a fair deck/shoe of cards.

Amount wagered is irrelevant with determining when the random jackpot will hit, that was the point.

And sure there's a probability with all random events such as random jackpots, can they be predicted? not sure they can even with the proper data, here's why.

The 1st spin on a random jackpot machine produces the same odds of the random event happening as the 65,000th spin, to determine when that random event will happen even with certain compiled data would be a best guess. Plus, the long term data you suggest is based on the money contributed to the jackpot, even though the 1c compared to 2c per $1 could effect the amount of the random jackpot at the time of the random event itself. "Which I could see this being questionable" Still this should have nothting to do with the outcome of the random event happening when there is a equal fixed chance with each spin of the wheel. And if he random event happens on the first spin of the wheel of the life of the machine there is no contribution at all. Highly unlikely but the odds of it happening are the same.

My opinion to why these random jackpots can get pretty high at times is the size of bets being placed by the players per amount of spins played.

Example: based on 1000 bets.

Player one, places 1000 bets at $10 each and loses. Total loss $10,000

Player two, places 1000 bets at 20c each and loses. Total loss $200

If the amount contributed to the Random jackpot is 1c per $1

player one contributed $100

player two contributed $2

The random jackpot would be higher due to more players like player one than player two. So, even though they both had the same amount of spins of the wheel and an equal chance of having the random event happen, there is more money contributed to the random jackpot because more players are wagering higher bets.


Hypothedically, say the you have two random jackpots both hitting on 50,000 spins.

The first jackpot has 50,000 spins with $10 wageres and 1c contributed to the random jackpot. The total of the random jackpot at the time of the win would be, $5,000

The second jackpot has 50,000 spins with $5 wageres and 1c contributed to the random jackpot. The total of the random jackpot at the time of the win would be, $2,500

Of course the amount of wagers would vary but I think you can see my point.


One last thing, the probability with a random event happening is base on a certain amount of odds that it will happen. What them odds are, I have no ideal, but I'm sure the odds are different with each situation.

If you take the odds of the random event and the amount wheel spins made by players this would increase the probability of the random event happening, not because the odds change for the random event itself but because there has been more spins of the wheel icreasing the odds of it coming around.

[Audioz]

Originally Posted by USA2112

My opinion to why these random jackpots can get pretty high at times is the size of bets being placed by the players per amount of spins played.

But it has nothing to do, how much the bet size is, because you can even hit a RJ with only $1,000 although (and this is the second mysterious thing!) all RJs started directly with $5,000 and not with $1,000 like in all another RTGs.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by USA2112

Amount wagered is irrelevant with determining when the random jackpot will hit, that was the point.

And sure there's a probability with all random events such as random jackpots, can they be predicted? not sure they can even with the proper data, here's why.

The 1st spin on a random jackpot machine produces the same odds of the random event happening as the 65,000th spin, to determine when that random event will happen even with certain compiled data would be a best guess. Plus, the long term data you suggest is based on the money contributed to the jackpot, even though the 1c compared to 2c per $1 could effect the amount of the random jackpot at the time of the random event itself. "Which I could see this being questionable" Still this should have nothting to do with the outcome of the random event happening when there is a equal fixed chance with each spin of the wheel. And if he random event happens on the first spin of the wheel of the life of the machine there is no contribution at all. Highly unlikely but the odds of it happening are the same.

My opinion to why these random jackpots can get pretty high at times is the size of bets being placed by the players per amount of spins played.

Example: based on 1000 bets.

Player one, places 1000 bets at $10 each and loses. Total loss $10,000

Player two, places 1000 bets at 20c each and loses. Total loss $200

If the amount contributed to the Random jackpot is 1c per $1

player one contributed $100

player two contributed $2

The random jackpot would be higher due to more players like player one than player two. So, even though they both had the same amount of spins of the wheel and an equal chance of having the random event happen, there is more money contributed to the random jackpot because more players are wagering higher bets.


Hypothedically, say the you have two random jackpots both hitting on 50,000 spins.

The first jackpot has 50,000 spins with $10 wageres and 1c contributed to the random jackpot. The total of the random jackpot at the time of the win would be, $5,000

The second jackpot has 50,000 spins with $5 wageres and 1c contributed to the random jackpot. The total of the random jackpot at the time of the win would be, $2,500

Of course the amount of wagers would vary but I think you can see my point.


One last thing, the probability with a random event happening is base on a certain amount of odds that it will happen. What them odds are, I have no ideal, but I'm sure the odds are different with each situation.

If you take the odds of the random event and the amount wheel spins made by players this would increase the probability of the random event happening, not because the odds change for the random event itself but because there has been more spins of the wheel icreasing the odds of it coming around.

Not so.

For the games to be fair, the chance is not PER SPIN, but PER $. Although players playing at $5 per spin would contribute 5c each time, they would also have 5x the chance of hitting the RJ on each of those spins, thus the RJ's would be hitting at the same average long term value irrespective of the average size of wagers chosen by players. If the odds really were the same per SPIN, and not per $ wagered, then these slots would be very unfair indeed (for the high wagerers that is), and a player could invest as little as 1c per spin and purely target the RJ's, and this would be a long term, very tedious, but highly profitable strategy.

I suspect there might be something "funky" going on with these particular RJ's. When this first came up, it was not just one of two that were reputed to be very high, it was the FLIPPIN' LOT of them

Only opening an account and playing will reveal whether this "feels right" or not over the long term. Free Play would not work as a means to determine real play behaviour. I play other (reputable) RTG casinos, and have a feel for what "feels right" for the RJ's, even though I have never had one (yet).

[USA2112]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

Not so.

For the games to be fair, the chance is not PER SPIN, but PER $. Although players playing at $5 per spin would contribute 5c each time, they would also have 5x the chance of hitting the RJ on each of those spins, thus the RJ's would be hitting at the same average long term value irrespective of the average size of wagers chosen by players.

I did not know this, so if a player plays $10 wagers and another plays $1 wagers the odds are 10X's greater the random event will happen for the player who wagered $10?

If so, that in itself says there is a way to manipulate the random jackpots.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by Audioz

But it has nothing to do, how much the bet size is, because you can even hit a RJ with only $1,000 although (and this is the second mysterious thing!) all RJs started directly with $5,000 and not with $1,000 like in all another RTGs.

That is pretty odd in itself, as this is not supposed to happen!!!!! This can mean only one thing, and that is that individual RTG operators can not only set the payouts for the slots and combine several into a single RJ pool, but they can mess about with the chances of an RJ hitting on each bet, as well as determine what they will start at.
If they are seeding them with 5K instead of 1K, then without changing the other parameters this would effectively be giving away 4K for free each time an RJ hits. Even a 5K start would not explain why they get so high, it would only displace the mean value by +4K.

To get them to REGULARLY hit higher, they would have to adjust a few parameters controlling the RJ, such as reducing the chance of a hit per spin.

For example, if you threw a dice, you have a one in six chance of getting a 6 each throw. Weight that dice, and although it looks the same as all the rest, it has a greater chance of landing with the weight at the lowest point rather than the uppermost point. Put that weight on the "6" side, and it will land a good deal less frequently than 1 in 6, and a "1" would be far more frequent than 1 in 6.

With MG software, these parameters are fixed over all casinos. There is no more chance of hitting a progressive playing at one casino than another. It seems that with the RTG local RJ progressives, casinos can set them to hit low and often, or less frequently and higher, which of course induces players to "chase" the higher jackpots as they feel their high value means they are way overdue.

Unless Jade comes on to state that this observation that they start at $5000 is incorrect, or someone can post a shot of a Rushmore RJ below $5000, I have to assume that Rushmore have at least altered ONE parameter (the seeding value), that it is supposedly not possible for individual operators to fiddle with.

This makes me think of the ROGUE casinos, they clearly have FAR MORE scope than I suspected to alter the underlying workings of the game. I have to wonder what else RTG operators can mess with, and to what extent. I have seen allegations that they can disconnect players who are winning and increase the Blackjack to 255 decks instead of 1 or 2, we KNOW they can set slot payouts within a narrow band around 93% to 97% - they can change paytables, and thus overall return, on the card games at will, but at least that is obvious by looking at the paytable.
The big mystery is the slots, random reels?, keno with a slot display?, now it seems even the chance of winning the RJ is not "natural".

I am wondering if the next hit of an RJ is determined as soon as it is reset, and is stored as a set time in the future. Odd though it may seem, it would explain pretty much all the oddities at Rushmore.

1) More $ played, the higher the RJ's would grow before hitting, simply because it would be TIME, and not either spins or dollars that determined it.

2) Seeding at 5K could be compensated for by using a lower setting for the base game, such as 93%. This extra 2% would pay for the extra 4K added to each pool.

3) Grouping several slots into a single pool, and it being time based, would allow the RJ's to grow even faster, and to even higher values.


4) Where's Phynqster when you need him

Originally Posted by USA2112

I did not know this, so if a player plays $10 wagers and another plays $1 wagers the odds are 10X's greater the random event will happen for the player who wagered $10?

If so, that in itself says there is a way to manipulate the random jackpots.

Well, strangely enough, there was a post a while ago about a single player seeming to get one RJ after another. The explanation was that this was a high roller. This player could not play any more spins per given time than any other player, but they were playing $100 a spin rather than 20c, so had much more chance of hitting the Rjs, and it showed!!!


Manipulation? Not really, they were betting $100 a spin, and possibly losing the amount of the RJ in a short time anyway if they hit a bad streak, and the RJ could still have gone to another player.

Prediction? The only thing one can do is predict how to maximise the chance of hitting the RJ, not when to leap on and produce the magic spin.
For progressives that are governed by a specific winline on an UNWEIGHTED video slot, it is possible to calculate the chance of it hitting at each spin, and then calculating whether the level of the progressive justifies chasing it, a point which a bet on all possible outcomes once through gives a 100%+ payout (including the combination that would award the progressive).
Often, in land casinos, when this point is reached you get teams of "pro" players descending on a progressive and feeding it till (hopefully) it hits. Provided they have a big enough bankroll, and work together (and don't get spotted and chucked out), this is a long term way to make a profit.
The same principle can be applied (and indeed IS) to the big lotteries, where the total prize money exceeds the cost of buying a ticket covering every possible combination. In this case, you WILL hit the jackpot, the risk is finding it has been shared to a player not in the group (and the art is in calculating the "value" of this risk, and factoring it into the decision as to whether to hit the lottery, or wait and hope for another roll-over).

[Audioz]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

More $ played, the higher the RJ's would grow before hitting, simply because it would be TIME, and not either spins or dollars that determined it.

I don't think it's time, but it's an amount which will be choosed from a RNG so as an example if a RJ starts from $1,000 it will be clear, that he will hit at $2,163.53 for an example and not at 12 o' clock p.m. 13 minutes and 27 seconds

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by Audioz

I don't think it's time, but it's an amount which will be choosed from a RNG so as an example if a RJ starts from $1,000 it will be clear, that he will hit at $2,163.53 for an example and not at 12 o' clock p.m. 13 minutes and 27 seconds

This would work, but it would not explain why the hits are always at such high levels at Rushmore, surely they would hit at similar values as other RTG's, as surely it is a CENTRAL RNG isn't it

If it were indeed values, then Rushmore have their fingers in the process that calculates the values, and have nudged them to be much higher than at other RTG casinos, not supposed to be possible as this would involve tampering with the server itself, and possibly the very first layer of determinations after the RNG produces a number.

It would be the same as suggesting there are MG casinos where Mega Moolah will randomly hit at lower values and often, and others where it will hit at higher values and less often. With RTG's, this would mean that if you wanted to win RJs often, avoid Rushmore, but if you preferred to hit big, chase them down at Rushmore.


Clearly, RTG software does NOT play the same at different casinos, unlike MG, which we can be pretty certain is the same everywhere, and only the promos and service levels differ.