King Cashalot

[spearmaster]

It's random.

Like I said, I can't explain it - other than perhaps weighting, which Simmo and I have discussed elsewhere. Doesn't change the randomness of the game - only increases the chances of better wins.

My assumption is that, the longer the jackpot goes, the more likely it is to be hit (online, that is). This is due not only to more people playing, but also likely to be because the chances of hitting the jackpot increase because of a "weight" - in this case, the value of the jackpot.

When the jackpot is hit, the weight may not necessarily shift to a lower value - ie "decreasing" the chances of hitting the jackpot - until such time as a full "reset" is triggered when another jackpot is hit and forces the weight to be lifted when it drops below a certain value.

Another way to look at it - some of you have probably seen mechanical devices or games, where a container will fill up with water - when it reaches a certain level, it dumps all the water - not part of it - and when it is empty it returns to its original position and starts to receive water again.


Besides, why would anyone complain if the chances of hitting the jackpot increase?

[guesswest]

Besides, why would anyone complain if the chances of hitting the jackpot increase?

Well in my case because it means the chance is decreased at other times. And I'd like to think when I click spin I have the same chance of hitting at all times.

If that is the case, though I certainly wouldnt' go as far as to say it's dishonest - well, I'm guessing most people who spin at newly restarted progressives are unaware of this. It'd basically mean the gamblers fallacy is true right?

[spearmaster]

Well in my case because it means the chance is decreased at other times. And I'd like to think when I click spin I have the same chance of hitting at all times.

If that is the case, though I certainly wouldnt' go as far as to say it's dishonest - well, I'm guessing most people who spin at newly restarted progressives are unaware of this. It'd basically mean the gamblers fallacy is true right?

Your chances never decrease. They are at their lowest when the jackpot is reset.

If you have the same slim chance when a jackpot is reset as when a jackpot reaches huge values, you have the same slim chance of winning. Or, as the jackpot grows, your chances increase.

Personally, I know which way I'd rather have it. I'm not saying that all progressives work this way, mind you - there are almost certainly some, if not many, progressives which have the same 1 in infinity odds of being hit - for example, how often does Megabucks in Vegas get hit?

I'd rather have more jackpots of a decent size, say a million or two, than one long-running jackpot which, when paid out, is paid over twenty years, and pays out way more money than you know what to do with - so you go and squander it. There has to be a line between common sense and unrealistically high values which ill-serve the winner, and are generally less enjoyed, and perhaps even less popular.

Put simply - give me a choice between 10 chances at a million bucks, and 1 chance at 10 million bucks, and I'll take the 10 chances every single time.

[guesswest]

Your chances never decrease. They are at their lowest when the jackpot is reset.

If you have the same slim chance when a jackpot is reset as when a jackpot reaches huge values, you have the same slim chance of winning. Or, as the jackpot grows, your chances increase.

Personally, I know which way I'd rather have it. I'm not saying that all progressives work this way, mind you - there are almost certainly some, if not many, progressives which have the same 1 in infinity odds of being hit - for example, how often does Megabucks in Vegas get hit?

I'd rather have more jackpots of a decent size, say a million or two, than one long-running jackpot which, when paid out, is paid over twenty years, and pays out way more money than you know what to do with - so you go and squander it. There has to be a line between common sense and unrealistically high values which ill-serve the winner, and are generally less enjoyed, and perhaps even less popular.

Put simply - give me a choice between 10 chances at a million bucks, and 1 chance at 10 million bucks, and I'll take the 10 chances every single time.

I certainly agree that I wouldn't want to see Megabucks style silly jackpots online, 1 in 23 million or whatever it is is poor enough odds for me

I likewise recognise that 'weighted' isn't the same as 'fixed'. But my issue with it is this: If they, for instance, calculated that the likelihood of hitting a progressive by counting average amount of wagers to get to that point would work out to 500k average jackpot. Then without weighting, should that progressive reach the 500k mark, the average amount of wagers for it to hit from that point, is still 500k. The same way 15 blacks on a roulette table don't make red any more likely the next time around.

Having a progressive jackpot set up like that doesn't make the average jackpots bigger, it just means they don't have tipping points. Sometimes it'd be 200k sometimes it'd be 2 mil, but everyone spinning at it would have an identical chance of hitting it. Megabucks hardly ever hits because there are like 1 in a gazillion odds of lining up the reels the right way, not because it isn't weighted.

I was under the assumption that this was how MG progressives worked, strictly on real odds, and I'd guess a lot of people are - if they weren't, I can't see many people playing them when they're newly reset. And I feel bad for anyone oblivious to this playing newly reset progressives when 'weighting' makes their minute chance of hitting even smaller.

Is there an official MG blurb anywhere on how their slots/progressives work?

[spearmaster]

Sometimes it'd be 200k sometimes it'd be 2 mil, but everyone spinning at it would have an identical chance of hitting it.

I'm not quite sure if we're on the same level here.

Everyone spinning always has an identical chance at hitting it, compared to the next player.

However, at $200K, you have 1 in x chances to hit the jackpot - whether that be 100, or 1 million, or whatever, it should be pretty obvious that it's not exactly something in your favor to begin with.

Because the player doesn't know that, and because MGS will never reveal how their progressives are set up - nor will any other operator - it stands to reason that people will still play progressives, newly reset or not, because there is still a chance that they will win the jackpot.

I doubt that there are more than 1 out of every 100 people that have any idea whatsoever what the odds against hitting Megabucks is. But they still play anyhow.

That's human nature - "maybe it's my turn", "what the hell, it's only twenty bucks", "I brought my lucky rabbit's foot this time", "That's the seat I hit 3 bars on last time", "Honey you're so lucky, maybe if we both push the button at the same time, we'll hit the jackpot"... this list goes on and on and on.

Needless to say, even if they KNEW what the odds were, they'd still play.

[guesswest]

I was talking about variance on where the jackpot would hit with the $200k/$2mil thing, from the $500k example - not the odds of hitting it.

With regards to everyone sharing the same odds, everyone only shares a 1 in x chance of hitting a progressive if the chances of that progressive being hit are always the same. If a progressive is more likely to hit when a fund has built up, ie if it's weighted or has a programmed 'bursting point', the odds aren't always the same - it means you get 1 in x chance of hitting when it's reset, and 1 in y chance of hitting later on when it's built up. Those aren't 'real odd's. Ultimately, if the likelihood of hitting a progressive jackpot is in any way at all related to the it's size at the time, or when it was last won, then you don't have an identical chance of hitting on every spin.

Obviously the odds of hitting a jackpot like that are terrible under any circumstances. But if they're weighted, if they have a payout loop, then player A playing on a recently reset progressive isn't getting the same odds on hitting a jackpot as player B who played it last week before someone won it, necessarily. And one of the reasons jackpots like Megabucks aren't weighted like that, is I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong), that it's illegal to do so in NV.

[spearmaster]

I'm not too sure about the rules in Nevada relating to progressives, I suppose I can go find that out - but I can tell you that this is still a normal practice in places like Australia, for example.

With video poker - definitely no weighting in Vegas or elsewhere. Slots fall under different rules though so I'd have to look into that.

[jamiester]

The odds of hitting the jackpot should never change. The odds should be constant on any spin, independant of jackpot size or anything. The odds do not change with jackpot size. There is no reason to make a machine that complex, not to mention that it wouldn't be fair.

[guesswest]

Looks like some lucky person hit Cashalot. Progressive now stands at 590k, be interesting to see if the re-hit theory proves true.

[spearmaster]

The odds of hitting the jackpot should never change. The odds should be constant on any spin, independant of jackpot size or anything. The odds do not change with jackpot size. There is no reason to make a machine that complex, not to mention that it wouldn't be fair.

It's not complex at all. This is a very simple thing to implement.

I would, however, like to know why you think this is not fair, since:

1. Your chances increase at the same rate as everyone else's. There is no bias in favor of or against any player.
2. The odds cannot be (or shouldn't be) able to be manipulated by a human, and do not swing high/low - odds only decrease over time in a standard fashion until the jackpot is hit (ie there are no fluctuations).

There should be no problem with this method being used under any jurisdiction as long as it is clear that no one can gain any direct advantage from anything but the passing of time, or a direct correlation between odds and value of jackpot.