martinrossbrown
Dormant account
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Location
- Birmingham
As this is an international forum, I'll give a quick intro.
In the UK, the Vegas style slot, where you press a button and are paid out purely on the combination, is a rarity, confined to casinos and gambling arcades. The more popular style of gambling machine is the UK style fruit machine. This is less dependent on winning combinations of fruit, than on winning on sub-games, that involve collecting items on board-game style tracks, or making numbers on the reels add up to certain numbers. It seems to be a win-win, the players enjoy exploring the sub-games and the operators experience greater play of people finding out these features.
All well and good?? Not exactly. Because of the 'fun' nature of the games, the game designers have, legally, been able to cheat their players by offering gambles that they have no chance of winning. Examples of this include making the players move on the 'game over' space on the feature, or, more evil, offering the player a hi-lo gamble. The resulting number always busts them. This has been proved by people ripping game ROMs, pausing the game at one of these gambles, and playing both hi and lo, always losing.
For background on this phenomenon, see
Onto the online bit. I've had a test run at Intercasino and UKBetting on low stakes, on their games Fruit Fight and Super Sideshow, to see if the hi/lo gambles (where you predict if the next number is higher or lower without the same number reappearing) were random. It's a small sample, but some trends appear...
Number: 2 or 11 (1 in 11 chance of failure) 7 gambles, 2 failures
Number: 3 or 10 (2 in 11 chance of failure) 15 gambles, 8 failures
Number: 4 or 9 (3 in 11 chance of failure) 12 gambles, 7 failures
This is a small sample, but the trend seems to be a >50% chance of failure where the true odds are massively in your favour. Some other posts here reveals that other players are of this opinion.
This suggests to me that the results are 'rigged' in some way. This is a very worrying development to me, I've only played the conventional slots in the belief that there is a RNG deciding if I win, and that if they have a 'gamble feature' (e.g. red/black cards) this is a true 50/50 gamble.
Another feature which I noticed towards the end of the test session, was something I've noticed on real-life fruities. On those, there is a tendency if, after losing a multitude of gambles, for the machine to be 'happy' and to start paying out higher amounts, presumably to keep the payout above the machine's minimum.
On my test run, the potential payout over time resembled a rising stockmarket graph. Initially after given 1,2 coin wins, which I gambled for my research and lost, the machine then started to give me greater prizes, which again, I hi/lo gambled and then lost at what was felt to be a predetermined level.
I appreciate this is a more contentious point, and would need for the experiment to be repeated several times, but I am disgusted at the possibility that an online casino icould possibly corrupt a winning chance depending on past results. To use a comparison, we might like the idea of the roulette popping a few winning numbers if we're down on our luck, but I'm sure we wouldn't like it if it did the converse when we're on a roll....
In conclusion, if there's from Cryptologic/Wagerlogic about, could they answer these questions:
1) Is the hi/lo gambles on your 'Fruit Machines' a true, random gamble according to the implied odds?
2) If the answer to the above question is 'No', is it right and proper that you should feature this non-random game amongst other games (e.g. Blackjack) which is RNG dealt and is dependent to a certain extent to players' gambles to success or failure? And do you think that it is misleading to customers to not list any disclaimers on the
3) If a player has lost previous games, does this have an effect on the prize size of previous games. And do you think it's fair that a casino should pay its games out only after considering the player's previous losses.
I'm asking this question as I believe that this non-random behaviour is a spur to create problem gamblers attempting to beat the unbeatable.
In the UK, the Vegas style slot, where you press a button and are paid out purely on the combination, is a rarity, confined to casinos and gambling arcades. The more popular style of gambling machine is the UK style fruit machine. This is less dependent on winning combinations of fruit, than on winning on sub-games, that involve collecting items on board-game style tracks, or making numbers on the reels add up to certain numbers. It seems to be a win-win, the players enjoy exploring the sub-games and the operators experience greater play of people finding out these features.
All well and good?? Not exactly. Because of the 'fun' nature of the games, the game designers have, legally, been able to cheat their players by offering gambles that they have no chance of winning. Examples of this include making the players move on the 'game over' space on the feature, or, more evil, offering the player a hi-lo gamble. The resulting number always busts them. This has been proved by people ripping game ROMs, pausing the game at one of these gambles, and playing both hi and lo, always losing.
For background on this phenomenon, see
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
. Recently there has been a change in the voluntary code of conduct, machines now have the legend 'This machine may, on occasions, offer the player a gamble that they have no chance of winning'. Not ideal, but a start.Onto the online bit. I've had a test run at Intercasino and UKBetting on low stakes, on their games Fruit Fight and Super Sideshow, to see if the hi/lo gambles (where you predict if the next number is higher or lower without the same number reappearing) were random. It's a small sample, but some trends appear...
Number: 2 or 11 (1 in 11 chance of failure) 7 gambles, 2 failures
Number: 3 or 10 (2 in 11 chance of failure) 15 gambles, 8 failures
Number: 4 or 9 (3 in 11 chance of failure) 12 gambles, 7 failures
This is a small sample, but the trend seems to be a >50% chance of failure where the true odds are massively in your favour. Some other posts here reveals that other players are of this opinion.
This suggests to me that the results are 'rigged' in some way. This is a very worrying development to me, I've only played the conventional slots in the belief that there is a RNG deciding if I win, and that if they have a 'gamble feature' (e.g. red/black cards) this is a true 50/50 gamble.
Another feature which I noticed towards the end of the test session, was something I've noticed on real-life fruities. On those, there is a tendency if, after losing a multitude of gambles, for the machine to be 'happy' and to start paying out higher amounts, presumably to keep the payout above the machine's minimum.
On my test run, the potential payout over time resembled a rising stockmarket graph. Initially after given 1,2 coin wins, which I gambled for my research and lost, the machine then started to give me greater prizes, which again, I hi/lo gambled and then lost at what was felt to be a predetermined level.
I appreciate this is a more contentious point, and would need for the experiment to be repeated several times, but I am disgusted at the possibility that an online casino icould possibly corrupt a winning chance depending on past results. To use a comparison, we might like the idea of the roulette popping a few winning numbers if we're down on our luck, but I'm sure we wouldn't like it if it did the converse when we're on a roll....
In conclusion, if there's from Cryptologic/Wagerlogic about, could they answer these questions:
1) Is the hi/lo gambles on your 'Fruit Machines' a true, random gamble according to the implied odds?
2) If the answer to the above question is 'No', is it right and proper that you should feature this non-random game amongst other games (e.g. Blackjack) which is RNG dealt and is dependent to a certain extent to players' gambles to success or failure? And do you think that it is misleading to customers to not list any disclaimers on the
3) If a player has lost previous games, does this have an effect on the prize size of previous games. And do you think it's fair that a casino should pay its games out only after considering the player's previous losses.
I'm asking this question as I believe that this non-random behaviour is a spur to create problem gamblers attempting to beat the unbeatable.