Hey

[CasinoNinja]

Non random picks are done when not all outcomes pay the same average...

If the pick is random then the average of all outcomes must be the same otherwise the Maths don’t work

TM

Why can't the maths work? Say there are 5 features hidden under a pick, 4 of them pay maybe say a range of 10x-200x average. But the best one pays 200x-1000x average. There is a 20% chance of picking the best one, while 80% chance of picking the "worse" ones. Could that 20% not be implemented in the math?

 

[trancemonkey]

So look

Why can't the maths work? Say there are 5 features hidden under a pick, 4 of them pay maybe say a range of 10x-200x average. But the best one pays 200x-1000x average. There is a 20% chance of picking the best one, while 80% chance of picking the "worse" ones. Could that 20% not be implemented in the math?

So in your example, lets say the average of the "worst" ones is 50x, and the average of the best one is 500x right? If you make it an even pick then the average value is:

((50 * 4)+500) / 5 = 140x

If you were happy to accept 140x as the average win for the feature, then you could make the pick random.

However, that is a HUGE average win, so the feature would have to be pretty rare - if it accounted for 10% of the total RTP, then it would happen every 1400 games. Would you wait 1400 games for a feature which, 4 out of 5 times, averaged 50x? I'd be pretty disappointed...

So, what we would probably do is maybe have a 4% chance of getting the best one, and then a (96/4)% chance [24%] of getting one of the worse ones.

This gives you an average of 68x, which is much better in terms of balancing a game. BUT because the pick is now not truly random, we can't show the other outcomes. So you can now bring the feature in every 680 games if you want 10% RTP on the feature. That's a big difference.

It can of course "work" mathematically, but it is only an option if the outcome is worth it from a game design / player experience / maths point of view. And everyone has a different opinion of what is "right" and "wrong" in terms of game design and maths - and i don't just mean people on here.. i'm talking players, producers, maths guys, etc...

 

[snorky510238]

Like dunover said previously in this thread you can't have your cake and eat it and if the cake is always the same size (% payout) and x number of players want a piece of it,if it is cut randomly some will get bigger pieces than others.Irrespective of the shapes you cut the one thing you can't do if you put them back together is end up with a bigger cake than when you started.I totally understand why from a players point of view but the underlying goal almost seems to be we want to create a slot that pays out more than it's supposed to.Do away with all playing card symbols would be a nice change to many slots use these for the low end of the paytables.