Jackpot Party 'Insurance' Bonus - or not!

[ChopleyIOM]

Whilst I applaud the bravery of questioning Enzo's maths, I do have to question the sanity of it.




No offence dunover

 

[dunover]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So away from mathematical theory which often belies the real world:

I wasn't disputing the 1253/1 BTW although reading it back it sounds so, but wanting it demonstrated in a string for reasons explained in #2 below.

#1.The offer could be played at 1x20p spin which means that the player (using your logic) would get back £25 for every 250.60 spent, a 10% margin. Given as the RTP of the slots on JPP are 92-93% your site will now be operating at a loss of 2-3% of turnover as all players (unless stupid) would take up this offer as it's a no-lose chance. Even at 5x playthrough, a massive EV+ scenario, the site would lose cash. Pull the other one. I say......

#2. This is the slightly disingenuous side of the maths theory eh Enzo?
In actual play. once the player hits a win the sequence starts again BUT those spins already taken and paid for are part of the player's sequence/continuity of spins. This is the result of something we both seem to agree on, that the values go back in the pot when picked. Therefore the player, in reality would go far in excess of 1253 spins.

But you know that already my friend. If you didn't, you'd have made a 'Betfair Happy Hour'-scale cock-up. And you're too clever for that. You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people..........

 

[dunover]

Whilst I applaud the bravery of questioning Enzo's maths, I do have to question the sanity of it.




No offence dunover

You scorned the 'insurance' as much as I did don't forget.....

The thing is, you and others, if you don't mind me saying so, have let Enzo 'lead' you.
He proposed (paraphrased) 'try 100 spins on a slot and discount the result if 20 or less or 80 or more'. To be fair he did admit that the results on a 50-50 slot would need over a MILLION spins to produce a 25 bonus.

Now, imagine if you or I played a mere 100 spins on any slot and then started bleating "crap slot" or "shit RTP" or "what? NO bonus round?". We'd have Nifty and the rest coming down on us like a ton of hot sh!t. The thing is, Enzo, unless he knows something he can't admit on here or he programmes them, cannot know exactly what percentage of a slot's spins produce a win of any description. Remember, they are random and need millions of plays to establish any meaningful figure (and TRTP) and to 'grab' a random group of 100 consecutive spins from this huge sequence is simply pointless.

Now the bag of balls. The odds are the same (0.7x) but would you prefer to be asked to pick 20 whites out of a bag of 100 containing 70 white, or a bag of 10,000 containing 7,000 white? (There is some Canadian mathematician who discussed and tried a similar proposition with some unexpected results if Enzo or anyone can recall his name, he also did work on lottery numbers at the start of a new lottery).

All the savvy people did exactly what I tried - picked a HV slot and played that. Like I said, if you crunch the figures this could potentially cost the casino a loss. But Enzo knows it won't...

Like I said in the OP, it's a very clever offer and respect to Enzo or whoever for coming up with it. One of those things that makes JPP unique.

 

[3Dice]

Therefore the player, in reality would go far in excess of 1253 spins.

Some would, some wont and the average would be 1253 spins. There's no difference between theory and reality ..

Remember, they are random and need millions of plays to establish any meaningful figure (and TRTP) and to 'grab' a random group of 100 consecutive spins from this huge sequence is simply pointless.

Whether or not a sample size is pointless depends on the event you're trying to measure. Determining sample sizes is no exact science. A general rule of thumb is to take 30 times the frequency of the rarest event you're trying to gather stats on. For example .. if you want to verify something that you expect to happen 1 in 1000 times .. then 30.000 is a good rule-of-thumb sample size (assuming uniform normal distribution).

Since this particular event (zero-wins vs non zero-wins) typically sits around the 0.5 range it is one of the few things of a slot you can measure with a small sample size.

Now the bag of balls. The odds are the same (0.7x) but would you prefer to be asked to pick 20 whites out of a bag of 100 containing 70 white, or a bag of 10,000 containing 7,000 white? (There is some Canadian mathematician who discussed and tried a similar proposition with some unexpected results if Enzo or anyone can recall his name, he also did work on lottery numbers at the start of a new lottery).

Assuming the picked ball is put back each time that makes no difference at all. (it makes a difference if it wouldn't get put back.).

All the savvy people did exactly what I tried - picked a HV slot and played that. Like I said, if you crunch the figures this could potentially cost the casino a loss. But Enzo knows it won't...

Like I said in the OP, it's a very clever offer and respect to Enzo or whoever for coming up with it. One of those things that makes JPP unique.

Ok, please don't put words in my mouth. You also seem to be missing the obvious fact that I'm completely unrelated to JPP .. and quite honestly couldn't care less if they made an EV+ bonus or a really bad EV- one. My only interest in this discussion is the math - since they were so easy to do in this particular case I thought I'd chime in and show how to get a feel for what to expect. If you read my post again you might notice that I've picked my samples simply at the extreme ends of the spectrum. My post was intended to explain .. not to convince anyone of anything.

It's curious how you repeatedly describe what I call a math explanation as leading people on. Formulas have no opinions. Maybe I should leave my garden of reason and put on a tin-foil hat to avoid leading people on ..

 

[dunover]

Some would, some wont and the average would be 1253 spins. There's no difference between theory and reality ..



Whether or not a sample size is pointless depends on the event you're trying to measure. Determining sample sizes is no exact science. A general rule of thumb is to take 30 times the frequency of the rarest event you're trying to gather stats on. For example .. if you want to verify something that you expect to happen 1 in 1000 times .. then 30.000 is a good rule-of-thumb sample size (assuming uniform normal distribution).

Since this particular event (zero-wins vs non zero-wins) typically sits around the 0.5 range it is one of the few things of a slot you can measure with a small sample size.



Assuming the picked ball is put back each time that makes no difference at all. (it makes a difference if it wouldn't get put back.).




Ok, please don't put words in my mouth. You also seem to be missing the obvious fact that I'm completely unrelated to JPP .. and quite honestly couldn't care less if they made an EV+ bonus or a really bad EV- one. My only interest in this discussion is the math - since they were so easy to do in this particular case I thought I'd chime in and show how to get a feel for what to expect. If you read my post again you might notice that I've picked my samples simply at the extreme ends of the spectrum. My post was intended to explain .. not to convince anyone of anything.

It's curious how you repeatedly describe what I call a math explanation as leading people on. Formulas have no opinions. Maybe I should leave my garden of reason and put on a tin-foil hat to avoid leading people on ..

On the fact you don't rep JPP sorry my bad. I am merely pointing out a simple formula (which indeed it is) is not representative of the vagaries of random slots with numerous win ranges and features. It's almost like trying to write a summary of 20 different novels with one paragraph. Plus even the highest variance slots which are natural choices for a promo such as this have value pools which include a very large and thus frequent amount of small (< 1x stake) wins. The model we looked at has a simple (win=any)/(0) assumption. I don't feel there is any need for 'tin foil' references because somebody questions a simplification which when overlaid with years of slot play and untold amounts of spins on many different slots bears little relation to the outcome most will experience.

I say follow the money. If JPP had crunched info/report data they had on the various WMS slots and come to the conclusion that some games would effectively end up paying >100% to savvy players then the 'insurance' wouldn't be offered, especially without limits. That's my 'garden of reason'.....

 

[3Dice]

On the fact you don't rep JPP sorry my bad. I am merely pointing out a simple formula (which indeed it is) is not representative of the vagaries of random slots with numerous win ranges and features. It's almost like trying to write a summary of 20 different novels with one paragraph. Plus even the highest variance slots which are natural choices for a promo such as this have value pools which include a very large and thus frequent amount of small (< 1x stake) wins. The model we looked at has a simple (win=any)/(0) assumption. I don't feel there is any need for 'tin foil' references because somebody questions a simplification which when overlaid with years of slot play and untold amounts of spins on many different slots bears little relation to the outcome most will experience.

I say follow the money. If JPP had crunched info/report data they had on the various WMS slots and come to the conclusion that some games would effectively end up paying >100% to savvy players then the 'insurance' wouldn't be offered, especially without limits. That's my 'garden of reason'.....

Ok dunover, I'm going to follow up on this one last time just to try and help out. First off, there is no simplification going on. We're looking at the actual win frequency which just happens to be a number that is quite easy to reliably approximate on a small sample. So lets assume we find a 0.3 win frequency slot. My mathematical estimate of 1253 spins to see 20 consecutive zero spins is the best possible estimate. It's the estimate that will be correct the largest number of times. If you base your estimate on experience rather than math - and its not 1253 - then its going to be wrong more often. If a thousand people play that 0.3 WF slot untill they hit 20 consecutive losses and write down the number of spins it took them then 1253 is going to be the number that gets written down most often.

There's no such thing as experience on random. It's random. Past events do not influence future ones so it doesn't matter how many past events you saw. They still don't influence future ones. And on your second point, +EV bonuses (intentional and not intentional) definitely do exist. In fact I give those out all the time to our own regulars. So I'm afraid you can't start from the assumption that a bonus can't be EV and hence my math can't be the best possible representation of the real world - its simply a wrong assumption - and if someone tells you hey I got a slot here with a 3/10 win frequency .. whats the number of spins I'll need - in your experience - to hit 20 consecutive zero spins - then I'd definitely say 1253

Don't shoot the math guy - I'm just trying to help

Enzo

 

[dunover]

Ok dunover, I'm going to follow up on this one last time just to try and help out. First off, there is no simplification going on. We're looking at the actual win frequency which just happens to be a number that is quite easy to reliably approximate on a small sample. So lets assume we find a 0.3 win frequency slot. My mathematical estimate of 1253 spins to see 20 consecutive zero spins is the best possible estimate. It's the estimate that will be correct the largest number of times. If you base your estimate on experience rather than math - and its not 1253 - then its going to be wrong more often. If a thousand people play that 0.3 WF slot untill they hit 20 consecutive losses and write down the number of spins it took them then 1253 is going to be the number that gets written down most often.

I'd happily bet you it isn't - that, based on your model. would be the average number of spins needed.

There's no such thing as experience on random. It's random. Past events do not influence future ones so it doesn't matter how many past events you saw. They still don't influence future ones. And on your second point, +EV bonuses (intentional and not intentional) definitely do exist. In fact I give those out all the time to our own regulars. So I'm afraid you can't start from the assumption that a bonus can't be EV and hence my math can't be the best possible representation of the real world - its simply a wrong assumption - and if someone tells you hey I got a slot here with a 3/10 win frequency .. whats the number of spins I'll need - in your experience - to hit 20 consecutive zero spins - then I'd definitely say 1253



Don't shoot the math guy - I'm just trying to help

Enzo

Appreciated but that's what I said if you think about it, the slots being random and the past performance not affecting future outcomes therefore any 'average' or sample figure produced from 100 spins is meaningless in context of the insurance offer. As for EV+ boni of course I know they are out there but always previously in the form of a fixed sum/percentage, that's all Chopley ever goes on about!

But that was not my point, which was that IF the insurance offer on certain slots was av1253 spins and it is unlimited, then you would have an indefinite EV+ bonus (for as many 20p spins as you could do in a week) which could potentially be costly for JPP. Whether JPP are aware or not as you say I couldn't care less.

As for second bold quote in your reply about 'cannot be experience on random' well I find that ironic considering you suggested playing 100 rounds on a random game to establish a figure between 20-80 to base the maths on. So based on your logic we can never get a precise figure to perform the calculation on, yes? I see the dilemma though, because we need somewhere to start, after all. It is also worth pointing out that despite 'no experience in random' we have all accepted Jufo and kktmd's data on various slots based on previous experience of hundreds of thousands of spins which have produced 'facts' for example 'I'R gives a bonus round about every 124 spins' etc. etc.

It is my belief that JPP have obviously got massive stored data on the historical games played on their site, and somebody has run an enquiry or search for information regarding 'gaps' between any wins, and their offer has been based upon the results they got back. I know your 30/100 was an example but I think it would be rather more than 30 for them to run this 'insurance' promo. Therefore their offer has been based on exactly that - 'experience of random'.

P.S. I know I'm debating on the hallowed ground trodden by an accredited rep, but it's not sacrosanct - I'm just a person who doesn't take all I'm told at face value and unquestioningly when I think I see a flaw or contradiction to debate.

 

[3Dice]

Appreciated but that's what I said if you think about it, the slots being random and the past performance not affecting future outcomes therefore any 'average' or sample figure produced from 100 spins is meaningless in context of the insurance offer.

As for second bold quote in your reply about 'cannot be experience on random' well I find that ironic considering you suggested playing 100 rounds on a random game to establish a figure between 20-80 to base the maths on. So based on your logic we can never get a precise figure to perform the calculation on, yes? I see the dilemma though, because we need somewhere to start, after all. It is also worth pointing out that despite 'no experience in random' we have all accepted Jufo and kktmd's data on various slots based on previous experience of hundreds of thousands of spins which have produced 'facts' for example 'I'R gives a bonus round about every 124 spins' etc. etc.

P.S. I know I'm debating on the hallowed ground trodden by an accredited rep, but it's not sacrosanct - I'm just a person who doesn't take all I'm told at face value and unquestioningly when I think I see a flaw or contradiction to debate.

I think we're confusing the terms 'measuring' and 'experience' here. If you mean measuring when you say experience - then you're absolutely right. Measuring is absolutely a valid way to assess behavior. Personally my interpretation of experience is more that of a conclusion drawn on past events - I don't use that term to describe a conclusion made with formulas and measurements. Measurements are definitely a useful tool here .. especially if you have prior knowledge about what you are measuring. For example in this case we know its a slot game so we know the outcomes follow a uniform random distribution. One of the properties of such a distribution is that any subset of it is also a uniform random distribution. Because of that we know that the division between zero and non zero spins is a uniform random distribution.

From those distributions we know that if they have frequent events like a 1/2 or a 1/3 or a 1/4 event that is uniformly distributed, they can be reasonably measured on a sample sizes as small as 60, 90 or 120 samples. So 100 samples really is a pretty good sample (I btw suggested 200 or 300 to improve accuracy) to asses the win/lose frequency of a slot. If you were to assess the RTP it would be hugely insufficient since very rare events still constitute large amounts of the payout so you'd need to adjust your sample size to reliably include those rare events to.

I made a quick simulation that did 100 'spins' with a uniform distributed random 0.7 odd on zero : here's the outcome on how many of those 100 spins were zero

71,70,67,72,68,74,70,69,63,74,

error : 1,0,3,2,2,4,0,1,3,4
average error : (1+0+3+2+2+4+0+1+3+4)/10 = 2

as you can see, two samples are 4 off and the average error is 2 .. but in general I think its quite clear that 100 spins is enough to get a ballpark figure .. of course more is always better but for these types of events that stabilizes really fast .. you should expect to be only a couple off for these types of odds and samples of 100 spins.

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[skiny]

The only thing I can see from a player's perspective is the casino can sit and work out the math and know whether or not they're going to go broke with this offer because they're counting on a very large sample. I'm sure that number 20 wasn't picked out of a hat. It's obviously possible to hit 20 zeros in a row but if they've done their math correctly they might end up paying a few (un)lucky players quite early, some will never see the bonus and the rest will probably average out to a % bonus they probably would have offered anyway.

From a player's perspective it's no different than playing a slot game and trying to win. (I mean seriously, who sits around hoping the lose 20 times in a row?) Random is still random and if one player sits down with his deposit he could conceivably pull this off in his first 30 spins OR he could sit here spinning until the cows come home and never see 20 consecutive zeros.

If we simply followed the math when we gambled there would be no point in playing. Pick any game you like, the math says you're going to lose.

The only difference in this bonus and any other is the psychological head game it plays with people trying to achieve it. I'm not sure if I want to be getting excited after 15 or 16 losing spins and then feel let down because I finally managed to win something. The worse your game play the more you'll want to keep trying.

"I hit nothing 18 times. I was so close! I want to try again."

"19 losing spins! CRAP! I hit a free spin bonus sonofabitch!"

 

[dunover]

The only thing I can see from a player's perspective is the casino can sit and work out the math and know whether or not they're going to go broke with this offer because they're counting on a very large sample. I'm sure that number 20 wasn't picked out of a hat. It's obviously possible to hit 20 zeros in a row but if they've done their math correctly they might end up paying a few (un)lucky players quite early, some will never see the bonus and the rest will probably average out to a % bonus they probably would have offered anyway.

From a player's perspective it's no different than playing a slot game and trying to win. (I mean seriously, who sits around hoping the lose 20 times in a row?) Random is still random and if one player sits down with his deposit he could conceivably pull this off in his first 30 spins OR he could sit here spinning until the cows come home and never see 20 consecutive zeros.

If we simply followed the math when we gambled there would be no point in playing. Pick any game you like, the math says you're going to lose.

The only difference in this bonus and any other is the psychological head game it plays with people trying to achieve it. I'm not sure if I want to be getting excited after 15 or 16 losing spins and then feel let down because I finally managed to win something. The worse your game play the more you'll want to keep trying.

"I hit nothing 18 times. I was so close! I want to try again."

"19 losing spins! CRAP! I hit a free spin bonus sonofabitch!"

Yes, that what I suggested, as to do otherwise could end up being a bad strategy for JPP.

 

[dunover]

I think we're confusing the terms 'measuring' and 'experience' here. If you mean measuring when you say experience - then you're absolutely right. Measuring is absolutely a valid way to assess behavior. Personally my interpretation of experience is more that of a conclusion drawn on past events - I don't use that term to describe a conclusion made with formulas and measurements. Measurements are definitely a useful tool here .. especially if you have prior knowledge about what you are measuring. For example in this case we know its a slot game so we know the outcomes follow a uniform random distribution. One of the properties of such a distribution is that any subset of it is also a uniform random distribution. Because of that we know that the division between zero and non zero spins is a uniform random distribution.

From those distributions we know that if they have frequent events like a 1/2 or a 1/3 or a 1/4 event that is uniformly distributed, they can be reasonably measured on a sample sizes as small as 60, 90 or 120 samples. So 100 samples really is a pretty good sample (I btw suggested 200 or 300 to improve accuracy) to asses the win/lose frequency of a slot. If you were to assess the RTP it would be hugely insufficient since very rare events still constitute large amounts of the payout so you'd need to adjust your sample size to reliably include those rare events to.

I made a quick simulation that did 100 'spins' with a uniform distributed random 0.7 odd on zero : here's the outcome on how many of those 100 spins were zero

71,70,67,72,68,74,70,69,63,74,

error : 1,0,3,2,2,4,0,1,3,4
average error : (1+0+3+2+2+4+0+1+3+4)/10 = 2

as you can see, two samples are 4 off and the average error is 2 .. but in general I think its quite clear that 100 spins is enough to get a ballpark figure .. of course more is always better but for these types of events that stabilizes really fast .. you should expect to be only a couple off for these types of odds and samples of 100 spins.

Cheers,

Enzo

Yes, that's what I was proposing, glad that one's cleared up!
Of course we would see a different percentage dependant on which slot we tried it on. If the (eg. 95%) TRTP of a game consists of a pool of 10 million outcomes and 9 million paid 0.5 credits (you've played TSII lol..) 500k paid 10 credits and 500k paid zero it would be pretty darn hard to even come close to 20 losing spins. It's obviously past data like this they've analysed somewhere along the line.

From what I've heard of 3dice's games Enzo, this insurance promo would kill you....

 

[Borgie]

As they have now changed the terms and conditions twice and have now limited the amount of the bonus to £150 a day I think maybe they were making a loss?

 

[aceking123]

As they have now changed the terms and conditions twice and have now limited the amount of the bonus to £150 a day I think maybe they were making a loss?

thats very naughty to change terms in promo , border line rogue lines !!! caution here

 

[Borgie]

thats very naughty to change terms in promo , border line rogue lines !!! caution here

They just put some restricted slots on and limited the maximum bonus - they could have pulled the whole promotion but didn't. Ladbrokes have done that before. I am sure they honoured those who had already played that day.

Jackpot Party are trying a ton of new promotions. Now that they have WMS competition they are getting innovative.

I really don't think they are behaving like a Rogue.

 

[dionysus]

well, not really, not if they list the new terms in the
t and cs
generally, in any promotion, there's the line ' the casino reserves the right to change the terms or cancel a promotion as deemed fit' or such such...as long as it isnt mid-way after you agreed and signed up and are playing the promo, where theres then possible issues, if in general, they opt to alter the terms, it's their prerogative

 

[aceking123]

They just put some restricted slots on and limited the maximum bonus - they could have pulled the whole promotion but didn't. Ladbrokes have done that before. I am sure they honoured those who had already played that day.

Jackpot Party are trying a ton of new promotions. Now that they have WMS competition they are getting innovative.

I really don't think they are behaving like a Rogue.

sorry i dont agree , its border line rougish to me as a player if i signed up for that promo & had been playing it had a few wins then started to see things changing along those lines i wouldnt be to happy

heres a promo for you a chance to win 5k im going to keep changing this promo to what is fit on my side , so i can change it twice within a few days because clearly im losing money )
not good in any shape or form from a accredited casino

 

[dunover]

It's definitely not rogue. The promotion is unique and innovative, therefore JPP are on a learning curve on this. They have obviously analysed the data thus far and the promo is unsustainable, so they have retained it but with some stipulations added. These are in the terms, therefore no foul.
(I did say this could happen earlier in the thread, that anyone savvy would play HV slots and effectively get an RTP of 100%+ on some). Therefore some slots excluded, and to stop autoplaying 20p and building up £25 hits the limit of £150 has been imposed. Well I did tell 'em........
At worst they are guilty of looking amateurish, but as a casino you couldn't get further from rogue. Ask Chopley whose little Chopley has a cot-bed with a montage of JPP screenshots on the quilt cover.

Having rewritten NetBet's (not to be confused with other casinos of similar name) terms for them, I should have offered my service to JPP 2 days ago.

 

[akrus88]

It is so not rogue. They very clearly stated the terms have changed with the message board.

Only thing I am not happy, is that my Insurance bonus has not still been paid. It should have been paid yesteday, but still has not shown. "Technical problems".. Sucks!

 

[skiny]

Ahh, the old "Technical problems" excuse.

I've been having "technical problems" since I stopped getting enough fiber. Still, I have nobody to blame but myself.

 

[akrus88]

Ahh, the old "Technical problems" excuse.

I've been having "technical problems" since I stopped getting enough fiber. Still, I have nobody to blame but myself.