Per pie gamble options: Are the array of gambling results real ?

[5ta]

In this example : You press gamble on pie 5 and lose. The rest show they won.
But if you have picked one of the others, would the results still be the same ?

 

[Kroffe]

@Reelsoffun

 

[jasonuk]

In this example : You press gamble on pie 5 and lose. The rest show they won.
But if you have picked one of the others, would the results still be the same ?

One set of results doesn't a conclusion make, but there have been some incredibly odd streaks in various videos, particularly with SG and Inspired - in the realms of 1 in 20 shots landing five or six times in a row (for non-selected gambles).

The division here is two-fold:

• The actual gamble (which is strongly regulated) versus the "gambles" that are not selected.
• The game engine may only return win or lose (at true odds) for the actual gamble, leaving the front end to interpret that how it wishes.

That means the front end can get up to all kinds of shenanigans to bait people into taking the bigger gambles... I thought the UKGC were supposed to monitor this stuff, but a broken clock shows more signs of life in that department.

 

[5ta]

Just to be clear, I was referring to every set of multiple choice gambles where one set of results are given. All five pies spin. All five show a set of results. The question is simply asking if the results are the same regardless of pie gamble choice. Or, of course, is the machine changing the results depending on which pie gamble is taken.

I am of the opinion that the RTP governs if a gamble wins or loses. Ergo if the machine cannot pay, it wont.

 

[jasonuk]

Just to be clear, I was referring to every set of multiple choice gambles where one set of results are given. All five pies spin. All five show a set of results. The question is simply asking if the results are the same regardless of pie gamble choice. Or, of course, is the machine changing the results depending on which pie gamble is taken.

Yes, we understood what you asked...

In the worst examples, the only thing determined by RNG is the win/loss result of the pie you selected - everything else, including where the selected pie landed, can be left to the front end to manipulate.

The RNG results will differ because time is a property of randomness, so what you're really asking is are the other results genuine RNG calls - and if they're manipulated by the front end then the answer is likely no.

I am of the opinion that the RTP governs if a gamble wins or loses. Ergo if the machine cannot pay, it wont.

If it's not a compensated machine, then no, it will not behave that way.

 

[Reelsoffun]

I was gonna comment, but Jason has pretty much covered it.

 

[5ta]

we ?
how do you know it represents only the pie selected ?
I have opinions of compo vs random, RNG and RTP and they are based on that time of the month. (legally)

 

[5ta]

I was gonna comment, but Jason has pretty much covered it.

I remember Brian Christopher talking about timing being everything and he never did answer the question : how do you know ?

 

[Reelsoffun]

we ?
how do you know it represents only the pie selected ?
I have opinions of compo vs random, RNG and RTP and they are based on that time of the month. (legally)

No jurisdictions I know off would allow any RTP or RNG to be determined by the time of the month that’s not legal full stop.

In an ideal world the unused pies should just pick a random position in the same way as if they were chosen, but my understanding is that it doesn’t have to be to be like that to be compliant, if the chosen pie is being decided randomly.

 

[Reelsoffun]

how do you know ?

I don’t.

But Brian is American, so he wouldn’t be familiar with any machine that compensated anyway.

And yes timing is everything it’s been my moto for decades and is under my logo

 

[dunover]

Just to be clear, I was referring to every set of multiple choice gambles where one set of results are given. All five pies spin. All five show a set of results. The question is simply asking if the results are the same regardless of pie gamble choice. Or, of course, is the machine changing the results depending on which pie gamble is taken.

I am of the opinion that the RTP governs if a gamble wins or loses. Ergo if the machine cannot pay, it wont.

Visually, the pies should reflect the chances of success/defeat. Which they did.

The gamble in the image shows most jeopardy for the middle pie, with a 1/4 chance, pretty much reflective of the 60 being gambled for 240.

Gambles 1&4 showed very high chances of success, as you would expect in the case of 1 merely raising your win by 1/3 and the small chance of loss in pie 4 would suggest that your 60 quid isn't too far below the average feature reward for 12 free games. This seems consistent with pie 5 too, as pro-rata the extra 8 spins still were offering about 55% success. But you lost. Nothing remarkable there.

I must admit I don't like this Jim Bowen BS 'let's look at what you COULD'VE won' appearance of the pies - toally unnecessary IMO. Losing to a 45% loss chance is nothing remarkable, but then telling you you would've won the 75% loss chance pie is crap. It suggests the game played out and called for a RNG result on all 5 pies as soon as you gambled which is needless and misleading. The game should only pull a result for the chance you took, not the rest. If it actually hasn't pulled the other 4 results and is just window dressing then it's unethical. If it has, then the game must be compensated.

 

[jasonuk]

we ?

Yes, we... your recurring snippy remarks have been noted.

how do you know it represents only the pie selected ?
I have opinions of compo vs random, RNG and RTP and they are based on that time of the month. (legally)

Unless you are the one writing the code, you can't say with absolute certainty - but when a 1 in 20 shot is landing 4-5 times in a row (SG) or an Inspired slot is approaching 100% hit frequency, the empirical data is enough to smell a rat.

I know some of the online stuff because I've looked under the hood and confirmed no information about the pie location (beyond win/loss) is transmitted.

I was gonna comment, but Jason has pretty much covered it.

I remember Brian Christopher talking about timing being everything and he never did answer the question : how do you know ?

One of the factors of RNG is time, so if you press the button now versus one second later, the RNG will generate a different outcome.

The key part is that it cannot be predicted - otherwise you have the Aristocrat situation from a decade ago where old machines (with ancient, now broken, RNG) could be predicted and they robbed the casino blind.

It suggests the game played out and called for a RNG result on all 5 pies as soon as you gambled which is needless and misleading. The game should only pull a result for the chance you took, not the rest. If it actually hasn't pulled the other 4 results and is just window dressing then it's unethical. If it has, then the game must be compensated.

I'm not a fan of the Jim Bowen method either - if the RNG calls are genuine then it's needless bait but the regulator probably turns a blind eye to it. The ones that concern me are where they win with ridiculous frequency - and that's incredibly dishonest and that practice should be banned.

 

[slot_zombie]

I feel the pie is rigged in some way that it will only land the 50% or 25% chances most of the time when it can afford it. And why does it pause for about 0.25 of a second when it is going to spin to a losing section of the pie, but does not pause when it is going to win? Like the machine is working something out in the background.

 

[5ta]

Yes, we... your recurring snippy remarks have been noted.

jason, don't take it personal, I was currently writing three threads and quite stressed. There was no attempt to be rude to you, but you may have smelt the foul odour of shite gambling industry affecting my persona.

I'm not sure about predictability since the results are all after the effect. I'm not inferring either way if that is possible on not, just wanting to know if the industry is willing to admit if the other pie results are what would have really happened or not.

I quietly admit seeing certain games repeatedly show a slither of pie winning quite a few times on 8 or 12 spins, over a period of years. Like it was encouraging you to believe it and try it. But then, one or two times, it does land in a real gamble. But I would say no where near as often.

 

[jasonuk]

I quietly admit seeing certain games repeatedly show a slither of pie winning quite a few times on 8 or 12 spins, over a period of years. Like it was encouraging you to believe it and try it. But then, one or two times, it does land in a real gamble. But I would say no where near as often.

A lot of the problems come down to what people think is regulated, versus what actually is regulated. To be fair I got snagged on this one as well given the pie gamble is one of the most regulated things on the terminal - but it sounds like it only applies to the gamble being selected... so once providers realised that, then the nonsense begins.

I suspect it'll be a while before it all spills out - after all, we're still hearing secrets from the AWP market and that has been on life support for a decade at this point.

 

[viewsource]

A lot of the problems come down to what people think is regulated, versus what actually is regulated. To be fair I got snagged on this one as well given the pie gamble is one of the most regulated things on the terminal - but it sounds like it only applies to the gamble being selected... so once providers realised that, then the nonsense begins.

I suspect it'll be a while before it all spills out - after all, we're still hearing secrets from the AWP market and that has been on life support for a decade at this point.

The strange thing about the not-in-play pie gamble behaviour is that it is not consistent across the SG games. You can only suppose individual developers have a free hand when it comes to that aspect of the game design.