Poll slots 2

[Rusty]

The second poll deals with individual software providers.
Which software do you feel offers the fairest slots?
This multiple choice

 

[lauram]

I went with mg as i seem to find there that at least with so much variety of slots you can normally hit a few bonus rounds that keeps you playing on your deposit.

 

[mysticjoz]

Glad you let us pick more than one.. I like mg and rtg. They have been very, very nice to me for a while now

 

[zap987]

I think they are all fair, and if I was worried they weren't I wouldn't play. I keep being amazed at how many people think online slots (and other games) are rigged in different ways but still keep playing.

 

[same_old]

yeah MG for me to Rusty, hours of play out of small deposits and can hit so much more as opposed to the other places.

 

[Rusty]

I think they are all fair, and if I was worried they weren't I wouldn't play. I keep being amazed at how many people think online slots (and other games) are rigged in different ways but still keep playing.

The question is which do you think offer the fairest games?
If you think they are all equally fair then vote for them all.
This is a poll.
Your statement is more appropriate in the other poll.


Already looking like a race for the minor places.

 

[KasinoKing]

Already looking like a race for the minor places.

Great poll - but one minor snaglett...
Did you forget that (probably) way over 50% of CM members are in the USA so can't play WagerWorks or Playtech - therefore they are not likely to vote for them, are they?

(BTW, I voted for all except RTG because I don't think it's fair that different casinos can have them set with different return %'s).

 

[Alexandre]

WagerWorks 100%
They are part of IGT, a brick & mortar slot manufacturer and they are the only software which provide for each slot what they call the the payback info (in the paytable) + the way features are handled.

(BTW, I voted for all except RTG because I don't think it's fair that different casinos can have them set with different return %'s).

RTG is obviously the last of the list.
I think MG is random as Zoozie has demonstrated it with his SlotAnalyzer (Zoozie where are you gone ?).
I'm not sure for Playtech.
But as I've stated before random doesn't mean fair.
Some people like (well, only Brits and Spanische...maybe Dutsh also) them non random.

 

[slotplayer]

that's funny everyone picked MG. RTG uses the same RNG testing lab that my states lottery uses. My state lottery is 100% fair as a matter of fact coined the most successful lottery in the US. There is no way they would cheat anyone.

Ahtough I've never played any brand with real money except for Casino Rewards Microgaming I'm convinced they changed something since April. (after the last big jackpot winner?).

Since then it is nearly impossible to get a bonus round no matter what time of or night let alone some close together or even back to back. Even if you win something it takes it all back especially if you increase the wager amount. This pattern seems to be consistent across all the slot games I've played. Seems the occasional bonus round only occurs on the lower coin denominations.

I remember reading a post about this a while back however has anyone else notice this?

 

[KasinoKing]

that's funny everyone picked MG. RTG uses the same RNG testing lab that my states lottery uses. My state lottery is 100% fair as a matter of fact coined the most successful lottery in the US. There is no way they would cheat anyone.

A 100% random RNG does not mean a 100% random slot.
The RNG just produces a random number, it's what the slot software does with that number afterwards which determines if the slot if fair or not.
(e.g. It could be programmed to ignore the RNG under certain circumstances).

KK

 

[slotplayer]

A 100% random RNG does not mean a 100% random slot.
The RNG just produces a random number, it's what the slot software does with that number afterwards which determines if the slot if fair or not.
(e.g. It could be programmed to ignore the RNG under certain circumstances).

KK

no I understand, but that would make it crooked.

 

[Rusty]

Great poll - but one minor snaglett...
Did you forget that (probably) way over 50% of CM members are in the USA so can't play WagerWorks or Playtech - therefore they are not likely to vote for them, are they?

(BTW, I voted for all except RTG because I don't think it's fair that different casinos can have them set with different return %'s).

I did not realise that US could not play these software types anywhere so yeah it is going to skew the figures unfortunately.

Just One point about Zoozies slot analyser;
It only shows that the paytable and reel layouts could be consistent with the stated RTP.
It in no way proves that MG slots are completely random or any fairer than any other software.
A very important distinction but for the record I voted MG and Wagerworks as the fairest of the bunch.

 

[paul02085]

Great poll - but one minor snaglett...
Did you forget that (probably) way over 50% of CM members are in the USA so can't play WagerWorks or Playtech - therefore they are not likely to vote for them, are they?

(BTW, I voted for all except RTG because I don't think it's fair that different casinos can have them set with different return %'s).

I wonder why over 50% r in US since we can hardly play online anymore? More sick addicts maybe lol, j/k.

 

[babs7262]

I just realized I shouldnt of answered this poll. I did not read any answers but realizd after voting that USA cant play at playtech and wagerworks so this really isnt for USA to vote on.

I voted none: you can omit my answer please and I apologize for answering when I shouldnt have

 

[Rusty]

I just realized I shouldnt of answered this poll. I did not read any answers but realizd after voting that USA cant play at playtech and wagerworks so this really isnt for USA to vote on.

I voted none: you can omit my answer please and I apologize for answering when I shouldnt have

Not at all, as KK pointed out it was my mistake by including software that could not be played in the US, this was in no way a poll meant to exclude any players from any country.

 

[gerilege]

I believe that the slots of all the listed 5 providers are fair. My personal feelings (as a computer scientist and a slot player ) follow:
For very convincing reasons I have the most trust in RTG providing true random slots (#1), and MG is a clear and strong #2 in my eyes in this aspect despite of the weighted reels fiasco. No problems with Playtech (#3), but I would like to have their payout% announced as I think it's lower than any of the other listed 4. I am also not yet convinced that they offer the same payout% for different number of lines played, but that could of course change, I simply don't have enough information to judge. Wagerworks slots seem to be fair as well, but I experienced some anomalies with their table games, and also one minor one with one of their slot games, and they are #4 on my list. Despite of listing their payout% Rival is #5, but that can change, I am yet to do my homework related to their slots. But up to now I consistently had serious problems reaching the theoretical payout%.

Not listed on the poll, but NetEnt would be my #6 as it is confirmed that the payout% depends on number of lines played on some of their slots and I feel that this behaviour limits my choices in the style I'm playing with them and provides some uncertainity. Cryptologic was also not listed, but would be #7 on my list, but only because of the low payout% and the limited denominations, and overlapping winlines on the first three reels on their 20liners. No signs show that they would be unfair. Another major provider, Boss would be the #8, because I'm quite sure that the payout% depends on the number of lines, and I also have reasons to believe that they might not determinate the winnings based on true random reel stop positions. Additionally some of their classic 3liners will always stop on the top pay combination on an unselected winline, which is a tactic I hate.

 

[Zoozie]

I
Just One point about Zoozies slot analyser;
It only shows that the paytable and reel layouts could be consistent with the stated RTP.
It in no way proves that MG slots are completely random or any fairer than any other software.

This is correct. But combine this with the work of Kimms and you have the proof. He collected spin data for each reel for 10K+ spins on Thunderstruck and many other slots.

They showed
1) Reels are unweighted (except for the old slots, but in this case he also proved they were indeed weigthed).
I ran statistical analysis on the data and confirmed
2) There were no correlation between the reels. (independant reels)
What more proofs do you want?

Or come with one argument why it should not be this way. With a 5% house egde on slots, there casino has no reason to cheat.

1) and 2) is what defines a video-slot.

No problems with Playtech (#3), but I would like to have their payout% announced as I think it's lower than any of the other listed 4.

So do I. The following post by a Playtech casino manager gives more than a clue about Playtech slots payout%. I believe forgot to delete one of the digits...

Playtech slot payout% hint

For the fairness of video slots I often have a problem with picking games.
I still remember the RTG Fruit Frenzy that was suddenly introduced where you could never hit the canon in the feature. This had a drastic result on
the payout% of course. You have no idea of knowing what is going on in these picking feature games. Or what probability distribution is behind it.
For normal freespins slot this is not an issue. The reels will tell all there is
to know about the slot.

 

[dendrite]

WagerWorks 100%
They are part of IGT, a brick & mortar slot manufacturer and they are the only software which provide for each slot what they call the the payback info (in the paytable) + the way features are handled.

I'll agree with that vote for Wagerworks - I like to be able to see the payback when playing the game, just as you can with a bricks and mortar slot

 

[handkey]

yes, I choose microgaming.

More chance to get the bonus feature than others

 

[AudiManinBoro]

I think they are all fair, and if I was worried they weren't I wouldn't play. I keep being amazed at how many people think online slots (and other games) are rigged in different ways but still keep playing.

Their aernt many industries these days that aernt manipulated in some fashion or another, from tv quiz shows to sports events and yes to online casinos. It doesnt stop most people from playing even knowing there is a (possibility) that things aernt quite as they are supposed to be.

 

[Rusty]

This is correct. But combine this with the work of Kimms and you have the proof. He collected spin data for each reel for 10K+ spins on Thunderstruck and many other slots.

They showed
1) Reels are unweighted (except for the old slots, but in this case he also proved they were indeed weigthed).
I ran statistical analysis on the data and confirmed
2) There were no correlation between the reels. (independant reels)
What more proofs do you want?

Or come with one argument why it should not be this way. With a 5% house egde on slots, there casino has no reason to cheat.

1) and 2) is what defines a video-slot.



So do I. The following post by a Playtech casino manager gives more than a clue about Playtech slots payout%. I believe forgot to delete one of the digits...

Playtech slot payout% hint

For the fairness of video slots I often have a problem with picking games.
I still remember the RTG Fruit Frenzy that was suddenly introduced where you could never hit the canon in the feature. This had a drastic result on
the payout% of course. You have no idea of knowing what is going on in these picking feature games. Or what probability distribution is behind it.
For normal freespins slot this is not an issue. The reels will tell all there is
to know about the slot.

Thanks Zoozie.

Let me ask you a question and then I will go on to answer yours.

Do you have an explanation as to why, on many MG slots, the scatters will disappear for long periods of time Or why the amount of features won on some slots when the first Two scatters appear does not tally with expectation?

This combination should account for 30% of possible feature triggering combinations and yet it is much lower than this.
These anomalous results alone strongly suggest to me weighting or grouping and/or the use of algorithms even though there may still be random element.

If you do not accept what I am saying is correct then please gather your own data as I can not see how your results could conflict with mine.
Some slots are more obvious than others in this behaviour and I would suggest you collect your data on Moonshine and Halloweenies slots.

I also think that the amount of times Two scatters are hit without triggering a feature on these slots is inordinate but I have not done any proper analysis on this.

Now to answer that age old chestnut of
"they don't have to cheat so why would they?"

First of all the question is moot because we know some Casinos have and do indeed cheat.
However you may infer from this that I have no other reasonable answer so I shall give you not One but Two and if you can not accept these you can refer back to it.

1) To understand the first reason we have to make the distinction between software that is rigged and software that is manipulated.

Rigged software will typically cheat the punter, have none random results and
a low RTP.
Manipulated software will allow the punter to win and probably have random elements and may well have a reasonable RTP.
Both however can change the RTP.

In the case of MG my opinion is that the software is manipulated but the RTP is generally reasonable.
So we get to the first reason of why manipulate a slot that allows wins and has a reasonable RTP?
Because firstly it allows the operators elements of control and secondly it can be used to enhance the player experience by use of grouping (near misses,streaks etc)
Are you aware of how much research goes into what makes slots addictive and how they can be made to be more addictive?
It is a multi billion $ industry

The second reason I will give you is far more sinister and is all about ensuring profitability and predictable revenue stream and I know I need not go into detail as to why this would be appealing to unscrupulous Casinos/software providers.

As I say I am personally of the opinion the software is manipulated and not rigged.

I think you Zoozie and Kimms have done a great job and put a lot of time in on this area and my arguments are my own.
I am happy for them to be challenged and I would be happy to work with you to analyze data.

 

[KasinoKing]

yes, I choose microgaming.
More chance to get the bonus feature than others

You must have been incredibly lucky then (or never played at a Rival casino).

Nothing wrong with MG, but their features do not hit more frequently (overall) than any other software I've played.
In my experience (daily slots play for 4+ years), Rival & Grand Virtual are the best for frequent features.

 

[Rusty]

You must have been incredibly lucky then (or never played at a Rival casino).

Nothing wrong with MG, but their features do not hit more frequently (overall) than any other software I've played.
In my experience (daily slots play for 4+ years), Rival & Grand Virtual are the best for frequent features.

GV do have a high feature frequency but of course they generally pay less.

Did I tell you I got 5 cowboy hats on cactus jack KK?

I love that slot

 

[KasinoKing]

Did I tell you I got 5 cowboy hats on cactus jack KK?

Yes - several times...

 

[Rusty]

You must have been incredibly lucky then (or never played at a Rival casino).

Nothing wrong with MG, but their features do not hit more frequently (overall) than any other software I've played.
In my experience (daily slots play for 4+ years), Rival & Grand Virtual are the best for frequent features.

Yes - several times...

yes but did I tell you about the Five cowboy hats?

Shopping spree and oktoberfest are killing me but Cactus jack always gives me a game, how about you?

Also have you noticed when you load fashion show it says "Welcome to shopping spree", Doh!

 

[zap987]

This combination should account for 30% of possible feature triggering combinations and yet it is much lower than this.
These anomalous results alone strongly suggest to me weighting or grouping and/or the use of algorithms even though there may still be random element.

He already gathered the data, just look at the reels for Moonshine and it's obvious why you will get 2 scatters on the first 2 reels and then nothing.

Both the first 2 reels have 35 stops and 2 scatter bottles, while the last 3 reels have 38,39 and 40 stops with 1 bottle on each reel. Unless I fail at math you have about 22% chance to actually hit a 3rd scatter starting with 2 on the first 2 reels which you will get 1/34 spins.

 

[Zoozie]

Zap987 allready gave a good answer why you often will see patterns
with 2 or 3 scatters. Moonshine is an good example. On RTG slots the last reel if often extremely long with only 1 scatter so this will also be noticable here.

Yes, some casinos has cheated. But have MG etc. ever been taken in
obvious cheating? There is no point in cheating with the slots really (except a progressive jackpot). BJ on the other hand can have a very small house egde and it would be much much better for the casino to cheat with.

 

[KasinoKing]

He already gathered the data, just look at the reels for Moonshine and it's obvious why you will get 2 scatters on the first 2 reels and then nothing.

Both the first 2 reels have 35 stops and 2 scatter bottles, while the last 3 reels have 38,39 and 40 stops with 1 bottle on each reel. Unless I fail at math you have about 22% chance to actually hit a 3rd scatter starting with 2 on the first 2 reels which you will get 1/34 spins.

This reminds me I have a question for anyone who knows, (Zoozie?)

What's the formula for working out the chance of getting a scatter on 2 or more reels?

e.g. If you had 2 reels, both 30 symbols with 1 scatter, the chance of getting a scatter on one reel is 1 in 10.
Therefore I assume the chance of getting a scatter on either reel is 1 in 5. (?)

But how do you work it out if say 1 reel is 1 in 10 & the other 1 in 15?
Or the chance of hitting one scatter across 3 reels, all with different numbers of symbols?

Anyone know?
Thanks!

 

[gerilege]

This reminds me I have a question for anyone who knows, (Zoozie?)

What's the formula for working out the chance of getting a scatter on 2 or more reels?

e.g. If you had 2 reels, both 30 symbols with 1 scatter, the chance of getting a scatter on one reel is 1 in 10.
Therefore I assume the chance of getting a scatter on either reel is 1 in 5. (?)

But how do you work it out if say 1 reel is 1 in 10 & the other 1 in 15?
Or the chance of hitting one scatter across 3 reels, all with different numbers of symbols?

Anyone know?
Thanks!

Normally it is easier to calculate the chance of not getting any (or 1 or more, 2 or more, etc) scatters, and subtract the probability from 1. In your case you have two reels, 30 symbols on each reel and 1 scatter. The chance of not getting a scatter on reel1 is 9/10, and it is the same on reel2. Therefore the probability of you won't get a scatter on any of the two reels is (9/10)*(9/10), which is 81/100. So the chance of getting at least one scatter on any of the two reels is 19/100. Now the chance of getting exactly two scatters is 1/10*1/10 = 1/100, combine the two results, and the chance of getting exactly one scatter on the two reels is 19/100-1/100=18/100. This is how it usually works, it gets a bit complicated with more reels, but the principle is the same. It can be generalized to reels with different length and scatter symbols, to be continued.

 

[winbig]

Normally it is easier to calculate the chance of not getting any (or 1 or more, 2 or more, etc) scatters, and subtract the probability from 1. In your case you have two reels, 30 symbols on each reel and 1 scatter. The chance of not getting a scatter on reel1 is 9/10, and it is the same on reel2. Therefore the probability of you won't get a scatter on any of the two reels is (9/10)*(9/10), which is 81/100. So the chance of getting at least one scatter on any of the two reels is 19/100. Now the chance of getting exactly two scatters is 1/10*1/10 = 1/100, combine the two results, and the chance of getting exactly one scatter on the two reels is 19/100-1/100=18/100. This is how it usually works, it gets a bit complicated with more reels, but the principle is the same. It can be generalized to reels with different length and scatter symbols, to be continued.

The problem is cracking the reels to figure out how many of each symbol & total symbols are on each one. If you don't have that information, you'll never figure out the percentages.

 

[Rusty]

You have almost answered your own question by working out the answer in your first example.
If you are getting different fractions as in your second example then you can find a common denominator.
2X15=30 > 3X10=30 > 2+3=5 the chances are 5 in 30 or 1 in 6

 

[gerilege]

You have almost answered your own question by working out the answer in your first example.
If you are getting different fractions as in your second example then you can find a common denominator.
2X15=30 > 3X10=30 > 2+3=5 the chances are 5 in 30 or 1 in 6

Sorry, this result is a slightly off. Actually getting one or two scatters with 1/15 and 1/10 chances is 1-((27/30)*(28/30)) = 4/25, getting exactly 1 scatter is 1-((27/30)*(28/30)) - (1/15*1/10).

The method I described with binomial distribution in my previous post works quite well with uniform reel lenghts. For different reel lenghts and scatter frequency you need to work a bit more.

 

[Rusty]

Moonshine reels and scatter odds;

I have just some quick calculations based on what Zapp says the reel layout is for Moonshine.

Simplifying things that means that the chances of a scatter on reel One and Two are roughly 1 in 6 and 1 in 13 on the other reels.

So there are 3 X 1/468 combos and 6 X 1/1014 combos and 1 X 1/2197 combo.

This would mean the feature triggering at an average of less than 90 spins?

Do you have the full calculations for this Zoozie?

Also as regards the frequency of the first Two scatters;

If the reel layout is as described then this would indeed account in part for the effect I describe but the chances of the first Two scatters are 1 in 36 and the chances of Two scatters appearing on any other 2 reels are not dissimilar as there are 6 combinations as opposed to just one.
Is that what we see happen?

The chances of triggering the feature after hitting the first Two scatters is roughly 1 in 5 but is that what we see happen?

Is the reel layout for Halloweenies similar to Moonshine?

 

[Rusty]

Sorry, this result is a slightly off. Actually getting one or two scatters with 1/15 and 1/10 chances is 1-((27/30)*(28/30)) = 4/25, getting exactly 1 scatter is 1-((27/30)*(28/30)) - (1/15*1/10).

The method I described with binomial distribution in my previous post works quite well with uniform reel lenghts. For different reel lenghts and scatter frequency you need to work a bit more.

yup, thanks, you are going to love my rough workings above then

 

[gerilege]

If you have a different number of scatters on each reel and different reel lenght, then it's a bit more complicated. Let's say you have now 5 reels, the length of the reels is l1, l2, l3, l4, l5, and let's assume that each scatter is at least two other symbols between any scatters on the same reel and let's denote (the number of scatters)*3 on each reels as s1, s2, s3, s4, s5 respectively (i.e. if you have 1 scatter on reel4, then s4=3).
Now the formulas:
Exactly 0 scatter on all 5 reels: (((l1-s1)/l1)*((l2-s2)/l2)*...*((l5-s5)/l5))
Exactly 5 scatters: s1/l1*s2/l2*...*s5/l5

Chances of exactly one scatter on reel1 = chances of a scatter on reel1 and no scatter on other reels = (s1/l1)*(((l2-s2)/l2)*...*((l5-s5)/l5))
Chances of exactly one scatter on reel2 = chances of a scatter on reel2 and no scatter on other reels = (s2/l2)*(((l1-s1)/l2)*((l3-s3)/l3)...*((l5-s5)/l5))
and so on to reel5.
Chances of exactly 1 scatter on all reels = sum the above probabilities for all 5 reels.

Chances of exactly 4 scatters = chance that there is exactly one reel without a scatter.
Similarly as above, chance of reel1 doesn't have a scatter but all other reels do = ((l1-s1)/l1)*(s2/l2*...*s5/l5)
Chance of reel2 doesn't have a scatter but all other reels do = ((l2-s2)/l2)*(s1/l1*s3/l3...*s5/l5)
and so on for the remaining 3 reels.
Chances of exactly 4 scatters = sum the above probabilities for all 5 reels.

Chance of exactly 2 scatters = there are exactly two reels with a scatter and three without a scatter:
There are 10 combinations, scatters are on reel 1&2 1&3 1&4 1&5 2&3 2&4 2&5 3&4 3&5 4&5.
Chance of scatters only on reel 2 and 5 for instance = (reel 2 and 5 have a scatter) * (reel 1,3,4 do not have) = (s2/l2*s3/l3)*(((l1-s1)/l1)*((l3-s3)/l3)*((l4-s4)/l4))
Chance of scatters only on reel 3 and 4 for instance = (s3/l3*s4/l4)*(((l1-s1)/l2)*((l2-s2)/l2)*((l5-s5)/l5))
and so on with the other 8 combinations.
Chance of exactly 2 scatters = sum the above ten cases up.

Chance of exactly 3 scatters = there are exactly two reels without a scatter and three with a scatter:
There are 10 combinations, there are no scatters on reel 1&2 1&3 1&4 1&5 2&3 2&4 2&5 3&4 3&5 4&5, and there are on all the other reels.
Chance of no scatters on reel 2 and 5 and scatters on all the other reels for instance = (reel 2 and 5 do not have a scatter) * (reel 1,3,4 do have) = (((l2-s2)/l2)*((l5-s5)/l5))*(s1/l1*s3/l3*s4/l4).
Chance of no scatters on reel 1 and 3 and scatters on all the other reels for instance = (reel 1 and 3 do not have a scatter) * (reel 2,4,5 do have) = (((l1-s1)/l1)*((l3-s3)/l3))*(s2/l2*s4/l4*s5/l5).
And so on for the remaining 8 combinations.
Chance of exactly 3 scatters = sum up the above ten probabilities.

Basically that's all cases I guess. With the above info you can solve the Moonshine problem, but there is an easier way to do that in that special case, I will have another look on that.

 

[gerilege]

Let's see the above formulas in action for the Moonshine problem. We have fixed the first two reels, so we have 3 reels remaining. As it was written: The last 3 reels have 38,39 and 40 stops with 1 bottle on each reel. Therefore s3=s4=s5=3, while l3=38, l4=39, l5=40. We want to know what is the chance that there is no scatter on reel3, reel4 and reel5. That is (35/38)*(36/39)*(37/40) = 777/988. So the chances that you will get the feature (get at least another scatter on the remaining reels) when you get 2 scatters on the first 2 reels is 1-(777/988) = 21,35%.
But this is only a minority of all feature triggers of course, provided that reel1 and reel2 has a scatter. To get the probability of a feature trigger you have to sum up the probabilities of getting exactly 3, 4 and 5 scatters as written in my prevous post (Or sum up the probability of getting 0,1 and 2 scatters, and deduct the sum from 1).

 

[Rusty]

Let's see the above formulas in action for the Moonshine problem. We have fixed the first two reels, so we have 3 reels remaining. As it was written: The last 3 reels have 38,39 and 40 stops with 1 bottle on each reel. Therefore s3=s4=s5=1, while l3=38, l4=39, l5=40. We want to know what is the chance that there is no scatter on reel3, reel4 and reel5. That is (37/38)*(38/39)*(39/40) = 37/40. So the chances that you will get the feature (get at least another scatter on the remaining reels) when you get 2 scatters on the first 2 reels is 1-(37/40) = 3/40 = 7,5%.
But this is only a minority of all feature triggers of course, provided that reel1 and reel2 has a scatter. To get the probability of a feature trigger you have to sum up the probabilities of getting exactly 3, 4 and 5 scatters as written in my prevous post (Or sum up the probability of getting 0,1 and 2 scatters, and deduct the sum from 1).

Correct me if I am wrong but have you missed that a scatter can be placed in any of 3 reel positions and the figures should be (35/38)*(36/39)*37/40)=92.5%?
That is odd I get the 7.5% using these figures?
Maybe I am missing something.

Even so I can not see how this can be correct even though I see nothing wrong with the formula as a rough working tells us that we have Three 1 in 13 chances to hit another scatter which is clearly more than 7.5% chance?

 

[gerilege]

Correct me if I am wrong but have you missed that a scatter can be placed in any of 3 reel positions and the figures should be (35/38)*(36/39)*37/40)=92.5%?
That is odd I get the 7.5% using these figures?
Maybe I am missing something.

Even so I can not see how this can be correct even though I see nothing wrong with the formula as a rough working tells us that we have Three 1 in 13 chances to hit another scatter which is clearly more than 7.5% chance?

You are right. I will first edit all the above posts then I will have a look on your last question.

 

[Zoozie]

I am too lazy for the math now. But you can just do this easy with the slotanalyzer. (remember to remove the "," between the symbols on each reel)

Kimss supplied the following reels for moonshine:
0,9,3,8,5,7,6,4,7,P,9,2,8,6,3,S,7,6,5,8,6,0,9,7,4,2,P,5,8,6,S,9,1,8,7
0,6,9,7,3,8,S,7,2,8,5,9,P,7,3,6,4,2,6,S,8,7,4,P,8,5,9,0,6,1,7,5,8,6,9
0,9,7,4,2,5,8,7,6,S,9,3,8,5,7,1,6,0,9,4,8,6,7,P,9,2,8,4,7,6,P,9,1,8,3,6,5,8
0,6,9,3,7,9,4,8,7,2,0,1,4,7,6,S,9,5,8,7,6,0,9,6,8,5,4,1,P,7,3,8,P,5,2,8,4,9,5
0,7,6,8,4,7,5,9,S,3,1,4,7,5,P,8,1,9,0,7,8,2,5,6,P,1,3,9,P,6,7,4,8,5,9,2,6,8,4,9

S=scatter
(0 to 9 and P are just other symbols)
Paytable is not important if you only want the analyzer to calculate probability for feature. Just remember that S is the scatter. I did that and the result is:

Probability for getting a feature each spin: 826119/72618000~0.011376229034123771~1/88

Furthermore if you set #scatters to start feature to first 5,4 and then 3. Then by substraction you can find the exact probability for each of them.

 

[Rusty]

I am too lazy for the math now. But you can just do this easy with the slotanalyzer. (remember to remove the "," between the symbols on each reel)

Kimss supplied the following reels for moonshine:
0,9,3,8,5,7,6,4,7,P,9,2,8,6,3,S,7,6,5,8,6,0,9,7,4,2,P,5,8,6,S,9,1,8,7
0,6,9,7,3,8,S,7,2,8,5,9,P,7,3,6,4,2,6,S,8,7,4,P,8,5,9,0,6,1,7,5,8,6,9
0,9,7,4,2,5,8,7,6,S,9,3,8,5,7,1,6,0,9,4,8,6,7,P,9,2,8,4,7,6,P,9,1,8,3,6,5,8
0,6,9,3,7,9,4,8,7,2,0,1,4,7,6,S,9,5,8,7,6,0,9,6,8,5,4,1,P,7,3,8,P,5,2,8,4,9,5
0,7,6,8,4,7,5,9,S,3,1,4,7,5,P,8,1,9,0,7,8,2,5,6,P,1,3,9,P,6,7,4,8,5,9,2,6,8,4,9

S=scatter
(0 to 9 and P are just other symbols)
Paytable is not important if you only want the analyzer to calculate probability for feature. Just remember that S is the scatter. I did that and the result is:

Probability for getting a feature each spin: 826119/72618000~0.011376229034123771~1/88

Furthermore if you set #scatters to start feature to first 5,4 and then 3. Then by substraction you can find the exact probability for each of them.

:notworthy
Thanks Zoozie, talk about not seeing the Wood for the trees

So 1 in 88 chance of feature trigger? That seems rather low but is in keeping with my rough calculations.
I am unfamiliar with your slot analyzer and don't have a copy, is there a way to discover the chance of a feature trigger when the first Two scatters have appeared?
Can you send me it, I lost the original you sent me when my PC died?

 

[gerilege]

Correct me if I am wrong but have you missed that a scatter can be placed in any of 3 reel positions and the figures should be (35/38)*(36/39)*37/40)=92.5%?
That is odd I get the 7.5% using these figures?
Maybe I am missing something.

Even so I can not see how this can be correct even though I see nothing wrong with the formula as a rough working tells us that we have Three 1 in 13 chances to hit another scatter which is clearly more than 7.5% chance?

The posts are corrected now. However in your calculations (35/38)*(36/39)*(37/40) does not equal to 92.5%, but to ~78,65%. Therefore the chance of hitting at least one more scatter is 21,35%.

 

[Zoozie]

is there a way to discover the chance of a feature trigger when the first Two scatters have appeared

Can you send me it, I lost the original you sent me when my PC died?

Yes. But it depends on how early on the reels you hit them. Ie. how many reels are left to hit the scatter. (and of course take into probability for a scatter on each of these reels.). This is much easier than your original problem, because now you can just calculate chance of not hitting it=p and then it is (1-p)

For the slotanalyzer you can just look in my signature. It is an applet now.

 

[Rhyzz]

I'm a big fan of both MG and Playtech, although I have my gripes with both.

I'm 100% with what people are saying in the thread, in that MG don't seem to be realistic with expectations on their features.

 

[zap987]

I took my information about reel layout from

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

which also has a bunch of interesting probabilities calculated.

 

[Rusty]

The posts are corrected now. However in your calculations (35/38)*(36/39)*(37/40) does not equal to 92.5%, but to ~78,65%. Therefore the chance of hitting at least one more scatter is 21,35%.

Yeah, not sure what happened there

Anyway a little better than1 in 5 which was my rough estimation yet they seem to trigger less than this from this situation.
I guess we would need an awful lot of data to verify this.

Does anyone have the reel layouts for Halloweenies as this is the worse offender as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps there are multiple scatters on the first Two reels here?
The thing is though the last Two scatters love to appear on this slot as well just as long as there is no other scatter in view it would really good to know the reels on this one.

Also does anyone know what percentage of the RTP is made up from the feature on these slots?
Moonshine triggers more than 1 in 80 spins on average so I assume the expected RTP on this feature is lower than most other slots?
I guess Zoozie could run the free spin reels through his analyzer and see what turns up.
Incidentally do we know why different reels are used for free spins, to me it suggest the slot is more likely to be random because there would be no need for different reels if you wanted to manipulate outcome.
Did I just say that?

I took my information about reel layout from

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

which also has a bunch of interesting probabilities calculated.

Great little link that, thanks.

 

[KasinoKing]

This would mean the feature triggering at an average of less than 90 spins?

Correct - it's actually 1 in 75.
Don't forget you can view the reel layouts for this slot

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

.

Is the reel layout for Halloweenies similar to Moonshine?

No.
I haven't plotted this one yet, but there are obviously 3 or 4 scatters on reel 5, and no more than 2 on any other reel.
Might be the next MG slot I look at...

 

[winbig]

I haven't plotted this one yet, but there are obviously 3 or 4 scatters on reel 5, and no more than 2 on any other reel.
Might be the next MG slot I look at...

Maybe that's why there's few to no winning SS's posted for this slot.....with that many 'dead' spots on reel 5, you'd almost have to have a horseshoe stuck up your a$$ to get 5oak...

 

[KasinoKing]

Maybe that's why there's few to no winning SS's posted for this slot.....with that many 'dead' spots on reel 5, you'd almost have to have a horseshoe stuck up your a$$ to get 5oak...

Neigh laddie!

 

[KasinoKing]

I haven't plotted this one yet, but there are obviously 3 or 4 scatters on reel 5, and no more than 2 on any other reel.
Might be the next MG slot I look at...

Just for you Rusty, I took a couple of hours out & plotted DogFather (a Halloweenies clone) using my new (top secret) method, and got a very surprising result!

Note: Not verified yet - if anyone would like to double-check - please do!

Number of symbols per reel: 35, 35, 35, 36, 40
Number of scatters per reel: 1, 1, 1, 1, 4
Which by my calculations makes the chance of getting 3 or more scatters 1 in 55.
To me that sounds way to low!
Can someone please check that for me?

DogFather reel layouts (provisional):-
Reel 1... Reel 2... Reel 3... Reel 4... Reel 5
DOGFATHER DOGFATHER DOGFATHER DOGFATHER DOGFATHER
GLOVE.... CIGAR.... BULLDOG.. REVOLVER. BULLDOG..
WHITE DOG LADY DOG. CIGAR.... GLOVE.... TWIN DOGS
KNUCKLE-D KNUCKLE-D TWIN DOGS CIGAR.... KNUCKLE-D
RABBIT... RABBIT... RABBIT... TWIN DOGS CIGAR....
HYDRANT.. GLOVE.... LADY DOG. RABBIT... REVOLVER.
GLOVE.... TWIN DOGS WHITE DOG GLOVE.... WHITE DOG
CIGAR.... KNUCKLE-D REVOLVER. CIGAR.... RABBIT...
RABBIT... WHITE DOG KNUCKLE-D GLOVE.... HYDRANT..
ItchyFlea RABBIT... CIGAR.... RABBIT... TWIN DOGS
KNUCKLE-D REVOLVER. RABBIT... CIGAR.... GLOVE....
GLOVE.... CIGAR.... KNUCKLE-D WHITE DOG REVOLVER.
CIGAR.... DOGFATHER HYDRANT.. TWIN DOGS CIGAR....
KNUCKLE-D RABBIT... REVOLVER. RABBIT... TWIN DOGS
DOGFATHER REVOLVER. TWIN DOGS HYDRANT.. REVOLVER.
CIGAR.... BULLDOG.. GLOVE.... CIGAR.... ItchyFlea
TWIN DOGS GLOVE.... REVOLVER. REVOLVER. CIGAR....
GLOVE.... HYDRANT.. WHITE DOG KNUCKLE-D LADY DOG.
RABBIT... CIGAR.... RABBIT... GLOVE.... RABBIT...
REVOLVER. KNUCKLE-D CIGAR.... RABBIT... CIGAR....
LADY DOG. RABBIT... REVOLVER. ItchyFlea TWIN DOGS
WHITE DOG WHITE DOG KNUCKLE-D LADY DOG. GLOVE....
REVOLVER. ItchyFlea BULLDOG.. BULLDOG.. ItchyFlea
RABBIT... REVOLVER. GLOVE.... KNUCKLE-D RABBIT...
KNUCKLE-D GLOVE.... RABBIT... REVOLVER. CIGAR....
BULLDOG.. RABBIT... CIGAR.... GLOVE.... REVOLVER.
REVOLVER. TWIN DOGS GLOVE.... RABBIT... KNUCKLE-D
CIGAR.... GLOVE.... ItchyFlea KNUCKLE-D RABBIT...
RABBIT... REVOLVER. KNUCKLE-D TWIN DOGS GLOVE....
KNUCKLE-D KNUCKLE-D REVOLVER. HYDRANT.. ItchyFlea
REVOLVER. CIGAR.... GLOVE.... REVOLVER. KNUCKLE-D
GLOVE.... GLOVE.... CIGAR.... WHITE DOG WHITE DOG
TWIN DOGS KNUCKLE-D RABBIT... KNUCKLE-D GLOVE....
REVOLVER. CIGAR.... TWIN DOGS TWIN DOGS HYDRANT..
CIGAR.... REVOLVER. KNUCKLE-D CIGAR.... KNUCKLE-D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KNUCKLE-D REVOLVER.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ItchyFlea
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RABBIT...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GLOVE....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KNUCKLE-D

(Itchy-Da-Flea is the scatter symbol - and I always thought it was a Frog before! )

 

[gerilege]

Correct - it's actually 1 in 75.
Don't forget you can view the reel layouts for this slot

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

.


No.
I haven't plotted this one yet, but there are obviously 3 or 4 scatters on reel 5, and no more than 2 on any other reel.
Might be the next MG slot I look at...

I believe Zoozie's simulation is accurate @ 1:88 and not yours @ 1:75. To prove this mathematically let me make some simplifications, so the calculations become easier. Assume that the reel 3, 4 and 5 have only 38 symbol each, with one scatter on each reel. That would only increase the chance of the feature trigger, so if I show that even with this small gain the chance of feature is still less than 1:75, we are still ok. Reel 1 and two has 35 symbols each with 2 scatter. Now the cases for getting 3 scatters can be grouped as the following due to simmetry reasons:
a) Scatter on both reel 1 and 2 and exactly one other on any of the other 3 reels (3 combos).
b) Exactly one scatter on reel 1 and two, and exactly two scatters on reels 3,4 and 5 (6 combos).
c) No scatter on reel 1 and two and 3 scatters on the other reels (1 combo).
a) we have two scatters on reel 1 and 2 = 6/35*6/35. We have exactly on scatter on the remaining 3 reels, for 1 remaining reel to have scatter and the other two do not have: (3/38)*(35/38)*(35/38), and we have 3 combinations here, so altogether:
(6/35)*(6/35)*(3/38)*(35/38)(*35/38)*3
b) Example: we only have one on reel 1, do not have on reel 2 and have two on the remaining 3 reels.
The first two reels is (6/35)*(29/35), the remaining three (35/38)*(3/38)*(3/38). We have 3 combos for the last 3 reel, and the same 3 for reel 1 does not have a scatter and reel 2 does, so a total of six combos, altogether:
(6/35)*(29/35)*(35/38)*(3/38)*(3/38)*6.
c) We do not have on the first 2 = (29/35)*(29/35), we have on the remaining three: (3/38)*(3/38)*(3/38), and we only have one combination = (29/35)*(29/35)*(3/38)*(3/38)*(3/38)

4 scatters:
There are two cases due to simmetry reasons again:
a) We have scatters on both first two reels (3 combos)
b) We do not have a scatter on one of the first two reels (2 combos)
a) We have on the first two: (6/35)*(6/35), we do not have on one of the other 3 : (35/38)*(3/38)*(3/38). This is 3 times, so (6/35)*(6/35)*(35/38)*(3/38)*(3/38)*3
b) (6/35)*(29/35) for the first two reels, and *(3/38)*(3/38)*(3/38) for the remaining three, and 2 combinations, so (6/35)*(29/35)*(3/38)*(3/38)*(3/38)*2
5 scatters is 1:74710 (6*6*3*3*3/35/35/38/39/40), this is exact.
Now we have to sum these up together (5 scatter could come at the end, but it is so small that can be safely ignored):
(6/35)*(6/35)*(3/38)*(35/38)*(35/38)*3 +
(6/35)*(29/35)*(35/38)*(3/38)*(3/38)*6 +
(29/35)*(29/35)*(3/38)*(3/38)*(3/38) +
(6/35)*(6/35)*(35/38)*(3/38)*(3/38)*3 +
(6/35)*(29/35)*(3/38)*(3/38)*(3/38)*2 =

(3/38)*
{0,1438}= 0,011352 ~= 1:88

So even with the less non-scatter symbols on the last 3 reels we got 1:88, so it is absolutely sure that the chance for the trigger is less or equal than 1:88. Another intertesting fact is that the majority (52%) of the features will be triggered by scatters on the first two reel and a scatter on one of the last 3 reels.

I will have a look on the other slot you mentioned.