RTG Random Jackpots - check this out!

[hippo925]

Hippo, what is your rationale on that thought ?

On your second point there you say "whoever bets more has a much higher chance of hitting"...this should not be the case if it is True Randomness, but whomever plays more should have a better chance of winning the RJ no matter the bet size...statistical odds you know...

another way of looking at it is that someone who spins 100 spins at .20 has the same chance of hitting the rj as someone who bets $20 at one spin. does that make sense? otherwise, if everyone had the exact same chance regardless of bet, then anyone who bets more than .20 is contributing to the rj in an unfair amount.

 

[hippo925]

I love the last part of your post.Thanks

that was before i knew you've won so many of them but then again, how can you ever have too many!!!

 

[SlotsWizard]

This has been debated several times before.

1. The mathematically fair way to decide a winner is to give those who bet bigger a greater chance of winning the jackpot, like the Rapid Fire jackpots at Cryptologic casinos.

Example:
Bet 0.20 to get 1 chance to win per spin
Bet 0.40 to get 2 chances to win per spin
Bet 1.00 to get 5 chances to win per spin
Bet 2.00 to get 10 chances to win per spin
Bet 5.00 to get 25 chances to win per spin
Bet 10.00 to get 50 chances to win per spin
Bet 20.00 to get 100 chances to win per spin
Bet 100.00 to get 500 chances to win per spin

2. The mathematically unfair way to decide a winner is to have each spin - regardless of bet size - have an equal chance of winning.

Example
On each spin, the RNG picks a random number for the player of between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The winning number is predetermined to be 353,791,663,505,284,629. If they match, the player wins the jackpot, and bet size has nothing to do with it.

iNetBet has repeatedly stated that method #2 is how the jackpots operate. If I remember correctly through, that statement was refuted by Club World (at least a year ago, probably longer) who claimed that method #1 is how the jackpots operate.

I'm inclined to believe that #1 is actually how the jackpots operate, because it's fair (in the mathematical sense) as well as logical. It may not seem to fair to us low rollers, but if it didn't work that way it would be extremely unfair to the high rollers - as well as those low rollers who occasionally cross the line into high rollerdom. If bet size didn't matter, we would all be betting a 0.01/spin trying to hit the jackpot.

 

[RobWin]

This has been debated several times before.

1. The mathematically fair way to decide a winner is to give those who bet bigger a greater chance of winning the jackpot, like the Rapid Fire jackpots at Cryptologic casinos.

Example:
Bet 0.20 to get 1 chance to win per spin
Bet 0.40 to get 2 chances to win per spin
Bet 1.00 to get 5 chances to win per spin
Bet 2.00 to get 10 chances to win per spin
Bet 5.00 to get 25 chances to win per spin
Bet 10.00 to get 50 chances to win per spin
Bet 20.00 to get 100 chances to win per spin
Bet 100.00 to get 500 chances to win per spin

2. The mathematically unfair way to decide a winner is to have each spin - regardless of bet size - have an equal chance of winning.

Example
On each spin, the RNG picks a random number for the player of between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The winning number is predetermined to be 353,791,663,505,284,629. If they match, the player wins the jackpot, and bet size has nothing to do with it.

iNetBet has repeatedly stated that method #2 is how the jackpots operate. If I remember correctly through, that statement was refuted by Club World (at least a year ago, probably longer) who claimed that method #1 is how the jackpots operate.

I'm inclined to believe that #1 is actually how the jackpots operate, because it's fair (in the mathematical sense) as well as logical. It may not seem to fair to us low rollers, but if it didn't work that way it would be extremely unfair to the high rollers - as well as those low rollers who occasionally cross the line into high rollerdom. If bet size didn't matter, we would all be betting a 0.01/spin trying to hit the jackpot.

Let me say SlotsWizard, that was a great post concerning the math but I do disagree with your statement "fair way to decide a winner is to give those who bet bigger a greater chance of winning" bigtime and here's why:

Since we are talking about "Random Jackpots" I think that we could both agree that the local lottery is also a random jackpot right...now lets for argument sake say Bill Gates partakes in the same lottery each week that you and I partake in...now lets just say he buys 2000 tickets each week out of a possible 2500 that were sold, now he should have a mathematical chance of 80% of winning, correct, because he has purchased 80% of the tickets based on your statement above.

So here's my question: Why would the other 500 ticket buyers continue to purchase a ticket each week knowing that Bill has an 80% chance of winning each week or a 60% better chance than any of those ticket purchasers have ?

Would you continue to purchase a ticket each week knowing those were the odds against you...to me that sounds like the anaology you were presenting there...which should not be the way the "Random Jackpot" works no matter how much you bet...

If it is to be "Truly Random" then Joe Blow that does his $0.20 cent bets should have the same chance of winning as does Captain Whale with his $20 or $100.00 bets...

On another point I just noticed, aren't you saying the exact same thing in Statement #1 & Statement #2...or maybe I am reading that wrong...

 

[parpol]

Hello I won or 3 , with 1 bet of $ 10 and 2 bet of $ 5.

 

[RobWin]

Hello I won or 3 , with 1 bet of $ 10 and 2 bet of $ 5.

That's great parpol, how much were they for ? My daughter won one over at Bodog on a $10.00 bet on Raindance for around $8,000.00...

 

[SlotsWizard]

Why would the other 500 ticket buyers continue to purchase a ticket each week knowing that Bill has an 80% chance of winning each week or a 60% better chance than any of those ticket purchasers have ?

Don't forget that what we're talking about isn't a lottery, i.e. the jackpot is not the only reason people play. Most people play the slots for entertainment, and to hopefully win something from the slot itself. The jackpot is just a nice plus should someone happen to win it.

I assume in the lottery system you proposed that there will always be 1 winner out of the 2500. It's not Bill's fault that nobody else bought that many tickets. Nobody's stopping other people from buying them up first.

And on the flipside, try putting yourself in Bill's shoes. Wouldn't you want a bit of mathematical security in knowing that, having spent a lot more money than everyone else, you stand a good chance to profit from your purchase?

What is not mathetmatically fair is, for example, to say that the jackpot will be won after exactly 10,000 spins have been played. The person betting $100/spin will have to wager $1,000,000 in order to win the $5,000 jackpot. The person betting 0.20 will only have to wager $2,000 to win it. The reason why this type of system is not fair to high rollers is because they would have wager an astronomical amount in order to win back a tiny portion of their losses. Try to think of this type of system from the perspective of a high roller, even if you aren't a high roller.

There are two ways to level the playing field: pay a larger jackpot to those who bet big, or make the chances of winning for someone who bets big greater than the chances of someone who bets small.

The label "Random Jackpot" itself is confusing, because both of the methods I described are random, just different implementations of it. What it all boils down to is how the jackpots work, which none of us really know.

 

[parpol]

That's great parpol, how much were they for ? My daughter won one over at Bodog on a $10.00 bet on Raindance for around $8,000.00...

... With $ 10 I won $ 5643, with 5 $ 7305 and $ 5245.

 

[zap987]

Why does it make any difference if Bill Gates buys 2000 of 2500 tickets, or if 2000 different people buy one each? You still have your same 1/2500 chance to win with your single ticket.

Having a chance to win the jackpot relative to your bet size is a much better solution than having fixed betsizes for progressive slots.

 

[RobWin]

Don't forget that what we're talking about isn't a lottery,

Yes I agree, but the "Random Jackpot" itself should work on the same principle...

The reason why this type of system is not fair to high rollers is because they would have wager an astronomical amount in order to win back a tiny portion of their losses.

They chose to wager big though...that should not come into play regarding the "Random Jackpot"...

There are two ways to level the playing field: pay a larger jackpot to those who bet big,

Then again they are the ones choosing to bet big...think about Bill again, he all of a sudden starts playing at ClubWorld for example and to him it's just monopoly money so he bets nothing smaller that $100.00 on each and every spin each and every day...are any of the rest of us ever going to have a real chance of winning a "Random Jackpot" again ?

or make the chances of winning for someone who bets big greater than the chances of someone who bets small.

Then again in my argument it still would not be Truly Random if that were the case...IMO

 

[SlotsWizard]

I just thought of another way to explain it that might make more sense.

The jackpot is a "fixed" or flat dollar amount (it can grow, but the amount you could win is not proportional or relative to your bet size).

Now suppose the same were true for all of the paytable wins. Let's say five wilds pays 10,000 times the payline bet normally. On a 0.20 spin this would be a $100 win.

Now let's say that the payline wins all remain constant no matter what your bet size is. If you bet $100 and get 5 wilds, you would still only win $100.

If this were the case, would you ever play more than 0.20 a spin? No, you wouldn't, unless (a) you are insane, or (b) your chances of winning 5 wilds increases proportionally to the amount you bet (in this example, a 500-times greater chance).

Now imagine the jackpot as this kind of fixed (or flat) payout, which is what it is. If your chances of winning it are the same at 0.20 as they are at 100.00, it is really not fair (in the mathematical sense) unless you have more chances to win it at 100.00 than you do at 0.20.

Given the number of reports of $5 and up bets being the ones which win the RJ's the majority of the time, I think it's safe to say that it is implemented mathematically fairly. Of course there will still be the occasional 0.20 and 0.40 winners, that's just the natural equilibrium of randomness rearing its (ugly?) head. But I think you'll find that if we had the stats of all the RJ winners, the tendency would be that big bettors fare better.

 

[RobWin]

Why does it make any difference if Bill Gates buys 2000 of 2500 tickets, or if 2000 different people buy one each? You still have your same 1/2500 chance to win with your single ticket.

True, you do..but my analogy was more regarding the fact that the other 500 folks knew how many he was buying each time and that the statistical odds of him winning more times would definitely be in his favor....relativity and all you know...

 

[RobWin]

Now let's say that the payline wins all remain constant no matter what your bet size is. If you bet $100 and get 5 wilds, you would still only win $100.

If this were the case, would you ever play more than 0.20 a spin? No, you wouldn't, unless (a) you are insane, or (b) your chances of winning 5 wilds increases proportionally to the amount you bet (in this example, a 500-times greater chance).

Yes, I agree with you on that point but you can't compare the regular paytables to the "Random Jackpot" it's two totally different monsters...

Now imagine the jackpot as this kind of fixed (or flat) payout, which is what it is. If your chances of winning it are the same at 0.20 as they are at 100.00, it is really not fair (in the mathematical sense) unless you have more chances to win it at 100.00 than you do at 0.20.

But it is fair just like Zap stated in my lottery anaology (you still have an equal chance of 1/2500) Right...because it's truly Random...you guys made my point for me..

But I think you'll find that if we had the stats of all the RJ winners, the tendency would be that big bettors fare better.

I would definitely agree with you on that...but I still don't think that is the way it should be if in fact it is supposed to be Truly Random...

 

[lovetogamble]

.40 Cent Bet

There are some screenshots in the winners section showing this. For example: If you take a look at the screenshot provided by echap11 for their win of over $7800 on Mermaid Queen you can see they were spinning for 0.40cents.

So sorry to iNetBet for not posting sooner but "YES" this was me that won the Mermaid Queen Sunday night! My first at iNetBet and it was great! I already have the money in my account. They are for real and I feel totally safe playing with them and pretty much only them. They are by far the fastest at paying of any casino I've played it...and I've been playing online since 2000.

 

[SlotsWizard]

you can't compare the regular paytables to the "Random Jackpot" it's two totally different monsters

Actually that was a perfect analogy, and they can be compared because a portion of every bet is a bet on the random jackpot.

Whichever way they have implemented the jackpot is fine with me, but neither of us can say with certainty which method they chose, unless one of us was the programmer who coded it (I know it wasn't me - was it you? ). All we can do is speculate.

I started compiling posts from various casino representatives which contain clues about the random jackpots, but all I could find was this one:

The % contribution to the jackpots cannot be changed.
The reason that some jackpots go up faster could be for a number of reasons. The simplest explanation is down to the usage or if there is a high percentage of higher bet players.

This can especially be seen when some of the jackpots get quite large and more people decide to play them. Or if there are a number of people playing for $100 a spin, The Jackpots will thus go up faster.

It seems to imply that the mathematically fair implementation is used, meaning, a big bet contributes more to the jackpot and therefore has a proportionately better chance of winning it.

So sorry to iNetBet for not posting sooner but "YES" this was me that won the Mermaid Queen Sunday night! My first at iNetBet and it was great! I already have the money in my account. They are for real and I feel totally safe playing with them and pretty much only them. They are by far the fastest at paying of any casino I've played it...and I've been playing online since 2000.

Congratulations!!!

 

[RobWin]

Actually that was a perfect analogy, and they can be compared because a portion of every bet is a bet on the random jackpot.

Yea but Slots, you're comparing standardized pay tables to a "Random Jackpot" of course a portion of each and every bet goes towards building it...

Whichever way they have implemented the jackpot is fine with me but neither of us can say with certainty which method they chose, unless one of us was the programmer who coded it (I know it wasn't me - was it you? ). All we can do is speculate.

Totally agree

It seems to imply that the mathematically fair implementation is used, meaning, a big bet contributes more to the jackpot and therefore has a proportionately better chance of winning it.

Like I said the big bettors, me included, choose to bet this way and of course the same % of bet is going to build the "Random Jackpot" $0.20 cent bet...whatever the percentage is ...lets say 2% and a $100.00 bet would also contribute 2% to the Random Jackpot...but if your analogy is true then they should rename the "Random Jackpot" to "The Mathematically Fair Jackpot" !!

 

[SlotsWizard]

All I'm trying to say is that I have no idea how they have implemented it. If they are using the method you think they are using, it's not fair in the mathematical sense. Whether or not it is "morally" (not sure if that's the right term) fair is a totally different matter.

Most progressives eliminate this problem by either requiring a fixed bet size from all players, having one's chances of winning be proportional to their bet size, or having the same chance of winning but having the portion of the jackpot that is paid be proportional to their bet size. Examples include:

Fixed Bet Sizes
Jackpot Deuces
Jackpot Piatas
Millionaire's Club
SupaJax

Proportional Chance of Winning
Mega Moolah
Rapid-Fire Jackpots at Cryptologic casinos

Proportional Amount of Jackpot Paid
Boss Media Jackpot Poker
MegaJacks
Super Jackpot (Cryptologic)

if your analogy is true then they should rename the "Random Jackpot" to "The Mathematically Fair Jackpot"

Whether or not it's mathematically fair is irrelevant, because both methods are still random.

If your theory about the RTG jackpots is true, then they don't fall into any of the above three categories, and the best way to win them would be to always bet 0.01 per spin and hope for the best. Given the amount of high-betting winners, I'm not sure that this is the case. But can we agree to disagree?

 

[kakata]

So sorry to iNetBet for not posting sooner but "YES" this was me that won the Mermaid Queen Sunday night! My first at iNetBet and it was great! I already have the money in my account. They are for real and I feel totally safe playing with them and pretty much only them. They are by far the fastest at paying of any casino I've played it...and I've been playing online since 2000.

WTG............let us know thou when and if you will win again....................
Good Luck you goin to need it

 

[RobWin]

All I'm trying to say is that I have no idea how they have implemented it. If they are using the method you think they are using, it's not fair in the mathematical sense. Whether or not it is "morally" (not sure if that's the right term) fair is a totally different matter.

Most progressives eliminate this problem by either requiring a fixed bet size from all players, having one's chances of winning be proportional to their bet size, or having the same chance of winning but having the portion of the jackpot that is paid be proportional to their bet size. Examples include:

Fixed Bet Sizes
Jackpot Deuces
Jackpot Piatas
Millionaire's Club
SupaJax

Proportional Chance of Winning
Mega Moolah
Rapid-Fire Jackpots at Cryptologic casinos

Proportional Amount of Jackpot Paid
Boss Media Jackpot Poker
MegaJacks
Super Jackpot (Cryptologic)


Whether or not it's mathematically fair is irrelevant, because both methods are still random.

If your theory about the RTG jackpots is true, then they don't fall into any of the above three categories, and the best way to win them would be to always bet 0.01 per spin and hope for the best. Given the amount of high-betting winners, I'm not sure that this is the case. But can we agree to disagree?

...Ok Slots...I Give...

 

[paul02085]

I agree with the higher you bet the better your chances. That is why most progressives have separate machines for .25 and 1.00 and 5.00.

I have also seen machines online that have a high jackpot for $5 but if you change the coin size to a lower denomination the jackpot goes lower too.

Random Jackpot is not the best title they could have used for these.

 

[hippo925]

This has been debated several times before.

1. The mathematically fair way to decide a winner is to give those who bet bigger a greater chance of winning the jackpot, like the Rapid Fire jackpots at Cryptologic casinos.

Example:
Bet 0.20 to get 1 chance to win per spin
Bet 0.40 to get 2 chances to win per spin
Bet 1.00 to get 5 chances to win per spin
Bet 2.00 to get 10 chances to win per spin
Bet 5.00 to get 25 chances to win per spin
Bet 10.00 to get 50 chances to win per spin
Bet 20.00 to get 100 chances to win per spin
Bet 100.00 to get 500 chances to win per spin

2. The mathematically unfair way to decide a winner is to have each spin - regardless of bet size - have an equal chance of winning.

Example
On each spin, the RNG picks a random number for the player of between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The winning number is predetermined to be 353,791,663,505,284,629. If they match, the player wins the jackpot, and bet size has nothing to do with it.

iNetBet has repeatedly stated that method #2 is how the jackpots operate. If I remember correctly through, that statement was refuted by Club World (at least a year ago, probably longer) who claimed that method #1 is how the jackpots operate.

I'm inclined to believe that #1 is actually how the jackpots operate, because it's fair (in the mathematical sense) as well as logical. It may not seem to fair to us low rollers, but if it didn't work that way it would be extremely unfair to the high rollers - as well as those low rollers who occasionally cross the line into high rollerdom. If bet size didn't matter, we would all be betting a 0.01/spin trying to hit the jackpot.

the first explanation is how i see it. it's essentially the same as my explanation, but obviously from a mind that is more mathematical i do remember inet trying to explain it as #2, but that never made sense to me either.

i do understand robwins issue though, because when i first started playing rtg a while back, i too thought "random" jackpot meant random regardless of denomination. newbies to rtg games would in fact be playing on a false assumption. as a newbie, i thought i was playing smarter at low limits because i thought my "chances" were the same as a high roller...

 

[Matthew23]

Example
On each spin, the RNG picks a random number for the player of between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

1 sextillion to 1?

I don't like those odds lol... You would have to have started spinning continuously since the "Big Bang" and it still would not hit during the next Billions of years

I would have thought it would be more around 5,000,000 to 1

 

[SlotsWizard]

1 sextillion to 1?

I don't like those odds lol... You would have to have started spinning continuously since the "Big Bang" and it still would not hit during the next Billions of years

I would have thought it would be more around 5,000,000 to 1

I was using my own personal odds of winning as an example.

Some people's odds of winning a Random Jackpot seem to be more like 1 in 4.

 

[AudiManinBoro]

Random jackpot should be Random!. It shouldnt matter what bet size you play with so long as all lines are selected. As you said slotser the higher you bet the nicer the wins you could make anyway or the losses. But to be random it means that everyone should have the same fair chance of winning. If the higher you bet the higher the chance of an RJ win then RTG is technically in breach of false advertising because that is NOT random.

 

[SlotsWizard]

Random jackpot should be Random!. It shouldnt matter what bet size you play with so long as all lines are selected. As you said slotser the higher you bet the nicer the wins you could make anyway or the losses. But to be random it means that everyone should have the same fair chance of winning. If the higher you bet the higher the chance of an RJ win then RTG is technically in breach of false advertising because that is NOT random.

If the jackpots paid out using the mathematically fair system, it would not mean that it's not random.

Let's use the lottery example, and say that each ticket costs 0.20. Are you saying that if you choose to spend $100 on these tickets, that you would be happy if you only received one ticket and not the 500 that you paid for?