New VWM
Don't be in a hurry to throw out the old one just yet
BustedFlush has described one method of programming a compensated slot or "fruit machine", and is probably very close to the way the simple games like Bar-X were programmed. These simple or "Lo-Tech" fruit machine games tended to run on a long cycle, and this would repeat itself after a large number of spins (tens of thousands). When better processors became available, a more dynamic method of compensation became possible that relied less on cycles, and more on controlling future outcomes depending on whether the machine was paying over, or under, it's set RTP. It also allowed for a "streak pot" to be used that could be triggered by a predetermined set of criteria (and which could often be "forced out" by the experienced player
). The base game on such Fruities would pay a lower RTP, and put the surplus into the streak pot. "Forcing" meant deliberately refusing ALL "base" wins, thus forcing ALL this pent up RTP into the streak pot, thus bringing forward it's trigger point. This relied on one triggering parameter being the short term RTP of past play, and the belief that if this was forced too low, the program would compensate in the only manner available to it by triggering the payment of the streak pot. This worked very well on some games, but was quite a struggle to pull of on others.
The problem with the old Bar-X machines was that when new, the current RTP for past spins was zero, thus the first spins paid over 100% RTP in an effort to bring the compensation RTP parameter up from zero to a point somewhat above the set RTP, at which point the compensation code began to function normally. Running off the first 10,000 spins before installing the machine just meant that the compensator had "settled", and the machine would stick closely to the set RTP thereafter.
In most online games, there are none of these rungs, ladders, compensators, etc. Many don't even have weighting. This is because unlike physical slots, they can have as many symbols on a reel as needed to allow operation on simple random principles. Each reel would also run from it's own separate call to the RNG. Having each reel determined this way serves to counter the disadvantages of using pseudo-random numbers, which have the convenience of being cheaper to use, and can be part of the machine itself, even run as a separate task on the same processor chip.
The rules for the UK variant stipulate that a separate "unit" must generate the RNG, rather than it being done on the same processor that runs the game. These units were proposed to be "external to the machine", which could be interpreted as having to be elsewhere and connected by a cable, but this was impractical, so most manufacturers placed the RNG unit in the same cabinet, but used a separate processing "unit".
The external unit and cable could also be used as an exploit by disconnecting the machine from it's own RNG and adding a "gaffed" unit designed to trick the machine into paying out. Pulling this off would require some inside knowledge of what data the machine expected from it's own RNG, and how it would be interpreted. Knowing this meant you could send it data that it would interpret as a few big wins close together, which would empty the machine.
These theories gain credibilty because some CASINOS believe them, and we hear tales of players having winnings confiscated because a machine has "paid too much" to be the result of chance. The most recent case is that of Sky Vegas, who claim that the big wins from the new "Treasure Ireland" game were a "malfunction", rather than an unusual run of luck. The code for a simple random slot game just CANNOT "malfunction" like this unless something very obvious is wrong, such as a paytable error. For the fault to be more subtle, code that shouldn't even be there has to have malfunctioned.
All the doubters see Sky Vegas and others using this argument when they are faced with players winning too much, so why is it so far fetched an argument when a player has LOST far more than they believe is possible for a "fair" and "random" slot game.
For this to stay firmly with the "foil hat brigade", online casinos need to purge those member of the "foil hat brigade" that have somehow managed to get jobs with them.
I thought I was a semi-intelligent person...have understood VWM's responses, JStrike's responses, skiny's responses, Nifty's responses...going to go look for my "I'm stoopid cap" and my "I may be smarter tomorrow pills"
