Scattered Odds

What are the odds of getting 5 Rams on Thunderstruck (that's 10 Rams, in 5 pairs, for the pedantic )


Just curious......

 

I thought the first 4 reels had 30, and the final had 44?

This makes it 3/30 * 3/30 *3/30 * 3/30 * 3/44 = ~1 in 150,000

 

This is correct: Data from cjb, verified by Professor Zoozie:-
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums...ties-4.html?highlight=Probabilities#post87807

Interestingly, even though Tomb Raider has different numbers of symbols per reel to Thunderstruck, the odds of 5 scatters is roughly the same at 150,440/1.
Data analysed & verified by Doctor King:-
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums...ties-4.html?highlight=Probabilities#post87518

 

Yes, correct.

The reels was found both by me and also by another member independant of each other. And this is why I am so certain that we have the reels correct for Thunderstruck.

Some other 5-reel slots can have more than 1 scatter/reel. I think Isis has
2 scatters on the first reel etc.

Zoozie

 

Why

The reason I asked this was because only a short while into the Casino Action tournament this happened:-

 

18 pence per spin???


grow a pair, weatherman!

 

Best way to play these.

200 for 5 natural hammers, and prize fund of 1000.

Despite spinning at 18p, I won 200 on the session.


I suppose this rarety was the highlight though, even if only 90.

 

Rare

This rarety is getting commonplace now!


That's 3 times in 8 days, only TWO actually spent spinning Thunderstruck at Casino Action.

 

Do the odds change when you are on the bonus spins? I have hit 5 scatters a few times on regular spins, but only once on the bonus.

 

I'VE NEVER HIT THEM!!!!!! IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!

That's amazing VW, now how about you share some around eh?

 

polli hits them twice a week

 

Hey Simmo,
I would be glad to trade you all my 5 scatters for just a few of your posted screenies.

 

I got the 5 scatters in Spring Break twice in one session, thought that was pretty impressive.

Got the things a week ago, though, as per usual just dropped bet to $2.25 spin...Nice win all the same.

 

Clear

Clearly They are more likely to come when the bet size is low. I have played Thunderstruck for three years without the 5 Rams, and then when I am betting REALLY low (after the 5 hammers for $200 as well as the tourney prizes), I get them twice one week at the same casino, and again the following week at another.

This must surely be proof that MG slots are rigged to look better at low wager amounts, I find generally that the top win to stake ratio is far higher when betting small than when betting big
There are of course exceptions to this general rule, such as my hit of 8000 with 4 Thors in the bonus round while spinning at 11.25, and a freaky 5 scatters at Spring Break to start the spins again at 11.25. This is actually a bug in the software when betting 11.25, because it is an uneven amount the software is fooled into seeing it as 11p per spin

 

In jest, right? Have they changed their program? I'm not buying it. If they don't spin exactly the same at one fenig one line as they do at max bet, they are a crooked slot.

T-struck has never been good to me, but neither have vinyl nor lady's night. I attributed it to bad ho.

 

I still believe that slots pay out ONLY when they have money to do so and although i can never prove this im also fairly sure that each coin size you play on has its OWN kind of bank. In other words, if a slots ready to pay out on a 1 p coin size doesnt mean its going to pay out on a 5 p coin size. I have noticed that you can turn a slot from playing badly into a slot that plays well just by changing your coin size. This is what leads me to believe that each slot has various levels of `takeins` and `payouts`

 

Yes

Sometimes this works, I once turned 50 into 1000 on Munchkins by constantly changing both coin size and coins per line during a session. I bet from around the 1 / 2 level, all the way up to 18 using various combinations. It did seem like I was able to take the payouts from different "pots", just like on a UK Fruit Machine, by this constant changing.
On other occasions though, I find the slot just as dead at any combination. Munchkins does seem to have a signature for this dead spell, which is just a single scatter every few spins, but never a pair. When a bonus round is near, I get scatters as pairs just as often as single. It is as though the games can run either in phase or out of phase, by which I mean that where there are a number of cards or reels to be independently determined, they either cooperate with each other to produce good starting combinations, or they are as different as possible, meaning starting combinations are always poor, which in card games means a long losing streak (VP). In Blackjack, the deck seems to switch from "10 rich" to "10 poor" as though it was in a real casino, despite the fact that the deck is supposed to be shuffled each hand. If a deck is "10 poor", this heavily favours the dealer over the player, and the result will be the dealer winning many hands they really should have lost. In a 10 poor deck, strategies like a double come off badly as low cards are often dealt, while low cards make it easy for the dealer to escape from a bad starting hand, against which you may have doubled down. Where the deck is 10 rich, doubling down often is rewarded with a 10 card, while the dealer will often bust from anything under a 7 up.

I have played VP, where every deal is just a high card, and a high pair if I am lucky, yet on other occasions I am regularly getting dealt 2 pair, 3OK and more, and even if I keep missing the good conversions I do well from the good starts. It can vary from game to game, it is often the case that some games are hitting well, but with hundreds of games it is harder to stumble upon the hot game before the bankroll has gone.
While there is much randomness, I strongly suspect some kind of controlling envelope function is used to convert the RNG output into an artificially streaked session, which can be in either direction. While the mathematics behind this conversion are kept secret, the statement "we use a state of the art RNG" means little if the raw output goes through any kind of algorithm that changes which random number leads to which card, or reel stop, depending on the chosen streak alignment for that game.

The cat is out of the bag, MG have already been rumbled over the doubling game in VP having a predetermined outcome regardless of the card selected by the player, in effect a short cut. Short cuts could exist in other games, perhaps a starting hand in VP is NOT the result of 5 independent RNG associations with 5 cards, but a single RNG against a given 5 card pattern. Such a short cut would seem to explain the uncommon streakiness of the games, as the outcomes have fewer mathematical "degrees of freedom" than the traditional RNG to card/reel stop model would suggest.

 

If you guys are right, there are no fair slots on the net to play. Because if MG would do this without informing players, nothing is sacred.

A machine must not be programmed to to do anything more than increase your return volume when you increase your bet. Anything else is not a fair program, or they are not actually using a RNG, in either case I wouldn't play them.

Tell me it ain't so Microgaming, tell me it ain't so!

And yes, there is a Santa Clause, I saw him on HO-HO-HO he even gave me presents