Scattered Odds

The derivative becomes less than 0.5 somewhere around 250. That means that the chance of hitting the feature within x spins increases more than linear by increasing the number of spins until that point, but after that the chance increases only slightly, less than linear. Of course the probability of hitting is the same on each independent spin, but it might mean that the progressive betting makes less sense after reaching that point where the derivative becomes less than 0.5.

Absolutely not.

Increasing bet-size as you describe is just the Martingale-system for slot. Most of the time it works and you win a little, but sometimes you lose a gigantic amount and if you add what you win and what you lose. And the average lose is larger because of the larger bet. A horrible solution, especially on slots.

There is no memory in the spins. The geometric distributions tell what the probability is that you will not hit the feature in the NEXT 250 spins etc. So if you are not hitting it in 250 freespins, you then start from scratch again and it is the same probability not hitting them the next 250 spins again.

Zoozie
 
Absolutely not.

There is no memory in the spins. The geometric distributions tell what the probability is that you will not hit the feature in the NEXT 250 spins etc. So if you are not hitting it in 250 freespins, you then start from scratch again and it is the same probability not hitting them the next 250 spins again.

Zoozie

This is, of course, mathematically and statistically correct. In reality however, you just generally do - eventually. By gradually increasing your bet, you stand a better chance of recouping previous losses.

Like you intimate though, I've lost a shit load before now when it just never ever hits...
 
Absolutely not.

Increasing bet-size as you describe is just the Martingale-system for slot. Most of the time it works and you win a little, but sometimes you lose a gigantic amount and if you add what you win and what you lose. And the average lose is larger because of the larger bet. A horrible solution, especially on slots.

There is no memory in the spins. The geometric distributions tell what the probability is that you will not hit the feature in the NEXT 250 spins etc. So if you are not hitting it in 250 freespins, you then start from scratch again and it is the same probability not hitting them the next 250 spins again.

Zoozie

I didn't want to suggest that progressive betting does any good. Slots take your money, whatever you do, that's no question.

Progressive betting was just a realistic example, although it is not necessary. Each session has always a first spin, so let's stop before that first spin, and just take a look on that geometric distribution before you indeed make the first spin. You know that you have
-~40% percent that you don't hit the feature within 140 spins
-~15% chance that you don't hit the feature within 250 spins
-~5% that you don't hit within 426 spins.

Again, you have not yet started to do the first spin, you just would like to plan how much to spin if you don't hit. Your strategy would be to hit the feature if possible, or quit after a fixed number of spins. I know that the most +EV would be not to play slots at all, but in a realistic situation I guess this is how most people play slots. They don't really mind how much did they put in, and they can't do nothing with the feature payout, they just want the feature. You see that planning to make 250 spins instead of 140 if you don't hit decrease the chance that you do not hit at all by 25 percent. But planning 426 spins instead of 250 decrease the chance only by 10 percent. So before the first spin planning 110 more (250 instead of 140) spins decrease the chance of not hitting by 25 percent, while planning 176 more (426 instead of 250) spins spins decrease the chance of not hitting at all only by 10 percent.

So if someone regularly play slots in a way I described, from the bankroll and strategy management view, by fixing the first spin there should be a planned threshold somewhere (OK I know zero spin is the threshold), where it makes less sense to play on any more on the long run, and book the losses, and this is what I wanted to mention with the derivative, but I'm really tired, and I still can be completely wrong.
 
Again, you have not yet started to do the first spin, you just would like to plan how much to spin if you don't hit. Your strategy would be to hit the feature if possible, or quit after a fixed number of spins. I know that the most +EV would be not to play slots at all, but in a realistic situation I guess this is how most people play slots. They don't really mind how much did they put in, and they can't do nothing with the feature payout, they just want the feature. You see that planning to make 250 spins instead of 140 if you don't hit decrease the chance that you do not hit at all by 25 percent. But planning 426 spins instead of 250 decrease the chance only by 10 percent. So before the first spin planning 110 more (250 instead of 140) spins decrease the chance of not hitting by 25 percent, while planning 176 more (426 instead of 250) spins spins decrease the chance of not hitting at all only by 10 percent.

Okie, I believe I understand what you are talking about now. Still it is just
a Martingale system, but using the chart to construct a betting system for slots. And using the chart you can construct a betting system with this property:

Following the betting system you will win 99% of the times statistically over 1000 spins. (if you are ahead at some time, then stop)
However the last 1% of the times you will lose your house, wife,dog, liver and whatever can be sold etc.

But also remember that that even hitting the feature only gives 35*(bet-size) in average wins for Thunderstruck, so a betting system to do what described above still has to be 'aggressive'.

Zoozie
 
Okie, I believe I understand what you are talking about now. Still it is just
a Martingale system, but using the chart to construct a betting system for slots. And using the chart you can construct a betting system with this property:

Following the betting system you will win 99% of the times statistically over 1000 spins. (if you are ahead at some time, then stop)
However the last 1% of the times you will lose your house, wife,dog, liver and whatever can be sold etc.

But also remember that that even hitting the feature only gives 35*(bet-size) in average wins for Thunderstruck, so a betting system to do what described above still has to be 'aggressive'.

Zoozie

No, no betting system, nothing. First of all let's forget the progressive betting completely, and stick to flat betting, it doesn't really matter. I understand that no system could produce winnings. No winnings, it's all about minimizing losses with the typical human style for playing slots, which is -EV.

The question is only whether a point or an interval exists besides zero which if you fix before beginning to play, and stick to it, and you don't get the feature, then it is relatively significantly better to stop there than in any other interval later (absolute case is obvious, sooner is better).

With other words, if you don't get the feature:
Stopping after 0 spins is the best, and it is infinitely better than stopping after 1 spins.
Stopping after 1 spins is the second best, and it is x times better than stopping after 2 spins.
Stopping after 2 spins is the third best, and it is y times better than stopping after 3 spins.
And so on. (and that can be extended more generally, like stopping after 42 spins is the forty-third best, and z times better than stopping after 987654321 spins.) These x,y, etc. values should be on a curve.

Please note that it is always assumed that you don't get the feature and you will stop after the planned spins, and you go for the feature by all means. It's obvious that the more you spin, the more you lose. But adding another spin to the planned stop point might have different effect in different intervals.

For instance planning 4 spins instead of 2 might be a relatively better (or worse) decision than planning 22 spins instead of 20, although it costs the same. The question is whether such difference might exist or not.
 
The question is only whether a point or an interval exists besides zero which if you fix before beginning to play, and stick to it, and you don't get the feature, then it is relatively significantly better to stop there than in any other interval later (absolute case is obvious, sooner is better).

You total expected loss is 4%*(total bet amount). So the more you wager total, the worse it gets in average.

It is better to have four 1$ spins than one 5$ because the wagered amount is 4$ compared to 5$.

Bob Dance gave a classic example of this in his Million$ VP book that goes something like this

There are two gamblers that play the same game every day and same constant bet-size on a game with negative expectation (ie. a house edge)
They play like this:

Gambler 1: Always play 100 games and then stops.
Gambler 2: Always play 100 games. If he is ahead after the 100 games and has exactly x $. Then he will play until he has > x$ (tiny win more) and always stop if he reaches break even point for the day so he still did not lose that day.

Which gambler will do best?

It is gambler 1 though he will still be an overall loser. Some players think gambler 2 will be better off because he only gambles with money he has won and try to win more.

The morale is. The more you bet total, the more you will lose total

Zoozie
 
You total expected loss is 4%*(total bet amount). So the more you wager total, the worse it gets in average.

It is better to have four 1$ spins than one 5$ because the wagered amount is 4$ compared to 5$.

Bob Dance gave a classic example of this in his Million$ VP book that goes something like this

There are two gamblers that play the same game every day and same constant bet-size on a game with negative expectation (ie. a house edge)
They play like this:

Gambler 1: Always play 100 games and then stops.
Gambler 2: Always play 100 games. If he is ahead after the 100 games and has exactly x $. Then he will play until he has > x$ (tiny win more) and always stop if he reaches break even point for the day so he still did not lose that day.

Which gambler will do best?

It is gambler 1 though he will still be an overall loser. Some players think gambler 2 will be better off because he only gambles with money he has won and try to win more.

The morale is. The more you bet total, the more you will lose total

Zoozie

Ok, I see that, I think we are talking about two different topics. The question is whether can ever playing 4 rounds instead of 2 be better (or worse) than wagering 8 rounds instead of 6 given the fact that you would like to avoid as much as possible that you don't get the feature, so the measure is the difference between the probability of you get the feature within fixed number of spins. I think not, it should be the same, just like if you'd start a new session. But the other way around - adding fixed number of spins to the plan - somehow makes me feel strange, as adding the same number of spins results in different decrease of the chance for not hitting the feature for different fixed number of spins.
 
Bonus

.....and again today, this time in bonus round!

This run is going on forever!!!

How long can I beat the odds for before it looks fishy about low bets hitting them more than higher ones (performance dependent on bet size, not uniformly random)
 
... When you do the same experiment at higher odds! Gulp! Rather you than me!

I would ONLY do this in fun mode, as I am sure that as soon as I start raising the bet I will be wiped out for thousands and may never get the 5 rams.

I am doing a lot of spins at these small bets, but not enough to justify the frequency that 5 rams are hitting, which should be around 1 in 140,000 or so. I seem to be getting 3 times or more the number of hits expected
 
arch.jpg
 
.....and again today, this time in bonus round!

This run is going on forever!!!

How long can I beat the odds for before it looks fishy about low bets hitting them more than higher ones (performance dependent on bet size, not uniformly random)

This is freaky. I've played more Thunderstruck over the years than most forum members put together, 402,297 times at one casino alone in fact, and I only had the 5 rams flock together once in the early days at 1.80 a spin. I feel cheated :D
 
This is freaky. I've played more Thunderstruck over the years than most forum members put together, 402,297 times at one casino alone in fact, and I only had the 5 rams flock together once in the early days at 1.80 a spin. I feel cheated :D

There is OBVIOUSLY something going on - all the wins are from relatively low stakes. :confused:

Secondly, most VWM's wins are during massive autoplay features.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.............
 
still 5 scatter :D

Yes, and at a low 90c bet, higher than mine, but still low compared to many players (except KK).

My run has been at low stakes during the Casino Action tournaments, although this means many spins, this is nowhere near 100,000 between sets as would be expected. The only times I have had these at higher stakes was on Spring Break, once at 2-70 DURING free spins, and once at 11-25 as a trigger - these certainly paid well. I also had 4 wilds on Thunderstruck during free spins, paying 8000 from a 11-25 bet.

While the Thursday tournament still runs, I will continue with these low stakes autoplay runs and see if I just keep on getting the 5 rams, or whether this is a huge mega fluke.

It may be possible to approximate the odds against my run, but various broad assumptions would have to be made, that may not be accurate.

A long term controlled experiment in fun mode may help, but would need a very long run to come to any conclusions beyond chance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top