Question Your help on these observations....

[Igor82]

fair enough

 

[Igor82]

This has no effect at all if the slot machine is 100% random, you seem to be afraid of collusion in case the machine isn't random. A few years ago I Think I read that a manager from the Virtual Group banned a player because he "fed" the machine with bonus money and then "collected" with bonus free money play. Your argument seem to be almost the same.

Actually that's possible on AWP machines.

 

[Jufo]

Jufo suggests that there is a prevalence of big wins at the start of a player's account/slot at a casino, over the first 10k spins. This IS a conspiracy theory lol......

What, I have never said anything like that

Jufo - I am not looking for 'conspiracies'. This thread is getting out of control how and has been hijacked. All I asked is the kktmd tests for any (yet unproven) effects drastic stake changing could have on the slot games we can test. I am not suggesting they aren't random, or rigged, or anything else. IF any mechanism did exist to put parameters on excessive peaks and troughs on the RTP curves, it wouldn't mean the slot is 'fixed' anyway. Think about it, it could be achieved by nullifying certain values in the pool of results for a series of spins to bring RTP back in - the picks from the pool of values would still be random, and chosen by the RNG anyway. The slot would still pay TRTP over time, all the spins would still be random.

Apologies for the hijack. Of course kktmd is welcome to post any interesting results here.

 

[Jufo]

This has no effect at all if the slot machine is 100% random, you seem to be afraid of collusion in case the machine isn't random. A few years ago I Think I read that a manager from the Virtual Group banned a player because he "fed" the machine with bonus money and then "collected" with bonus free money play. Your argument seem to be almost the same.

Yeah that's what worries me the most. That casino managers apply false mathematics and then make rules that affect players because of that, like accusing a player of "feeding a machine". And yes something like this might be possible on AWPs but not on fair random slots. It almost sounds like Igor is trying to convince us that MG slots are not in fact random and fair

 

[kktmd]

Actually that's possible on AWP machines.

Actually that one of the few 'cheats' that is also possible with certain non-AWP machines. If you play TombRaider II for example, you need to hit a scatter on the center of every wheel to activate the bonus round. You dont have to hit them at the same time, the game remembers which wheels are activated. Your final bonus is a weighted average of the bet you placed when hitting the 5 scatters. So, If you spend all your bonus money betting big and 'loading up' the first 4 wheels, it should be possible to come back later and 'collect'.

I have NOT tried this in real life, so I dont know if the casinos reset these games when the player runs out of bonus money.

Also - obviously its not going to help 'colluders'.

 

[Nifty29]

Actually that one of the few 'cheats' that is also possible with certain non-AWP machines. If you play TombRaider II for example, you need to hit a scatter on the center of every wheel to activate the bonus round. You dont have to hit them at the same time, the game remembers which wheels are activated. Your final bonus is a weighted average of the bet you placed when hitting the 5 scatters. So, If you spend all your bonus money betting big and 'loading up' the first 4 wheels, it should be possible to come back later and 'collect'.

I have NOT tried this in real life, so I dont know if the casinos reset these games when the player runs out of bonus money.

AFAIK, completing the 5 reels triggers a bonus round where the winnings are BASED on the average bet whilst collecting the other 4 reels.....so you can actually hit almost nothing (have done before) or you can hit really big i.e. it doesn't just give you back an average of your bets.

So, it is not "forceable" per se.

 

[kktmd]

AFAIK, completing the 5 reels triggers a bonus round where the winnings are BASED on the average bet whilst collecting the other 4 reels.....so you can actually hit almost nothing (have done before) or you can hit really big i.e. it doesn't just give you back an average of your bets.

So, it is not "forceable" per se.

I have done quite a lot of spins on Tombraider II: The bonus round is a (random number) * (weighted average of the bet you made on the individual spin where you activated the other wheels). So doubling your bet will (on average) double your bonus.

Its the weighted average: the first scatter has much lower weight than the last scatter (since the first scatter is much easier to hit). The weighting is exactly inverse proportional to the probability of hitting the scatter.

 

[Nifty29]

I have done quite a lot of spins on Tombraider II: The bonus round is a (random number) * (weighted average of the bet you made on the individual spin where you activated the other wheels). So doubling your bet will (on average) double your bonus.

Its the weighted average: the first scatter has much lower weight than the last scatter (since the first scatter is much easier to hit). The weighting is exactly inverse proportional to the probability of hitting the scatter.

Yes, I get that totally.

What I'm saying is that it is no good as a "cheat" using bonus money. You can load it up on big bets until you have 4 using bonus money, and then leave it and come back with real money and try for the 5th. Not only can it take you quite some time to actually get the 5th one, it can, as I say, pay very little. You might not get that much out of it at all...certainly not enough to be throwing away big bets getting the other 4.

It is not a "sure thing" like other "forceable" slots we have seen, as there is no way of telling when the bonus will trigger, unlike Treasure Ireland where reducing the bet will force the machine to pay what is in the pot.

If TRII was "forceable" like this, I'm pretty sure players would be all over it and at least some operators would have excluded it from bonus play, and I haven't seen that anywhere at this stage.

 

[Mousey]

Personally, I think each casino should have one slot machine that pays out a flat/guaranteed 95% payback on every spin. Bet a dollar, 'win' .95.... bet another $1 win .95.... bet $2, win $1.90.

 

[Jufo]

Personally, I think each casino should have one slot machine that pays out a flat/guaranteed 95% payback on every spin. Bet a dollar, 'win' .95.... bet another $1 win .95.... bet $2, win $1.90.

I am sure that game would be very popular But truthfully that's the type of game casino would like to have to have more constant income stream.

 

[Jufo]

I have done quite a lot of spins on Tombraider II: The bonus round is a (random number) * (weighted average of the bet you made on the individual spin where you activated the other wheels). So doubling your bet will (on average) double your bonus.

Its the weighted average: the first scatter has much lower weight than the last scatter (since the first scatter is much easier to hit). The weighting is exactly inverse proportional to the probability of hitting the scatter.

Thanks for that insight. I always assumed that the formula to calculate the payout for the bonus round was simply the average of bets when triggering the five passports. This means that you should actually bet big on the first passports (as they are easier to collect) and reduce your stake towards the end and still get a decent bonus round award because of those big bets on the "easier" passports.

So have you confirmed that the weights calculated for the bonus award are directly proportional to the difficulty of getting a passport? This makes sense as it would protect the game from being beatable by the strategy outlined above. However, it also makes the use of bonus funds to collect passports not too practical because the last, fifth passport that you collect with your own cash will have the largest weighting, meaning that large portion of the feature payout is not derived from bonus funds at all, just like Nifty said.

 

[kktmd]

Yes, I have confirmed that the weighting is exactly inverse proportional with the probability of hitting the scatter (so the last scatter is weighted much higher than the first).

If they were equally weighted, you could raise RTP significantly (well over 100%) by betting big in the very beginning. I don't remember the wheel length or the bonus round contribution to RTP, but I seem to remember that you will typically hit the first scatter within 20-30 spins.

One important aspect: You can choose to play one line, so the minimum bet is only 1¢. If you "load up" the first 4 wheels, and play 1¢ spins while waiting for the 5. th wheel, it will only cost a few $ (at most) to get the final scatter and get the bonus round. The last scatter wound not contribute to the bonus payout, but the first 4 scatters still make up 2/3 of the weighting.

If I remember the weighting correctly:

1: 1/15
2: 2/15
3: 3/15
4: 4/15
5: 5/15

So by starting your bonus play by "loading up" the first 4 reels before moving on to other games, a player could change bonus EV substantially.

 

[mathsboy1975]

Jufo - I am not looking for 'conspiracies'. This thread is getting out of control how and has been hijacked. All I asked is the kktmd tests for any (yet unproven) effects drastic stake changing could have on the slot games we can test. I am not suggesting they aren't random, or rigged, or anything else. IF any mechanism did exist to put parameters on excessive peaks and troughs on the RTP curves, it wouldn't mean the slot is 'fixed' anyway. Think about it, it could be achieved by nullifying certain values in the pool of results for a series of spins to bring RTP back in - the picks from the pool of values would still be random, and chosen by the RNG anyway. The slot would still pay TRTP over time, all the spins would still be random.

Jufo suggests that there is a prevalence of big wins at the start of a player's account/slot at a casino, over the first 10k spins. This IS a conspiracy theory lol......

I have a feeling a couple of people here can't see the wood for the trees........

But nobody is saying that the games are rigged though are they? I thought that was pretty much established based on Jufos initial analysis of that poor guys data (the one who lost 85K). I thought we were only theorizing about the internal mechanics in the game engines. I have not once inferred that I think slots are in any way rigged or that there are conspiracies. The thing that grabbed my initial interest was the notion of having non-constant probabilities for each payout amount but that fluctuated in a manner that still resulted in a fair game. That was disproved through the gaming license requirements - but I never suggested the games were rigged at all. If I did I would not spend (lose) the amount per month on slots that I currently do....

 

[dunover]

But nobody is saying that the games are rigged though are they? I thought that was pretty much established based on Jufos initial analysis of that poor guys data (the one who lost 85K). I thought we were only theorizing about the internal mechanics in the game engines. I have not once inferred that I think slots are in any way rigged or that there are conspiracies. The thing that grabbed my initial interest was the notion of having non-constant probabilities for each payout amount but that fluctuated in a manner that still resulted in a fair game. That was disproved through the gaming license requirements - but I never suggested the games were rigged at all. If I did I would not spend (lose) the amount per month on slots that I currently do....

I am surprised you type that when I was replying to Jufo's comments, not yours.

 

[mathsboy1975]

I appreciate that you are still having the discussion because the reason I first posted here was the opportunity to pick the brain of a PhD in Mathematics

Yes, I think the very reason that on every outcome the maximum you can lose is one unit but can win (almost) unlimited units is what skews the distribution so that even after 10,000 spins it remains skewed. You can see it from the fact that the low RTP end is under tight envelope (tighter than predicted by normal distribution) whereas the winning end of high payouts spreads much further than normal distribution predicts.

If you increase the number of rounds played to 100,000 and to 1,000,000 and so on, it will get closer and closer to normal distribution although quite slowly. There is a rule of thumb which says that the result is not normally distributed until it contains enough rounds to hit the top payout at least a few times. Now on a typical slot the top payout may be a 1 in million event so this rule of thumb says that it would take at least several million rounds until using normal distribution is appropriate.

From casino's point of view they see millions of rounds played across all players so for them the results are (close) to normal distribution. But for an individual player they will never play enough rounds for the result to be normally distributed.

I think then that the best way to look at it is completely separate from RTP. Based on reel layouts, IF the RNG is generating a number randomly to specify the reel position, then assuming non-weighted reels and known reel layout, we can perform the same chi-square test around an assumption of a uniform distribution over every possible reel position. This would be a more comprehensive test - if each reel combo can be shown to have the same probability of coming in, then that is all there is to show. The game TRTP and slot variance is totally set by the value associated with each symbol win. Excluding stuff like "Wild Desire" and "Ion Storm" and that kind of outcome. It would show without doubt the fairness of the RNG behind it all (which I am not disputing just to labour the point).

Problem is that this would likely require a truly massive sample size to operate on as even with only 20 symbols per reel on a 5 reel slot would result in 3.2 million distinct reel positions (and we know most games are not limited to only 20 symbols per reel).

This probably illustrates just how small that 10,000 sample size is in your analysis (even though that is a totally different type of analysis).

Maybe that doesn't make sense but it clears it up in my mind, as the RTP aspect (which confuses the issue for me) allows heavily tailed sampling distributions.

 

[mathsboy1975]

I am surprised you type that when I was replying to Jufo's comments, not yours.

Yeah there is so much in this thread now that my confusion level is maxing out. I missed the 2 pages of posts where the conspiracy stuff was snowballing.

 

[Jufo]

I agree that this thread got very confusing because of many simultaneous different things discussed and some unnecessary stuff that was brought over from other threads. But this is what happens when too many different "cooks" turn up with their own ideas. Anyway back to the original discussion:

I think then that the best way to look at it is completely separate from RTP. Based on reel layouts, IF the RNG is generating a number randomly to specify the reel position, then assuming non-weighted reels and known reel layout, we can perform the same chi-square test around an assumption of a uniform distribution over every possible reel position. This would be a more comprehensive test - if each reel combo can be shown to have the same probability of coming in, then that is all there is to show. The game TRTP and slot variance is totally set by the value associated with each symbol win. Excluding stuff like "Wild Desire" and "Ion Storm" and that kind of outcome. It would show without doubt the fairness of the RNG behind it all (which I am not disputing just to labour the point).

Problem is that this would likely require a truly massive sample size to operate on as even with only 20 symbols per reel on a 5 reel slot would result in 3.2 million distinct reel positions (and we know most games are not limited to only 20 symbols per reel).

This probably illustrates just how small that 10,000 sample size is in your analysis (even though that is a totally different type of analysis).

Maybe that doesn't make sense but it clears it up in my mind, as the RTP aspect (which confuses the issue for me) allows heavily tailed sampling distributions.

Yes that would be comprehensive analysis but I am not sure if it is necessary. For example there are many different possible reel configurations that yield a payout of, say, 3.5x bet. It's already possible to calculate the overall probability for that payout so I don't think it gives any extra insight to see all the possible reel orientations that yield that particular payout. Therefore wouldn't you say that simply knowing the entire payout structure (ie. the probability for each payout) would be sufficient? The paytable (list of each possible payout and it's probability) captures the mathematics of the slot entirely and it's not that interesting to know all the different possible ways to arrive at each of these probabilities.

I already had the full slot paytable available when I analysed that person's BDBA results. In the report I only posted ranges like 50-100x bet but these were derived from the exact paytable. The paytable was generated from a simulation of 100 million spins rather than exact combinatory analysis but IMO it is accurate enough.

I still think that in addition to verifying A) TRTP B) The frequencies of each payout, a third statistical test should be made to verify that the payouts occur at randomly distributed intervals. While you might feel that this last step is unnecessary, it's the one that distinguishes a truly random slot from an AWP machine. AWP machine "eats" player's money and only gives a payout after enough money has been "eaten". So we still need some statistical test to eliminate the possibility that there are some AWP-like behaviours incorporated within these slots so that they are truly random.

 

[dunover]

I agree that this thread got very confusing because of many simultaneous different things discussed and some unnecessary stuff that was brought over from other threads. But this is what happens when too many different "cooks" turn up with their own ideas. Anyway back to the original discussion:



Yes that would be comprehensive analysis but I am not sure if it is necessary. For example there are many different possible reel configurations that yield a payout of, say, 3.5x bet. It's already possible to calculate the overall probability for that payout so I don't think it gives any extra insight to see all the possible reel orientations that yield that particular payout. Therefore wouldn't you say that simply knowing the entire payout structure (ie. the probability for each payout) would be sufficient? The paytable (list of each possible payout and it's probability) captures the mathematics of the slot entirely and it's not that interesting to know all the different possible ways to arrive at each of these probabilities.

I already had the full slot paytable available when I analysed that person's BDBA results. In the report I only posted ranges like 50-100x bet but these were derived from the exact paytable. The paytable was generated from a simulation of 100 million spins rather than exact combinatory analysis but IMO that is accurate enough.

I still think that in addition to verifying A) TRTP B) The frequencies of each payout, a third statistical test should be made to verify that the payouts occur at randomly distributed intervals. While you might feel that this last step is unnecessary, it's the one that distinguishes a truly random slot from an AWP machine. AWP machine "eats" player's money and only gives a payout after enough money has been "eaten". So we still need some statistical test to eliminate the possibility that there are some AWP-like behaviours incorporated within these slots, and that they are truly random.

So, after all the over-complication and over-analysis, we are back to square one - the question I asked kktmd - to perform tests - running stake changes in order to demonstrate if or not the slot can be shown to exhibit some AWP tendencies.

I am honest enough here to declare a foil-hat statement I made in the past. When I saw these multi-thousand WD screenies on IR, I accused the players of 'buying' the wins, i.e. having already lost enough overall to pay for them. Only one person claimed to have had their massive hit just after starting out on the slot before they had played it a lot.

 

[mathsboy1975]

So, after all the over-complication and over-analysis, we are back to square one - the question I asked kktmd - to perform tests - running stake changes in order to demonstrate if or not the slot can be shown to exhibit some AWP tendencies.

I am honest enough here to declare a foil-hat statement I made in the past. When I saw these multi-thousand WD screenies on IR, I accused the players of 'buying' the wins, i.e. having already lost enough overall to pay for them. Only one person claimed to have had their massive hit just after starting out on the slot before they had played it a lot.

Well that could still be looked at, but I think it would need to be run on free play but changing stake in a controlled manner. Something like blocks of 10 bets stake 0.30c say then 10 bets at $1.50 (or something similar) so that there was a structured betting pattern but not too spread apart. That way you would end up with 2 distinct groups of results. Testing for significant differences between 2 groups that are supposed to be the same is more easy to analyse. I think it would be a good idea to keep it to just 2 distinct stakes though and to keep the intervals between the stake changes equal though.

 

[Jufo]

So, after all the over-complication and over-analysis, we are back to square one - the question I asked kktmd - to perform tests - running stake changes in order to demonstrate if or not the slot can be shown to exhibit some AWP tendencies.

Well yes, the thread was sidetracked but it was not only because of me.

Kktmd's approach has a few problems and weaknesses. I understand that he already has all the data from the spins and he changes the bet sizes post-playing by just changing them in his records. Therefore his trials don't reveal whether a bet change during actual play (and not only post-play) would have made a difference.

The other problem is that this is fun-mode data collection and there is no quarantee that real-money mode is exactly the same. You can be convinced that it is the same but there is still uncertainty. If I ran compromised games I would make sure they are compromised only in real play.

The last problem is that there should be some way to quantify kktmd's findings. If he discovers that changing bet size at certain point makes the slot deliver 98% return rather than 95% we need to establish how likely this is to happen by random chance to rule it out.

Therefore I hope that you agree that it is a good thing (and not a bad thing) that other related ideas are proposed in this thread as well.

 

[kktmd]

Well yes, the thread was sidetracked but it was not only because of me.

Kktmd's approach has a few problems and weaknesses. I understand that he already has all the data from the spins and he changes the bet sizes post-playing by just changing them in his records. Therefore his trials don't reveal whether a bet change during actual play (and not only post-play) would have made a difference.

The other problem is that this is fun-mode data collection and there is no quarantee that real-money mode is exactly the same. You can be convinced that it is the same but there is still uncertainty. If I ran compromised games I would make sure they are compromised only in real play.

The last problem is that there should be some way to quantify kktmd's findings. If he discovers that changing bet size at certain point makes the slot deliver 98% return rather than 95% we need to establish how likely this is to happen by random chance to rule it out.

Therefore I hope that you agree that it is a good thing (and not a bad thing) that other related ideas are proposed in this thread as well.

These are excellent points.

1. I'm not 100% convinced that real-mode=fun-mode

My theory is this:
2. If we had enough spins, it should not be possible increase RTP by "post-playin" the series using any system (without using information about future spins, of course). If we can find a system that consistently increases RTP, this is could indicate non-random behaviour.
3. IF we find a system and IF we play this system in fun-mode and our RTP does NOT increase, this could indicate that the game engine adjusts RTP to meet a certain target.

I've put about 260k spins on Playboy (fun-mode) since yesterday, using this system:
60 spins betting 30, followed by 10 spins betting 1500. Repeat.

 

[dunover]

Well yes, the thread was sidetracked but it was not only because of me.

Kktmd's approach has a few problems and weaknesses. I understand that he already has all the data from the spins and he changes the bet sizes post-playing by just changing them in his records. Therefore his trials don't reveal whether a bet change during actual play (and not only post-play) would have made a difference.

Yes, I didn't realize he'd done it ex-post-facto. Thanks.

The other problem is that this is fun-mode data collection and there is no quarantee that real-money mode is exactly the same. You can be convinced that it is the same but there is still uncertainty. If I ran compromised games I would make sure they are compromised only in real play.#

That's not true though - we are told they use the same server/game and this is in keeping with the GA rules. It would be a serious matter if this were the case and I don't believe it is.

The last problem is that there should be some way to quantify kktmd's findings. If he discovers that changing bet size at certain point makes the slot deliver 98% return rather than 95% we need to establish how likely this is to happen by random chance to rule it out.

Very true but we won't do it with ten spins at one stake then ten at another and so-on. It's too insignificant to separate any potential peak from a random one.

Therefore I hope that you agree that it is a good thing (and not a bad thing) that other related ideas are proposed in this thread as well.

It is good, but we seem to be beating around the bush. We need to agree a way to test we are all happy with.

 

[dunover]

These are excellent points.

1. I'm not 100% convinced that real-mode=fun-mode

My theory is this:
2. If we had enough spins, it should not be possible increase RTP by "post-playin" the series using any system (without using information about future spins, of course). If we can find a system that consistently increases RTP, this is could indicate non-random behaviour.
Yes.
3. IF we find a system and IF we play this system in fun-mode and our RTP does NOT increase, this could indicate that the game engine adjusts RTP to meet a certain target.
I think this is the most likely and would reflect a true random slot - having dynamic parameters doesn't necessarily make it 'rigged' i.e. non-random.

I've put about 260k spins on Playboy (fun-mode) since yesterday, using this system:
60 spins betting 30, followed by 10 spins betting 1500. Repeat.

Not dramatic enough. In such a few spins 60/10 60/10 etc. it simply is a short-term bet of 11.2 1500 spins. Pointless I maintain.

kktmd I repeat do at least 2000 spins at 30p followed by a big raise to at least £10 a spin for 20 spins. This equates to 600 pounds spent at 30p then 200 pounds spent at £10. One total is significantly less than the other so a contrast/effect would be more clearly demonstrated and less refutable. This also better echoes the real player, who bangs out 2000 spins in 2 hours, gets fed up and bumps his stake up to either bust out or get his money back. As we've seen many a time.

1 of 3 things will happen:

1. Nothing.
2. A temporary spike in RTP that levels out as the pattern of spins continues. Likely.
3. (unlikely but possible) You get a permanent increase in RTP which would mean the slot is skewed.