500jps observation

mr lugsy · Post by **mr lugsy** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:18 pm

why bother with a disclaimer ? i mean doesnt random speak for itself? a loophole within the s16 guidelines exploited in favour of the house maybe?

mr lugsy · Post by **mr lugsy** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:27 pm

youll never get a complete screen of wilds on an elvis ,it aint in the spirit of things but thats the way the "random " bit "works" ,there are however many 5 cadillic drops and an occasional wheel,jukebox max seen 400 for 5 and 350 for 5 guitars.

Mystery_Plum · Post by **Mystery_Plum** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:28 pm

mrdave wrote:
Mystery_Plum wrote:On Party Games Slotto and Reel King those abundant Jackpot symbols on reels 4 and 5 are genuinely chosen by the RNG every game. They are not artificially placed there to make the result look exciting, or to create the impression of a near-miss. The near-misses you see during play are down to the clever way the stats were worked out on these games.
I'm sure someone has been clever in designing these sequences of JP symbols. Come on, of course they are placed there to create the impression of a near-miss or due a big win - why else would they be? Which by the way I'd have no problem with if the said machine did not market itself to joe public as 100% random.

100% random should not only mean the financial outcome of each spin, but surely the position of the various symbols too.

Yes but you're assuming that there is an even spread of symbols on all reels, and that each symbol has the same chance of appearing as any other. This is not the case. The last 2 reels' distribution tables are heavily weighted with 7's and wild symbols, hence the near-misses, whereas there might be lots of cherries and less 7's on the front reels. The decision from the table is still random, but your picking out of a bag with 8 cherries in and only 3 7's on reel 1 for instance, so the distribution will not be even.

Without this, the game would be boring as fuck with no excitement on any spin, and the profile would be very flat.

I agree though that the term '100% random' is wide open to all sorts of interpretation. Certainly though there must be NO compensation or reflexing, and the result of a game must be independent and not influenced by previous or future play.

Mattb · Post by **Mattb** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:43 pm

Heh i know it wasn't one in a million - merely a figure of speech.
Still, 1 in 405 should happen more like that often. The amount of times i see it though, it's more like 1 in 20! :x

Mystery_Plum · Post by **Mystery_Plum** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:59 pm

Mattb wrote:Heh i know it wasn't one in a million - merely a figure of speech.
Still, 1 in 405 should happen more like that often. The amount of times i see it though, it's more like 1 in 20! :x

Yeah, and when it happens on an FOBT in a bookies, it's hard not to think that you've been fucked over somehow. At least in a casino where you can see it live infront of your eyes, you can accept it a bit easier...

Mattb · Post by **Mattb** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:46 pm

Amen to that. I still think those machines should have a slot where a giant pair of hands emerges and firstly takes down your pants, then a giant cock emerges and does you in the arse in front of the entire shop. It's exactly how you feel. :x

ob · Post by ob » Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:54 pm

lol have played them literally £100K+ through probably in my lifetime on those bookies FOBT's (not for the last year or so though), and I can honestly say they have appeared 100% random.

anyone so stupid as to bet on 36/37 numbers deserves to lose anyhow, what a shitty bet, in mathematical terms, you are surrenduring to percentage (can't be bothered to explain, but think about the following bet, £1 on every number but 0... money back every time but lose £36 when £0 comes).

If anyone a bit more mathematically inclinded wants a better explaination of why... the standard devation from the expected payout is less when you are betting on more numbers, hence you are unlikely to get much more than the 97.2% on offer.

For those less mathematically inlclided... it's a PUSSY bet, for people who bet 100+ spins and will always lose in the end.

jonnyg323 · Post by **jonnyg323** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:46 am

Mattb wrote:Amen to that. I still think those machines should have a slot where a giant pair of hands emerges and firstly takes down your pants, then a giant cock emerges and does you in the arse in front of the entire shop. It's exactly how you feel. :x

I understand there are some machines in Malaysia which do that.

It's a variation of Joker "Poker" crossed with Gold Strike

cashino · Post by **cashino** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:41 am

&quot wrote:
Mattb wrote:Amen to that. I still think those machines should have a slot where a giant pair of hands emerges and firstly takes down your pants, then a giant cock emerges and does you in the arse in front of the entire shop. It's exactly how you feel. :x

........dressed as the leprachaun from Rainbow Riches....

Mattb · Post by **Mattb** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:28 am

I said 31/37 anyway

I think people call it a covering bet. Yeah? Makes no difference how you play 'em, get shafted either way. I take it from that statement you just smash say 10 numbers and hope for the best. Bet you end up losing more that way though! If i ever feel the urge to have a score on them when im quids in, i'll usually do £15 covering 0,1,2,3,4,5,8,10,11,20,21,23,24,26,28,29,32. I'll then have a fiver on red/black/odd/even as cover in case it decides to stitch you up. Cue whatever i don't have.....7/9/31/33 are particular faves!

cashino · Post by **cashino** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:55 am

Mattb wrote:I said 31/37 anyway I think people call it a covering bet. Yeah? Makes no difference how you play 'em, get shafted either way. I take it from that statement you just smash say 10 numbers and hope for the best. Bet you end up losing more that way though! If i ever feel the urge to have a score on them when im quids in, i'll usually do £15 covering 0,1,2,3,4,5,8,10,11,20,21,23,24,26,28,29,32. I'll then have a fiver on red/black/odd/even as cover in case it decides to stitch you up. Cue whatever i don't have.....7/9/31/33 are particular faves!

Eee eye eee eye we're going UP!

ob · Post by ob » Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:43 pm

Mattb wrote:I said 31/37 anyway I think people call it a covering bet. Yeah? Makes no difference how you play 'em, get shafted either way. I take it from that statement you just smash say 10 numbers and hope for the best. Bet you end up losing more that way though! If i ever feel the urge to have a score on them when im quids in, i'll usually do £15 covering 0,1,2,3,4,5,8,10,11,20,21,23,24,26,28,29,32. I'll then have a fiver on red/black/odd/even as cover in case it decides to stitch you up. Cue whatever i don't have.....7/9/31/33 are particular faves!

lol "covering bets" are mathematically poor compared to betting on a low amount of numbers, as you are less likely to beat the 100% payout barrier and be in profit in the long run (just take my word for it if you don't know the maths). Also covering bets are prone to alot of money back or near money back spins which just make you spin on anyhow, and the more spins you have, the more likely you are to lose statistically! To give a little example of the latter, you could easily profit in a casino by putting £1000 on red, your chance being 48.6%, try however doing £10 spins on red and either getting to £0 or £2000, and your chance of reaching £2000 is very small. Hence why casinos in vegas etc. want to keep you in, the longer ur there, the more likely it is you'll do all ur money, they don't just want people going in there smacking £10K on red and then leaving lol.

(yeh btw I did used to just whack 10 numbers or less - if they come in it's good money tho! Did do just 1 number a few times, in the old ladbrokes days pre £500 max I had £30 on 9 come up, which was £1080)

cashino · Post by **cashino** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:01 pm

Jesus sometimes i get the feeling people see roulette on here as machine they've got an emptier for. Roulette is exactly like a bar-x. Keep plugging away, you'll get a run of wins, then you'll count your profit and losses and realize you are significantly down. At least a NEW bar-x will give you a few empties for it's first few days while it makes it %age level, before it becomes shit like roulette.
"Show me a man with a system and I'll send a taxi..."

If you spend 3-12k on one of those roulette analyzing cameras which works out the 'slant' on any particular wheel with that croupier, yes you can get an edge like counting at blackjack, (UNLESS THEY use 8+decks in the shoe)
You won't win by 'covering'. You might as well play the compensated ermmm... sec16's.
I doubt that there's ONE person on this forum who can honestly say that over their lifetime they are better-off now than if they had NEVER gambled once in their life.
Toolers win, self-delusionists and gamblers don't.

ob · Post by ob » Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:29 am

finally cashino as post in this thread I DO agree with!

mr lugsy · Post by **mr lugsy** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:55 am

getting back to great debate now, what do you guys think about the new slotto that plays 40 lines for a "tessa jowell maddening"1000 pounds sterling jpt? i can see this one "realistically" paying out a plethora of said 1k spins. nice way to circumnavigate the 1 pound play barrier though. you play 2 machines at once doubling stake and prize alike. why stop there?
why not go for "el gordo" and supercharge it up to a one megapound jpt?
you could have 40,000 lines all played similtaneously on fractions of 1p for a payout tray shattering sum of 1 and six zeros. it could be the future of granny rinsing coin op "entertainment" and carry the slogan"it could be you"......
memo to tessa jowell: have you had the neighbours round for tea and scones yet love?