SECTION 16, £1 STAKE, TRUTH from an experienced player!
oh, and I might as well add for the record, that whilst I have seen "streaks" of wins, double JPS and even triple JPS.. I have also seen plenty of occasions where this is not the pattern followed.
And yes, I've had Steve Redgrave rowing sessions on S16's many times myself, so I am in some position to speak about their behaviour.
To spout on about how some set of behaviour is 'guaranteed' is just plain misleading. As is often the case with most fruit players, they only remember the events worth noticing.
And yes, I've had Steve Redgrave rowing sessions on S16's many times myself, so I am in some position to speak about their behaviour.
To spout on about how some set of behaviour is 'guaranteed' is just plain misleading. As is often the case with most fruit players, they only remember the events worth noticing.
Whilst i'm at it, to make random machines more 'playable', what they did was probably as follows. For every random number generated, 10 spins will play out the payout value assigned to that number. For example, if number 31337 corresponded to 60 pounds, then the machine has 10 spins with which to pay out this value. How it does this is entirely up to the machine. 9 spins of nothing, then last spin of 60 pounds. If it is worked in random blocks like this, then it will give the illusion of 'streaks' to statistically uninformed people.
This behaviour is highly suggested by the machines mode of operation when you physically disconnect the RNG from it.
Whilst I cannot say for 100% that I am correct, I can offer my educated opinion through my experiments with the actual hardware and observations.
This behaviour is highly suggested by the machines mode of operation when you physically disconnect the RNG from it.
Whilst I cannot say for 100% that I am correct, I can offer my educated opinion through my experiments with the actual hardware and observations.
http://arcadenemy.freewebsitehosting.com/index.html -SEE NOW for fruit machine emptiers terrifying slot operators. LATEST devices and tools.
As you said, the way they play there MUST be 'blocks' in some cases.
In fact I will update this and say definitely that you ARE correct!
In that case it would be impossible for the machine to maintain an average long-term payout of 92%! UNLESS the machine checked with the RNG, i.e. if on a run and the percentage went well over, and the machine picked a big win random number, that the number would be ignored and the machine would act upon the next LOW/LOSING RN that was generated.blackmogu wrote:cashino, I can assure you that the RNG has no way of checking with the machine. The electronics are just not capabale of doing more than sending information. There is no CPU, memory or any other fancy processing stuff on board it. It's an electrical engineering impossibility.
As you said, the way they play there MUST be 'blocks' in some cases.
In fact I will update this and say definitely that you ARE correct!
I didn't like the word 'guaranteed' admittedly, let's say 'inevitable'. I NEVER had an all day stint on say slotto without at least ONE jackpot.blackmogu wrote:oh, and I might as well add for the record, that whilst I have seen "streaks" of wins, double JPS and even triple JPS.. I have also seen plenty of occasions where this is not the pattern followed.
And yes, I've had Steve Redgrave rowing sessions on S16's many times myself, so I am in some position to speak about their behaviour.
To spout on about how some set of behaviour is 'guaranteed' is just plain misleading. As is often the case with most fruit players, they only remember the events worth noticing.
As for remembering things, I gave examples of BOTH memorable and forgettable stuff, the forgettable stuff I remind you being the long tedious winless periods.
Well for a 'statistically uninformed' person I immediately spotted your howling contradiction - firstly I tend to agree with your theory as it is a plausible way to explain the 'streaks', however for somebody who previously stated that each press of the button at a particular time produces a random number corresponding to a win/loss, this is nonsense!blackmogu wrote:Whilst i'm at it, to make random machines more 'playable', what they did was probably as follows. For every random number generated, 10 spins will play out the payout value assigned to that number. For example, if number 31337 corresponded to 60 pounds, then the machine has 10 spins with which to pay out this value. How it does this is entirely up to the machine. 9 spins of nothing, then last spin of 60 pounds. If it is worked in random blocks like this, then it will give the illusion of 'streaks' to statistically uninformed people.
This behaviour is highly suggested by the machines mode of operation when you physically disconnect the RNG from it.
Whilst I cannot say for 100% that I am correct, I can offer my educated opinion through my experiments with the actual hardware and observations.
If you were right, then for some of those 10 presses the machine could NOT possibly be selecting a RN, as the outcome would have to have been pre-decided at zero, and some at a win amount in order to aggregate to that £60 win after the number for the £60 was selected by a previous press of the button!
rather than try to pick holes in my semantics and contradiction (I modified my opinion as to how they possibly work to account for the streak theory and ob's post reminding me of the 10-spins-without-a-RNG-attached), don't you think...
1. It would be more constructive to carry on discussing the machine(s) in question rather than personal jibes
2. If you don't agree with my conclusions based on discussed evidence, offer your own as a counter-argument
3. I'll reiterate - I don't claim my hypothesis is correct, but it certainly is the best-fitting model from the discussion held so far.
It's a shame that so many people get offended when someone doesn't agree with their opinion. Critical thought and the ability to accept that you may be wrong, and that others might know more than yourself (yes, this applies to me too :wink
is key to learning more.
I don't come on this board to play a game of one-upsmanship with invisible people i've never met and likely never will. I just enjoy discussing fruit machines, and I hope others can enjoy some of my postings too.
1. It would be more constructive to carry on discussing the machine(s) in question rather than personal jibes
2. If you don't agree with my conclusions based on discussed evidence, offer your own as a counter-argument
3. I'll reiterate - I don't claim my hypothesis is correct, but it certainly is the best-fitting model from the discussion held so far.
It's a shame that so many people get offended when someone doesn't agree with their opinion. Critical thought and the ability to accept that you may be wrong, and that others might know more than yourself (yes, this applies to me too :wink
is key to learning more.I don't come on this board to play a game of one-upsmanship with invisible people i've never met and likely never will. I just enjoy discussing fruit machines, and I hope others can enjoy some of my postings too.
Yes, I enjoy them, at least you have an insight into the questions. I must say though, that as stated before like the example of roulette, a totally random game which pays about 97% in theory, a machine can allegedly do this set to 92%.blackmogu wrote:rather than try to pick holes in my semantics and contradiction (I modified my opinion as to how they possibly work to account for the streak theory and ob's post reminding me of the 10-spins-without-a-RNG-attached), don't you think...
1. It would be more constructive to carry on discussing the machine(s) in question rather than personal jibes
WASN'T "STATISTICALLY UNINFORMED" THE FIRST JIBE THEN?
2. If you don't agree with my conclusions based on discussed evidence, offer your own as a counter-argument
FAIR ENOUGH
3. I'll reiterate - I don't claim my hypothesis is correct, but it certainly is the best-fitting model from the discussion held so far.
It's a shame that so many people get offended when someone doesn't agree with their opinion. Critical thought and the ability to accept that you may be wrong, and that others might know more than yourself (yes, this applies to me too :wink
I ACTUALLY AGREED WITH YOU REMEMBER - Your idea would explain the actual events we have witnessed at various times. Perfectly plausible, and I hope you are right, because it blows the machines' legality from the water. Remember Fairplay's campaign based on the mpu4 program, whereby they illustrated that number wheel gambles were already predecided and thus technically illegal?
If you are right, then at certain spins of the supposedly random s16, the outcome will already be pre-decided too.
I don't come on this board to play a game of one-upsmanship with invisible people i've never met and likely never will. I just enjoy discussing fruit machines, and I hope others can enjoy some of my postings too.
Two problems with this - firstly the zero is allowed for bets on roulette, thus making a theoretical 100% payout, as all bets pay 'true' odds so if single numbers were the only bets ever laid on a roulette table, then the theoretical payout would be 100% - it is only the red/black or odd/even bets at 1:1 that means the zero counts as a 3% reduction and thus edge to the house. Obviously to allay the possibility of no profit, 35:1 is offered on the zero, same as all other singles, as opposed to 36:1 The point here is, is that roulette has a mathematically unlimited 'swing' from its 97% - ie. a punter could win and win and win, many millions of pounds over a series of consecutive spins going on indefinitley, thus making it pay unlimited %. The opposite happens too, so the payout could go down to zero for an unlimited (although in both cases unlikely!) period.
The section 16 MUST have some protection against this, therefore cannot be truly random. They meet their percentage over quite short periods. We all hear "yeah, in theory you can win the jackpot on 4 consecutive spins..." but this, to my knowledge has NEVER happened anywhere in the UK or we'd have heard about it! Statistically, albeit never a completely safe assumption, it should've occurred by now given the billions of spins played on these in the last two years. OR 3 consecutive sets of rainbow pots on riches etc.
One day we'll learn the truth about these bastards.
probably got our wires crossed earlier, easy to do in online forums. Apologies. In response to your roulette query:-
Whilst it is statistically possible to have large swings from the base percentage, the casino/operator can do a number of things to limit their exposure.
1. Have a table bet cap. You can only lose so much each spin. Standard is 100 pounds per number in the UK. If you wish to go over this, you need the explicit approval from the casino manager.
2. Slow down table play so that more of the table can be covered. Only one number can land at a time. The other straight up bets will be money recovered.
3. Employ a croupier that can land the ball in a certain wheel quadrant, avoiding the heavier covered areas of the table.
But essentially these nefarious tactics are not needed. The odds of a swing are so great as to not matter in our lifetimes.
The protection they have is built into the paytable. They pay out 1/1.50 on alot of spins. This meets their percentage requirements, and they can have that one 500 prize with the odds somewhere like 1/10000. Much worse than a roulette table. If roulette works with lesser odds, I think the randomness employed in a fruit is fairly safe.
A good analogy is betting on the odds/evens on roulette and zero comes in. You get half your stake back. it's a pre-determined scam.
And as to meeting percentage over short periods, I've been going to casinos for over a decade, and racked up an impressive amount of time on the roulette table. My observations are that they settle pretty darn quickly too.
Whilst it is statistically possible to have large swings from the base percentage, the casino/operator can do a number of things to limit their exposure.
1. Have a table bet cap. You can only lose so much each spin. Standard is 100 pounds per number in the UK. If you wish to go over this, you need the explicit approval from the casino manager.
2. Slow down table play so that more of the table can be covered. Only one number can land at a time. The other straight up bets will be money recovered.
3. Employ a croupier that can land the ball in a certain wheel quadrant, avoiding the heavier covered areas of the table.
But essentially these nefarious tactics are not needed. The odds of a swing are so great as to not matter in our lifetimes.
Care to substantiate that with any facts ? why must they have it ?The section 16 MUST have some protection against this
The protection they have is built into the paytable. They pay out 1/1.50 on alot of spins. This meets their percentage requirements, and they can have that one 500 prize with the odds somewhere like 1/10000. Much worse than a roulette table. If roulette works with lesser odds, I think the randomness employed in a fruit is fairly safe.
A good analogy is betting on the odds/evens on roulette and zero comes in. You get half your stake back. it's a pre-determined scam.
And as to meeting percentage over short periods, I've been going to casinos for over a decade, and racked up an impressive amount of time on the roulette table. My observations are that they settle pretty darn quickly too.
To clarify. Section 16s were billed as 'random'. They had to operate randomly by law. B3s do not have to operate randomly, but still claim to be 'random'.
There's a hell of a lot of speculation over this whole randomness debacle. I only lost a couple of Ks on these machines trying to suss out ideas and methods. Some of the worst money I've spent. I could not say if they were random or not. In fact I should have saved my money and listened to the bleeps and squeaks of other local players.
Plenty of muck about various s16s (mostly CMS) that suggested non randomness. Eg PMK stated that a Haunted House dropping in a full screen bar one or two would do it again within £500. There were a couple of caveats, I can't remember now.
All I can say is that the law wasn't just flexed, it was definitely broken in places. CMS 8 Liner. Each line is supposed to be totally independent to every other line in the game. If I'm lucky enough to get jackpot on lines one and two, by proxy I get jackpots on the other six lines as well. That's not the essence of section 16. I appreciate it may still be random and the mechanical reels are just a means of displaying a random outcome, but it's a definite deviation from what really applies under S16.
If the manufacturers can deviate that much from law, could they not create non random games masquerading as 'random'? I've got to say there were certain players in the arcade who appeared to be able to 'kill' s16s. A Chinese guy in particular would leave an 8 Liner always (IMO) needing £40+ on £4/spin just for £5 cherries.
Of the players that were happy to play s16s, quite a few are now moaning about the B3s and echo Cashino and fmws postings. They seem to give less 'action' and feel tighter. That said, I've seen two jackpots on Slotto since it became B3, but NO jackpots on anything else.
I've always maintained (and this is purely personal speculation) that the RNG is genuinely that. It's what the machine does with the randomly generated number that matters. I also made a long posting elsewhere ages ago that ALL machines have random elements. There will be a RNG within a Pie Factory, pretty much any s34 AWP, as these games house randomness, they're not totally prescripted.
To summarise it seems "You should avoid these machines unless you are carrying a sledgehammer".
I've also noticed blackmogu's pattern of posting is not random. When he posts, he posts again three times after!! It always happens!! It happens too much to be random....
There's a hell of a lot of speculation over this whole randomness debacle. I only lost a couple of Ks on these machines trying to suss out ideas and methods. Some of the worst money I've spent. I could not say if they were random or not. In fact I should have saved my money and listened to the bleeps and squeaks of other local players.
Plenty of muck about various s16s (mostly CMS) that suggested non randomness. Eg PMK stated that a Haunted House dropping in a full screen bar one or two would do it again within £500. There were a couple of caveats, I can't remember now.
All I can say is that the law wasn't just flexed, it was definitely broken in places. CMS 8 Liner. Each line is supposed to be totally independent to every other line in the game. If I'm lucky enough to get jackpot on lines one and two, by proxy I get jackpots on the other six lines as well. That's not the essence of section 16. I appreciate it may still be random and the mechanical reels are just a means of displaying a random outcome, but it's a definite deviation from what really applies under S16.
If the manufacturers can deviate that much from law, could they not create non random games masquerading as 'random'? I've got to say there were certain players in the arcade who appeared to be able to 'kill' s16s. A Chinese guy in particular would leave an 8 Liner always (IMO) needing £40+ on £4/spin just for £5 cherries.
Of the players that were happy to play s16s, quite a few are now moaning about the B3s and echo Cashino and fmws postings. They seem to give less 'action' and feel tighter. That said, I've seen two jackpots on Slotto since it became B3, but NO jackpots on anything else.
I've always maintained (and this is purely personal speculation) that the RNG is genuinely that. It's what the machine does with the randomly generated number that matters. I also made a long posting elsewhere ages ago that ALL machines have random elements. There will be a RNG within a Pie Factory, pretty much any s34 AWP, as these games house randomness, they're not totally prescripted.
To summarise it seems "You should avoid these machines unless you are carrying a sledgehammer".
I've also noticed blackmogu's pattern of posting is not random. When he posts, he posts again three times after!! It always happens!! It happens too much to be random....
-
TheMission
- Senior Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
Just because something is inside a box, does not mean there are no photons present. It's not a great stretch of the imagination to put a photon source inside now, is it ? An LED would suffice, for example. Maybe even the transient background level would suffice. Who knows the tolerance level of these detectors.
-
TheMission
- Senior Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
So do you have a picture of this RNG? Cause if it's got "Skampi" written on the PCB, it most certainly does not use any photoelectric effect.blackmogu wrote:Just because something is inside a box, does not mean there are no photons present. Also, being a circuit board inside, they happen to mount an LED...
-
Mystery_Plum
Re: SECTION 16, £1 STAKE, TRUTH from an experienced player!
Wrong.cashino wrote: The last and third type are in between, like slotto and it's clones. They are mainly reel machine with the occasional 'feature' which is on the reels only, like reel kins and stupid cowboys. The difference here is the noticeable dead period before a jackpot, and if it was going to 'double' jackpot then good play before the second.
Correct.blackmogu wrote: When the RNG is removed from the machine, it does indeed let you have about 10 spins before it complains. This would suggest that it gets a block of random numbers in every request.