500jps observation

[mr lugsy]

borgcontact,shoots ,and scores!!!!!!!!!! the random debate cup is surely won by random schmandom united,commiserations to the gallant losers . man of the match goes to to the borg, pmk ,changesstake,and cashino jointly for their combined effort in exposing the tired defence of the opposition. respect guys!

[mrdave]

You can get £500 on three discs on Elvis.

I stand corrected then, me & my mates have never had if off three discs, only the five cars. None of us have ever seen 4 or 5 discs by the way and have played ££££s!

[TheMission]

Its PMK my friend!!

PGS's ALWAYS reset to the same starting %age(If you have the 'proper' astra manual like we did it even states this) Once you go £50 - £150 in, watch them try and catch up.

If a big win comes in, plug it before it banks, another big win is there almost immediately, repeat, the same win or indeed a bigger one returns within a few spins again and again until you allow win to be banked. Now that is NOT random its a machine trying to level out repeatedly from the same reset position.

This happened continuously every time we did it(about 50), usually spinning in uncharacteristic wins between £200- £400 which as people know are VERY unusual for this machine.

Yes, because the person that wrote the manual copied it from a compensated machine. You are talking absolute shite.

[TheMission]

I should think you DO want "enough on this one" as you have been totally disproven by the last post before yours and many players' experiences!

Jeez, we are all wrong sometimes it's just being man enough to admit it.
You were obviously taken in by the 'random' stickers and claims. The last chap has blatantly told you they are pre-loaded.

They play similarly to Electrocoin lo-techs but with more variations in the possibilities, thus the patterns don't emerge for a while.

That's a bag of shite as well. Do you actually code anything useful, or just rely on player rhetoric?

[JG]

Hold on, hold on, hold on, I thought this was all wrapped up now? We've had borgcontact present some thoughts and PMK and The Arcade-enemy himself Mr. Who? Watt? Sorry?

Now, wait, just one second. That manual was copied from a 'compensated machine'. Are you saying that is an error within the s16 Slotto manual? Only a compensated machine could start with the idea it was paying 50% and actually have any bearing on the gameplay. If a random machine starts on 50%, who gives a duck? It's rrrrrandom. So if Slotto does start at '50%' then it surely is compensated, if it doesn't then the manual is just innacurate as it has been copied. Then a blatant accusation that PMK/CSCH is/are talking shite. Deja vu again.


Is someone trying to cover up something here? Is someone grinding axes for the hell of it? What is going on? I Jackpot George McBloopy Streaky Blooper Nudgeman McStreaky wish to know THE HARD FACTS. THE HARD FACTS. CAN YOU GUYS SORT IT OUT SO I KNOW WHEN TO FORCE ALL OUT FOR JACKPOT ON SLOTTO? Cheers.

[mr lugsy]

try and turn this to faeces! fortune 500 ,one of the oldest supposedly "random" games with a price of play selectable between 25p upto 10 pounds , played on stakes above a pound the wins were the same yet the percentage was ramped up to 98 percent for maximum stake ,no compensater? about as true to random as the day of the week. also look at banco , a rebuild on a monopoly base which was similar to f 500 with the added bonus of a top feature ,it went up "randomly" on a losing spin , but always when a triple block of nothing landed on reel one,the percentage also ramped right up the more you staked with the wins remaining the same. rsvp lol

[JG]

To keep this fair, I have to speak out for the opposition.

My random game and it is a TRULY RANDOM game, (honest!) works like this.


1)You can stake £100 spin and get a 90% payout.

2)Or you can stake £200 spin and get a 95% payout.


When you insert the stake it selects a random positive integer from 1-10 inclusive.

The first game will payout like so, based on the number selected. It will display the following results, be it reels on a fruit machine, a horse in a race, a rolling die...whatever.....

i) LOSE
ii) LOSE
iii) LOSE
iv) LOSE
v) £400 WIN
vi) LOSE
vii) LOSE
viii) LOSE
ix) LOSE
x) £500 win

So for £1000 staked, expect to see an average of £900 back.

The second game will payout like so.

i) LOSE
ii) LOSE
iii) £400 win
iv) LOSE
v) LOSE
vi) LOSE
vii) £500 win
viii) £500 win
ix) LOSE
x) £500 win

So for every £2000 staked, expect an average of £1900 return.


Both games are random and both have differing target percentages. Switch up to £200/spin and I'll up your percentage payback on my random game. Please, please NOTHING fishy about that. It can be done and does not prove they are rigged.


Think it through Lugsy and you'll see what I'm getting at, however the beef here is that the machines are just not random within the sense of the law that they operate under.



Each spin should be an individual seperate entity from any other spin. Each line should be seperate to any other 'line'. s16 was basically bingo. B3 is slightly different, so CAN be compensated.

If a machine claims to be 100% random, I expect an EQUAL CHANCE OF WINNING A JACKPOT ON EVERY SPIN. Is this the case with the current random B3s and old s16s? Some of the regulars here think not, and I for one am inclined to side with them.

[RUDE]

Its PMK my friend!!

PGS's ALWAYS reset to the same starting %age(If you have the 'proper' astra manual like we did it even states this) Once you go £50 - £150 in, watch them try and catch up.

If a big win comes in, plug it before it banks, another big win is there almost immediately, repeat, the same win or indeed a bigger one returns within a few spins again and again until you allow win to be banked. Now that is NOT random its a machine trying to level out repeatedly from the same reset position.

This happened continuously every time we did it(about 50), usually spinning in uncharacteristic wins between £200- £400 which as people know are VERY unusual for this machine.

Yes, because the person that wrote the manual copied it from a compensated machine. You are talking absolute shite.

Please explain sir how a S16 manual would be copied from a 'compensated' machine.

I bought the Slotto about 6 months before 'compensated' (B3) machines started turning up so short of a psychic manual-writer I'm not sure how this would happen.

I do understand JG's explaination and was always under the impression that this was how S16's worked. However, if a machine can modify the odds to help it meet percentage (which mine and PMK's experimentation goes a long way toward proving) then it's 'controlled randomness' (which can never be called truely random.

[mr lugsy]

ok mans im with you on that ,so the rng switches between different sets of numbers depending on your stake,this sounds really random to me,not.

[JG]

The rng will still select random numbers, it's just certain numbers will win more on a higher percentage. It's still truly random though. This is how it should be in theory, in practice, maybe another kettle of fish.


Just because it shows a higher target % when the stake is changed does not imply 'controlled randomness', however, it would seem they do operate under controlled random principles based on borg/pmk/Cashnio/Csch's testimonies.




TESTI MONEY. A new name for a new game.


Can someone else take over the baton of explaining why a game can have a target percentage which can change depending on odds and still be truly random? I'm off to bed soon and can't keep explaining this over and over again.

[ob]

The rng will still select random numbers, it's just certain numbers will win more on a higher percentage. It's still truly random though. This is how it should be in theory, in practice, maybe another kettle of fish.


Just because it shows a higher target % when the stake is changed does not imply 'controlled randomness', however, it would seem they do operate under controlled random principles based on borg/pmk/Cashnio/Csch's testimonies.




TESTI MONEY. A new name for a new game.


Can someone else take over the baton of explaining why a game can have a target percentage which can change depending on odds and still be truly random? I'm off to bed soon and can't keep explaining this over and over again.

Without taking over the batton as such, I can certainly agree wiith what you are saying JG

[TheMission]

[Please explain sir how a S16 manual would be copied from a 'compensated' machine.

I bought the Slotto about 6 months before 'compensated' (B3) machines started turning up so short of a psychic manual-writer I'm not sure how this would happen.

I do understand JG's explaination and was always under the impression that this was how S16's worked. However, if a machine can modify the odds to help it meet percentage (which mine and PMK's experimentation goes a long way toward proving) then it's 'controlled randomness' (which can never be called truely random.

Ok I will. The reference to percentage control within the original Slotto manual came under the section regarding doing a full RAM clear. It's called copy and paste.

I've done my block in time and time again here trying to explain random machines. It seems years of the existence of casinos isn't enough for some. I'll say it again: try listening to someone who's actually done the maths and coded such machines, rather than listening to urban legend. Believe me it's a damn sight more reliable.

[TheMission]

If a machine claims to be 100% random, I expect an EQUAL CHANCE OF WINNING A JACKPOT ON EVERY SPIN. Is this the case with the current random B3s and old s16s? Some of the regulars here think not, and I for one am inclined to side with them.

And there's the difference JG: they 'think' but do not know. Or to quote Mitchell & Webb, we know nothing about the subject but "we reckon" something. Therefore it must be true.

[TheMission]

I've just had a better idea. If anyone wants to PM me, I'll send you the stats for a S16 I did two years ago. Works on the same basis as Slotto i.e. picks each reel symbol individually, as opposed to picking a prize and then 'working backwards' so to speak. No compensation methods, no bollocks.

[cashino]

To keep this fair, I have to speak out for the opposition.

My random game and it is a TRULY RANDOM game, (honest!) works like this.


1)You can stake £100 spin and get a 90% payout.

2)Or you can stake £200 spin and get a 95% payout.


When you insert the stake it selects a random positive integer from 1-10 inclusive.

The first game will payout like so, based on the number selected. It will display the following results, be it reels on a fruit machine, a horse in a race, a rolling die...whatever.....

i) LOSE
ii) LOSE
iii) LOSE
iv) LOSE
v) £400 WIN
vi) LOSE
vii) LOSE
viii) LOSE
ix) LOSE
x) £500 win

So for £1000 staked, expect to see an average of £900 back.

The second game will payout like so.

i) LOSE
ii) LOSE
iii) £400 win
iv) LOSE
v) LOSE
vi) LOSE
vii) £500 win
viii) £500 win
ix) LOSE
x) £500 win

So for every £2000 staked, expect an average of £1900 return.


Both games are random and both have differing target percentages. Switch up to £200/spin and I'll up your percentage payback on my random game. Please, please NOTHING fishy about that. It can be done and does not prove they are rigged.


Think it through Lugsy and you'll see what I'm getting at, however the beef here is that the machines are just not random within the sense of the law that they operate under.



Each spin should be an individual seperate entity from any other spin. Each line should be seperate to any other 'line'. s16 was basically bingo. B3 is slightly different, so CAN be compensated.

If a machine claims to be 100% random, I expect an EQUAL CHANCE OF WINNING A JACKPOT ON EVERY SPIN. Is this the case with the current random B3s and old s16s? Some of the regulars here think not, and I for one am inclined to side with them.

Unfortunately you fall into the black quarky inescapable Hawkins-hawked and thus real hole of the attempted simplified example.
viz-a-viz in both your examples you KNEW the last spin was going to be a win! Therefore that last spin did NOT have a random testicle-turkey-twizzling-tautologically-tantalizing random outcome. It was certain not random. Not. Never.
You have in fact, unwittingly, backed up us ranscepts, (not transcepts) up.
You have shown how some spins will have to have a pre-defined outcome to meet compensation for percentage. There are only a certain number of permutations of wins in a set number of plays in order to fit the reqirements of a slotto owners profit margin and CHRONOLOGICAL profit he needs to maintain turnover.
Like I said before, show me the arcade owner who has been told by the salesman "This machine is random and could thus pay 100 jackpots in one weekend costing you up to 50k in payouts....."
GREAT selling point!
More like it has 'blocks of wins' (funnily enough almost like PMK's example here) that it will go through in random order (many permutations will be INSIDE these blocks but as in PMK's example here ALL producing the same percentage payout and total payout!)
So yes, the ladder is selected randomly, but the outcome of the ladder most certainly isn't random as PMK shows.
Machines with 500 jackpots that WERE truly random would be too dangerous for player and arcade.