"Just been browsing what i'd started, and oh dear, you were way out here mate. I don't care about how words are spelt, but telling someone to read up on statistics and probability when writing what you did was nothing short of comical. The odds on your number not coming in during 100 spins is 37/1... i.e. exactly the same chance of it not coming in on any single spin of the wheel. Each spin of the wheel is an INDEPENDENT event, i.e. there can be no summation of odds. And the 2.7% part? That would imply that the bookmaker only makes 2.7% on these. 2.7% might be the statistical figure in Casino roulette, but as people have posted before, the bookmaker is 2-300% up every single day.
In future, I suggest that your use of the word uneducated is given some consideration before posting non-sensical, and inaccurate postings like the one you made."
Apart from getting the odds wrong for 17 reds in a row, I stand beside everything else I said.
Do you think Casinos just receieve 2.7% per night on Roulette? Casinos can easily be up 200-300% a day on Roulette, same as bookies. This is helped by the addictive nature of gambling, which will ensure many do not leave until all the money they have with them is gone.
But I'm interested to know how you think these Roulette machines work. Are you suggesting that it is set to a percentage and not random at all?
FOBT - why its' not like _casino roulette
-
stuart4010
- Senior Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:48 pm
I may be wrong in what i'm saying here, but it's just my thoughts on things without knowing too much of the specifics (if I knew them, i'd be making £0000's a day from the bookmakers).
Firstly, the 2.7% figure is "edge", or the minimum theoretical amount that a casino will make on it's roulette table every night. That would be only black and red being bet on, with the casino winning on 0. This of course is unrealistic, as no-one plays roulette to bet red and black every time, so yes, they will indeed make a good profit every night.
As for our friend the FOBT, I honestly can't say whether or not they're set to a percentage or not. If they were, is there no legal requirement to tell the player that this is so? If they are not, then anyone with basic programming skills could write a piece of code preventing a number generated by the program from being recognised, who is to say that something like that couldn't be incorporated into some kind of floating percentage algorithm??
I tend to dismiss the 'there's no such thing as a random number' arguement, if enough money is spent on the RNG created, it will be effective. Banks use highly sophisticated RNG for credit card numbers, which are virtually impossible to detect (I say virtually, because i'm sure I read in article recently that a group of university boffins managed to crack a system somewhere, with the help of a supercomputer and a few houndred hours processing time).
You have to remember that these machines are in the bookmakers; a place full of people who are willing to take a risk with their money in order to pursue a profit, a place where you'll find an increased number of people willing to take a chance on something, that might (or might not) happen.
I'll finish by drawing a parallel between them and the machines in the bookmakers. If someone has had 3 IM's for £7 in, you wouldn't follow them onto the machine to force it. Likewise, I wouldn't play a FOBT knowing that someone had turned £20 into £300 over a short space of time. But the reverse is also true, i'd play both machine and FOBT if i'd seen a lot go in, but not much come back out. It has been shown that there are some gambles on a machine in which the player has no chance of winning, I see no reason why this can't also be true for an FOBT. People may see certain reel combinations that indicate a win is near (like the GUAB 7 symbol falling in the winline repeatedly on Give Us A Break Club when it's going to pay Jackpot), and with the number of 7,29,28 posts and the like that you read about, this may also be true of the FOBT.
My tip? Don't play them at all. If you assume that it is 100% accurate, and just like playing in a casino, then there will always be the 2.7% edge for the bookmaker, and that is a statistic that no-one, over time can overcome.
Firstly, the 2.7% figure is "edge", or the minimum theoretical amount that a casino will make on it's roulette table every night. That would be only black and red being bet on, with the casino winning on 0. This of course is unrealistic, as no-one plays roulette to bet red and black every time, so yes, they will indeed make a good profit every night.
As for our friend the FOBT, I honestly can't say whether or not they're set to a percentage or not. If they were, is there no legal requirement to tell the player that this is so? If they are not, then anyone with basic programming skills could write a piece of code preventing a number generated by the program from being recognised, who is to say that something like that couldn't be incorporated into some kind of floating percentage algorithm??
I tend to dismiss the 'there's no such thing as a random number' arguement, if enough money is spent on the RNG created, it will be effective. Banks use highly sophisticated RNG for credit card numbers, which are virtually impossible to detect (I say virtually, because i'm sure I read in article recently that a group of university boffins managed to crack a system somewhere, with the help of a supercomputer and a few houndred hours processing time).
You have to remember that these machines are in the bookmakers; a place full of people who are willing to take a risk with their money in order to pursue a profit, a place where you'll find an increased number of people willing to take a chance on something, that might (or might not) happen.
I'll finish by drawing a parallel between them and the machines in the bookmakers. If someone has had 3 IM's for £7 in, you wouldn't follow them onto the machine to force it. Likewise, I wouldn't play a FOBT knowing that someone had turned £20 into £300 over a short space of time. But the reverse is also true, i'd play both machine and FOBT if i'd seen a lot go in, but not much come back out. It has been shown that there are some gambles on a machine in which the player has no chance of winning, I see no reason why this can't also be true for an FOBT. People may see certain reel combinations that indicate a win is near (like the GUAB 7 symbol falling in the winline repeatedly on Give Us A Break Club when it's going to pay Jackpot), and with the number of 7,29,28 posts and the like that you read about, this may also be true of the FOBT.
My tip? Don't play them at all. If you assume that it is 100% accurate, and just like playing in a casino, then there will always be the 2.7% edge for the bookmaker, and that is a statistic that no-one, over time can overcome.
cardinal richelieu wrote:Just been browsing what i'd started, and oh dear, you were way out here mate. I don't care about how words are spelt, but telling someone to read up on statistics and probability when writing what you did was nothing short of comical. Each spin of the wheel is an INDEPENDENT event, i.e. there can be no summation of odds. And the 2.7% part? That would imply that the bookmaker only makes 2.7% on these. 2.7% might be the statistical figure in Casino roulette, but as people have posted before, the bookmaker is 2-300% up every single day.
In future, I suggest that your use of the word uneducated is given some consideration before posting non-sensical, and inaccurate postings like the one you made.
Apart from getting the odds wrong for 17 reds in a row, I stand beside everything else I said.
Do you think Casinos just receieve 2.7% per night on Roulette? Casinos can easily be up 200-300% a day on Roulette, same as bookies. This is helped by the addictive nature of gambling, which will ensure many do not leave until all the money they have with them is gone.
But I'm interested to know how you think these Roulette machines work. Are you suggesting that it is set to a percentage and not random at all?
2.7% of turnover is the profit.
The ODDS of a number coming in are 36/1 not 37/1
The odds of a mumber not coming in a hundred consecutive spins is 36/37 to the power of 100.
If you can not "summate" odds of independent events are you telling me that if you tossed a 10p piece and a 5p piece then the odds of two tails coming up can not be calculated ?
If you can prove that the odds of these independent events do not TEND to 3/1 then I will retract any claims.
Operating Profit Margin =
Earnings Before Interest and Taxes/Sales
How can you make more that 100% of sales ?
-
Guest
I think the Cardinal was quoting someone else rather than saying that crap himself.harry2 wrote:
The ODDS of a number coming in are 36/1 not 37/1
The odds of a mumber not coming in a hundred consecutive spins is 36/37 to the power of 100.
If you can not "summate" odds of independent events are you telling me that if you tossed a 10p piece and a 5p piece then the odds of two tails coming up can not be calculated ?
If you can prove that the odds of these independent events do not TEND to 3/1 then I will retract any claims.
Operating Profit Margin =
Earnings Before Interest and Taxes/Sales
How can you make more that 100% of sales ?
You're right of course, and people like the original poster of that shite - stuart something - are the reason casinos /FOBTs etc are a licence to print money.
-
stuart4010
- Senior Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:48 pm
"You're right of course, and people like the original poster of that shite - stuart something - are the reason casinos /FOBTs etc are a licence to print money."
Quote the infantile who said this... i'm not the reason that FOBT's are a license to print money, everyone has the choice to play or not to play. I merely posted an opinion, if you don't like it, you're entitled to your own opinion.
I'll concede the 36/1 point, 37/1 is of course referring to double-zero tables.
Re: the 10p and 5 p question... if you are tossing a 10p and a 5p at the SAME TIME, then yes, of course there can be a summation of odds. What i'm saying is that for you to be able to perform any kind of 18/37^20 calculations for 20 red numbers in a row, then there would have to be 20 balls on the roulette wheel, and every single one would have to land in a red number. I reiterate, the spin of a roulette wheel is an independent event, it does not matter what numbers have come before, they do not influence the next number. It is for that reason that the 20 red numbers odds of 20,000:1 are incorrect. it's 18/37 every time. You can perform the calculations, of course, but the values generated are of no use.
The whole idea of discussing this specifically is to disuade people that if there has been say 18 red numbers in a row, then the next one must be black. It doesn't matter what came before it, it's still only 18/37 red.
Quote the infantile who said this... i'm not the reason that FOBT's are a license to print money, everyone has the choice to play or not to play. I merely posted an opinion, if you don't like it, you're entitled to your own opinion.
I'll concede the 36/1 point, 37/1 is of course referring to double-zero tables.
Re: the 10p and 5 p question... if you are tossing a 10p and a 5p at the SAME TIME, then yes, of course there can be a summation of odds. What i'm saying is that for you to be able to perform any kind of 18/37^20 calculations for 20 red numbers in a row, then there would have to be 20 balls on the roulette wheel, and every single one would have to land in a red number. I reiterate, the spin of a roulette wheel is an independent event, it does not matter what numbers have come before, they do not influence the next number. It is for that reason that the 20 red numbers odds of 20,000:1 are incorrect. it's 18/37 every time. You can perform the calculations, of course, but the values generated are of no use.
The whole idea of discussing this specifically is to disuade people that if there has been say 18 red numbers in a row, then the next one must be black. It doesn't matter what came before it, it's still only 18/37 red.
-
Guest
No-one is talking about what has happened before. We are talking about what will happen next.stuart4010 wrote:Re: the 10p and 5 p question... if you are tossing a 10p and a 5p at the SAME TIME, then yes, of course there can be a summation of odds. What i'm saying is that for you to be able to perform any kind of 18/37^20 calculations for 20 red numbers in a row, then there would have to be 20 balls on the roulette wheel, and every single one would have to land in a red number. I reiterate, the spin of a roulette wheel is an independent event, it does not matter what numbers have come before, they do not influence the next number. It is for that reason that the 20 red numbers odds of 20,000:1 are incorrect. it's 18/37 every time. You can perform the calculations, of course, but the values generated are of no use.
The whole idea of discussing this specifically is to disuade people that if there has been say 18 red numbers in a row, then the next one must be black. It doesn't matter what came before it, it's still only 18/37 red.
And the odds of it being red the next 20 times are (18/37)^20.
The events are not required to happen simultaneously, merely to be independent (which we assume is the case).
It really is that simple. Sorry.
-
Cardinal Sin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
We're getting tied up in knots here, but Stuart is right...
Each event is unrelated to the previous events (unless of course they're not fixed
)...so therefore, the probability of the next spin is 18/37 regardless of whether the previous spin was black, red, green, or yellow and blue stripes with pink polka dots.
However, one poster was referring to seeing 17 reds in a row, and the odds of that occurring are (18/37) to the power 17 = 1 in 208832 chance.. which is by sheer coincidence, the exact odds of winning a £500 jackpot out of a Slotto machine.
But I think the argument here is not about mathematical niceties, but rather whether FOBT machines are rigged / set to a percentage or not.
And I would say they're not.
Each event is unrelated to the previous events (unless of course they're not fixed
)...so therefore, the probability of the next spin is 18/37 regardless of whether the previous spin was black, red, green, or yellow and blue stripes with pink polka dots.However, one poster was referring to seeing 17 reds in a row, and the odds of that occurring are (18/37) to the power 17 = 1 in 208832 chance.. which is by sheer coincidence, the exact odds of winning a £500 jackpot out of a Slotto machine.
But I think the argument here is not about mathematical niceties, but rather whether FOBT machines are rigged / set to a percentage or not.
And I would say they're not.
-
Guest
I'm not sure what you think he is right about.cardinal richelieu wrote:We're getting tied up in knots here, but Stuart is right...
This statement is horribly incorrect - both regarding the odds of the number not coming in during 100 spins, and regarding the profit which a casino can make. (300% of what exactly?).staurt wrote:The odds on your number not coming in during 100 spins is 37/1... i.e. exactly the same chance of it not coming in on any single spin of the wheel. Each spin of the wheel is an INDEPENDENT event, i.e. there can be no summation of odds. And the 2.7% part? That would imply that the bookmaker only makes 2.7% on these. 2.7% might be the statistical figure in Casino roulette, but as people have posted before, the bookmaker is 2-300% up every single day. "
Yes it is but that's not what he said or continues to say. He is trying to describe Gambler's Fallacy, but he doesn't understand it properly.cardinal richelieu wrote: Each event is unrelated to the previous events (unless of course they're not fixed
I would say they are but only because roulette is rigged to a set percentage, not because they are trying to force a %age in the way they do with SWPs and AWPs. It would be very cowardly, negative programming if they aren't willing to take a risk with a roulette machine IMO.cardinal richelieu wrote: But I think the argument here is not about mathematical niceties, but rather whether FOBT machines are rigged / set to a percentage or not.
And I would say they're not.
-
stuart4010
- Senior Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:48 pm
Ok, i'll try this again. The downfall of the message board is typing with 'the rage' on, not thinking about it.
You're right, 37/1 (or 36/1) is not the chances of your number not coming in during 100 spins. But as i'm sure you'll understand, the odds calculated are irrelevant, it doesn't prove anything, the casino won't offer the odds in the casino, it doesn't affect the next number.
2-300% of what? My intention was to say that the FOBT will take in around 2-3 times what it pays out... i.e £4000 taken in during one particualr day, £1000 paid out.
The original post was indeed to question whether or not the program is flawed/ is it random etc. My final answer to this would be it genuinely doesn't matter, the nature of roulette is such that the bookmaker over the long run cannot lose on this particular game, unless a bug/flaw in the programming was found.
You're right, 37/1 (or 36/1) is not the chances of your number not coming in during 100 spins. But as i'm sure you'll understand, the odds calculated are irrelevant, it doesn't prove anything, the casino won't offer the odds in the casino, it doesn't affect the next number.
2-300% of what? My intention was to say that the FOBT will take in around 2-3 times what it pays out... i.e £4000 taken in during one particualr day, £1000 paid out.
The original post was indeed to question whether or not the program is flawed/ is it random etc. My final answer to this would be it genuinely doesn't matter, the nature of roulette is such that the bookmaker over the long run cannot lose on this particular game, unless a bug/flaw in the programming was found.
-
Guest
The odds calculated are far from irrelevant. They prove that the probability of getting 10 reds in a row is (18/37)^10.stuart4010 wrote:Ok, i'll try this again. The downfall of the message board is typing with 'the rage' on, not thinking about it.
You're right, 37/1 (or 36/1) is not the chances of your number not coming in during 100 spins. But as i'm sure you'll understand, the odds calculated are irrelevant, it doesn't prove anything, the Casino won't offer the odds in the Casino, it doesn't affect the next number.
The Casino may not offer the odds specifically, but given that the events don't happen simultaneously you could, if you wanted, have an accumulator on getting 10 reds in a row, at those odds minus the edge. i.e. at (18/36)^10 or 1024/1.
No, for every £100 taken the casino will "pay out" £97.30.stuart4010 wrote: 2-300% of what? My intention was to say that the FOBT will take in around 2-3 times what it pays out... i.e £4000 taken in during one particualr day, £1000 paid out.
Agreed (more or less).stuart4010 wrote:The original post was indeed to question whether or not the program is flawed/ is it random etc. My final answer to this would be it genuinely doesn't matter, the nature of roulette is such that the bookmaker over the long run cannot lose on this particular game, unless a bug/flaw in the programming was found.
-
Cardinal Sin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
-
stuart4010
- Senior Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:48 pm
I don;t wanna flame this argument up anymore but I was under the impression that the terminal itself IS actually set to a percentage.
The RNG does exactly what it is supposed to i.e fire a random number every 10 seconds or so. However, the terminal then decides whether or not to accept this number or reject it in favour of another number which would coincide with it's required payout. (Remember the old "Busy" which used to come up on the screen?)
Its also funny the amount of times when people have put perhaps £200-£300 in and then all of a sudden their "luck" changes and the wins come in.(This has happened to me a lot in the past)
Actually, They are all connected to the pc behind the desk anyway, it wouldn;t surprise me if it is the PC which holds the management software which governs the terminals payout and as such the terminal is "dumb" so to speak. This would circumvent the laws associated with FOBT's as the pc is out of that jurisdiction.
I stopped playing these a year or so ago anyway.Had my fair share of wins and losses, My betting structure was relatively sound and the next time i visit a casino I may put it into practise in a "live" environment.
0 was always the magic number!
The RNG does exactly what it is supposed to i.e fire a random number every 10 seconds or so. However, the terminal then decides whether or not to accept this number or reject it in favour of another number which would coincide with it's required payout. (Remember the old "Busy" which used to come up on the screen?)
Its also funny the amount of times when people have put perhaps £200-£300 in and then all of a sudden their "luck" changes and the wins come in.(This has happened to me a lot in the past)
Actually, They are all connected to the pc behind the desk anyway, it wouldn;t surprise me if it is the PC which holds the management software which governs the terminals payout and as such the terminal is "dumb" so to speak. This would circumvent the laws associated with FOBT's as the pc is out of that jurisdiction.
I stopped playing these a year or so ago anyway.Had my fair share of wins and losses, My betting structure was relatively sound and the next time i visit a casino I may put it into practise in a "live" environment.
0 was always the magic number!
-
Cardinal Sin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Didn't they change them a while back to stop people playing too quickly by putting the busy message in? They also changed the maximum prize from tens of thousands of pounds down to £500... not sure if that was legislation or just cos they felt like it, though it must have put a major dent in their profits.
I would still maintain that thse machines are less dangerous / addictive than S16 machines. I would guess most people would regard roulette to be random, same as a casino. Although you will get some addicts chasing their losses, most people would be sensible enough to realise that you can't force roulette (either casino or FOBT) like you can an AWP.
However, with these "random s16" machines, that look and sound like a fruit machine, the temptation to keep on playing to reach that elusive jackpot because "it has to come some time", therefore they will keep playing until they either win the jackpot, or they do not have enough money to continue.
Although S16 might be the death knell for AWPs, I am not sorry. I rarely play machines now, simply because they are shit. However, when I do play them, I usually lose more than I win.. I will still try and force a barcrest or get a skill feature off cash on the lash / some red effort ... however, I feel no temptation to ever play a s16 machine (except with perhaps a couple of pounds) because there is no skill involved, either when playing or even when deciding when to play. Personally, I'll be quite happy the day I walk into an arcade and see wall-to-wall S16 machines. ... the arse is going to fall out the s16 machine industry at some point (surely the people who are addicted to them will have lost most of their money by now?) .. which will only serve the greedy bastards right.
I would still maintain that thse machines are less dangerous / addictive than S16 machines. I would guess most people would regard roulette to be random, same as a casino. Although you will get some addicts chasing their losses, most people would be sensible enough to realise that you can't force roulette (either casino or FOBT) like you can an AWP.
However, with these "random s16" machines, that look and sound like a fruit machine, the temptation to keep on playing to reach that elusive jackpot because "it has to come some time", therefore they will keep playing until they either win the jackpot, or they do not have enough money to continue.
Although S16 might be the death knell for AWPs, I am not sorry. I rarely play machines now, simply because they are shit. However, when I do play them, I usually lose more than I win.. I will still try and force a barcrest or get a skill feature off cash on the lash / some red effort ... however, I feel no temptation to ever play a s16 machine (except with perhaps a couple of pounds) because there is no skill involved, either when playing or even when deciding when to play. Personally, I'll be quite happy the day I walk into an arcade and see wall-to-wall S16 machines. ... the arse is going to fall out the s16 machine industry at some point (surely the people who are addicted to them will have lost most of their money by now?) .. which will only serve the greedy bastards right.