FOBT - why its' not like _casino roulette

Roulette, Poker, Blackjack. Discuss your methods / experiences here.
Locked
Cardinal Sin
Senior Member
Posts: 4166
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm

Post by Cardinal Sin »

Well why not bet ob £200 that it will be black then?

:)
mjd
Senior Member
Posts: 3076
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:17 am

Post by mjd »

systems....... They will get consistant results in practice, but take it to the machine and the Results go downhill... Happens to all systems...........
boom
User avatar
JG
Senior Member
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: England

Post by JG »

It was me that tried the two terminals at sime time. I know you have to be accurate with your presses. It was an Itbox FOBT terminal in a Done Bookmakers. I know I was being accurate enough because on low £1 stakes red/black, the number was nearly always the same. At £20 stake red/black, the number was different on each terminal so that nearly all the time I'd lose on both terminals! Nice!

Remember my fifty six billion quid down in ten seconds posting?

I've never replicated the experiment on other terminals.

It was a big enough shock to make me wonder how fair the machines are in bookmakers. They may well draw a random number sequence from a remote server, but what the software does with this is anybody's guess. What's that? It uses it to simulate random number generation? Nah - don't be soft.

I'm with Mjd on this one. If the machine doesn't want to pay to its 92% or whatever it's at, whack a few 1'ers on red and watch in amazement as a string of zeros and blacks pop out.

Remember it's the server random number sequence that is checked for 'authenticity', not the software itself. Games are checked for 'performance'. The virtual racing book pays out just over 80%. Roulette is by far the most popular game and most terminals are geared to pay out at 92%/94% on the roulette.

It's an Industry secret. So watch as the conspiracy theorist posts start flying. Unfortunately it's the truth. DONE bookmakers do not use Itbox terminals anymore. They are supplied by Leisure Link, same as Hills. So they have similar games. I have not repeated the experiment on the new terminals. I guess the result would be similar. There's too much smoke flying around about the riggedness of these games. It's not a major drop in true %, but do please bare in mind that if you want genuine fair luck, go to the casino!


All gamblers are naturally paranoid and delusional, so a lot of our moaning is easy to pass off as bitter conspiracies. This is a point worth taking heed of though .... MJD I'm with you.....good one! Good one!
JakeyC
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by JakeyC »

Just had to add my thoughts to this thread. I've just wasted ages reading it, so I will have my say, dammit!

To those who claim "it's random, but I can predict/sense patterns":
Bollox. One or the other, not both. If it's the latter, why are you here and not in the Caribbean spending your winnings?

To those who claim it's not as random as the casino:
You probably have a point, but not as you might think. The number generator used for FOBTs is almost certainly a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG), which means that to all intents and purposes it appears random and indeed will pass a barrage of statistical tests. However, the sequence is deterministic - that is, if you know the starting number and the seed, you can predict the sequence of numbers that will be generated. Given that no-one using nor hosting the FOBT can know this, it's not possible to predict. True random number generators (TRNG) exist - ERNIE, the Premium Bonds generator, for example. These use natural phenomena such as particle vibration and white noise to generate numbers.

To those of you who still believe it's 'fixed':
Why would it be?

The operators will be audited by external firms like PWC, but I expect you think they're all corrupt.

If the operators introduced even the slightest hint of predictability to the game, BANG! There goes their margin. This is the same reason that it's in the casinos' best interests to ensure their roulette wheels are 100% fair. If they were even slightly biased, the punters could use this to their advantage.

The other arguments that I read for the FOTB being fixed is that it deliberately loses big bets or wide spreads. If this were true, it would also deliberately win big bets, else the % would be even lower than advertised and that's hardly subtle, even with the allegedly corrupt auditors/govt. on their side!

I think the issue has been irreparably clouded by urban myth and gamblers' tales of woe. At the end of the day, if you say you 'know' they're fixed, then be happy, you're ahead: you either know when to cut your losses or you know when to play. Spare a thought for us mere mortals who lack your insight. As this is evidently not the case (else you wouldn't be here whining) we can say that we have no reason to suspect anything but a random game.
User avatar
JG
Senior Member
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: England

Post by JG »

Very clear, a good posting.

You say PWC and the like audit these games. What is it exactly that they audit?

Secondly when people are suggesting the roulette is biased, they don't mean always to one particular number like a casino wheel not on an even keel. They mean they bet big on red, it tends to black. They bet big on black it tends to red - more so than the house advantage would suggest.

My hypothesis is that these games utilse a string of randomly generated numbers. I know they are not pure, pure, pure random Brownian numbers but only shitty long seed bloop dervied quack factor numbers. That is a mooooot point though as they're near as random as God damnit.

My hypothesis and it is only a hypothesis, is that the software only uses the random numbers as a guide, not an absolute. The game is skewed to play more like a long cycle AWP.

I'm totally utterly flippin' barmy ain't I? These games must be random surely? Something just doesn't ring true here though. Come on paranoid gamblers, let's here the conspiracy stories. I love conspiracy stories.

I'm now going to type ON LINE POKER IS NOT RIGGED as when the spyware installed by my current poker room picks up those words and realises I am generating custom for the on line poker world, it'll let me draw out a couple of times and maybe deal me pocket aces every 1 in 80 times for the next month.

Got to be loving these conspiracy theories. However I still do reckon some FOBT are not quite the 100% genuine article they claim to be. I'm serious about this and possibly completely wrong, but there you go.
JakeyC
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by JakeyC »

Unless of course they're using Windows to generate the numbers, in which case you conspiracy theorists might have a point..!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13 ... en_flawed/
mjd
Senior Member
Posts: 3076
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:17 am

Post by mjd »

Had £15 in today, 3 spins with about half of the numbers covered... Miss, Miss and Miss...


Never the other way round is it now!

thats because they are a theiving gits! Should of just stuck £15 on Red and watch a black land in..
These things only let you win when they wnat you to win, when it doesn't (which is more than the majority of the time) you lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose
boom
JakeyC
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by JakeyC »

That's the sort of post I'm talking about.

You had half the numbers covered = ~0.5 chance of winning (or losing as you'd look at it). Chances of that happening 3 times in a row are 0.125 or one time in eight.

My God! Seal the area off, this is a crime scene. I agree mate, there's no way an event as rare as that could possibly have occurred by chance. I mean it's impossible, isn't it? You're more likely to win the £500 jackpot off your first spin on RR than that. One in eight? That's like the chances of tossing three heads in a row and I bet you can't remember the last time you saw that happen? Thought not - that proves how rare this is.

I'd write to your MP immediately.
itsme
Senior Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 7:50 am
Location: sunny yorkshire

Post by itsme »

Nice write up Jakeyc.

:)
life is like a big shit sandwich - every day we take a bigger bite
mjd
Senior Member
Posts: 3076
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:17 am

Post by mjd »

Im not saying its impossible for that to happen..

Its just that 'ONE IN EIGHT' Seems to happen a damn sight more often than 'ONE IN EIGHT'

More like SIX/SEVEN in EIGHT
boom
Cardinal Sin
Senior Member
Posts: 4166
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm

Post by Cardinal Sin »

How do you work out the odds of a 1 in 8 chance happening 6/7 times out of 8?
User avatar
JG
Senior Member
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: England

Post by JG »

Well that really depends upon which Universe you are talking about.

Anyway

THE END OF THE DEBATE - HERE IT IS FOLKS. ARE YOU READY?

You're in a bookmakers....okely pokely.


Get £50 on red. This is a BIG BET. As the shop is full of smelly foreign people with £1.43 between eight of them, the machine will be running close to % (it pays better on lower value bets to entice people in, like the Ladbrokes slots). If you march on expecting to win £100s this won't be likely to happen as it'd push the machine's % too far over.

Now get up to that counter and get £100 on black. More than likely you'll be £50 richer. If not, zero has come in which is feckin' annoying. Repeat again. If red comes in, the machine is rolling. Get £10 on 1-5 numbers and plough in a 2'er, you should get a couple of hits at least within the 2'er, knowing when to stop is the hard part. £500 if you're cautious, go for 2K if you're not. They can streak big when they go - that's the way to do it.

It's funny when you get six £100 bets in a row that win money - the bookie can hardly complain that it is rigged can they?
Errr it's not so funny when you lose it down Annabelles on Blackjack. Permission to say cock.

Also, strangely, comma, the local bookmakers have all stopped accepting bets off me (or anyone else for that matter) in relation to fixed odds betting games. I'm surprised they don't want the extra business!

Now this was a load of pony, but it would be nice if it were true and to be honest it probably is, but I'm far too tight to waste £500 to see if it's really true. Let's just pretend it is.
User avatar
JG
Senior Member
Posts: 6462
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: England

Post by JG »

I posted this twice due to a slow connection. So I've deleted the main body of text via an edit. That still leaves us with space to kill so how about some muzak?

Doooooooo doooooooooooooooooooooo de diddly doooooooooooo doooooooooooodaaaaaaaaaaaaaa doooooooooo ded dooooooooooooooooooo ododododdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooboooooo bobbbly boooooooooo diddly dee Doooooooo doooooooooooooooooooooo de diddly doooooooooooo doooooooooooodaaaaaaaaaaaaaa doooooooooo ded dooooooooooooooooooo ododododdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooboooooo bobbbly boooooooooo diddly dee Doooooooo doooooooooooooooooooooo de diddly doooooooooooo doooooooooooodaaaaaaaaaaaaaa doooooooooo ded dooooooooooooooooooo ododododdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooboooooo bobbbly boooooooooo diddly dee Doooooooo doooooooooooooooooooooo de diddly doooooooooooo doooooooooooodaaaaaaaaaaaaaa doooooooooo ded dooooooooooooooooooo ododododdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooboooooo bobbbly boooooooooo diddly dee Doooooooo doooooooooooooooooooooo de diddly doooooooooooo doooooooooooodaaaaaaaaaaaaaa doooooooooo ded dooooooooooooooooooo ododododdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooboooooo bobbbly boooooooooo diddly dee Doooooooo doooooooooooooooooooooo de diddly doooooooooooo doooooooooooodaaaaaaaaaaaaaa doooooooooo ded dooooooooooooooooooo ododododdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooboooooo bobbbly boooooooooo diddly dee Doooooooo doooooooooooooooooooooo de diddly doooooooooooo doooooooooooodaaaaaaaaaaaaaa doooooooooo ded dooooooooooooooooooo BLOOOP! ododododdooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooboooooo bobbbly boooooooooo diddly dee
mjd
Senior Member
Posts: 3076
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:17 am

Post by mjd »

Cant be arsed going back to read but what he said was missing a 50/50 3 times in a row is 8-1 or something...

God id be rich if I could bet on the opposite of what im covering up..
boom
harry 3
Senior Member
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:23 pm

Post by harry 3 »

I was playing 18 numbers once for small stakes and I had 22 consecutive winning bets which is about 1 in (18/37 ^ 22) about 7.5 million shot.
Locked