Itbox cheats?

[tka]

I think it does.
We are told that each game has it's own bank and payout settings. I'm not convinced. :x

Today I played in a pub I'd never been to before. Started on Football Crazy and won £11 off my first £1.50 in 2 minutes. So I thought there would be easy money from a few games I'm good at. I collected the £11 and got a pint.

Played some other games I normally win on and didn't get anything from the next 20 GAMES!!!!

My conclusion is that the itbox was cheating me. If one game was that easy it seems that the pub was full of idiots but only idiots on one game (on the second screen.)? seems like a load of bollocks to me. I'm pretty angry.

[admin]

Although I very, very rarely play these - I would not be conviced that each of the games has its own % reading.

Being a programmer myself, it would seem to make much more sense that each game is linked to a main pot rather than its own.

[markmc]

I'm a casual-ish player, but it basically stands to reason that if every game had its own payouts, then it would be very hard to maintain the (low) percentage payout for the whole machine. I usually go in, stick a quid in and if I get lucky on Bullseye for 3 or 4 quid (only once hit bull on the prizeboard), then its generally not worth playing your profits on the rest of the games, as the most you will get is 1 or if you're lucky 2 quid back from any other game.

I know its been mentioned before, but its really frustrating when you're skillfull at games like bullseye, and answer every question correct, yet the aiming system insists on taking the piss. Still, you've got to understand that its a machine there to make profit, simple as.

Anyway, sorry for rambling on about bullseye with my first post, just got in from the pub (only had a couple!), so it was on my mind. Still always manage to break even with that game, though, even after a shockingly bad few games.

Mark

[tka]

Yeah Hi Mark.

So Revolution don't deny that the system is rigged???

As a 1st poster that is very defensive

[Weyland]

Although I very, very rarely play these - I would not be conviced that each of the games has its own % reading.

Being a programmer myself, it would seem to make much more sense that each game is linked to a main pot rather than its own.

Very true. However, each game may have more than one pot... after all, AWPs sometimes keep several, why would SWPs be any different?

Likewise SWPs most likely have different profiles, just like AWPs. For them to all share the same pot, they'd all have to agree to use the same profile. And you know that's never going to happen!

Besides, some games on some platforms award different jackpots - I've seen as high as £40 (I think it was Hangman 2), which again would throw a shared pot out of whack.

[tka]

I'm a casual-ish player, but it basically stands to reason that if every game had its own payouts, then it would be very hard to maintain the (low) percentage payout for the whole machine. I usually go in, stick a quid in and if I get lucky on Bullseye for 3 or 4 quid (only once hit bull on the prizeboard), then its generally not worth playing your profits on the rest of the games, as the most you will get is 1 or if you're lucky 2 quid back from any other game.

I know its been mentioned before, but its really frustrating when you're skillfull at games like bullseye, and answer every question correct, yet the aiming system insists on taking the piss. Still, you've got to understand that its a machine there to make profit, simple as.

Anyway, sorry for rambling on about bullseye with my first post, just got in from the pub (only had a couple!), so it was on my mind. Still always manage to break even with that game, though, even after a shockingly bad few games.

Mark

With respect that is a load of bollocks from an obviously industry person.
If itbox cheat gets directed here from google then good for the players. It is a rip off.

[WaterGate]

If itbox cheat gets directed here from google then good for the players. It is a rip off.

Note sure. What's a rip off?

[Terry Tibbs]

perhaps the only game that ever gets played in this pub is Football Crazy, which would explain you only winning on Football Crazy?

[Istenem]

admin is probably closest to the truth on this.
if you win over a tenner quickly on an itbox it is not normally worth playing on (regardless of which game(s)). as we all know, any game can shut up shop if it is told to. my guess is that each game plays to it's own %ages which can be automatically adjusted by the central brain of the itbox. hence if you win £11 all the games are told to suck for the next however many goes. i may be wrong though.

[Nil Satis]

With respect that is a load of bollocks from an obviously industry person. If itbox cheat gets directed here from google then good for the players. It is a rip off.

Without wishing to turn this into a slanging match, I'm not clear which parts of Mark's post are either (a) obviously from an industry insider - apart perhaps from his statement that the machines are there to make a profit, but isn't that obvious to all of us? or (b) contradictory to the spirit of your original post - Mark states his view that machines have a single central pot, which is what you believe, and expresses frustration that a game he is good at is obviously rigged in a supposedly skill-based component - the prize board on Bullseye (which personally I think is rigged too). In addition he encourages us by implication to take any early winnings in cash rather than playing the credits on other games, which is precisely the opposite of what the industry wants us all to do.

It is possible of course that you believe Mark to be the industry equivalent of one of those police officers who infiltrates football hooligans or terrorists or whatever by looking and behaving like them, and hence that all of his post is a 'double bluff' but isn't that just a little paranoid, unless you have good information to base it on - e.g. did he register as a user with an e-mail address @revolutiongames.com or something?

As for the original point, from playing so many different games I've always looked at it somewhat from the other angle, namely I make the basic assumption that most of the games on the ITBox are rubbish (in terms of the possibility of consistent payouts rather than enjoyable gameplay etc.) and all you can really do is concentrate on the few remaining decent games. Only a few games are set up to EVER offer decent payouts, so playing lots of different games with winnings from one of the good ones is only going to be a loser in the long term.

As QuizMaster said in a post too old for me to find quickly, one of the real skills here is learning what NOT to play. It is extremely annoying when a good, consistent game is either removed or wrecked (step forward Monopoly, Cluedo and particularly Millionaire) but all you can do is stop playing those games. Their uselessness in terms of paying out doesn't relate to winnings on any other game; they are just rubbish full stop. Punters pouring lots of money into either them or other games just isn't going to make them payers.

Personally I believe each game has control of its own payouts and that finding one or two you can win on consistently is the key as you are never going to find a modern multi-player game with more than a few decent games. I may be proved wrong but it is going to take confidential information from a REAL industry insider to prove the case either way.

[SWP]

Wow what an intense thread! Got to give you my 2p'th worth on a few points..

1. TKA not sure why you're p!ssed off - you took £11, is it because you wasted money buying a pint there
More seriously, is it because you really expect them to be SKILL with prizes? I think the WITH part is important, it's not FOR! I know you're clued up enought to appreciate these machine control the payout to their 30%* or whatever - how else can they do it other than clamming up at some point? Otherwise the SWP Gods (you know who you are ) would just empty them one after another (maybe you did in the past?)

2. I think Weyland has a point about the pots being per game - it would be tricky (not impossible!) for games to share percentage information without prior collaboration between (I assume*) very seperate (competing?) developers. I think* I'm correct in saying that each game is a 'virtual machine' in it's own right and is not aware of the others on a particular box. No offence to Admin, you may be a programmer but I imagine you have only worked as an individual. When software is scaled up to team/intra-company dimensions things can get very complicated as issues like software standards and even good old fashioned politics get in the way.

3. having said all that in 2, I can see it would be in the industry's interests to have us believe that each game has it's own pot because it makes the boxes so much more attractive:
the notion of multi-jackpots;
maybe RISK will be in a better mood than WWTBAM - I'll just go another quid;
etc..
Come on who really knows how the pot(s) control works?*

4. Nils: "In addition he encourages us by implication to take any early winnings in cash rather than playing the credits on other games, which is precisely the opposite of what the industry wants us all to do."
I don't agree - the industry will want maximum exposure for their products - the amount the machine pays out per 1000 cycles will be the same however it's played (ie 30%) - so they'd rather have 40 muppets put a quid in rather than 1 punter put 40.


*If some industry bod can step forward and put me/us out of our misery on these unknowns pls - I don't think having this as public knowledge would hurt anyone.

[Matt Vinyl]

Sligthly OT, but:

(which personally I think is rigged too).

I thought that was obvious to anyone playing the game? If it wasn't rigged, why wouldn't they used the same aiming method involved in the 'main' part of the game...?

I'd state that it is definitely rigged, like on AWP's when you land on a mystery square on a feature board, it looks like you're choosing the outcome, but it's already pre-determined. (Pseudo skill - regardless of when / where you press the button, the pre-determined choice will be displayed.) The game 'goes' "Right, I can only afford to offer a quid this go, so if the player aims for anything higher, I'll miss and go in the black. If the player aims near a pound, I might let him have that."

And yes, I believe that there is one central pot that all the games are tied into. Although I'm not sure how that is 'built into' the games designed for itBoxes...?

[SWP]

> If it wasn't rigged, why wouldn't they used the same aiming method involved in the 'main' part of the game...?

Isn' t the main part screwed too? Or is the box just that slow (upto 1 sec. delay before darts flies)

[Matt Vinyl]

I don't believe the first part of the game is rigged. It just perfoms differently on different machines. Once you know the timing 'lag' on a particular box, you should never miss another bullseye!

Now this is where my knowledge of these machines is limited, but I find response times are much, much better on the 'flatscreen' style boxes, as opposed to the screens that have a curvature (older?).

[Mat Ingram]

My conclusion is that the itbox was cheating me

Being a programmer myself, it would seem to make much more sense that each game is linked to a main pot rather than its own.

Right, listen up, I am an "Industry insider", and I do know what I am talking about, unlike certain others posting here.

Players, you have been told this all before in other threads.
I seem to remember "Nic" telling this to everyone (TKA in particular I think) before, so I think that I am safe to say this as Games Wharehouse have already leaked this before.

Rule 1: All games have their own %.
Rule 2: Losing on one game will not affect another - See Rule 1

I dare you to prove me wrong by trying the following, as you believe in the "central pot" theory, then you have nothing to lose:

Choose 2 ITBOX's with the latest games on, and choose your most profitable game (Word Up let's say)

Machine 1 - Play £50 worth (100 games) of Word Up, always playing awfully to lose your money. Now play £5 ( 10 games ) to see how much money you can take out, and how easy it is.


Machine 2 - Choose 10 games, apart from Word Up, and play £5 worth (10 games) on each, and again always playing awfully to lose your money. NOW play £5 ( 10 games ) to see how much money you can take out of Word UP, and how easy it has not become.


I guarantee that Word Up on machine 2 will be the same as always. Try it and prove me wrong, otherwise shut the f**k up.

Here endeth the lesson (yet again).