Itbox cheats?

Matt Vinyl · Post by **Matt Vinyl** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:08 pm

otherwise shut the f**k up.

Bit harsh mate...

Fair do's if that's how it works, nothing wrong with us 'certain others' theorising...

Interesting what you say though... If I see someone get a decent win off of a game I never play, that will no longer stop me from then hopping on and playing one I do...

SWP · Post by **SWP** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:16 pm

markmc (tipsy casual player and 1st time poster) said " ..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'm struggling to understand how seperate pots makes it hard to keep the percentage payout low - it's like saying an arcade full of AWP's won't manage to maintain their 78%.
1. Each individual one does 78%.
2. The whole arcade does 78%.

Having said that I still don't believe in the notion of seperate pots!

-------------------------------

p(x + y + z) = px . py . pz

Matt Vinyl · Post by **Matt Vinyl** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:20 pm

I think what we have to remember, is that this is really 'many individual games units in one'. Just because you put the coin in the same slot to play the different games is irrelevant.

If you play 'Word Up', you are playing the first machine that you come to in the pub. If you then choose to play Bully, you've effectively moved on to the next machine in the pub - this one may have been filled up by some other punter earlier on etc...

Hope this clarifies!

SWP · Post by **SWP** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:30 pm

>If I see someone get a decent win off of a game I never play, that will no longer stop me from then hopping on and playing one I do...

See the mistruth works

Post by **admin** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:37 pm

step7 wrote: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.

No offence taken..

Ive worked on projects involving multiple companies, the design specification has always included a standardised platform of some sort for each component, I imagine it would would be very easy to create a centralised pot to regulate payout.

I know that completely different and seperated fruit machine's have been networked in the past to obey a central percentage. Being seperate machines, that would be much harder to program than linking a few games together on the same platform.

I have no knowlege whatsoever of how these quiz machine's maintain their settings, neither am i interested, I was just putting my opinion across.

If I were overseeing the development of these machines, I would definately have them linked, if only to support games that may not be as tightly designed as others.

Anyway, as I have said I dont kow how the machines work im just speculating and thought I would make a very rare post in the quiz machine form!

I freely admit that I am more than likely, much more than likely wrong!

Cheers.

tka · Post by **tka** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:40 pm

Thanks for the replies guys. I was a bit pissed and cross yesterday.
I still think that if someone has put enough through Football Crazy for it to let me have so much so quickly they must be incredibly stupid and rich locals who know how to access the 2nd screen of the itbox but have not won anything from 132 goes (my maths might be wrong with the 30% thing) and they haven't even thought of playing a different game. Otherwise I would have at least won £1 from bullseye or TSP.

Is this likely?
No.

Sorry if I have not understood your comments but this is a public board which anyone who is interested in SWP can see. I think that is a good thing for everyone.

Mat, it is good that you are posting here because you obviously know what the "insiders" know. Can you let your customers know about the law regarding SWP? Us players are confused.

SWP · Post by **SWP** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:57 pm

LOL. You still sound p!ssed about this TKA. Playing Devil's Advocate: I've seen you report in the past that you've had multiple (decent) wins on a single box - how does that work if not seperate pots?

One of the main reasons I subscribe to this forum is to try and get an insight into SWP percentage control and find the discussion very interesting (even if only 99% speculation

).

Mat< Can you tell us a little more about your relationship with the biz? It might add weight to your words - I'd try your test on WU, but it would just cost me £55

)

Admin< Like I say no offence Admin! See what happens when you make assumptions about people

ops: You can obviously understand my point that the interface between 'systems' is often the trickiest part - may be the different companies involved did work to a common specification set up a joint body.

markmc · Post by **markmc** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:28 am

Wow, nice to see I sparked such debate. Sorry if my thoughts were misguided or whatever, but as I did say originally, I had just got in from the pub. I can guarantee you that I'm not an insider, just a normal bloke who prefers the quiz machines to the bandit. Anyway, as far as this quote from tka goes :

With respect that is a load of bollocks from an obviously industry person.

i'd like to apologise for misleading you with my first post, I agree that it could have been worded better, and I'll know never to post after a few pints again

Having skim-read most of the posts that followed, including the one from the self-confessed insider Mat, I would have to go back on what I said, as it was my uninformed opinion.

Sorry to tka and anyone else I offended, I usually just lurk on the boards without adding anything, so I'll keep it shut unless I have anything of value to say. Hope this has cleared things up.

Mark

Barry Trotter · Post by **Barry Trotter** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:48 am

There is one over-riding and pretty obvious reason why the games do not have a centralised pot....

If one game DID have a fault in it where it could be empited, or forced to run at a ridiculously high percentage (like the original Silver Falls!), then all the games would be negatively affected. Each game has to control itself - it would be stupid not to. And as for AWP's - there are no linked percentages in this country... if there are, they are illegal!

markmc · Post by **markmc** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:41 pm

Barry, I'm not aware of the trick in the original Silver Falls, but if it meant that you could win on every play, what would happen if there wasn't enough money in the cash pot to pay out on the other games? If each game is controlling itself, would they still be aware of how much money there is in the machine. My original thoughts were that if there was a low amount of cash in the machine, then every game would have to lower the chances of winning, in order to recoup losses. Maybe there is a bit of both (ie each game controls itself until money runs below a certain amount, at which point the percentage is decreased?).

Just a thought,

Mark

tka · Post by **tka** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:10 pm

Sorry if I have annoyed or upset anyone. I understand that each game has to have its own pot but that wasn't really my point. Based on my experience I am still suspicious that the itbox has a background setting which stops someone with too much skill (SWP remember) from winning too much from multiple games on the same machine.

The experiment about putting £55 in Word Up isn't really relevant because it is all about playing stupidly and loosing money to prove that each game has its own pot. Why would anyone do that?

My point was that if you win money then other games seem to become more difficult. So a more relevant experiment would be playing one game on Mousecrap deliberately loosing but checking where the prize bar is and how the end game offers cheeses/Q/skill then £5 on your best game properly (collecting whatever you can win) then another game on mousecrap properly, seeing where the prize bar is then.

Istenem · Post by **Istenem** » Tue May 02, 2006 10:16 am

nails and heads.

i'd like to hear a denial/ratification of this.
maybe revolution are having their monthly board meeting and have distribued this thread to everyone while they drink coffee and brainstorm about how to make games even shorter and take bets about how much money they'll make from brainteaser/that number thing before the punters realise how unwinnable they are. the jury is still out on risk as i think the JP is possible on this and spoilers seem fewer than some other games.

grecian · Post by **grecian** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:05 pm

All my experience of playing ItBoxes and GamesNets from day one has convinced me that each game has a separate 'bank' and that a big payout on one game won't adversely affect payouts on another. Recently on an ItBox I took a £20 from one game, then a £5 from another, then a £4 from another. If all the 'banks' were linked I would have thought the £20 would have precluded me from taking the £5 or the £4. Just one example mind you, but I fervently believe in separate banks whatever anyone else says...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:26 am

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

Nice idea. But since (for some reason) you have to register simply to read the posts, Google's spiders can't access any of the posts on these boards.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:38 am

step7 wrote: I'm struggling to understand how seperate pots makes it hard to keep the percentage payout low

Probably because some games on some machines are rarely (if ever) played. It's much easier to pay out 27% over 1000 games than it is to pay out 27% over 10...

Having said that, I think there are separate pots for each game.