I've said it before, the % payout of these can be controlled by these features.
What's the logic behind this mate? I've never played a 'random' machine before, but would that theory not crack open the age-old 'randomness' debate again?
Is this not the more likely scenario?:
The problem being with 5 symbols, is that its just the machines way of displaying a selected value.
Again, don't want to start the oft-had debate again, but are features on these things 'not really features' just a slightly more 'interesting' way of paying you £60 than rolling in £60 on the reels? Do these machines have the 'the value of any win or feature is not necessarily that of the odds on display' (or however it goes)? If they do, then in theory, the top 'feature' could give you £1. Although I'm sure that the programming would only throw up the 'feature' way of winning if the win was within a certain 'value range'... ...and I'm waffling now, so...
"And do you ever contradict yourself, Minister?" "Well, yes and no..."
'must be' is an exaggeration, but as I've said before, it's as pointless as debating religion as you will never prove it one way or the other. the 3,4, and 5 all do have MINIMUM wins which are a multiple of the stake and lines selected, so the minimum win is higher on each increasing stake.
matt these things are completely random mate, theres no 2 ways about it! Try keying them ( crest ones ) and it displays the random number you got on the last spin and the corresponding win amount; it doesnt matter how it chooses to award it ( men vs jp symbols vs pot ) thats arbitrary, but its rather harsh as a player, when you might expect at least a ton there!
personally I must have blown alot on these crest £500's in my days, not played them for a long time now, but from my experience they're absolute rubbish, apart from the fact they look the best!
Ok, my final say on this as its been said/done a thousand times elsewhere.
I believe there IS a random element to the games, but also as I have mentioned before it is 'controlled randomness'.
This is simply because the selected no.s that are attached to the higher values are a bit thin on the ground compared to the no.s that are attached to the crappy wins.
Spinning a coin and seeing if it lands on heads or tails will give a genuine random result. Spinning a coin that has 3,000 heads but 7,000 tails is NOT 100% random as the odds are stacked in tail's favour. This is how s16's work.
However to put another 'spin' on the coin, I also believe that when say a machine like Rainbow Riches goes in suck mode it ONLY selects from a section of dead no.s. When it goes on a buzzer, where more often than not multiple pot chances and high wins are awarded in close sequence, it is selecting from ONLY a section of nice no.s!
If the machine was COMPLETELY 100% random then I believe you would see a more smoother gameplay as you would through heads and tails, with the odd dead spells and the odd buzzy spells. But overall a fair and at least half consistent play. Anybody, who has been unfortunate enough to play these through a dead spell, will know that £500 can go in 30 mins with just the odd £10 reel win and no features or pots what so ever. This is not randomness, but suck mode.
I also notice that there are different setting on the crest's with regards to stake and average %age. Some on 50p play are 88% £1 - 90% and £2 - 92% while other are 50p - 90% £1 - 92% and £2 - 94%. This therefore means that there is some element of control with these nasty machines.
CMS machines, are another kettle of fish, and I can state with 99% accuracy that once a part full house has been awarded, depending on the size win of that part full house and the stake played at, it WILL return within a certain amount of credits. I have been lucky enough to playtest these for hours on end for free, so I can state that with 99% accuracy.
I dont belive anything random can truely have a 'percentage payout', but the closer you have to an infinite number of machine and infinite spins the closer you converge on the 'payout' of the machines
Mattb wrote:....or its the machines way of running to a said %. I've said it before, the % payout of these can be controlled by these features. If its paid out a shedload previously, i'd say you are less likely to get a huge win from 5 leps.
At a guess, the RNG picks number 96043612 which is £60, the machine displays a £60 win in any form/feature/winlines.
theoak wrote:I dont belive anything random can truely have a 'percentage payout', but the closer you have to an infinite number of machine and infinite spins the closer you converge on the 'payout' of the machines
It's a target %. I'd be amazed to see any S16 running spot on to the target after £100k.
Local arcade had a fortune 500, after a month they got rid of it after it lost them £2000.
Mattb wrote:....or its the machines way of running to a said %. I've said it before, the % payout of these can be controlled by these features. If its paid out a shedload previously, i'd say you are less likely to get a huge win from 5 leps.
At a guess, the RNG picks number 96043612 which is £60, the machine displays a £60 win in any form/feature/winlines.
Yes, love the commentary!! That is bad luck, sort of thing you see once every £100k and it gives £60!!
The problem being with 5 symbols, is that its just the machines way of displaying a selected value. £60 on 3 symbols is hardly a miracle, but when you see 5 come in you think you are in for a nice sum!! If it had chosen to give £60 on jackpot symbols you wouldn't have thought to much about it, but once again choosing 5 leps for a £60 win is almost like its taking the piss out of you.
Totally taking the piss, no doubt some comedian programmer! :x
Just to clarify PMK, you say part full house.....so a part full house on high stake that awards £500, is that still a part full house or a full full house as far as your idea is concerned? Also a few credits, what sort of range we talking?
If I play 10p 1 line for x spins until I get apart full house, worth switching to £8/spin?!?
A part full house meaning not the complete £500, tho obviously if you get the first 3 reels of demons on £4+ a spin then it is the full £500, and no it wont return.
What I mean is basically thus:-
Even if you play on 1 line and minimum stake, and it throws in say the first 3 wheels of lemons a couple on the 4th and 5th, then this win will come back (although ususally in a slightly different form) normally within say a few hundred, but NEVER once has it cost more than £500 to get the eventual complete full house or close to it.
Try experimenting on the 10 line £2.50 jp ones. Play it on say 3 lines at 1p a spin and wait for the part full house, if it does what would have been £25 playing all 10 lines then bin it as the results from this have been mixed. Once you have that part full house, then switch up to 10 lines and say 10/20p a go. The full house/part full house will return within normally say about £10 - £15. It works the same on the bigger versions to. Got to have the balls to go for it tho!! A month or so ago, someone got a part full house on 1 line 10p ago. I chased it from the very next credit, and was £410 in to get the £500!! I was sweating a bit. Sometimes I've had it within £50 ususally its about £200 - £300 to at least give you another part full house or a high enough win to leave it with.
To be honest, I like to try and see about a ton go back through one before I would risk getting involved as its sometimes a high risk for what could be a small return. But messing about on the 1p a line ones is always fun and at barely any cost.
PMK wrote:Ok, my final say on this as its been said/done a thousand times elsewhere.
I believe there IS a random element to the games, but also as I have mentioned before it is 'controlled randomness'.
This is simply because the selected no.s that are attached to the higher values are a bit thin on the ground compared to the no.s that are attached to the crappy wins.
Spinning a coin and seeing if it lands on heads or tails will give a genuine random result. Spinning a coin that has 3,000 heads but 7,000 tails is NOT 100% random as the odds are stacked in tail's favour. This is how s16's work.
However to put another 'spin' on the coin, I also believe that when say a machine like Rainbow Riches goes in suck mode it ONLY selects from a section of dead no.s. When it goes on a buzzer, where more often than not multiple pot chances and high wins are awarded in close sequence, it is selecting from ONLY a section of nice no.s!
If the machine was COMPLETELY 100% random then I believe you would see a more smoother gameplay as you would through heads and tails, with the odd dead spells and the odd buzzy spells. But overall a fair and at least half consistent play. Anybody, who has been unfortunate enough to play these through a dead spell, will know that £500 can go in 30 mins with just the odd £10 reel win and no features or pots what so ever. This is not randomness, but suck mode.
I also notice that there are different setting on the crest's with regards to stake and average %age. Some on 50p play are 88% £1 - 90% and £2 - 92% while other are 50p - 90% £1 - 92% and £2 - 94%. This therefore means that there is some element of control with these nasty machines.
CMS machines, are another kettle of fish, and I can state with 99% accuracy that once a part full house has been awarded, depending on the size win of that part full house and the stake played at, it WILL return within a certain amount of credits. I have been lucky enough to playtest these for hours on end for free, so I can state that with 99% accuracy.
My take on this, now shoot me down!!!
I agree with the CMS details....we got a EGGSTRA LINES in out local and as you say if u get full screen minus several symbols...the full screen/part full screen does normally drop within a timeframe...but as u say i presume the stake has alot to do with it....we normally play 5 lines @5p per line which is minimun stake...the amount of times we seen full page minus several symbols to then redrop within said timeframe minus/plus symbols, not necessarily full page....a feeble mind like myself cant do the sums....one for the scholars me thinks!!
