ITS ILLEGAL

[arcalis]

we all know the senario higher than a 3 on lifes a beach only to see a 2 and we know a 2 is coming but we still go higher

same senario on almost every machine we play

so i decided to try my emulator with big brother i was on a 11 and went lower and it gave a 12
exept this time rewinded the machine back so i was again on the 11 this time i went higher and did it give the 12 obviously no so what my point is its a no win gamble if u go higher u lose if u go lower u lose surely nobody can offer a no win gamble its illegal or is it ?

[matty21]

mate read the small print on the top of a fruit machine lol, i quote 'the machine may at times offer a choice where the player has no chance of success' there is ur answer.

[bigv038]

we all know the senario higher than a 3 on lifes a beach only to see a 2 and we know a 2 is coming but we still go higher

we hit it in the hope it gives it and if it doesnt its nearly there anyway. if you won on just /all the good numbers it would get boring and predictable. The block can be an arse but once you get it, its very rewarding

[Weyland]

Welcome to the difference between AWP and SWP.

[Matt Vinyl]

'the machine may at times offer a choice where the player has no chance of success'

I know it's not illegal, but surely this 'diction' does not validate constant losing on 'sensible' numbers? Surely it's not too difficult to programme a machine to give you a ropey number that it can kill you on 'less obviously'?

I could write on a piece of paper (for example):

"I'm going to punch you repeatedly in the face and you will not retaliate whatsoever"

Then go around handing out blows to people (stop sniggering at the back there!) and if I was to apply the same rule to that as is applied to that quote on every AWP, I couldn't be touched by the law. I'm just trying to convey that because something is written down, doesn't mean it's right!

Anyway, we know we're all stuck with it - AWP 'law' is the most loopholed part of the industry (surely?).

[Weyland]

Anyway, we know we're all stuck with it - AWP 'law' is the most loopholed part of the industry (surely?).

We can't really call it a loophole even. That statement, which is also laid down in the law, basically means "If you press the Start button, I may take your money and give you nothing in return." Not exactly in ambiguous loophole territory.

They even tell you how much they're going to give you back with the percentage also written on the front of the machine. You can't say they don't give you every warning about what they're going to do!

[Mattb]

That's why the blurb is on the top of machines now. When emulators first came out people did this test to prove you had no chance of winning - hence the disclaimer.

[theoak]

Yes, I believe without the disclaimer it IS/WAS illegal to offer a no-win 'gamble' and there was a site campainging for acknowledgment of this a while back. The disclaimer gets around this problem of theirs. Not comparable to the wonderful walking round punching people argument as the participants are in no way willing to play the game at all. Still, great idea though. Bet some americans would fall for it.

[Matt Vinyl]

Heh - Agreed, I've probably started off some sort of legal 'trend' over in the states now...

I just think it'd be so simple to make these machines at least 'appear' to not present you with a no-win situation. Say, for example, on LAB, you are on the £10 (Blue sevens) on a 3. You go higher than that and get an eleven. Now the machine, under no circumstances, wants you to get to the top.

This could lead to two scenarios:

- The machine 'wants' you to go for the gamble and lose, so as you don't win a penny.

or

- It wants you to take the £15 to ensure that you roll at least another £20+ through it before it puts you in the same position again.

A point of 'fairity' (Matt making up words again) would be for it to offer you say an 8 or a 5, letting you know that the 'odds' (if they existed) are against you.

Welcome to the difference between AWP and SWP.

Unfortunately, as we all well know, SWPs can still 'kill', for want of a better word, you of, or swizzle you by not letting you land on the required square due to a 'fixed' dice, or offer you spoilers, or swap what is under the boxes before you press etc...

Ultimately, I think that the level of 'Fixing' involved in both AWP and SWP are at least on a par with each other... ?

[jeffvickers]

The high and low numbers rather than the 3 or 5 mean that more money is being cycled through the machine resulting in more PROFITS.

If an 8 or 5 was showing all the time, then people would collect more and possibly walk away from the machine more, but the high-low numbers appeal to a Fruit Machine Manus core customer - THE ADDICT.

[Stopnstep]

It does at times give you that bad number whether it be a 5, 6, 7 or 8. The thing is it would be no temptaion for most people, if it is on one of those numbers they would just collect where as a 10, 3 or better there is always the 'dangling carrot'.

We know of course that it doesn't really matter what number is there if it wants to give it will give, how many times have you gambled on the 5 or 8 only for it to win and you get the top.

[theoak]

Yeah, some machines like the old BC each-way-nudger you can practically ignore the numbers.

[Drpepper]

The whole reason that the sticker is there at all is due to people from FF complaining to bacta about this very fact.

Basically we all got fobbed off by this sticker.

Go there and search "fairplay campaign" if you want to read more... but some people are still very bitter about it, so be warned.

[harry 3]

I think , as above, that a barcrest from the early nineties was proven to lose on EVERY gamble.Fairplay wanted to go to court but probably couldn't afford the costs. It was a £2.40 or £3.00 jackpot machine. There is an emulator somewhere.