Hrqls: I know as much as you.

... one interesting browse later...

Random.org offers true random numbers to anyone on the internet. If you want to know how the numbers are made and what it is that makes them true, read the introduction to randomness and random numbers.

Now I know a little more. ;-)

playBunny: so far as i know there is perfect random number generator yet ?
its not only important in gambling, but also in simulations (heart simulators would die for a perfect random generator .. sorry for the bad pun :))

i heard that slot machines pay out when their money tubes are getting too full .. just to work around a physical limitation .. but i am not sure if thats true .. and i cant speak of personal experience :)

alanback: Lol. Yup. That's why I specified an infinite series. ;-)

If you like we can bring statistical significance into the mix. That'll allow us to talk about finite series. Not iron-clad as guarantees go but good enough.

What I'm waiting to hear is how these machines are programmed to effect whatever guarantees redsales is talking about. What are they deciding on? How do they know when the randomness so far isn't good enough? When is it time to increase or decrease the percentages?

playBunny: Pure randomness cannot guarantee a certain percentage of outcomes in a finite number of trials.

redsales: "pure randomness cannot guarantee a certain %age, because there are no guarantees in a purely random system."

That is soooo wrong! If it's perfectly random then an infinite series is absolutely guaranteed to have whatever percentages. It's the not-quite-random ones that are dodgy.

You'll agree that perfectly made dice are perfectly random? And that the 1/6 possibility of a 6 occuring is not a random number but is "manipulated" by the dice designer (through the choice of having 6 sides)? Are the dice "skewed" to give 1/6 of each number in the long term or is that just how it comes out in the natural course of events?

So how are the machines any different? Why would they need to be?

grenv: by definition, pure randomness cannot guarantee a certain %age, because there are no guarantees in a purely random system. Craps also should approach mathematically pure distribution in the long run, but it is not programmed. The slots program gives the guarantee through short run appearance of randomness that in the long run is skewed towards a guaranteed payoff, a number which is predetermined and is not random in itself, and can be manipulated by the slot programmer.

redsales: They are programmed to be random. The randomness ensures a certain %age to the owners. It is not a programmed %age in the sense you mean, it is a result of the mathematical certainty that over the long run the payout will approach the programmed number.

This is precisely how craps works, despite fair dice (in most casinos)

redsales: Why would it need to?

Dice are "programmed" to give a 6 in 1/6 rolls but the pattern of 6s in the stream is entirely random. Over the long term, though, the 1/6 can be verified.

The slot machines have their own percentages which can be verified over the long term as well, but at any one moment the machine may be ahead or behind its quota. On what basis would it make it more or less likely to roll a winner given that it "knows" that all will come out in the end if it leaves well enough alone?

On the other hand is this the "looseness" and "tightness" that the article was talking about, where the machine ups and downs the odds for some reasons (that I don't understand yet)?

Edit: Ah, I've reread the article; I'll answer my own question. The looseness and tightness is an observation and perception of the winning pattern and not something generated knowingly by the machine.

grenv: hmm..how do i put this..it does change the odds, but not in a way that is measurable or useful for the player. It is known only to the computer.

redsales: on the contrary, this doesn't change the odds. In other words if you play more (hence put more money in) you have more chance of winning - this is expected in random games.

I quote the article you linked to:
'A machine is never "due to hit". The payback percentage and hit frequency are calculated over the long term.'

Walter Montego:
It doesn't matter how much money they've taken in or how long it's been since they've paid out.

But of course it does matter how much they're taken in, many modern chip slots are programmed to pay off as a percentage of take. By definition, the amount of money taken in is an essential factor. Read the part about payback percentages:
http://www.goingtovegas.com/kpv-slot.htm

http://money.howstuffworks.com/slot-machine.htm

Walter Montego: I agree in general that slot machines aren't programmed to pay off within a certain time, and the special advertising ploy I described is a very limited exception if it is an exception at all.

alanback: I'm sure there's more to it than that. The link you sent me too is little more than a piece of propaganda. It doesn't say why it is so, it just says it is so. I'd get the details before I start saying it that way.
That is an interesting promotion they have come up with to lure people to join the club and to play at their casinos.

Regardless of the facts of how the casinos are doing it, the pull of a slot machine is a fresh start each time, not as redsales wrote about there being a time for it to pay out. That was what I was writing about when comparing his analogy to the roll of the dice in Backgammon.

Walter Montego: The casinos here are pretty heavily regulated, and I don't think they would get away with advertising "Must hit by $200,000" or the like if what they meant was that they were going to freeze the jackpot when it reaches $199,999.99!

Here's a news story:

http://www.allvegasguide.com/press_release_headlines/2005/jumbo_jackpot.html

alanback: I think you have it wrong. What they say is it will progress to a certain amount until someone hits it. If no one does, it will stop progressing once it reaches that amount. Sooner or later someone will get lucky.
Think about it, if they knew when the slot machine would pay out, there'd be something rigged, right?

I haven't been to Las Vegas to gamble in a long time, but the last time I was there the video slot machines were really moving in. A lot of them have four reals. I wasn't able to count how many symbols are on each real, but if it's at least 20, that'd up it to 160,000 combinations. Assuming there's only one way to win the progressive pot, that's 159,999 to 1 against it happening on the next pull. The fallacy that a lot people think is that even if you were to play it 200,000 times in a row and yet not have had a jackpot you start to think the machine is due to payoff because of some mystical law of averages. The odds don't change even if the pay out amount does. I certainly would expect to have hit a jackpot or two by the time I'd play 200,000 times in this example, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Then you're hooked and can't leave the machine because all it needs is one more play. You can feel it. Just ask Fred Flintstone about it. :)

Aren't there some slots that don't have a maximum progressive and continue to go higher until someone hits?

Walter Montego: There are some casinos here in Las Vegas, however, that advertise a guarantee that certain progressive jackpot machines will pay off by the time the jackpot reaches a particular total.

redsales: Slot machines are not programmed to payoff as you write in either method. It doesn't matter how much money they've taken in or how long it's been since they've paid out. The reels have symbols on them. Some of the combinations pay and most of them don't. Let's say there's 20 symbols on three reels 20 × 20 × 20 = 8000. Any of they possible 8000 combinations could happen each pull of the handle. If it's a winner you get your money, if not too bad. The casino's percentage is figured out by adding up all payouts of every combination. If this happened to be 7760 coins or units for this example the payout would be 97%. It's harder to figure out when they use a progressive payoff, but it's the same principal. Just like rolling the dice in Backgammon, each play on a slot machine stands apart from what has gone on before and what will happen next. But unlike slot machines, how you have played in Backgammon does have bearing on the game just not what numbers will show on the dice each roll. This is assuming the machines and casino are not cheating.

skipinnz: If the score was 4-1 (since 4-0 would have to be crawford round) and you doubled me in the position you described, I'd accept and redouble you back. This is because there is a theoretical chance that i'd win.

As soon as winning was impossible I would resign. That is the step most players here miss. I too get really annoyed when I have to keep rolling when the outcome is already decided.

alanback, Vikings, playBunny: Aye, you're all correct. When I refreshed the page skipinnz's game situation message was off screen. I only saw Vikings' in isolation and it thus seemed too general.

skipinnz: Absolutely, one of the crucial differences between money play and match play. Of course, in the situation you described in a money game, you very well might like to continue and play for gammon.

playBunny: Vikings specified 4-0, and at 4-0 in a 5 pt match it can only be the Crawford game!

playBunny: yes, that is what I meant, I was just using his example

alanback: When I used to play and money was at stake, this wouldn't have occured as they were increasing the amount they would lose. I see your point that it doesn't really matter on this site.

Vikings: That's not quite true. It's the first time that a 4:X score is reached, whether 4:0 or 4:3.

skipinnz: when the score is 4:0 in a 5 point match, no one can double, its called a crawford round

grenv: I think you misunderstand me. Situation score is 4:0 and in the next game I have my opponent on the bar and blocked with say 7 men still well away from his home board. I offer the double to him so as he can reject it and so finish the game quickly.

skipinnz: Skip, I don't think you would want to offer the cube as a way of suggesting to your opponent that they resign. They can accept and recube! If you want to make that suggestion, you can do it in the chat box. Doubling when you are 1 point away from the match win is not allowed by the system because no rational player would make that offer ;-)

skipinnz: One point or more, depending on the match score.. Dead cube (and other terms).

I believe the cube was introduced to make gambling more exciting.

skipinnz: I don't understand your position. If my opponent was one point from winning and doubled me I would accept since declining would mean losing the match.

If I couldn't win mathematically then my opponent doesn't need to double me to end the game, I would simply resign.

So what is the problem you would solve with allowing a double?

skipinnz: true .. but in case your opponent only needs 1 point .. then you would always double at once .. why wouldnt you if it can give you more points and doesnt make a difference for him. to solve this its not allowed to double the first game when one of the players is only 1 point away from winning the match

I'm curious as to what others might think. I understand it is termed dead cube, when one player is not allowed to double because they only require 1 more point to win. I believe this doesn't give the player the option of finishing the game early by offering the D/cube to opponent. IMHO I feel the cube was introduced to resolve the inevitable outcome of the game.

alanback: I think the match score should be above the board and in large writing.

grenv: IMHO those who feel compelled to recite gg and gl automatically will do so whether they get a message at the end of each game or not! It would be nice if the email included the match score, though . . .

Fencer: Fair enough. i'll keep deleting them then! :)

grenv: I don't want to change the system only because of the cube.

grenv: That makes sense.

I would like to propose that a cube match be treated as a single game. In other words don't send me a message telling me I won a game worth 2 points etc (request to Fencer), and players needn't feel they need to say gg and gl etc at the end or start of each game (request to opponents)

What do people think?

ajtgirl: We have to live with the "random" dices i guess, annoying but still the same rules for all players. Im still not convinced how smart it is that we must roll dice to come out from the bar when there is absolutely no chance to come out. I can 'buy" the doublingoffer but to roll dice for nothing..nah!!

redsales:
Thanks Redsales for that explanation. I have seen the light. I keep forgetting that this is virtual backgammon, not live backgammon, so the dice being thrown are subject only to the randomization they are programed with. I really don't care so much about it all now. If I have to roll when I am stuck out, I'll do it, but the roll-pass option sounds good to me, as well.
To Vikings: Do you always get snippy at people when they disagree with you? You remind me of my 6 year old newphew.

alanback: i think she's going by the "feel" that if she hasn't doubled for a long time, it's certainly gotta happen. I know we can probably all remember a situation where we felt we were due and we got a double. But the ones we usually gloss over in our memories are the many times we felt were due and rolled 1-2 as usual and lost the game...i know i've selectively forgotten those a lot, simply bc i'm no masochist.

I don't want this to turn polemical, but I can't see a way of comparing a physical bat whose structure changes, at least at a quantum level, every time it encounters an outside force. If you throw enough balls at 100 mph at a bat, it'll break eventually, and we can't predict when or how, since the grooves of wooden bats can cause premature fractures.

Slot machines, too, ARE programmed to pay off based on a pre-programmed factor, some as a % of the total take when a discrete number is reached, some chronologically. But the time-based ones are on such a wide time frame that i've never heard of anyone successfully timing one to the extent that they've made more money than they wasted in the interim. So the odds do change with every try, albeit not to the extent we can take advantage of it.

But virtual dice? If they are perfectly random, by definition there can't be any change in the odds because there is no physical wear and the same algorithm "starts fresh" every roll. Some have argued that the BK dice have a "boolean flaw" and that no dice algorithm can be perfectly random to begin with. Nevertheless, I'd sure like to see the proof. Maybe Fencer would show us the source of his randomizer, but honestly I wouldn't even bother to look at it!

alanback: ahh, then it just depends on how much cork is used

Vikings: I don't know about metal bats, I was thinking of major leaguers :-)

alanback: metal bats do only have a certain number of hits in them, high dollar bats cost about $1.00 per hit

ajtgirl's comments remind me of baseball players who believe that a bat only has a certain number of hits in it . . . folks who will keep pouring money into a slot machine because "it has to hit soon" . . . and my own sense that life is totally unfair when I dance for the fourth straight roll against a two-point board!

playBunny: It's like those sad sports fans who think their team is due for a win... every week. And when they finally win they say "see, i said they were due!"
lol

grenv: Not for ajtgirl. She went to bed firm with her belief. I'd still like to explore that.

Yep, "Roll" -> "Pass" sounds good, and as manual as usual.

So did we kill the issue of odds changing? One dice roll does not influence another etc. However I do think that "roll" should be replaced with "pass" in the case mentioned. That would technically NOT be autopass would it?

Vikings: Lol. I hope so! I never write stuff that doesn't make sense to me - at the time. Other people, and me at a later time, might have different opinions, though!


I wonder, does the possiblity for misinterpretation make sense as I explained it? It made sense to me!

playBunny: made sense to me