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: 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.

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

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

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.'

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: 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.

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)

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: "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?

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

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: 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 :)

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: Take one guess where DailyGammon get their dice from ;)

WhiteTower: Slot machines? Surely not!

:op)

playBunny: good point about infinite vs. finite series, an important difference! I could roll the dice a million times and never roll a 7. But infinitely, I know the texts say one should get perfect distribution, but I have trouble intellectualizing that one, because i can't see a practical way to prove it.

I, too, would like to know EXACTLY what trips the payoff and % payout adjustors, does anyone know who's an insider?

redsales: Lol. Good side step :-)) I don't understand why the machines would need such things as payoff and payout adjustors. That's the first thing I'd like explained because my thinking is that randomness alone is sufficient to ensure the percentages - over the long term (which is what they claim in the article).

playBunny: Since randomness can also make the payouts too much too often, the slot machine operators need to make SURE ;)

WhiteTower: In the short term yes but not in the long term. So what is it that they need to make sure of?

playBunny: That they don't go out of business in the short term ;)

WhiteTower: Nonsense, there are hundreds of machines in a casino, many being played continually throughout the day.

In a 24 hour period the confidence interval is so small that the house is guaranteed a profit. it is an unkown profit, but it could be for instance somewhere between 95% and 98% payout, but over a month it will be very close to a predictable number.

After this match, my opponent accused me of using a program to cheat. I believe I played pretty mediocre, but recieved lots of huge gifts from my opponent. What do you think? :)

frolind:
i said:

"jag vet reglerna..jag vet oxo att fuskprogram förekommer :)"

translated to english : "i know the rules i also know that there are cheatingprograms "

if that is to accuse then they have a differnet way to accuse in Norway

redsales: Your link and alanback's say exactly what I was saying! Both links do not mention how the percentage of payoff is figured or changed. I used 7760 coins out of 8000 positions as an example of 97%. To change it to say 95% you'd have to lower the total payout to 7600. This could as easy as changing a two cherry payout from 6 coins to 5 if there was 160 ways of getting two cherries. This would make the machine "tighter". It has nothing to do with random numbers, electric motors, or mechanical drives.

And the whole thing works on the long run of the game, not your particular visit. If you're going to win, then you need to get lucky. It's that simple. As for increasing your chance of winning on a slot machine, understanding the casino's marketing tactics and how they use human nature to their advantage is how you do it. As the one link shows some of their tactics by positioning the looser machine where they'll be seen by people waiting line. What it says about machines next to a buffet line being tighter makes sense too. The loose ones should be three rows away so that the people in line will see people winning and will try the ones next to the line because they don't want to lose their spot in line.

Andersp: "translated to english : "i know the rules i also know that there are cheatingprograms "

Whinging about cheats, eh Anders? Can't accept that you lost?

Seriously though. If a player like frolind doubles, you should never redouble on your next go unless he's rolled an awful, terrible, stinking number.

What frolind said about "gifts" is very true. Your second redouble was immediately after accepting a double that should have been dropped as if it were a hot rivet. In each case you redoubled when frolind's post-double roll had sent a man of yours to the bar. In the second case that meant two on the bar and with a 4-point table to get back into and builders at the ready!

playBunny: Of course my doubling was a gift..i wanted the game to end as quick as possible..i have no problems to accept that i lose and as i have told you before is the BKR something i dont care about either. If people want to use a program thats ok with me too..but people who copy a game to a public board and "cry" ..nah!! ..thats rather childish..isnt it?

The "I know the rules" was a reply to my suggestion to read the rules about gammons and backgammons, because the resignations suggested that this part of the game was not understood. Now that I know that he wanted to end the match as quickly as possible, I understand that the funny resignations (starting at game #1, where the 3-0 to 21 he gave me was wery unlikely...) had nothing to do with the understanding of the the rules. But to answer my misplaced (but friendly) suggestion with a hint about me cheating with programs is way over the line.

Andersp: Lol. You took the doubled ofered and redoubled in roder to end the game quickly? Resigning is a tad quicker than that, methinks. Or did you mean the match because the cube at 16 certainly ended the match.

That aside, I'm very curious about why you wanted to end the match??

playBunny: Sorry, but you wont get an answer to that question ...btw..do you still believe in "Scaninavian United" .or what was it you called us?

can someone please tell me why I cant move from position 3 to 1?
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1129431

BerniceC: Because you have to use both dice if you can.

BerniceC: Yes. If you make that move you won't be able to move 4

BerniceC: 16-10 is the only available move

thank you :( this is the first time this has ever happened to me is it something new???

BerniceC: It was fixed a few weeks ago.

BerniceC: It was a bug. In the past you would move 3-1 then realize that 4 was impossible and would need to play 16-10 instead if you both saw it and were honest. Unfotunately many players missed such moves and therefore played illegally.

Wow. I just made 10 moves in a row at Gold Token using the you know what facility.

It was GREAT!!

playBunny: Small pleasures . . .

I have decided to stop playing Backgammon. I just can't handle the stupidness of hitting the button when I can't make a move, or watching my opponent go through it. I earlier asked for a trimmed down version of autopass that would only be enabled with the consent of the players in the game and only when no matter what rolled on the dice would still leave you without a move. This is not the full-blown autopass of some sites, but how it would be played if two people were playing the game in person. Home base is blocked and you got a man on the bar, you don't touch the dice and your opponent just keeps rolling and moving until a blot or point opens up. Simple, straight forward, and common sense approach. The first roll you couldn't move could show you the position and then it'd be your opponent's turn until you actually had a chance to move on the roll of a good number.

Anyways, time for Halloween! :)
Have a good one you all.

Walter Montego: I think you just don't want to play backgammon, Walt :-) It's hard to believe such a small thing would be enough to make you quit!

alanback: You might be right, but I do like playing Backgammon.

After awhile it just drives me crazy sitting there on the bar and for no reason other than some people not wanting it made possible for those of us that want to be able to pass voluntarily being forced to click buttons when the whole thing could be taken care without me having to deal with it. It's not a small thing. I do not like to be a part of things I consider stupid and I try to avoid them. Those that wouldn't want to pass could have their games played as is now. I'd be willing to bet that even those few people would eventually see the error of their way and would click autopass too. If autopass is ever implimented on this site, that'd make for something to chart. I bet over 80% of people would opt to use it most of the time. Let the rest of them click the button each turn while everyone else can get on with the game and not be some button pushing knucklehead.

Walter Montego: I couldn't agree more. I've been clicking "autopass" for a week now in one game at the rate of a couple of moves a day, and to be blunt, it pisses me off!

pgt: What blissful lives y'all must lead, if this is such a big problem for you!

alanback: It's mainly a problem because of how trivial it is. Think about it. If autopassing was a feature, would there be a lot of people posting to have it shut off? Or a least be made an option so that they could indeed click each move? Yeah, right, I don't think so either.
Yes, in the grand scheme of things it's nothing, but just because it doesn't bother you to hit the button each time doesn't mean there aren't those of us that it drives crazy. And I bet you'd opt for passing too.

Walter Montego: Oh, indeed I would. I just think Fencer's time is better spent on other features. I suspect it isn't as easy to progam as one might think.

alanback: I think Fencer's time is best spent on making his paying customers happy

pgt: Absolutely wrong. My time is best spent on making myself happy. Which makes any kind of autopass impossible to be here.

pgt: True . . . but not satisfying every whim of every customer, but allocating resources optimally to attract the average customer ;-)

alanback: You are absolutely right.