Bell-themed slot game

This is the game:



It's an 8-line, 3x3 slot originally from VLC, acquired by IGT and now available on IGT multi-game machines. Since it has (mild) advantage potential, I'll refrain from stating the name, but you can see it in the photo.

Symbols are fruit, bars, bells and 7s. The "bonus pool" is a progressive jackpot starting at 100 coins. The pool only functions for 8-line wagers. The pool increases when multiple triple-bar symbols appear, and pays off when 9 fruit symbols appear (as shown in the photo).

Players may wager multiple coins per line, up to 50 on some machines for a total wager of 400 coins. The increments to the bonus pool are scalable (example: two triple-bar symbols appear; a 1-coin [per line] wager adds 8 to the pool, but a 50-coin wager adds 400).

But the bonus pool payoff does not scale. Therefore, it appears that a 1-coin [per line] wager is optimal for any pool amount, with the return diminishing for additional coins wagered. Is this permissible within the gaming regulations? (If not, then there must be a mechanism to boost the return for large bet amounts, but I don't detect anything in the rules.)

Thanks.

It qualifies because the game is bet proportional still but because of it's based on reel results, generally can't be manipulated beyond frequency of the reels. If there was a bonus option like Big Ben, it could favor large bets on a per spin basis. These types have been around forever but screen based triggers are out of fashion for their poor manipulation factor. It's kind of like offering $100 for black jack and most bet $5 to qualify but some bet $100.

The rules matter for games like this such as minimum bet to qualify. Sometimes there isn't any qualification and a single nickel can win them with the same odds as $5.

The reason it's bet proportional is there is a pay for the fruit multiplied by the total bet so bigger bets are paid more but viewed by the public as nominal and I do too. Now machines are designed to offer the same prize, but use bet size as the main factor odds wise instead of the reels like Big Ben. It's all still bet proportional where 80 single quarter bets equals 10 $2 bets.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

The rules matter for games like this such as minimum bet to qualify. Sometimes there isn't any qualification and a single nickel can win them with the same odds as $5.

I recall long ago playing VLC touch-screen machines that required only 4 lines played to qualify. Occasionally other patrons would yell at me for my stupidity of not playing all lines. The later-generation machines required 8 lines.

Quote: gpac1377

This is the game:



It's an 8-line, 3x3 slot originally from VLC, acquired by IGT and now available on IGT multi-game machines. Since it has (mild) advantage potential, I'll refrain from stating the name, but you can see it in the photo.

Symbols are fruit, bars, bells and 7s. The "bonus pool" is a progressive jackpot starting at 100 coins. The pool only functions for 8-line wagers. The pool increases when multiple triple-bar symbols appear, and pays off when 9 fruit symbols appear (as shown in the photo).

Players may wager multiple coins per line, up to 50 on some machines for a total wager of 400 coins. The increments to the bonus pool are scalable (example: two triple-bar symbols appear; a 1-coin [per line] wager adds 8 to the pool, but a 50-coin wager adds 400).

But the bonus pool payoff does not scale. Therefore, it appears that a 1-coin [per line] wager is optimal for any pool amount, with the return diminishing for additional coins wagered. Is this permissible within the gaming regulations? (If not, then there must be a mechanism to boost the return for large bet amounts, but I don't detect anything in the rules.)

Thanks.

You don't have to worry about covering up the name, Ring 'em Up. It's right there in the upper right hand corner in the photo. At one time you only had to bet 4 coins to qualify for the bonus pool. They raised it up to 8 because of vulture activity. It's an exploitable game but I don't know the playable number. The frequency on all fruit is not that long of a shot. Similar games are Super 8 Liner and Super 8 Race.

Quote: gpac1377

This is the game:

I just noticed that you hit the all fruit for 2848 coins in this photo. For an 8 coin bet I would have to say you were definitely in positive territory on this play.

Quote: gpac1377

But the bonus pool payoff does not scale. Therefore, it appears that a 1-coin [per line] wager is optimal for any pool amount, with the return diminishing for additional coins wagered. Is this permissible within the gaming regulations? (If not, then there must be a mechanism to boost the return for large bet amounts, but I don't detect anything in the rules.)Thanks.

As long as the game returns more than the minimum payback required by law it's quite permissiable. I can't remember what the law is in Nevada, 75% or 80%.

70% Mickey.

It is 75% in Nevada.

To the OP

There's nothing terribly unusual about this type of situation. Spielo GTECH Pick N' Play machines have Video Keno Progressives where you must bet $0.50, at a minimum, to qualify for the Progressive but you can bet more and your return percentage diminishes with amount bet.

Konami also has Rock Around the Clock, just for one more example, which has a Bonus Feature w/Progressives that costs an additional $0.25 of every bet, regardless of the amount bet. The Bonus Game itself can be vultured, and since the amount bet has no impact on one's ability to win the Progressives or the value of same, and I also assume the Base Game has a -ER, a player would be well-advised to bet the minimum.

Quote: Mission146

There's nothing terribly unusual about this type of situation.

Thanks Mission, that makes sense. I couldn't think of any specific examples.

Another oddity about the game is that the observed pool values seem too low. My (limited) experience has been that it usually takes a while for me to win the pool. I usually add something around 200 coins while betting the 1-coin per line minimum. But when I scout, I mostly see pool values in the 100's.

Three possibilities come to mind:

- My results have been unlucky
- A skill element or exploit exists to win more easily
- The pool may reset without being awarded

I suspect the last one primarily. My clearest example is from the M Resort, which has a triangular bank of 14 machines at the entrance near the Vig Deli. On one occasion a few months back, every machine was at 100. I vaguely recall Mickey writing about something similar in Montana, where technician maintenance activity reset the jackpots, killing some of his good plays.

I hate that many penny slots now require you to bet 30 or 50 cents either initially or to get the bonus.

While waiting for a seat in poker room or taking a break from BJ, I loved playing pennies for 5 or 9 cents and getting to play the bonus.

But making players bet a high minimum to have shot at the bonus is spreading like 6/5 BJ. SIGH !

Quote: mickeycrimm

I just noticed that you hit the all fruit for 2848 coins in this photo. For an 8 coin bet I would have to say you were definitely in positive territory on this play.

Oh yes, almost certainly. The game pays a supplemental fixed (scalable) award for the all-fruit, something like 300 coins for my bet size, so the pool was probably at about 2,500 when I hit it. I would think the break-even is down around 1,000 or less, depending on the usual factors of course. That's not something that occurs frequently unless the degenerates are spending freely, although of course it's hard to know because playable games are unlikely to sit idle for very long.

The pots are small because after a while, nobody plays unless someone else builds them up.

While we are on the topic, I saw a Plants v Zombies slot machine with a similar "issue" (it's at the MGM Grand, near the old-school horse-racing game that takes quarters, if anyone wants to take a look. While you're there I'd suggest throwing a few bucks into the horse-racing game. I'm sure that the EV is horrible, but it's only a few quarters, it's a lot of fun (especially when there are lots of people playing) and it's one of the few places where they still have buckets of quarters)

Anyway, back to PvZ... They have 3 progressives. The progressives are available regardless of your bet size. If you hit a progressive, it pays the "base" amount plus the "added" amount (ie, the meter increase). The base amount scales with your bet, but the added amount is constant, regardless of your bet. So, for example, the lowest progressive starts at $10 if you bet 1 unit and $50 if you bet 5 units. But, once there is $10 added to it, betting 1 unit gets you a $20 payout, and betting 5 units gets you a $60 payout -- only 3x the payout for 5x the bet.

Also, the progressive amount are displayed on a big screen (it's one progressive per machine; they are not banked) but it displays the amount that corresponds to the last amount bet. So for example if the machine on the left has $5 added and the last player was making 1-unit bets, it would say $15 for the smallest progressive. But if the machine beside it has no money added but the last player was playing 5 units, it would say $50 for the smallest progressive. So, the point is, you can't just look at the screen and see what the progressive meter is... you also need to factor in the last amount bet.

Quote: gpac1377

I vaguely recall Mickey writing about something similar in Montana, where technician maintenance activity reset the jackpots, killing some of his good plays.

Yes, this is something I have to go through periodically here. Whenever they install a new game on a machine the progressive meters on the other games go back to reset. Then it's a few months before I start getting plays on those machines again. What they do here is illegal in Nevada. You can't take progressive money away from the public there. But they get away with it here. I don't complain to Montana Gaming because I don't want them to know who I am....and they might do something stupid like ban progressive games.