Bonita
Bonita
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 8
Joined: Jan 5, 2010
January 5th, 2010 at 9:34:52 AM permalink
Wizard, or anyone else. I am curious if you could ballpark the average payback percentage of a slot machine (video) if you did not take into account the top jackpot ever hitting. I have seen the accounting systems for some IGT machines that have been in play for about 8 months. I was shocked that a 98.5% payback machine could be paying back less than half of that. Greatly apprcieated. Thanks.

Bonita
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
January 5th, 2010 at 9:57:35 AM permalink
I gotta assume you'retalking about progressive jackpot machines where the progressive hasn't hit yet.


If you got your hands on the accounting, you should have also been able to see what the progressive total was at the time. Then it's a simple thing to ad the progressive to the total paid out to see if the machines are at (or at least near) the published return.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
Bonita
Bonita
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 8
Joined: Jan 5, 2010
January 5th, 2010 at 10:09:22 AM permalink
No, I am not talking about the payback on a progressive. The machine in specific was a nickel IGT Deep pockets. The average person is not going to hit the top jackpot on any machine. It is so rare for one of those to be hit. So, I would like to know if that Jackpot was never hit, what would the payback percentage be? The machines are set at 92% for example, but that is over the longrun and most likely the lifespan of that machine. In the short run within a year, I believe the machines pay more like 40%. I want to know if this is in fact the case.
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
January 5th, 2010 at 11:38:28 AM permalink
I've often thought of that too, but I have a feeling that because the huge jackpot is almost as rare as a lotto hit, the return isn't enough to account for a number as high as 50%. Just for fun, let's use video poker as an example and a Royal Flush as the jackpot. According to the wizard, a Royal flush that pays 800 for 1 adds only 0.019807 (just under 2%) to the return, meaning that the other over 95% comes from everything else. https://wizardofodds.com/jacksorbetter/simple.htm
As you can see, most of the return comes from the most common winning hands that everyone is likely to see during a reasonable amount of time. I know it's not slots, but I don't think they would be THAT much different, though probably a little more top-heavy in the return.
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
January 5th, 2010 at 11:56:35 AM permalink
If you play enough, you'll hit something eventually. I hit a Wheel of Fortune machine for $4000 in November, my wife hit some other funky machine for top prize on New Years Eve. My experience is that there are three types of machines. On one type, you hit some little wins and an occasional big win while losing all your money. On the second, you hit lots of small to middling wins, but almost never see a big win, while losing all your money. On the third (the vast majority), you put your money in and lose all of it, sometimes getting a cherry or two. We got no illusions; we just like to spin wheels. Sometimes you win, usually you lose, but if you like it, it's always fun. But winning is mostly a function of what happened to come up on the machine within the last 15 minutes before you'd planned to leave, assuming you didn't max your bankroll before that happened. And that is the secret of the 98.5% payback machine actually paying back less than half that; because if any machine is played long enough, it will take all of the money, and pay back a net of nothing.
A falling knife has no handle.
DorothyGale
DorothyGale
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
January 5th, 2010 at 12:22:05 PM permalink
Quote: Bonita

Wizard, or anyone else. I am curious if you could ballpark the average payback percentage of a slot machine (video) if you did not take into account the top jackpot ever hitting. I have seen the accounting systems for some IGT machines that have been in play for about 8 months. I was shocked that a 98.5% payback machine could be paying back less than half of that. Greatly apprcieated. Thanks.

Bonita



For example, on the Blazing Sevens 95.45% game, if the top prize (three blazing 7's that pays 1000) was not available, the game pays 87.31%. That is, the top prize contributes 8.14% towards the overall return. I have seen games where the features contribute over 20% -- if you don't hit a feature it can feel like you are sinking fast.

In general, you would need access to the PARS (paytable and reel strip) sheet for the individual game to determine this value.

--Dorothy
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
marksolberg
marksolberg
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 205
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
January 5th, 2010 at 3:27:02 PM permalink
Quote: Bonita

Wizard, or anyone else. I am curious if you could ballpark the average payback percentage of a slot machine (video) if you did not take into account the top jackpot ever hitting. I have seen the accounting systems for some IGT machines that have been in play for about 8 months. I was shocked that a 98.5% payback machine could be paying back less than half of that. Greatly apprcieated. Thanks.

Bonita


Bonita,
If there is a slot machine that is paying back less than half of 98.5% then it is malfunctioning. This is assuming any reasonable amount of play. I'm wondering if you might have misinterpreted the data you saw. It would not be too uncommon for a game that holds 1.5% for the casino to hold 3% over a certain period of play. This might seem like it's paying back only half of what it should since it's holding twice as much as expected. As an example, $1,000,000 coin in x 98.5% par = $985,000 player return. $1,000,000 x 97.0% actual return = $970,000 return to the player. In order for the pay back to be only 50% of what it should the game would have to hold $492,500 (instead of $15,000)for the casino. This doesn't happen with any reasonable amount of play.

Quote: DorothyGale


For example, on the Blazing Sevens 95.45% game, if the top prize (three blazing 7's that pays 1000) was not available, the game pays 87.31%. That is, the top prize contributes 8.14% towards the overall return. I have seen games where the features contribute over 20% -- if you don't hit a feature it can feel like you are sinking fast.

In general, you would need access to the PARS (paytable and reel strip) sheet for the individual game to determine this value.

--Dorothy



Dorothy,
You are correct in observing that more and more of a slot machines payback comes in the form of features, what I would call slot bonus rounds. I believe that most people play these games for the bonus rounds, not necessarily for the pays on the main game. If you look at the actual pay for the top award combination it's often quite low compared to the total amount wagered. A typical game with a $2.50 max bet (25 lines x 10 credits per line) might have a top award of 3000 x line bet. That's a $300.00 jackpot for a $2.50 bet. Not exactly life changing.

Mark
  • Jump to: