Addicted-are we and the casinos hiding the reality?

I remember reading somewhere that a guy said he was annoyed when the win he got was LESS than his bet and it gave him a "big win," celebration, think he put in $1, and it gave him a .50 "win" and made a big show of it with the bells and whistles and celabratory music. He continued, "They do know that I LOST money on that bet, don't they?

Quote: Nathan

I remember reading somewhere that a guy said he was annoyed when the win he got was LESS than his bet and it gave him a "big win," celebration, think he put in $1, and it gave him a .50 "win" and made a big show of it with the bells and whistles and celabratory music. He continued, "They do know that I LOST money on that bet, don't they?

I have never seen a game give the "Big Win" celebration for less than the wager amount. Some of the games I have worked on would give it for a win 8x the bet amount. For example, if you bet 300 coins on a penny machine and got a win of $25 (2500 coins) it would give a Big Win celebration.

Okay. Would that be 5 lines per post message maybe, or just 5 lines per article and only one snip per article per thread? As I see many items in articles to link to.

I don't believe I've seen anywhere where a computer designer has to duplicate mechanical reels in any way, odds wise. Mechanical reels from what I seem to remember were changed all the time with more or less symbols as that's one of the way to decrease odds of winning. The fact that programmers have to code in such a way to keep a RF from happening the lest of any result in the first place proves to me a computer program can do whatever it wants depending on design and implementing a RNG or a series of RNG's to create outcomes.

Quote: billryan

Video poker machines do not give a player more opportunities for the Royal Flush. Statements like that cause me to question many of the authors other statements.

I don't see where he says that about RF, the article does state that it is thought that the 'near miss' is offered up quite a bit.

The whole article is about 'less' opportunities and how they're disguised as 'near wins' manipulations.

Quote: billryan

Video poker machines do not give a player more opportunities for the Royal Flush. Statements like that cause me to question many of the authors other statements.

Can you post up the part where they are talking about that please ?

Quote: djatc

Think it means they introduced games that pay more for certain 4 oaks like ddb. People want to go for attainable hands like 4oaks as opposed to royal flushes. 400 hand cycles are much easier to achieve then a 40k hand cycle.

Video poker seems to be referred to as the "crack cocaine" of gambling, and I think it's true based on what I've seen from ploppies. VP requires a choice in what you hold and discard, so the player feels like they have an influence on the outcome. I've seen people sitting on machines like a zombie playing video poker more then slots. The fact that it's "skilled" seems to bring more locals to play it then tourists. Most people just randomly hold hands and don't play properly, but they just want the big hit like 4 aces or something. Many would not make "potential" plays which would be dropping made hands into a potential bigger payoff, such as breaking a SF with 3 deuces on DW. Non-paying pairs with a high card is pretty common as well.

I've always found the psychology of gambling interesting. The slot payoffs where the win is lower then the actual bet still sounds like a winner, and I think people just want the feeling of winning something, maybe to compensate for other areas they are lacking in.

I totally believe casinos want people to play video poker just like they are sitting at a table with people and keep ace kickers and non winning pairs. I believe the reality of a video poker is there is no 52 card deck, instead a new deck is dealt every finished hand. Why else can one explain seeing the same cards in less than 5 hands, and I do. Using standard poker strategy with video poker is an instant losing game.

This goes right with this thread, in that the casinos know their marks and work to create a false winning atmosphere.

Quote: beachbumbabs

This was what stopped me as well. It's illegal for them to gaff the deck, or do anything to interfere with the randomness of the hands and the draw, at least for a class III vp game. Maybe the author is referring to paytable changes and phrases it badly, but as written they're making a false allegation.

I don't think that's what the article said. I think they were talking about DDB and other games where they boosted the payouts for quads by moving money from other awards, esp. 2 pair, and also by splitting out quads pays into kicker/non-kicker hands. Nothing in there about juicing the odds of a royal.

Also, I don't think it's illegal to gaff the deck if you announce it beforehand. You can add a joker after all, that changes the odds from 1/52 to 1/53. And there was another game years ago where each card position was dealt from its own 52-card deck. As long as the player knows what the rules are, I don't think there are restrictions on what those rules can be. Granted, anything new needs to get past regulatory but I don't think there are any hard-and-fast restrictions in the way you're implying.

I hope to be testing that theory in the coming months, btw.

Quote: sammydv

Why else can one explain seeing the same cards in less than 5 hands, and I do. Using standard poker strategy with video poker is an instant losing game.

.

Can you elaborate?

Quote: FleaStiff

Displaying a fake near miss as a psychological enticement is unlawful, displaying a real near miss is of course not illegal. Even on teh old three reel machines I always wanted reach in and move that final reel just one symbol up.

Nicotine, chocolate, the clanging of coins... we all respond to our environment. The brain is an addictive organ, particularly the female brain. We learn to seek a reward. Youth, beauty, lipstick, perfume, the sounds of coins dropping, flashing lights, cries of delight.... all have an effect on us. The "oxygen in the casinos'' is a myth and the fig tree oil is to mask the odor of french fries not to make us put more coins in. Other inducements exist. Shills are usually young, attractive females.

Lottery drawings are televised as an inducement to play it. We all are subject to re-inforcement influences is one fashion or another, but no one really is being forced into anything by insurmountable forces.

""Displaying a fake near miss as a psychological enticement is unlawful, displaying a real near miss is of course not illegal. Even on teh old three reel machines I always wanted reach in and move that final reel just one symbol up.""
What's the difference between a fake near miss and a real near miss? I don't understand the comment.
Thanks.

Quote: sammydv

""Displaying a fake near miss as a psychological enticement is unlawful, displaying a real near miss is of course not illegal. Even on teh old three reel machines I always wanted reach in and move that final reel just one symbol up.""
What's the difference between a fake near miss and a real near miss? I don't understand the comment.
Thanks.

Fake near miss: if the slot machine is going to spin to "blank blank blank", replacing that with another 0-value outcome but an exciting one like "seven seven blank" where the seven is just above the blank on the 3rd reel. That's a violation of NGC reg 14 as of about 1988.

Real near misses are naturally derived from the use of weighted reels (or unweighted reels too, they're just less likely). Those are allowed. If you increase the weight of a blank next to a jackpot symbol, you'll see the jackpot symbol off the payline more often than you would if the weights were equal.