Nice little jackpot on a wongable slot from WMS
Quote: Ardent1It is my understanding that several of these machines share the same linked jackpots, meaning you really can't exlude someone else from competing for the same jackpot. For example, supposed the machines are in a bank where they are placed back to back meaning you can't discern if another AP is doing the same thing on the other aisle.
axiomofchoice wants to count the chickens before they are hatched, and that is a no-no!
Your understanding is wrong. I said several times that they were not linked.
Quote: Mission146No, it says, "Base Pays," a Base Pay would not reflect an increase to the Progressive, or it wouldn't be a Base Pay.
Where does it say base pays?
I find it a little ridiculous to assume the EV of the game when all jackpots are at reset is 92%. No casino in the world has penny slots that are that generous based on published statistics. That would make the machines total return well in excess of 92%, which is just not reasonable.
Quote: Ardent1It is my understanding that several of these machines share the same linked jackpots, meaning you really can't exlude someone else from competing for the same jackpot. For example, supposed the machines are in a bank where they are placed back to back meaning you can't discern if another AP is doing the same thing on the other aisle.
axiomofchoice wants to count the chickens before they are hatched, and that is a no-no!
Many of the QuickHits machines are what is termed, "Linked Progressives," which means that they do share the same Jackpots. I'm not saying that you can exclude anyone, per se, but if you see that nobody else is playing them, (or are playing, but other than Max, which helps your ER) then you basically want to jump on there and mash the spin button before anyone else shows up to play.
It's not always an AP doing it, btw, it could just be someone else playing it. You would usually want to take a walk around that bank and see if there is anyone else playing Max and then keep an eye out for anyone to sit as best as you can. It also sucks to walk away from a +ER situation at a loss, so even if you see someone take a seat on the other side, take a little walk and see if they are Max Betting.
The one thing I've noticed, based on a limited sample size, is that casinos have a tendency to either operate on the stand-alone Progressive or the Linked Progressive for all of their QuickHits Platinum machines. Scioto Downs is an example of a place where they are all Linked Progressives, and perhaps every Quick Hits game they have (other than and in addition to Platinum) and there are a number of them. The QuickHits Diamond Progressives may or may not stand alone, I've never played them because they have never looked close to an advantage AND because they do this annoying thing where if you get Free Games on the Second & Third Reel they make a big production out of spinning the Fourth Reel...always hate that.
Anyway, the solution is easy. If all of the machines in a bank have different Progressive amounts, then they are standalone, and you should always play them at +ER.
Quote: 100xOddsahh.. Stars & Bars = lots of little wins
Black Gold Wild = not many wins, but when it wins, you get alot more $?
That's exactly right, except I wouldn't really say a lot more $$$.
Basically, if you compound a few back-to-back hits on B&GW, or otherwise go on a great run, you can end up +$50-$100 even without FG's or Progressives. I'm not saying that can't happen on S&B, but absent the Progressives, Free Games, or otherwise one of the top handfuls of results (and a few of them) you're screwed.
Quote: randompersonWhere does it say base pays?
I find it a little ridiculous to assume the EV of the game when all jackpots are at reset is 92%. No casino in the world has penny slots that are that generous based on published statistics. That would make the machines total return well in excess of 92%, which is just not reasonable.
I've already explained that, if those were not the Base Pays, then there would need to be a range because the structure of the base game is a perfectly graduated payout structure. Therefore, if you are not Max Betting (and do not qualify for the Progressive) your percentage return would be different. As you can see, there is only one percentage for each game setting, thus, it excludes any increases to the Progressive.
Quote: Mission146I've already explained that, if those were not the Base Pays, then there would need to be a range because the structure of the base game is a perfectly graduated payout structure. Therefore, if you are not Max Betting (and do not qualify for the Progressive) your percentage return would be different. As you can see, there is only one percentage for each game setting, thus, it excludes any increases to the Progressive.
Actually, in your reply to my previous post you said "It says 'base pays'". You didn't say I used logic to arrive at the conclusion that these are base pays. So which of your two contradictory posts is actually correct?
There is no mathematical reason why the returns can't be identical for a max better and not a max better. The outcome of the spins can be a function of the bet size.
I believe you are telling people something that is far from true, so people should take it with a huge grain of salt. There simply aren't penny slot machines out there with the returns that you claim. Beyond that, these are really common penny slots. Why are they so popular with casinos if they offer such high returns relative to the other machines?
Quote: randompersonActually, in your reply to my previous post you said "It says 'base pays'". You didn't say I used logic to arrive at the conclusion that these are base pays. So which of your two contradictory posts is actually correct?
You're quite correct, excuse me. I do recall that the Bally Tech site had that under a heading of, "Base Pays or Base Return," back when it was on their site, though I can't prove that. The logic is pretty simple, though, do you notice how there is that slash in between the two percentages even though they say the same thing? Basically, what that slash represents on a PAR Sheet is the base pay of a machine as pertains to the amount bet. If you have two numbers that are the same, then it is basically saying that the amount bet is not relevant to the base return, because it isn't, play any Quick Hits Platinum machine and look at the Rules and you will see that the wins paid by the bets operate on a perfectly-graduated structure.
Quote:There is no mathematical reason why the returns can't be identical for a max better and not a max better. The outcome of the spins can be a function of the bet size.
Well, there is a mathematical reason which is that the machine operates on a perfectly-graduated payout structure. If the machine operates on a perfectly-graduated payout structure, then the Base Returns are simply relative to the amount bet.
I suppose, if you were absolutely determined to belabor the point, you could (nonsensically) argue that the reel distribution changes in such a way when one is not Max Betting that the Base Return then equals the return had by Max Betting based on the average amount of the Progressives when they hit. The reason that this position would be nonsensical is because Max Betting could then provide a disadvantage to the player compared to betting the Minimum depending on where the Progressives are at at any given time.
Quote:I believe you are telling people something that is far from true, so people should take it with a huge grain of salt. There simply aren't penny slot machines out there with the returns that you claim. Beyond that, these are really common penny slots. Why are they so popular with casinos if they offer such high returns relative to the other machines?
I believe that you have done nothing to counter my position with the exception of engaging in pseudo-Socratic questioning counter to what evidence is available while presenting absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your point.
Quote:1.) "There simply aren't penny machines out there with the returns you claim."
A.) Have you ever heard of competition?
B.) Every machine/lottery/bingo/keno/bet...basically, every game imaginable that involves some kind of Progressive has a point where that game can be played at positive ER. That's a mathematical fact. It is true that said game may never reach the point where it is in +ER territory, but that point can always theoretically be attained.
c.) 88.xx% on some of them? You're getting close to the jurisdictional minimum in some places at 88% ER from a machine. Are you really arguing that penny machines would not pay as high as levels that are near some jurisdictional minimums?
Quote:2.) Beyond that, these are really common penny slots. Why are they so popular with casinos if they offer such high returns relative to the other machines?
A.) What's popular with the players is going to be popular with a casino, for starters. You could have a machine with a return of 85%, but if the patrons think the game sucks and choose not to play it, then a machine with a higher ER simply makes the House more money. Casinos tend to favor games that make them money, and Quick Hits must apparently succeed in that regard because Quick Hits Platinum (and other variations of Quick Hits) have comprised a non insubstantial portion of the total slot machines at every casino I have been to in the last few years.
B.) They offer extremely high returns when the Progressives are at certain levels. I've never been backed off for playing machines when the Progressives are good, and the reason why is because the House has no real reason to care who hits the Progressives. You basically have your Base Pays, and then a certain amount on top of that which feeds the Progressives and if you subtract that total from 100%, then what you have left is the House Edge on every single pull of that machine. The expected profit per hour from those machines (just in terms of bets, not in terms of how often they are played) is not variable for the casino the same way that the ER is variable on a player-by-player basis pursuant to the Progressives.
C.) Quick Hits machines play pretty fast, particularly the Quick Hits Platinum machines. They don't have any of that bull**** stalling when Free Games hits on the second and third reels and only have any stalling when the Quick Hits Platinum symbol appears on the first & second reel, which is very rare. The Free Games also play pretty fast, especially with the players who don't sit there and watch it count the pays on every single line that hits, and then you have the button-mashers...I like to enjoy the Free Games a bit with a cigarette, so I don't button mash, but I don't sit there and watch every single pay, either.
Basically, regardless of the denomination of a machine, the faster it pays the better the pays can be and still have the same $$$/hour expectation for the casino.
D.) Why is Baccarat/Mini-Bacc so popular with the casinos when it offers such high returns relative to other Table Games? Popularity and speed of play, expected profit-per-player-per-hour.
Penny slots are commonly 89-90% total return. Where I come from, this reported return includes free play, which adds a percent, so the machine return is more like 88% on average for penny slots. These are common return ranges for Las Vegas. Even the best paying slots for pennies in Vegas are below 91%.
Assuming that any penny slot machine is paying out 92% plus the value of meter rise is just asking to throw your money down a pit.
Based on the math earlier in the thread, this 4% we are talking about could be the difference between a 32 being playable and a 45 not being playable.
Quote: randompersonI agree that every machine with a progressive is +EV at some point. That's not my argument. But you should take a look (or another look) at ACGs list of reported slot machine returns. http://www.americancasinoguide.com/slot-machine-payback-statistics.html
Very good. I am aware of what the average payouts for $0.01 slot machines are in some of those jurisdictions. Now, if we see averages for the $0.01/Denom machines at anywhere from 88-90%, then what we can infer from that is some machines pay more than that and some machines pay less than that. Unless of course you wish to contend that every single machine within a jurisdiction is set to pay out at exactly 89.12%, or whatever.
We know that licensed games tend to pay less than other games. Examples of licensed games are Sex & The City, Survivor, Scrabble, Wheel of Fortune, American Idol, Monopoly, Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz...and there are others. Quick Hits is not a licensed game, and thus, should pay out more than licensed games to. Licensed games, therefore, are bringing that average down. Licensed games also tend to be popular, given that this is the case, it could be argued that a disproportionate amount of money could be going into licensed games. I would not make that argument.
We know that Video Slot machines tend to pay lower than physical reel, particularly those that are especially flashy and intricate. Quick Hits is a video slot machine, but it is not (in my personal opinion) especially flashy or intricate.
Therefore, I contest that Quick Hits machines pay more than the average, on average. If there were jurisdicitons in there that have an average of under 88% (I wasn't particularly looking for that) and the Minimum Return on QuickHits is 88%+ (which it is) then we know they definitely pay more than average in those jurisdicitions.
Quote:Penny slots are commonly 89-90% total return. Where I come from, this reported return includes free play, which adds a percent, so the machine return is more like 88% on average for penny slots. These are common return ranges for Las Vegas. Even the best paying slots for pennies in Vegas are below 91%.
The sheet says what the sheet says and the sheet says what Bally Tech's site used to say. Further, you contend that 88% is an average for slots absent Free Play. Quick Hits minimum is greater than 88%, therefore, we already know it pays more than that average you are talking about. Some locations that give poor Free Play, comparatively, also occasionally have their machines set, "Looser," than those of other locations.
Quote:Assuming that any penny slot machine is paying out 92% plus the value of meter rise is just asking to throw your money down a pit.
My assumptions is based on detailed records for one specific type of Quick Hits machine at one casino. I did not specifically direct anyone to assume 92%, especially given that I referred people (though Tringlomane did first) to a website that states that some of them do not pay that. I have specifically stated that if one wishes to assume 88%, then that individual may still do the Math accordingly and often be at an advantage, just not as often.
Quote:Based on the math earlier in the thread, this 4% we are talking about could be the difference between a 32 being playable and a 45 not being playable.
People may assume what they wish for the Base Pays. I never stated that they all pay 92%.
Quote: 100xOddsahh.. Stars & Bars = lots of little wins
Black Gold Wild = not many wins, but when it wins, you get alot more $?
It could also mean more money in the bonus round in the case of Black Gold Wild. Unless you have the PAR sheet, you just don't know.
Quote: randompersonI agree that every machine with a progressive is +EV at some point. That's not my argument. But you should take a look (or another look) at ACGs list of reported slot machine returns. http://www.americancasinoguide.com/slot-machine-payback-statistics.html
Penny slots are commonly 89-90% total return. Where I come from, this reported return includes free play, which adds a percent, so the machine return is more like 88% on average for penny slots. These are common return ranges for Las Vegas. Even the best paying slots for pennies in Vegas are below 91%.
Assuming that any penny slot machine is paying out 92% plus the value of meter rise is just asking to throw your money down a pit.
Based on the math earlier in the thread, this 4% we are talking about could be the difference between a 32 being playable and a 45 not being playable.
uggg.. md is minimum payback of 87% :(
which probably means the SMI #Y0870 machine ( 88.03% payback). its the lowest payback setting for QuickHits.
ny is minimum 90% so SMI #Y0871 (90.09%), 2nd lowest setting
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAccording to the link posted above, the returns quickly diminish for the higher progressives. Obviously you would love to hit one, but it's so unlikely that increasing the dollar value doesn't make as much of a difference to the EV.
The info given was:
Any nine QH symbols pays 2,000 x total bet. Occurs every 2,073,600 games.
Any eight QH symbols pays 650 x total bet. Occurs every 87,617 games.
Any seven QH symbols pays100 x total bet. Occurs every 9,327 games.
Any six QH symbols pays 50 x total bet. Occurs every 1,329 games.
Any five QH symbols pays 10 x total bet . Occurs every 230 games.
If we assume that these numbers are correct (and I agree with the previous posters; they probably are) then we can just divide the numbers and see that the base values are worth:
5QH: 0.0434 max bets
6QH: 0.0376 max bets
7QH: 0.0107 max bets
8QH: 0.0074 max bets
9QH: 0.0010 max bets
In other words, if both the 5QH and 6QH progressives are double their base value, that adds about 8.1% to your EV over the base amount (4.34% from the 5QH and 3.76% from the 6QH). Doubling the 7QH jackpot adds only an extra 1% -- it would need to be at 5x its base before it was worth about as much as a doubled 5QH or 6QH.
how did you get .0376 for 6QH?
1/1329 = .00075 or .075%
in fact, how did you get .0434 for 5QH?
1/230 = .00434 = .434%
Quote: 100xOddsuggg.. md is minimum payback of 87% :(
which probably means the SMI #Y0870 machine ( 88.03% payback). its the lowest payback setting for QuickHits.
ny is minimum 90% so SMI #Y0871 (90.09%), 2nd lowest setting
Those are safe assumptions to make, but again, I would compare this to other slots and imagine that it might not be the very next level after the minimum, but rather one level higher than that. That's me, though, and I like the game so I don't mind playing at 97%-99.999%, if someone is a true AP, then assuming the absolute minimum setting pursuant to jurisdictional minimums is a good idea.
Quote: 100xOddshow did you get .0376 for 6QH?
1/1329 = .00075 or .075%
in fact, how did you get .0434 for 5QH?
1/230 = .00434 = .434%
You might want to multiply by the payout... :)
For 5QH, as you noticed, 1/230 = 0.00434. It pays 10 bets at the base payout, so it is worth 10/230 = 0.0434 bets of the normal base payout (in other words, if the base payout is 92%, 4.34% of that comes from the base 5QH payout). If 5QH is sitting at double its normal value (so it pays 20 bets instead of 10 -- ie, it pays an extra 10) then it increases the value of the game by 10 / 230 = 0.0434 bets over the base. If it were at triple its base value (paying 30 bets), that would be an extra 20 over the base, so it would increase the value of the game by 0.0868 bets over the base.
In other words, if a progressive has a base of B bets, and is currently sitting at P bets, and hits once every N hands, you need to calculate (P-B)/N, and add that to the base payout. Do that for EVERY progressive, and you have the total value of the game.
Unfortunately, you might have to guess at the base, because there are different possible settings, and I think, in most jurisdictions, the casino doesn't have to tell you which one is being used. You might be able to estimate it if you track the results of your spins (tracking the results of each individual reel, similar to the way that the wizard does in his "deconstructing" articles, is probably the best way to go -- it requires a lot less data, since you don't need to wait for all the rare results to occur a statistically significant number of times -- although it requires estimating the value of the bonus games as well). if you wanted to be safe you could just assume that it is set to the lowest of all the bases which are allowed in your jurisdiction, although, if you are wrong, you might be missing some +EV plays.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYour understanding is wrong. I said several times that they were not linked.
You misread my comment. You took it out of context.
If you recall, I wasn't addressing your point, but another point (meter movement in linked progressive jackpots) and you blindly rushed in.
The logic that you guys are using is the Bayesian equivalent of begging the question. So lets so you are a proper Bayesian and you believe that the returns on a slot machine will be 92% plus meter rise. And then the wonderful Bayesian in you gets new information, the average slot machine return in some big jurisdictions like Las Vegas is closer to 89%. Yay! Time to update your beliefs. That should make you think the return might be less than 92% plus meter rise. But wait, no that's not how it works here. Instead, that means that now you know for sure that these machines are better than the other machines, thus making it more likely that they were 92% to begin with. Wow!
Quote: randompersonThere is so much fail going on in this thread. Even if you believe that the expected return of the quick hits machine will be 90% or 92%, that doesn't mean you assume that the base return is that number. It means you calculate how much meter rise raises the return above the base return and then use a reasonable base return that totals to 90% or 92% total return.
Excellent. Again, I have over 50 hours of meticulous play data from the machines I most commonly use only counting the Base Pays on the Quick Hits as return and I am at just under 92%. Notable in this data is the fact that I have never hit Five QuickHits Platinum symbols, Nine QuickHits Symbols or Eight QuickHits symbols (the time I hit Eight was a flat-top during Bonus Games).
If you wish to operate with what you are suggesting, though, then you would simple see how much each of the meters rise per $1.50 bet, and calculating the average amount of the Progressive when it is hit would be easy because you have the probabilities of the Progressives hitting right there in front of you. From that point, you would then use anything over the average Progressive amount hit.
The second paragraph is pointless, though, because the Base Pays are $15.00, $75.00, $150.00, $975 and $3,000.00 on the Progressives.
Quote:
The logic that you guys are using is the Bayesian equivalent of begging the question. So lets so you are a proper Bayesian and you believe that the returns on a slot machine will be 92% plus meter rise. And then the wonderful Bayesian in you gets new information, the average slot machine return in some big jurisdictions like Las Vegas is closer to 89%. Yay! Time to update your beliefs. That should make you think the return might be less than 92% plus meter rise. But wait, no that's not how it works here. Instead, that means that now you know for sure that these machines are better than the other machines, thus making it more likely that they were 92% to begin with. Wow!
I've already addressed your point about the average slot machine returns in Vegas and elsewhere and detect no hint of meaningful counter-argument on your part.
When the mood strikes you, feel free to present an actual argument as to why you think the return on Quick Hits machines should be at or lower than jurisdicitional averages in light of the conveniently ignored points I have made, not least of which is the fact that it is not a licensed game.
I called Bally Technologies and managed to bullshit my way to the Customer Service and Technical Support Line. Once there, I spoke to James and requested to know if the Base Pays from the PAR Sheets had anything to do with the increases to the Progressives per bet for the Quick Hits Platinum machines that came out in 2007. He assured me that they did not. I then asked, point blank, "So, the base pays on the PAR Sheets have nothing to do with the Progressive increases in anyway whatsoever?"
His answer was, "For the QuickHits Platinum machines that came out in 2007, no, they do not."
If you want to call and see if you hear otherwise, the number is (702) 584-7755.
There you go, everyone. According to BALLY TECHNOLOGIES INC. the increases to those Progressives have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Base Pay percentages.
Thank you, and good night.
Quote: randompersonThere is so much fail going on in this thread.
That there is.
"Time to update your beliefs."
Quote: Mission146FINALLY!!!
I called Bally Technologies and managed to bullshit my way to the Customer Service and Technical Support Line. Once there, I spoke to James and requested to know if the Base Pays from the PAR Sheets had anything to do with the increases to the Progressives per bet for the Quick Hits Platinum machines that came out in 2007. He assured me that they did not. I then asked, point blank, "So, the base pays on the PAR Sheets have nothing to do with the Progressive increases in anyway whatsoever?"
His answer was, "For the QuickHits Platinum machines that came out in 2007, no, they do not."
If you want to call and see if you hear otherwise, the number is (702) 584-7755.
There you go, everyone. According to BALLY TECHNOLOGIES INC. the increases to those Progressives have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Base Pay percentages.
Thank you, and good night.
translation for the simple minded?
So if the 5QH progressive goes up by 1c for every max bet pull on a $1.50 max bet machine, it will go up by 1c on every max bet pull regardless of whether the machine is set to pay out 85% or 92% or something else. So, if you see it going up by a certain rate in your home jurisdiction, it will go up at the same rate in Vegas, even if the base payout is different.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI believe that he is saying that, regardless of whether the base game returns 85% or 90% or 92% or whatever the options are, the progressives rise by the same amount.
So if the 5QH progressive goes up by 1c for every max bet pull on a $1.50 max bet machine, it will go up by 1c on every max bet pull regardless of whether the machine is set to pay out 85% or 92% or something else. So, if you see it going up by a certain rate in your home jurisdiction, it will go up at the same rate in Vegas, even if the base payout is different.
That's also true. (Or, actually in re-reading that, perhaps not. There may be a way to set how much $$$ feeds the Progressives, but it would have nothing to do with the Base Pays, or of the ER of any given individual pull when at +ER.)
The main point that I was getting at is that the Quick Hits Platinum Base Pays do not include the amount being added to any of the Progressives, nor are they based on the average Progressive amount for each Progressive that is it. Whether or not some slot machines include this as part of the, "Base Pay," I do not know, but I did know that this one did not. I mean, I know that some of them do, I just can't tell you, "Yes," or, "No," for every single slot machine.
Furthermore, if you look at the information from that website, you'll see that the Base Pays are the same amount regardless of the amount bet. This would (normally) lead one to the conclusion that the Progressive does not affect the Base Pay one way or another. RandomPerson's argument (?) was that the Progressive increases contributed to what is being stated as the Base Pay, or alternatively, that the Base Pay was based on all of the Base Pays of the game + average of each Progressive amount at the time it is hit in $$$ * liklihood of the Progressive hitting, for each Progressive.
In order for that to have been true:
1.) For the Base Pay on a minimum bet to be exactly the same would require a different reel distribution thereby paying out an amount at an EV equal to the Max Bet with the Progressives based on the average Progressive amount...complete nonsense.
2.) That you would occasionally be at more of a disadvantage Max Betting as opposed to betting Minimum if the total Progressives were at a lower %ER level than what they would be based on the ER from where the Progressives actually hit, in terms of $$$ amount, on average...complete nonsense.
AND:
3.) Assuming #1, the Base Game would actually have to be a little bit better than that in terms of reel distribution unless Minimum Bets do not feed the Progressive, they do, and thus that argument is complete nonsense.
In other words, and I mean RandomPerson no offense even though he has been more argumentative than necessary, all of his positions have been conclusively proven to be complete nonsense, and he also accused me of telling people to assume things I did not tell them to assume.
Quote: 100xOdds
translation for the simple minded?
RandomPerson's objections are unfounded, my premises are correct, and you may refer to the Math for determining the difference in ER with the Progressives from earlier in this thread. The only variable is which of the five paytables is being used, something that I cannot answer and can only assume based on my records from one casino...which would apply only to that casino.
However, you do know that the Base Pays will be more than the jurisdicitional minimum, so you can use that. I would also assume that they would likely be slightly better than the average $0.01/denom slots within a certain jurisdiction, but that may not be safe to assume.
Quote: Mission146
However, you do know that the Base Pays will be more than the jurisdictional minimum, so you can use that.
Most jurisdictional minimums are significantly less than the lowest payout version listed, so that point probably doesn't mean a lot. In most markets, I would assume they are using the lowest paying machine listed (~88%). Anything higher is wishful thinking, imo.
Quote: tringlomaneMost jurisdictional minimums are significantly less than the lowest payout version listed, so that point probably doesn't mean a lot. In most markets, I would assume they are using the lowest paying machine listed (~88%). Anything higher is wishful thinking, imo.
That's true, but for those jurisdictions that have higher minimums, you know the worst of it with relation to what you are getting. Furthermore, I would personally assume that these tend to pay higher than jurisdictional averages, and my understanding with Vegas is that Off-Strip casinos tend to pay better than those on the strip, so they may use a higher setting.
In any case, the Math works the same way, so there is still an advantage point (even if you assume the worst) and it's easy to determine whether or not a particular machine is at that point.
Quote: Mission146and my understanding with Vegas is that Off-Strip casinos tend to pay better than those on the strip, so they may use a higher setting.
By a few percentage points yes, but without a deconstruction or PAR sheet, I'd still assume the lowest setting for Off-Strip casinos. Penny slots paid back 90% Off-Strip in the last 12 months.
The only place I would assume the 90% machine is NY or other states that require a 90% minimum. Is there any other state with a minimum that high?
Regardless, these machines could occasionally become +EV but will be fairly rare finds.
Quote: tringlomaneBy a few percentage points yes, but without a deconstruction or PAR sheet, I'd still assume the lowest setting for Off-Strip casinos. Penny slots paid back 90% Off-Strip in the last 12 months.
The only place I would assume the 90% machine is NY or other states that require a 90% minimum. Is there any other state with a minimum that high?
Regardless, these machines could occasionally become +EV but will be fairly rare finds.
Pursuant to:
http://www.americancasinoguide.com/slot-machine-payback-statistics.html
Maine-89%, by law.
That's all I got for now with respect to legal requirements, I'll try to research the matter in more detail later.
I have not found a requirement greater than 88% from any other State yet, but I must admit to giving up on Indiana, their site sucks.
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IC/LINC/Chapter.99f.pdf
I'm interpreting Paragraph 17 on Page 11 to mean that they must post the average payout of each machine in Iowa, does anyone know anymore about this?
I also sent a PM to Tiltpoul, who might know.
EDIT: IOWA is Minimum 80%, still interested in the above, though.
Notes to Self
1.) You finished New Jersey and will start again tomorrow.
2.) DO NOT forget to call MGM Grand prior to 5:00p.m., Vegas Time, 8:00p.m. EST and remember to ask for Cinda.
3.) For 1/5/2013, prepare QAR Sheets for AceofSpades' answering service.
(Sorry, I forgot my notebook/planner today and this is the one thread where I know I will look tomorrow!)
Quote: Mission146I've made it to Iowa.
I have not found a requirement greater than 88% from any other State yet, but I must admit to giving up on Indiana, their site sucks.
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IC/LINC/Chapter.99f.pdf
I'm interpreting Paragraph 17 on Page 11 to mean that they must post the average payout of each machine in Iowa, does anyone know anymore about this?
I also sent a PM to Tiltpoul, who might know.
I don't think that Iowa has to post the individual payback per MACHINE, however they MUST post the payback in the casino, at each casino. Prairie Meadows in Des Moines has advertised that they are second best in the state, next to Rhythm City in Davenport.
In Iowa, the casinos that compete on the East side of the state tend to have better paybacks, as does Des Moines, which competes with Council Bluffs, Davenport and Meskwaki in Tama. CB properties and the loner properties (i.e. Osceola, Waterloo) tend to have worse paybacks overall.
And like Mississippi, Indiana's maximum payout is 100%. Screw those jerks for putting that in writing, even though I enjoy playing 99.82% JoB w/STP at Blue Chip! It's one of the best quarter machines in the Midwest. :( 99.96% Deuces Wild is at Horseshoe Hammond for dollars. (50-play; comp whoring opportunity!). And they use "standard methods of the probability theory". I would expect this from Ohio, home of "The Ohio State University". lol
68 IAC 2-6-29 Software requirements for percentage payout
Authority: IC 4-33-4-1; IC 4-33-4-2; IC 4-33-4-3
Affected: IC 4-33
Sec. 29. The electronic gaming device must meet the following maximum and minimum theoretical percentage payouts
during the expected lifetime of the electronic gaming device:
Indiana Administrative Code Page 52
LICENSES AND APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
(1) The electronic gaming device must pay out at least eighty percent (80%) and not more than one hundred percent (100%)
of the amount wagered unless otherwise approved by the executive director.
(2) The theoretical payout percentage must be determined using standard methods of the probability theory. The percentage
must be calculated using the highest level of skill where player skill impacts the payback percentage.
(3) An electronic gaming device must have a probability of obtaining the maximum payout greater than one (1) in fifty
million (50,000,000).
(Indiana Gaming Commission; 68 IAC 2-6-29; filed Jan 17, 1996, 11:00 a.m.: 19 IR 1307; readopted filed Oct 15, 2001, 4:34
p.m.: 25 IR 898; readopted filed Sep 14, 2007, 1:40 p.m.: 20071003-IR-068070354RFA)
Thanks! I hope you already had that somewhere and didn't have to go digging through their stupid website(s) to get it. I spent about 45 (granted, not uninterrupted) minutes on Indiana alone and declared it not worth it!
100% isn't bad. There are many jurisdictions where the cap on the high end is significantly less than that. (ex. 95%)
I haven't researched Ohio yet, but I plan to look into that (and others) later tonight. Thus far, NY and ME are the only states where their minimum jurisdictional returns exceed Quick Hits Platinum's minimum setting.
Quote: Mission146Thanks for the reply, TiltPoul! I'll know to check out Rhythm City if I am ever in Iowa!
There is a reason they do have the highest payouts. It's kind of a crummy casino, with some really old video machines that you can barely see the screen. Rhythm City used to be an okay place to play, but lately it's a dump and it's INCREDIBLY smoky. Even with lower payouts, I'd take Jumer's any day.
Quote: Mission146Tringlomane,
Thanks! I hope you already had that somewhere and didn't have to go digging through their stupid website(s) to get it. I spent about 45 (granted, not uninterrupted) minutes on Indiana alone and declared it not worth it!
100% isn't bad. There are many jurisdictions where the cap on the high end is significantly less than that. (ex. 95%)
I haven't researched Ohio yet, but I plan to look into that (and others) later tonight. Thus far, NY and ME are the only states where their minimum jurisdictional returns exceed Quick Hits Platinum's minimum setting.
Eh I looked it up, but I think I had looked it up at some other point (because I was pretty sure the minimum was 80% before looking). I also was searching the documents for words like "minimum", "theoretical", and "payout".
Pennsylvania is 85% min; 100% max.
http://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/files/regulations/Final_Regulations_Master.pdf Section 461a.7 (page 182)
Ohio is also 85% min. No maximum limit.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3772 Section 3772.20
Quote: tsmithGetting back to the original thread topic, I found another "exploitable" slot machine the other day while I was at Bally's in Tunica, Ms.; a game I haven't noticed in any of the other area casinos.
It was a bank of 4 WMS slot machines, each of which had a screen above it with castle-themed progressive jackpots, where each turret of a castle had a different amount, ranging from Jester, the lowest at around 8 bucks, to King, that stood at over $1k. I don't know how these amounts increased, whether by partial or full coin-in or by wins or what, but there were different amounts above each machine.
Without getting into too much detail, there was a random bonus separate from the game's normal bonus that activated a feature whereby you could win one of the progressives via a pick-em screen, either the one displayed above your machine or someone else's. It cost a little more per spin because of this feature.
But the thing is, each progressive meter displayed "Guaranteed to win within x choices" and while I was there, there were several that said "Guaranteed to win within NEXT choice" so I sat down and played.
Since the place was fairly empty I was the only one playing at this bank of machines, so every time I got to the random bonus feature I won at least 1 or 2 of the progessives. I won $100-$110 about 4 or 5 times and $8+change about 4 times. On one bonus feature alone I won 3 of the $8 amounts and 2 of the $100s!
I'm calling this game "exploitable" because, as you can see, with only 1 person playing there is no competition for the progressives; if an amount is guaranteed to be won on the next choice, essentially all you have to do is get to the bonus feature, hit a certain reel combination, and it's all yours. With 4 players, however, it becomes a completely different game and one that I probably would not play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy5O08npUyg
didnt see this castle slot game in md casino, which had the most slot machines on the East Coast (including AC)
Quote: Mission146That there is.
"Time to update your beliefs."
My main argument has been that the 92% is way too optimistic, and I think its still true.
I was pessimistic about the numbers reported being for base pays, but honestly didn't know. Lets take it as a stipulation that the numbers reported are base pays. I'm not 100% sure because a customer service helpline probably has no clue what meter rise is, but my belief is that they are base pay percentages and I'm more than 95% confident that you are right about this point.
Your problem, and the problem of several other people on your side of the argument, is that you are conflating a belief that the machine returns 92% with the idea that the base pay is 92%. Even if you believe that the penny slots in your jurisdiction return 92%, that is a far cry from the assumption that the base pay is 92%. Remember, the number reported to the government is total coin in and total coin out. The number reported on the website is the base pay. We have to know meter rise to figure out how big the spread is between those two things.
You didn't understand the Bayesian argument in the slightest. Evidence that slot machine returns, on average, are lower than your priors, can never lead you to increase your confidence that slot machine returns are actually high, which is what your previous post was arguing.
Quote: Mission146
However, you do know that the Base Pays will be more than the jurisdicitional minimum, so you can use that. I would also assume that they would likely be slightly better than the average $0.01/denom slots within a certain jurisdiction, but that may not be safe to assume.
Slow down there. I don't agree. Aren't the jurisdictional minimums for total coin in and total coin out?
I can give you a very extreme example. The new IGT hit three times before reset slot machines. 15% of the return of the machine is tied up in the progressives. If the bottom two progressives hit twice early and only have one hit before reset left, the machine may be more than 10% below average EV. The point is that, the requirement that machines return greater than 88% or 90% in all possible states is a huge hurdle to overcome and I don't think its the actually standard.
Quote: randompersonSlow down there. I don't agree. Aren't the jurisdictional minimums for total coin in and total coin out?
Depends on the state, I think; most states don't clearly specify this. In PA, progressive meter rises may NOT be included, so the base game must be > 85%.
§ 461a.7. Slot machine minimum design standards.
(a) A slot machine may not be set to pay out less than the theoretical payout percentage,
which may not be less than 85% or equal or exceed 100%. The theoretical payout percentage for
the total value of slot machine wagers will be calculated using the following:
(1) The defined set of all symbols that will be displayed using spinning reels or
video displays, or both.
(2) The finite set of all possible combinations which shall be known as the cycle
of the game. All possible combinations in a slot machine cycle shall be independent of each
other and of all possible combinations from cycles in other slot machines.
(3) The value of each winning combination that corresponds with the set from
paragraph (2) which, whether by reason of skill or application of the element of chance or both,
may deliver or entitle the person or persons playing the slot machine to a jackpot.
(4) A payout of merchandise or anything of value provided a cash equivalent
award for the merchandise is offered. The value of the cash equivalent will contribute to the
calculation of the theoretical payout percentage.
(5) A payout in the form of an annuity will contribute to the calculation of the
theoretical payout percentage by dividing the initial or reset amount of the jackpot payout by the
number of years over which the jackpot will be paid.
(6) The odds of any winning combination may not exceed 50 million to 1.
(b) The calculation of the theoretical payout percentage will not include:
(1) The amount of any progressive jackpot in excess of the initial or reset
amount.
(2) A cash or noncash complimentary issued under § 465.8 (relating to
complimentary services or items).
Quote: TiltpoulThere is a reason they do have the highest payouts. It's kind of a crummy casino, with some really old video machines that you can barely see the screen. Rhythm City used to be an okay place to play, but lately it's a dump and it's INCREDIBLY smoky. Even with lower payouts, I'd take Jumer's any day.
I appreciate the advice, of course, but I'm a smoker and will take the ER unless Jumer's is as nice as Scioto.
Quote: tringlomaneEh I looked it up, but I think I had looked it up at some other point (because I was pretty sure the minimum was 80% before looking). I also was searching the documents for words like "minimum", "theoretical", and "payout".
Pennsylvania is 85% min; 100% max.
http://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/files/regulations/Final_Regulations_Master.pdf Section 461a.7 (page 182)
Ohio is also 85% min. No maximum limit.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3772 Section 3772.20
Thanks, Tringlomane, you probably saved me the better part of a half hour!
Quote: randompersonMy main argument has been that the 92% is way too optimistic, and I think its still true.
I was pessimistic about the numbers reported being for base pays, but honestly didn't know. Lets take it as a stipulation that the numbers reported are base pays. I'm not 100% sure because a customer service helpline probably has no clue what meter rise is, but my belief is that they are base pay percentages and I'm more than 95% confident that you are right about this point.
It was the technical support line, so I imagine that is precisely what they are expected to know. He also answered quickly and confidently, as though he'd been asked the question before.
Quote:Your problem, and the problem of several other people on your side of the argument, is that you are conflating a belief that the machine returns 92% with the idea that the base pay is 92%. Even if you believe that the penny slots in your jurisdiction return 92%, that is a far cry from the assumption that the base pay is 92%. Remember, the number reported to the government is total coin in and total coin out. The number reported on the website is the base pay. We have to know meter rise to figure out how big the spread is between those two things.
I am not doing any such thing. I have stated that even my record-keeping amounts to nothing more than an assumption, but those are the records, and the sample size is enough that I am going to trust them. They've not failed me yet as I have played those machines at a gain overall, lifetime. I do not believe that the penny slots in my jurisdiction pay over 92%, I believe that those specific machines pay at the 92.09% Base Pays. I have also subtracted any increases to Progressives on Progressives hit in calculating my returns in over fifty hours played and came up with just under 92%.
I've already stated that some machines pay more than others and some less, thus, the average really doesn't tell us much about anything...though we can make some inferences with respect to licensed games pulling the average down.
I respect the softer tone you have taken with me in your most recent posts, but with all due respect, you're still beating up on strawmen.
Quote:You didn't understand the Bayesian argument in the slightest. Evidence that slot machine returns, on average, are lower than your priors, can never lead you to increase your confidence that slot machine returns are actually high, which is what your previous post was arguing.
Again:
1.) Those machines, that casino, based on my records.
2.) People can assume what they want, I don't ask that anyone believe me. The only assumption I make is that they will be set higher than jurisdictional minimums.
Quote: randompersonSlow down there. I don't agree. Aren't the jurisdictional minimums for total coin in and total coin out?
Not everywhere. I must still conduct the rest of my legal research on State minimums, and when that is completed, I will return to NY, ME and others (if there are any) and research the latter question.
Quote:I can give you a very extreme example. The new IGT hit three times before reset slot machines. 15% of the return of the machine is tied up in the progressives. If the bottom two progressives hit twice early and only have one hit before reset left, the machine may be more than 10% below average EV. The point is that, the requirement that machines return greater than 88% or 90% in all possible states is a huge hurdle to overcome and I don't think its the actually standard.
I noticed through my research yesterday that, in many jurisdictions, that is correct.
I concede that argument, but reserve the right to research the matter in more detail on jurisdicitions requiring the higher minimums.
Quote: Mission146Excellent. Again, I have over 50 hours of meticulous play data from the machines I most commonly use only counting the Base Pays on the Quick Hits as return and I am at just under 92%. Notable in this data is the fact that I have never hit Five QuickHits Platinum symbols, Nine QuickHits Symbols or Eight QuickHits symbols (the time I hit Eight was a flat-top during Bonus Games).
How meticulous is the data? If you can calculate a standard deviation of spins we can use the CLT to calculate an approximate 95% confidence interval for the games true return given your observations. I have no idea whether 50 hours is enough to converge to the truth, but we can use some math to figure it out.
I play a lot more video poker. If someone came up and told me that they had 50 hours of data on a video poker machine and then concluded something, I would laugh in their face. 50 hours is like one royal cycle on some machines. If there are rare events in the base game of the machine, you need a lot more than 50 hours.
Quote: randompersonHow meticulous is the data? If you can calculate a standard deviation of spins we can use the CLT to calculate an approximate 95% confidence interval for the games true return given your observations. I have no idea whether 50 hours is enough to converge to the truth, but we can use some math to figure it out.
I will admit that it is not terribly meticulous for the purposes you want as it was only done for the purpose of determining ER, and was meticulous for that purpose, so that's a negative.
Again, one positive is that I have never hit for 8QH, 9QH or 5QHP symbols at any point, even including Bonus Games for the QH's, so it should run a little low.
Here's how it would work:
I would put x amount (usually $50) in the machine and would count down from 100 spins. During this time, in the event that I hit any Progressive(s), I would log the amount that was an increase to the Progressive Meter for the Progressive(s) hit. At the end of 100 Spins, I would figure out my return, as a percentage, after subtracting any increases to the Progressive Meter (when hit) from the total amount remaining.
I would notate the total amount remaining and count down from 100 again, same procedure. If any monies were added to the machine at any point, there would be a notation of that. If I lost all the money that I intended to lose before hitting 100 spins, then that negative amount would go in as the result against -(x -100) spins.
Finally, on a running basis, I would determine the total return based on coin-in, which was easy because it was a simple matter of adding up the spins, multiplying that by $1.50 (amount per bet) and then dividing that result (on all but two occasions, early, where I was ahead just on Base Pays) from the coin-out on Base Pays only.
For example, if you made 100 spins, then that would be $150.00, and then if those spins returned $132.34, you have 132.34/150 = 88.23% return.
Quote:I play a lot more video poker. If someone came up and told me that they had 50 hours of data on a video poker machine and then concluded something, I would laugh in their face. 50 hours is like one royal cycle on some machines. If there are rare events in the base game of the machine, you need a lot more than 50 hours.
I both agree and disagree. For example, if I had hit Eight or Nine Quickhits even once during this sequence (while I wouldn't have minded much) it would have severely screwed up my results, but that didn't happen. Discluding the spin entirely as a statistical anamoly would also have been an option, or you could always have weighted all other spins such as to compensate for the hit. For example, I could have taken my return % based on all other spins, then totalled those spins and figured out how many more spins I should have needed to hit for Eight or Nine QuickHits, or what have you, at expectation, then used the return % * number of spins it should have taken, then added the amount into cash-out (from that winning spin) and divided the new cash out from the new total amount of spins + 1 spin * $1.50.
If I would have hit the five QuickHits Platinum symbols for $7,500, however, I'd have been severely screwed because I have not seen any data on how often that should happen.
Quote: randompersonHow meticulous is the data? If you can calculate a standard deviation of spins we can use the CLT to calculate an approximate 95% confidence interval for the games true return given your observations. I have no idea whether 50 hours is enough to converge to the truth, but we can use some math to figure it out.
I play a lot more video poker. If someone came up and told me that they had 50 hours of data on a video poker machine and then concluded something, I would laugh in their face. 50 hours is like one royal cycle on some machines. If there are rare events in the base game of the machine, you need a lot more than 50 hours.
For most slot machines, 50 hours wouldn't be enough unless he recorded all symbol data so the machine could be deconstructed. In 50 hours, he could easily be 2% or more above ER. If you were gutsy enough to record a bunch of spins Mission, I would try to deconstruct it. Unless this is one of those machines that offers free games where the reel probabilities change...then i'd be sunk.
Quote: tringlomaneFor most slot machines, 50 hours wouldn't be enough unless he recorded all symbol data so the machine could be deconstructed. In 50 hours, he could easily be 2% or more above ER. If you were gutsy enough to record a bunch of spins Mission, I would try to deconstruct it. Unless this is one of those machines that offers free games where the reel probabilities change...then i'd be sunk.
We would be sunk!
I actually tried to record the specific spin data for a Quick Hits non-progressive machine upon which the Free Games did not operate on a different reel premise. I will not state which casino this was at. My recording of the data did not go terribly well as certain members of staff were less than impressed with my endeavors...if you want details, you'll need to PM me.
Again, I assume that my data based on 50 hours is good. It may not be. I'd find it very difficult to believe that we would be at that 88.xx% level as opposed to at least 90.xx% level, but you never know. I have stated, of course, that I enjoy the game and am not a true AP by any stretch so don't mind playing at -ER. I will play at +ER (or negative, but close to it) as a point of preference if the opportunity is there, but if not, I'll play what I like the best which is presently Video Keno games.
I do intend to analyze the Progressives on at least two Video Keno games, however, to establish an advantage point since I have taken such a liking to it.
I've said it before, everyone knows the minimum that they may safely assume pursuant to that website, and we know that percentage does not include increases to the Progressive, so everyone may assume that as a worst-case.
bank of four $1 Quickhits linked. (max bet = $15)
5qh = 200
6qh=1200
7qh=7200!!!!!! looked at the rules for 7qh to double check. base = 100x = $1500.
7qh was almost 5x that!
I had $1200 on me but i dont think:
1) i had the bankroll
2) it was worth it for me to play
What's the +EV of the various QH progressives?
edit-
after going thru this thread again, found this:
7QH: 0.0107 max bets
so 5x the base = 4% additional EV!
so with the 5QH and 6QH jackpots, i had like +7% EV
wished there was a simple webapp to calculate +ev on these machines.
ie: Enter machine demonimation, then the jackpot #s
minimum slot payout in MD is 87% so if this machine is 88% (lowest payout setting), then i'm only at 95%.
Even at the next lowest setting of 90%, it'll be 97%.
Still not worth it?
Quote: randomperson
I play a lot more video poker. If someone came up and told me that they had 50 hours of data on a video poker machine and then concluded something, I would laugh in their face. 50 hours is like one royal cycle on some machines. If there are rare events in the base game of the machine, you need a lot more than 50 hours.
randomperson, you clearly don't understand video poker based on your comment.
First, most pro's can play, on a sustained basis between 1,000 to 1,200 hph under the right conditions with the speed set to turbo mode. I've hit 1,500 hph on a sustained basis on a single line machine for 3 straight hours (it was over 1,500 hph based on my coin-in).
Second, let's say you don't hit the RF, then the 50,000 to 75,000 hands would be a great approximation of the game without the RF due to the Law of Large Numbers, which more than trumps the CLT concept.
Third, today we have VP with multiple lines and if you play the Moody's patent, then with a base hph speed of 700 hph at 10-play, that is 7,000 hphs. I am aware of multi-line VP without any covariance, so that same 7,000 hands are INDEPENDENT hands and doesn't suffer from the dealt hand effect.
When I was younger I would laugh in your face since you understand so little about VP, however, I am older and wiser now and I just feel sorry that you would expose your VP ignorance on a public message board.
Cheers
PS i've played a lot of VP games including one where the RF cycle is about 12,000 hands.
Quote: 100xOddswished there was a simple webapp to calculate +ev on these machines.
Well, I've been using a simple Excel spreadsheet for this on my phone. Under normal conditions, the only numbers that have to be changed are those in blue.
Progressive payout rates are based on the numbers at http://www.arcade-history.com. The current payout rate is the minimum for Triple Blazing Sevens. Existing progressive size is just a test. The base progressive values are from Mission146.
Note: The sheet on this link is editable. Not responsible for changes other people make. I recommend saving it to your own system if you want to use it. http://sdrv.ms/Uh0Rt4
Ed. Based on the numbers you gave, it's at approximately +7.7 from whatever the base is.
