Lion's Share
Quote: onenickelmiracleWow just saw the pics of all the people standing.
What pics are you referring to? I was thinking about playing on Tuesday but if there is a line to play then forget it.
Someone on another forum took pictures of about 8 people standing in line and another showed a similar thing from a Columbus news report.Quote: WizardWhat pics are you referring to? I was thinking about playing on Tuesday but if there is a line to play then forget it.
Quote: wudgedGive it a month or so and the machine will go back to being empty all the time.
Yep, methinks so as well. A WSJ article has gotta do wonders, for a while...
People already play it all day long and at best just a few extra hours a day added by the blitz with a minimal affect. Half those people might be chicken anyways and lower daily play some just by waiting for hand pays.Quote: BeardgoatWith all that action you might not have a chance to win the jackpot next month
Quote: WizardWhat pics are you referring to? I was thinking about playing on Tuesday but if there is a line to play then forget it.
Wiz, u could stand in line like u are waiting to play and stat the machine.
I also saw tringlomane just before and he said the previous day (Monday of a three-day weekend) there was a line of about ten. I'm not sure if he meant people or groups. Somebody with the MGM advised him to return at two in the morning.
Based on this small sampling, I think the wait to get on would be only about an hour or so mid-week. Bring a book or just enjoy chatting with the others in line.
Quote: WizardI visited the MGM yesterday (a Tuesday). There was one group waiting in line when I got there and another arrived while I was chatting with the first group. I got the impression everybody was there to blow $100 or so on the game and leave. Two groups I asked, from different places, both said they heard about the game in their local media. Every group consisted of two or three people.
I also saw tringlomane just before and he said the previous day (Monday of a three-day weekend) there was a line of about ten. I'm not sure if he meant people or groups. Somebody with the MGM advised him to return at two in the morning.
Based on this small sampling, I think the wait to get on would be only about an hour or so mid-week. Bring a book or just enjoy chatting with the others in line.
Do you think that a sanity check on your machine decomposition should be that the machine has a reasonable return at reset?
Quote: WizardI visited the MGM yesterday (a Tuesday). There was one group waiting in line when I got there and another arrived while I was chatting with the first group. I got the impression everybody was there to blow $100 or so on the game and leave. Two groups I asked, from different places, both said they heard about the game in their local media. Every group consisted of two or three people.
I also saw tringlomane just before and he said the previous day (Monday of a three-day weekend) there was a line of about ten. I'm not sure if he meant people or groups. Somebody with the MGM advised him to return at two in the morning.
Based on this small sampling, I think the wait to get on would be only about an hour or so mid-week. Bring a book or just enjoy chatting with the others in line.
Wizard, don't let anyone get a photo of you standing in that line. They could blackmail you for the rest of your life.
Quote: WizardBring a book or just enjoy chatting with the others in line.
I'll bring a book.
I'd like to make this public later today or tomorrow, so I appreciate any comments or corrections.
Quote: Smokalottmy earliest record keeping efforts had some flaws and so i standardized my figures by using 10k of later pulls chosen by random selection
Quote: Smokalottthis calculation does presume that the RNG assigns a value for each reel independently
Quote: Smokalotthaving examined par sheets for other similar devices i find there is a precedentiary basis for this presumption
Quote: WizardI just did a revision of my Lion's Share page. Previously, I had hoped to hire Mission to gather some more data before publishing it. However, given the media interest and that it is now hard to get on the game, I'm going to roll with it now. The major change was to also analyze the game with the Smokalott data.
I'd like to make this public later today or tomorrow, so I appreciate any comments or corrections.
In the first "rumor", insert "of" into "based on the look (of) it... " otherwise looks great. Interesting link to the LVS article.
Quote: WizardI just did a revision of my Lion's Share page. Previously, I had hoped to hire Mission to gather some more data before publishing it. However, given the media interest and that it is now hard to get on the game, I'm going to roll with it now. The major change was to also analyze the game with the Smokalott data.
I'd like to make this public later today or tomorrow, so I appreciate any comments or corrections.
Interestingly, you performed better on every single possible paying combination than Smokalott. I also tend to agree with Smokalott's data, and believe there is no reason not to. His results are so close to yours over a sample size 6.35 times larger, and the fact he published his before yours, that there is no way he could have fabricated his results and gotten that close.
Quote: WizardI just did a revision of my Lion's Share page. Previously, I had hoped to hire Mission to gather some more data before publishing it. However, given the media interest and that it is now hard to get on the game, I'm going to roll with it now. The major change was to also analyze the game with the Smokalott data.
I'd like to make this public later today or tomorrow, so I appreciate any comments or corrections.
change
By today's standards, it is very out of date, with mechanical reels, blurry graphics, and any cash-out necessitates a hand pay.
to
By today's standards, it is very out of date, with mechanical reels, blurry graphics, and any cash-out requiring a hand pay.
to preserve some semblance of parallel structure.
also get rid of the dashes after the bolded complete sentences. just start the next sentence as normal. if you really want, you can make your explanation of the rumor a new paragraph under each bullet point, but those dashes can't exist between complete sentences.
Quote: DRichBased on your current analysis, what progressive amount makes the game 100%?
$2,534,494
Will the jackpot be paid in full immediately, or will it be distributed in annual installments?
Quote: AyecarumbaWill the jackpot be paid in full immediately, or will it be distributed in annual installments?
I saw no rules to the contrary, so I assume it is a lump sum.
Quote: AyecarumbaAssume the MGM has been putting the $167 a day the machine earns toward the progressive jackpot, in a money market account earning an average of 5%, for the past 20 years... how much have they collected in interest?
Assuming my calculator's right... an account starting at 0 with 60955 added to it per year with 5% interest, compounded annually, will result in 2,116,311.99, with 1,219,100 being principal.
Something feels wrong with those values though.
Reel 1: 5
Reel 2: 4
Reel 3: 6
That is only 0.79 lions per 100 spins! Compare that to 1.10 for SmokaLott and 1.52 for me.
Ax, seems you have the same kind of luck with that game that I have with women.
Anyway, I just mixed in his into my Lion's Share page. Axiom's results lower the return to 98.94%, the jackpot probability to 1 in 20.5 million, and increase the breakeven meter to almost 3 million.
Quote: WizardAxiomOfChoice was kind enough to let me use his data. He got the following number of center payline lions in 1,896 spins:
Reel 1: 5
Reel 2: 4
Reel 3: 6
That is only 0.79 lions per 100 spins! Compare that to 1.10 for SmokaLott and 1.52 for me.
Ax, seems you have the same kind of luck with that game that I have with women.
Anyway, I just mixed in his into my Lion's Share page. Axiom's results lower the return to 98.94%, the jackpot probability to 1 in 20.5 million, and increase the breakeven meter to almost 3 million.
I still think the sanity check logic I posted about earlier suggests these results are still too optimistic. At a 1 million jackpot the machine returns about 97%. Add in meter rise and the long run machine return would be close to 98%. There don't seem to be a lot of dollar machines with such high returns.
I guess that leads me to this question, Wizard, we go from 1 in about 8.1 million based on your spin sample to 1 in 20.5 million based on a sample size that is only 8.56 times larger.
If we remove AxiomofChoice's data, then we have:
(43/11574) * (50/11574) * (40/11574) = .0000000554687038 = 1/.0000000554687038 =18028184.0298 or 1 in 18 million
If we remove your data, then we have:
(38/11896) * (46/11896) * (40/11896) = .0000000415335022 = 1/.0000000415335022 =24076948.6566 or 1 in 24 million
We can infer from your Data vs. Smokealott's data that you probably ran very well over a small sampling of spins, and AxiomofChoice's data (though he ran extremely poorly compared to Smokalott) would seem to confirm this.
A swing of 1 in 18 million to 1 in 24 million based on the removal of 1,574 or 1,896 spins is a pretty wild swing, even though the probability of hitting remains extremely remote. However, the removal of your data (and retaining that of AxiomofChoice) makes hitting it appear 1.3355 times less likely than removing his data and keeping yours.
here's my question: With an occurrence this remote, this clearly demonstrates that a very small sample size can have a wild swing on the probability of the result, (based on the sample) so at what point would you suggest there is a sample size large enough to be within 500,000 spins of being correct in either direction?
Quote: Mission146at what point would you suggest there is a sample size large enough to be within 500,000 spins of being correct in either direction?
As with anything, the question is, how sure do you want to be?
Do you want to be 90% sure of being within your target range? 99%? 99.9%?
(Even once you answer this, it's not a particularly easy question to answer, I don't think. Assuming that all 3 reels have equal probability of hitting makes it easier, although we don't know for sure that that assumption is correct)
There is some good stuff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_proportion_confidence_interval
I think that the Jeffreys interval might be a good approach. I am way, way, way beyond my understanding of statistics here though.
Quote: AyecarumbaCould MGM have adjusted the payback due to the recent publicity, causing AxoC to run poorly?
My understanding is that that is illegal with a progressive jackpot. But I might be misunderstand the Nevada laws here.
It really isn't THAT poorly. These are very small samples and we are tracking low-probability events.
so it's pretty safe to assume the starting JP was 1m
Quote: wudgedWas just watching Vegas Vacation and at the beginning of the last scene where they walk into MGM Grand to the Keno book, there is a marquee in the background advertising the Lion's Share. It was at $1,044,815. The movie was released in Feb 1997, so probably recorded sometime during the summer of 96?
I could swear I've seen the machine in the background of another movie as well. Been trying to remember which one ever since Wizard started posting about the game
Quote: wudgedWas just watching Vegas Vacation and at the beginning of the last scene where they walk into MGM Grand to the Keno book, there is a marquee in the background advertising the Lion's Share. It was at $1,044,815. The movie was released in Feb 1997, so probably recorded sometime during the summer of 96?
Good eye! Thanks for mentioning it.
Quote: Buzzard! Plus that English bloke you have a crush on is only in Vegas till the end of the month .
David Beckham ?
Quote: wudgedWas just watching Vegas Vacation and at the beginning of the last scene where they walk into MGM Grand to the Keno book, there is a marquee in the background advertising the Lion's Share. It was at $1,044,815. The movie was released in Feb 1997, so probably recorded sometime during the summer of 96?
Beat me to it.. I saw that and was excited to note it here.
Quote: michael99000David Beckham ?
I am just glad she does not want to SWITCH mates !
For the combined data thats 1.6%, or 2.2% less than the current (as of the writing of the article) value. Adding in the 0.75% meter rate gives a total reset return of 97.5%. Is this a realistic number?
I've been under the impression that most slots have much worse returns than this, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that newer games are worse for the player than older games (such as the case with blackjack).
Using the Wizard data only shows a reset return on the machine of 101.48%
Quote: bubliteIf we assume a reset point of 1M, then the return on the reset jackpot would be 1000000/2345404 of the return listed on the wizard's deconstruction page.
For the combined data thats 1.6%, or 2.2% less than the current (as of the writing of the article) value. Adding in the 0.75% meter rate gives a total reset return of 97.5%. Is this a realistic number?
I've been under the impression that most slots have much worse returns than this, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that newer games are worse for the player than older games (such as the case with blackjack).
Using the Wizard data only shows a reset return on the machine of 101.48%
Finally a reasonable person in a sea of nonsense. I'm glad someone agrees with my thoughts on this issue.
Quote: randompersonFinally a reasonable person in a sea of nonsense. I'm glad someone agrees with my thoughts on this issue.
Pretty sure I have agreed with you for over a month...lol
Wrote this on Jan. 30th:
Quote: tringlomaneI guess one lingering question I have is...
Do we think that the game had a base payout (when the jackpot was initially $1M) was greater than 97%?
That's what you currently have calculated. And this wouldn't fly in today's gaming climate. But if they haven't changed the paybacks since 1995...maybe...just maybe.
The overall win percentage of dollar slots/video poker was 4.87% (95.13% return) for >$72M gross revenue Strip properties in 1995.
http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3751
I am assuming most dollar video poker was close to 99% max return back then...I hope. So if Lion's Share was always above >97% return, this is definitely a "special" machine.
So how much variance do we think is left in the lower level payouts? Obviously it takes a lot of spins to try to predict the jackpot probability. Your total lions would be in the 91.7th percentile if all reels were a 1 in 256 to hit one. Is it possible you were hotter on the lower symbols too? Considering your data, I am hoping your actual results correlated with it! :)
I still think he is "hot" on the non-lion data too. By how much, I'm not sure. Unfortunately, the game is not worth his time now thanks to the recent media frenzy. The game is not worth waiting hours to play for.
Quote: bubliteIf we assume a reset point of 1M, then the return on the reset jackpot would be 1000000/2345404 of the return listed on the wizard's deconstruction page.
For the combined data thats 1.6%, or 2.2% less than the current (as of the writing of the article) value. Adding in the 0.75% meter rate gives a total reset return of 97.5%. Is this a realistic number?
I've been under the impression that most slots have much worse returns than this, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that newer games are worse for the player than older games (such as the case with blackjack).
Using the Wizard data only shows a reset return on the machine of 101.48%
I find it very interesting that there are so many folks like bublite on here, who has been a member nearly 2 years and this is only his 5th post. And a very sophisticated and knowledgable one at that. How do you keep from weighing in on a lot of topics like this, bublite? It would seem you would have a lot to contribute.
Quote: tringlomanePretty sure I have agreed with you for over a month...lol
Wrote this on Jan. 30th:
I still think he is "hot" on the non-lion data too. By how much, I'm not sure. Unfortunately, the game is not worth his time now thanks to the recent media frenzy. The game is not worth waiting hours to play for.
My apologies, we make at least three then.
I don't think he necessarily has to be running good in the non lion data because the lion data effects the other payouts, like one lion or two lions.
Looking at he return table it does seem like the bar data is the most likely culprit for the excess return.
Quote: SOOPOONot to be a Debbie Downer.... But when figuring out the EV, have you guys factored in the effect of taxes?
No. I give a disclaimer in my analysis that I don't factor that in. With any form of gambling, the user should make his own adjustments based on taxes.
Quote: randompersonI don't think he necessarily has to be running good in the non lion data because the lion data effects the other payouts, like one lion or two lions.
Looking at he return table it does seem like the bar data is the most likely culprit for the excess return.
I do think that I ran above expectations with my results outside of payline lions. Based on what we know about the payline lions, if we otherwise assume my results for everything else then it would imply a return of 96.76% at a one million reseed. That is probably too high for a $3 max bet game.
I still plan to gather more data but am giving it a rest for now, given the high demand for the game.
The bottom line on the game is that it likely a much better bet than most slots on the floor, but is still around a 97% return, and that doesn't consider taxes.
After factoring in the new data, the return based on my own play goes up from 106.25% to 111.86%. The return based on the combined Wizard, Axiom, and SmokaLott data goes up from 98.94% to 100.73%.
I had to cringe when the six-hour waiting woman said to somebody walking by wondering what the line was for say, "Statisticians say the game is really overdue and should hit in the next three months."
Quote: WizardI had to go to the Strip today, so visited Lion's Share. There was a big wait for the machine. I overheard one woman say that she had been waiting six hours. So, I sat at another machine and took notes while somebody else played. I recorded 394 new spins, for a total in my own sampling of 1,968. The woman playing seemed to his the lions pretty well, especially off-payline.
Savvy work. Looks like the only way you'll get timely data for awhile. :-\ But it's as valid as your own spins at least.
Quote: tringlomaneSavvy work. Looks like the only way you'll get timely data for awhile. :-\ But it's as valid as your own spins at least.
The Strip seemed really crowded this weekend. I guess because of Saint Patrick's day and I think there was a big basketball game at UNLV. If someone comes mid-week, especially late at night, the wait shouldn't be too bad, if there is one at all.
