October 26th, 2017 at 4:13:51 PM
permalink

I just noticed that a $500 or Nothing slot machine exists. In the early 2000s, I was always fascinated with the $100 or Nothing slots. (For those not familiar with them, the slot machine is single-line and has only one symbol, a 7, and offers only two outcomes: a $100 win, or nothing.)

Now that I know a bit more about slots, can someone confirm this math:

If the theoretical payback percentage of these machines are 87%, the odds of winning are 8.7 in 1,000 spins?

If the theoretical payback percentage of these machines are 98%, the odds of winning are 9.8 in 1,000 spins?

Now that I know a bit more about slots, can someone confirm this math:

If the theoretical payback percentage of these machines are 87%, the odds of winning are 8.7 in 1,000 spins?

If the theoretical payback percentage of these machines are 98%, the odds of winning are 9.8 in 1,000 spins?

October 26th, 2017 at 4:33:53 PM
permalink

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that it pays back $87 off of every $100 wagered. So for a $500 win, with an 87% pay back, the machine would have to take in 574.7 dollars In theory.

October 26th, 2017 at 4:55:19 PM
permalink

I should have phrased that in a way that's better to understand.

In the $100 or Nothing slot, with a $1/spin wager, and a 87% theoretical payback %, your odds of winning is 8.7 wins in 1,000 spins (1000/8.7) or an average of once every 115 spins.

With an 98% theoretical payback %, your odds of winning is 9.8 wins in 1,000 spins (1000/9.8) or an average of once every 102 spins.

In the $500 or Nothing slot, with a $5/spin wager, the odds of winning/average win frequency is the same as above.

Correct?

In the $100 or Nothing slot, with a $1/spin wager, and a 87% theoretical payback %, your odds of winning is 8.7 wins in 1,000 spins (1000/8.7) or an average of once every 115 spins.

With an 98% theoretical payback %, your odds of winning is 9.8 wins in 1,000 spins (1000/9.8) or an average of once every 102 spins.

In the $500 or Nothing slot, with a $5/spin wager, the odds of winning/average win frequency is the same as above.

Correct?

Last edited by: smoothgrh on Oct 26, 2017

October 26th, 2017 at 5:16:28 PM
permalink

If payback is 90% (makes math easy), then every $90 payout = $100 CI.

Every $900 payout = $1000 CI.

So in 1,000 spins ($1/spin), you'll hit it 9 times.

Yes your math is correct.

Every $900 payout = $1000 CI.

So in 1,000 spins ($1/spin), you'll hit it 9 times.

Yes your math is correct.

нет сговор. нет непроходимость. полный освобождение от ответственности.

October 27th, 2017 at 7:12:15 AM
permalink

Simple algebra is all you need. It must be right.

They tried to kill us, Jimmy. They did. They're dirty f**king cops! *photo is not of an AP, just a morbidly obese hill billy. Jar Jar Binks was supposed to be the Sith Lord . Nathan is going to run and own this place

October 27th, 2017 at 8:14:59 AM
permalink

compatibility

October 27th, 2017 at 8:46:28 AM
permalink

Quote:smoothgrhNow that I know a bit more about slots, can someone confirm this math:

If the theoretical payback percentage of these machines are 87%, the odds of winning are 8.7 in 1,000 spins?

If the theoretical payback percentage of these machines are 98%, the odds of winning are 9.8 in 1,000 spins?

(Edited - I just realized you are talking about a 100x machine, not a 500x)

An 87% return machine will return 870 for every 1000 bet, or 8.7 wins for every 1000 spins.

Similarly, a 98% return machine will have 9.8 wins for every 1000, and a 100% return machine will have 10 wins for every 1000, which makes sense as 10 x $100 out = 1000 x $1 in. (Most casinos have machines with 100% return - they're usually called "Bill Breaker".)

October 27th, 2017 at 8:46:39 AM
permalink

If all the math is settled, perhaps I can be allowed a slight hijack. This post reminds me of my first gambling trip to Lake Tahoe in 1996. I was playing at Harvey's (or was it Harrah's?), and they had a few banks of the old cast iron mechanical slots still in service. One particular bank had "Jackpots Only" machines.

These were similar all or nothing machines that paid $25 for your quarter if you got the symbols to line up. The symbols were actually the words "JACK" on the first reel, "POTS" on the second, and "ONLY" on the third. So, if you could get it to read "Jackpots Only" across the payline, you won the $25. Otherwise, you got nothing.

I got nothing for all my spins. I still think of these machines as "Jack Squat Only."

These were similar all or nothing machines that paid $25 for your quarter if you got the symbols to line up. The symbols were actually the words "JACK" on the first reel, "POTS" on the second, and "ONLY" on the third. So, if you could get it to read "Jackpots Only" across the payline, you won the $25. Otherwise, you got nothing.

I got nothing for all my spins. I still think of these machines as "Jack Squat Only."

"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"

October 27th, 2017 at 11:03:06 AM
permalink

Quote:Joeman

These were similar all or nothing machines that paid $25 for your quarter if you got the symbols to line up. The symbols were actually the words "JACK" on the first reel, "POTS" on the second, and "ONLY" on the third. So, if you could get it to read "Jackpots Only" across the payline, you won the $25. Otherwise, you got nothing.

I got nothing for all my spins. I still think of these machines as "Jack Squat Only."

Thanks for the anecdote! So the concept isn't new: a $25 win for a $0.25 wager also pays 100 for 1.

You should have tried playing it about 115 times! ;-)