## Poll

 They rarely hit until close to the must-hit-by pt. 17 votes (77.27%) It can hit anywhere with equal chance. 1 vote (4.54%) I don't know 3 votes (13.63%) I have no idea what you're talking about, Wiz. 1 vote (4.54%) I don't care. 1 vote (4.54%) Shut up Wiz, another AP secret ruined. 4 votes (18.18%) This smacks of cheating. 4 votes (18.18%) No wonder I lose so much vulturing AGS games. 2 votes (9.09%) Total eclipse reminder 04/08/2024 2 votes (9.09%) USS Callister is my favorite episode of season 4. 3 votes (13.63%)

22 members have voted

Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 22724
Thanks for this post from:
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:48:48 AM permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba

So, is the “hit point” on the meter randomly pre-selected from a certain range each cycle, or are there other forces at work?

I don't know. What I speculate is it is something like this:

Large jackpot has 1% chance of hitting below \$4901 and 99% of hitting above.
Small jackpot has 1% chance of hitting below \$483.80 and 99% of hitting above.

Whatever range is selected by the method above, the game will then randomly pick a hit point somewhere in that range along a uniform distribution (meaning all hit points in a specified range have the same chance).

For now, as a rough guide, I would not play these games unless the jackpots were at least as much as the bend points above.
Last edited by: Wizard on Jan 3, 2019
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
• Posts: 10269
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:47:25 AM permalink
Am I understanding this correctly? A and B sit at side by side games. A's small jackpot is at \$494. B's is at 260.
Player A's chances of hitting the jackpot is how much higher? It sounds like 99 of the next 100 small jackpots should be on machines with payouts of \$484. If that is expected, a player who only plays on machines above \$494 has a much better chance of a jackpot than if he randomly played machines.
This is new to me, so excuse me if I'm off track.
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
• Posts: 6763
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:53:46 AM permalink
Quote: billryan

Am I understanding this correctly? A and B sit at side by side games. A's small jackpot is at \$494. B's is at 260.
Player A's chances of hitting the jackpot is how much higher? It sounds like 99 of the next 100 small jackpots should be on machines with payouts of \$484. If that is expected, a player who only plays on machines above \$494 has a much better chance of a jackpot than if he randomly played machines.
This is new to me, so excuse me if I'm off track.

These machines are typically connected in "banks" so there might be 6 - 12 machines all pumping up the same shared jackpot. However, I think what your understanding of the "chance" is correct. The bigger the meter, the better your chance of a hit.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 22724
January 2nd, 2019 at 1:38:09 PM permalink
Quote:

It sounds like 99 of the next 100 small jackpots should be on machines with payouts of \$484. If that is expected, a player who only plays on machines above \$494 has a much better chance of a jackpot than if he randomly played machines.
This is new to me, so excuse me if I'm off track.

I should emphasize that the 1%/99% thing was just speculating on it could be done to achieve the kind of average jackpots I posted. It seems consistent with anecdotal evidence of the large jackpot almost never hitting below \$4900.
Last edited by: Wizard on Jan 2, 2019
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 22724
January 2nd, 2019 at 1:38:58 PM permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba

These machines are typically connected in "banks" so there might be 6 - 12 machines all pumping up the same shared jackpot.

I've never seen a must-hit-by machine in a bank with a linked progressive. Has anyone else?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
• Posts: 7187
Thanks for this post from:
January 2nd, 2019 at 2:12:13 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I've never seen a must-hit-by machine in a bank with a linked progressive. Has anyone else?

Definitely.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
• Posts: 7793
January 2nd, 2019 at 2:23:10 PM permalink
Quote: DRich

Definitely.

Definitely you have never seen one

Or definitely you have seen one

For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
• Posts: 7187
January 2nd, 2019 at 2:25:55 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Definitely you have never seen one

Or definitely you have seen one

I have definitely seen shared progressive must hits. Usually limited to a pod or bank.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 22724
January 2nd, 2019 at 4:45:37 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

Am I understanding this correctly? A and B sit at side by side games. A's small jackpot is at \$494. B's is at 260.
Player A's chances of hitting the jackpot is how much higher? It sounds like 99 of the next 100 small jackpots should be on machines with payouts of \$484. If that is expected, a player who only plays on machines above \$494 has a much better chance of a jackpot than if he randomly played machines.
This is new to me, so excuse me if I'm off track.

This problem is trickier than it looks.

First, for a fair game, the odds of hitting are inversely proportional to your distance from the must-hit-by point. So, for a game where the jackpot can trigger at any point with equal probability, the machine with the \$494 has a probability of hitting proportional to 1/6, and the one at \$260 proportional to 1/240. Thus, the machine at \$494 is (1/6)/(1/240) = 240/6 = 43.3 times as likely to hit.

Second, if we assume that 1% of the time the game will hit below \$483.80, and a machine is observed at \$260, I show there is a 1.0028% chance it will hit below \$483.80. To make a long story short, I show the machine at \$494 is 3719.5 times more likely to hit on the next spin, mainly because the machine at \$260 has only a 1.0028% chance of being even possible to hit and even if it is possible, it doesn't mean it will on the next spin.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
cmlotito
Joined: Jun 3, 2013
• Posts: 352
January 2nd, 2019 at 7:41:32 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

This problem is trickier than it looks.

First, for a fair game, the odds of hitting are inversely proportional to your distance from the must-hit-by point. So, for a game where the jackpot can trigger at any point with equal probability, the machine with the \$494 has a probability of hitting proportional to 1/6, and the one at \$260 proportional to 1/240. Thus, the machine at \$494 is (1/6)/(1/240) = 240/6 = 43.3 times as likely to hit.

Second, if we assume that 1% of the time the game will hit below \$483.80, and a machine is observed at \$260, I show there is a 1.0028% chance it will hit below \$483.80. To make a long story short, I show the machine at \$494 is 3719.5 times more likely to hit on the next spin, mainly because the machine at \$260 has only a 1.0028% chance of being even possible to hit and even if it is possible, it doesn't mean it will on the next spin.

So, what your saying is I should stick with video poker and its defined pay tables and probability of hands hitting and not going for this mysterious boondoggle? Cause my brain can only handle so much information before something falls out. Probably not in a good way either.