## Poll

16 votes (76.19%) | |||

1 vote (4.76%) | |||

3 votes (14.28%) | |||

1 vote (4.76%) | |||

1 vote (4.76%) | |||

4 votes (19.04%) | |||

4 votes (19.04%) | |||

2 votes (9.52%) | |||

2 votes (9.52%) | |||

3 votes (14.28%) |

**21 members have voted**

Quote:AyecarumbaSo, 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.

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.

Quote:billryanAm 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.

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.

Quote:AyecarumbaThese 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?

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

Definitely.

Quote:DRichDefinitely.

Definitely you have never seen one

Or definitely you have seen one

I am asking seriously. I couldnt tell from your answer

Quote:darkozDefinitely you have never seen one

Or definitely you have seen one

I am asking seriously. I couldnt tell from your answer

I have definitely seen shared progressive must hits. Usually limited to a pod or bank.

Quote:billryanAm 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.

Quote:WizardThis 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.