"over weighting"
May 18th, 2020 at 10:09:46 PM
permalink
https://www.nicelydonegaming.com/OverWeighting.pdf
Mark Nicely writes
I am surprised at the eagerness of many in the industry to use non-uniform
weighting. While it may initially appear that this allows one to have cake
(reasonable RTP) and eat it too (e.g. big award values), I don’t think it takes
many desert spoons for players to figure out that their bonus is a low-fat, lowsugar substitute for the real thing.
The more money one saves by heavy-handed weighting, the more obvious it will
be to players. But how else can one offer excitingly big bonus award
opportunities while maintaining a reasonable RTP budget? I am big fan of using
sequential series which allows players to see the larger values without setting
up unreasonable expectations. For a pick-one bonus, I would prefer to have
several possible levels. Player starts on the Bronze level. Maybe 1 in 10 times
the player’s pick brings them to the Silver level with larger awards. 1 in 10
times from that, the player makes it to the Gold level. If the odds of a top award
win in the Gold level are 1 in 10, we have basically provided a 1 in 1000 event
that might not require any weighting at all.
On the other hand, there is one situation where I love applying weights ove
whenever legally possible: the under-weighting of the lowest possible award(s).
A player is less likely to be upset at a 7x bonus pay if it looks like they could
have gotten an even crappier 4x pay. I have designed games with all values
being equally weighting except for the lowest “sacrificial” value which gets
1/10th or even 1/100th the weights of all the other values.
Similarly, for games with extensive weighting, I avoid forming a ramp
distribution with win probability always going up as value goes down. Instead, I
try to make 3rd lowest award the most likely to be awarded.
If a game seems to be paying lower than nominal, players will be quick to blame
unfair weighting. On the other hand, if the game is paying higher than expected,
well, that’s because the player is skillful and lucky, right?
Mark Nicely writes
I am surprised at the eagerness of many in the industry to use non-uniform
weighting. While it may initially appear that this allows one to have cake
(reasonable RTP) and eat it too (e.g. big award values), I don’t think it takes
many desert spoons for players to figure out that their bonus is a low-fat, lowsugar substitute for the real thing.
The more money one saves by heavy-handed weighting, the more obvious it will
be to players. But how else can one offer excitingly big bonus award
opportunities while maintaining a reasonable RTP budget? I am big fan of using
sequential series which allows players to see the larger values without setting
up unreasonable expectations. For a pick-one bonus, I would prefer to have
several possible levels. Player starts on the Bronze level. Maybe 1 in 10 times
the player’s pick brings them to the Silver level with larger awards. 1 in 10
times from that, the player makes it to the Gold level. If the odds of a top award
win in the Gold level are 1 in 10, we have basically provided a 1 in 1000 event
that might not require any weighting at all.
On the other hand, there is one situation where I love applying weights ove
whenever legally possible: the under-weighting of the lowest possible award(s).
A player is less likely to be upset at a 7x bonus pay if it looks like they could
have gotten an even crappier 4x pay. I have designed games with all values
being equally weighting except for the lowest “sacrificial” value which gets
1/10th or even 1/100th the weights of all the other values.
Similarly, for games with extensive weighting, I avoid forming a ramp
distribution with win probability always going up as value goes down. Instead, I
try to make 3rd lowest award the most likely to be awarded.
If a game seems to be paying lower than nominal, players will be quick to blame
unfair weighting. On the other hand, if the game is paying higher than expected,
well, that’s because the player is skillful and lucky, right?
May 19th, 2020 at 6:45:46 AM
permalink
Quote: heatmap
If a game seems to be paying lower than nominal, players will be quick to blame
unfair weighting. On the other hand, if the game is paying higher than expected,
well, that’s because the player is skillful and lucky, right?
I don't agree with this at all. 99% of the players do not know the mechanics of the game and have never heard of weighting. They will not be blaming weighting for any scenario.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
May 19th, 2020 at 10:18:56 AM
permalink
Quote: DRichI don't agree with this at all. 99% of the players do not know the mechanics of the game and have never heard of weighting. They will not be blaming weighting for any scenario.
I didn’t write this though I believe you but I also believe that this guy as well.
Do you know of this guy?
May 19th, 2020 at 11:48:35 AM
permalink
Quote: heatmapI didn’t write this though I believe you but I also believe that this guy as well.
Do you know of this guy?
I do not know him.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
May 19th, 2020 at 2:29:43 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichI do not know him.
His general attitude seems to be - well in the complete opposite direction of the attitude of everyone else here. He seems pretty confident in what he is doing and has the portfolio to back up his claims or at least the attitude that he conveys. This is the same attitude as the people who say this type of stuff is not being done. I hope you understand that this is the source of the frustration for most people, because they don’t understand WHAT is going on but that it is going on. They see it in one context such as on their phones and when they go to the casino, they see similar situations happening and in the back of their minds it’s all the same stuff. Mathematically everything is possible and people know that they just don’t gaf about how it’s done. This is the frustrating part about “gaming” imo
May 21st, 2020 at 1:01:15 AM
permalink
Quote: DRichI don't agree with this at all. 99% of the players do not know the mechanics of the game and have never heard of weighting. They will not be blaming weighting for any scenario.
i think these people agree with you too
https://www.greo.ca/Modules/EvidenceCentre/files/Horton%20et%20al(2007)Do_weighted_reels_on_a_slot_machine_distort_a_gamblers_judgement.pdf
May 21st, 2020 at 4:45:31 AM
permalink
I have to wonder how much of what seems downright obvious actually gets to be tested, and what goes through the mind of people who test and push to test such 'obvious' ideas.
In the middle of the executive summary there's a rather understated note: "These findings suggest positive experiences while gambling (i.e., wins) are factors in determining persistence in play behaviour."
Yes, even if it's for fake money, people like winning and will probably keep playing if they keep winning.
In the middle of the executive summary there's a rather understated note: "These findings suggest positive experiences while gambling (i.e., wins) are factors in determining persistence in play behaviour."
Yes, even if it's for fake money, people like winning and will probably keep playing if they keep winning.
