Go Go Claw

I saw a new game at the D on Sunday called GoGo Claw.



It appears to be a Chuck E. Cheese kind of claw game. Inside the machines are balls all of the same size and all with a piece of play money inside that do not indicate a value.

Following are the rule screens, which I'll let you interpret on your own.







Here the panel where the player chooses his bet.



Here is my interpretation of the rules.

After the player makes a bet, the game electronically determines the outcome. The part with controlling the claw is just for show. In watching other play several times, the game always at least initially grabs a ball. However, in the several times I watched, every time the ball fell out of the claw before getting to the chute.

I assume if the ball did reach the chute, the player would be notified of his win electronically somehow. The win ranges are stated in the rules and the betting screen.

I think if the player is predestined to lose, then the machine let's go of the ball. How it always initially grabs a ball, I am not sure, but it's probably trial and error, because it seems to wiggle around at the bottom until it has one.

However, I welcome all other comments.

The question for the poll is would you play Go-Go Draw?

p.s. Perhaps I should have titled this game and thread Cash Grab. It seems to be titled that way on the betting display, but the big sign on the game saw Go Go Claw.

I agree with your opinions as to how it works and would not play it.

I’m going to guess that the people inclined to play this game are going to be the same people who were not inclined to read the rules.

In fact, before I read the rules and your comments, I thought, “How could they guarantee a theoretical minimum return? How would you quantify how skilled the average person is at grabbing a ball with the claw?”

Quote: Mission146

I’m going to guess that the people inclined to play this game are going to be the same people who were not inclined to read the rules.

Based on a small sampling and just knowing human nature, I agree.

When I first saw it a guy was playing it over and over, trying desperately to impress his girlfriend, but, alas, he gave up. He seemed to believe it was a game of skill and took the joystick process very seriously.

After he left, I studied the rules carefully and then took the pictures you see. Somebody else seemed to notice my interest in the game and asked what it was. I then went into a lecture along the lines of what I just posted about the rules. After I was finished, the guy said, "So it's like the game at Chuck E. Cheese!" I explained how it was in appearance only, but he was obviously not listening to me. Instead, he took out some money and said "Mind if I play?" I said, "Be my guest," and recommend he make the minimum bet of $5, as it was surely a sucker bet. He would have nothing to do with making such a wimpy wager and bet $20. He lost and walked away without comment.

See that, it is just like Chuck E Cheese or an arcade! Guy trying to impress his girlfriend by winning on it!

Great story about that guy. Is it stupidity? Is it a tendency of people to only hear what they want to hear? Maybe it’s just a stupid tendency that likely applies to everyone at some time or another.

He’s probably a neurosurgeon, or something.

Quote: Mission146

See that, it is just like Chuck E Cheese or an arcade! Guy trying to impress his girlfriend by winning on it!

Great story about that guy. Is it stupidity? Is it a tendency of people to only hear what they want to hear? Maybe it’s just a stupid tendency that likely applies to everyone at some time or another.

He’s probably a neurosurgeon, or something.

I'm sorry to say that when it comes to games and gambling the average person is just stupid.

To make a point, ask anyone if they would do research into the law if representing themselves in a court case. Most people would say, "hell, yeah, if they couldn't afford an attorney they would definitely study the law. They intend to win"

Ask those same people if they did any studying about the slots they play or even table games and the answer is most likely "no, it's just a game. But I intend to win".

Go figure!

I'm surprised nobody is talking about the progressive jackpot aspect of this game.

At the lower bets 40% of the amount wagered is put into the jackpot. This is astronomical. I've never seen a gambling game with a meter contribution that high.

On the other hand the progressive caps at double the reset value. I've never seen such a low cap on a progressive meter.

I'm curious why they designed the game this way instead of as a traditional progressive with a low meter rise and a high or no cap.

Quote: sabre

At the lower bets 40% of the amount wagered is put into the jackpot. This is astronomical. I've never seen a gambling game with a meter contribution that high.

It says it goes up by $2 on winning bets. If we assume a win rate of 20%, then the average meter rise would be $2 * 0.2/$5 = 8%. That is still pretty high.

Given such a fast meter progression, I assume much of the return is in the jackpot. I wish I had taken notes on the jackpot amounts when I was there. One of the pictures shows a jackpot amount of $2256, which I think was for the $20 bet. My advice would be that if you must play this game, do so only if the jackpot is capped out.

Quote: Wizard

It says it goes up by $2 on winning bets. If we assume a win rate of 20%, then the average meter rise would be $2 * 0.2/$5 = 8%. That is still pretty high.

My mistake. I didn't read the rules you posted closely enough.

Incrementing on wins is a strange choice as well. I realize WMS G+ progressives do this, but most games increment on coin in.

The picture of the screen where you choose your bet shows the progressive amount at each level. Looks like the smallest bet level was maxed out.

It looks like the prizes don't perfectly scale, either, which should be no surprise given the astronomical difference in possible bet amounts:

$5.00---2x---5x---20x----100x (Jackpot Base)

$10.00---2x---5x---25x---150x (Jackpot Base)

$20.00---2x---5x---25x---100x (Jackpot Base)

$50.00---2x---6x---30x---60x (Jackpot Base)

$100.00---3x---6x---30x---50x (Jackpot Base)

Okay, so the stupidly high bet amounts clearly have more of a focus on the payouts going to the lower returns. Naturally, this doesn't give us much information as relates the specific probabilities for each bet level, which could all be different, in theory. If the probabilities were not different, for example, then a $20.00 bet would return less than a $10.00 bet would.

But, maybe it does. Why the hell not? Who cares, right?

Using Wizard's assumption of a hit rate of 1 in 5, the next question becomes whether or not the progressive can be capped and NOT represent a player advantage. As pointed out, with a 1 in 5 hit rate (being assumed) the progressive meter contribution would be a very high 8% of all monies bet.

Personally, I would think that the hit rate is lower than that, but I could be wrong.

(.2 * 2) = $0.40 (Expected Meter Contribution, per spin, at $5.00 bet)

Okay, so now let's distribute some theoretical results:

I'm going to go for a $5 bet:

2x = .18

5x = .015

20x = .004

JACKPOT: .001

Okay, so let's do that with the base jackpot and then add in the meter contribution and see if it makes sense:

(.4) + (.18 * 10) + (.015 * 25) + (.004 * 100) + (500 * .001) - (.8 * 5) = -0.525***

That represents an expected loss of 52.5 cents, per spin, on the $5 bet amount.

.525/5 = .105 or 10.5% House Edge

Okay, so now we double the progressive, which is now capped at $1,000:

(.4) + (.18 * 10) + (.015 * 25) + (.004 * 100) + (1000 * .001) - (.8 * 5) = -0.025

For this example, that represents an expected loss of 2.5 cents, so:

.025/5 = .005 or 0.5% House Edge (However, the 8% that is going to the progressive represents money that the player WOULD NOT get upon hitting the current progressive, so in effect, the player is still likely playing at a substantial disadvantage---especially without knowing the value of the next jackpot to come.)

This is all to demonstrate that it's possible that this game could be set, given the capped jackpot, to literally NEVER be at an advantage for any player. Also, the hypothetical jackpot odds I used are relatively short, so we if we distributed the payout in a fashion to cause the jackpot to have longer odds, then it would become even easier to create a situation in which this machine could never be played at an advantage.

Another thing that we would look at is that the jackpot, given our theoretical of .2 probability of some kind of win on this game, goes up an expected .40 per spin. That being the case, in order for the jackpot to double in value under these assumptions:

500/.4 = 1,250 (Expected Spins)

The jackpot would have to miss 1.25 jackpot cycles.

CONCLUSION: These numbers are for hypothetical purposes only. They are just meant to convey the notion that no advantage can be assumed, even when the jackpot is topped out...the determination of an advantage would require knowing the actual probabilities.

***NOTE: I am not claiming this is how the machine DOES WORK, I'm simply saying this is how it COULD THEORETICALLY WORK, my example is for hypothetical purposes only and is not meant to suggest an actual opinion of the returns or probabilities for this game.

Does anyone know for sure if overages carry over into the next jackpot? Even if they didn't, it's possible that the machine could still satisfy minimum jurisdictional return requirements.

It says:

Quote:

...is increased by a fixed win amount in each winning game a jackpot is not won...

But, also:

Quote:

...a jackpot is reset to its initial prize value after it is won...

Both of those things cannot be true 100% of the time if the jackpot has hit its cap. The jackpot is either not being increased by a fix amount every game a jackpot is not won, or alternatively, resets to more than its initial prize value to account for the spillover.

Either way, it's a stupid novelty game essentially meant to deceive people who do not take the time to read the rules screen, or who do, but don't understand what it is they have read. I wouldn't put it past anyone involved to have the jackpot no longer get contributions when it has hit the capped amount. Hopefully, this piece of garbage masquerading as a casino game will never get enough action for anyone to know what a capped jackpot looks like on it.

Quote: Mission146

Hopefully, this piece of garbage masquerading as a casino game will never get enough action for anyone to know what a capped jackpot looks like on it.

Too late. The $5 game shows potential wins of $10 - $1000. The jackpot is already capped on it.

Quote: sabre

Too late. The $5 game shows potential wins of $10 - $1000. The jackpot is already capped on it.

Ugh. Well, maybe we will be able to at least find out whether or not it spills over.

If anyone wants to see this in action there is 2 minute video on YouTube.

Search “go go claw slot”

People definitely clueless

Quote: linksjunkie

If anyone wants to see this in action there is 2 minute video on YouTube.

Search “go go claw slot”

People definitely clueless

Thank you for sharing that.

I hope that the inventors of this terrible game are really GD happy with themselves.

Actually, I think I like my House Edge assumption in my earlier post, though I make no claims to actually know that or the probabilities. A game that plays this slowly is probably unlikely to be cheap from a HE standpoint.

I suppose a claw game gives a new definition to a casino rake!

Quote: darkoz

I suppose a claw game gives a new definition to a casino rake!

Clark Griswold has seen this thread and is booking his rent-a-car right now.

Also, labeling this a $1 denomination game (see Youtube video) is a blatant lie. There is no bet available that is NOT a multiple of $5, therefore, it should be labeled a $5 denomination machine.

Quote: Mission146

Also, labeling this a $1 denomination game (see Youtube video) is a blatant lie. There is no bet available that is NOT a multiple of $5, therefore, it should be labeled a $5 denomination machine.

Isn't that representative of the majority of slots?

How many penny machines can you wager only one penny per spin? How many are fifty cents the minimum?

Oftentimes I find a quarter machine with lower wagers than the penny slots. A penny slot with a minimum fifty cents bet versus a quarter machine with a one credit minimum.

Welcome to deceipt 101 out of the casino playbook.

Quote: darkoz

Isn't that representative of the majority of slots?

How many penny machines can you wager only one penny per spin? How many are fifty cents the minimum?

Oftentimes I find a quarter machine with lower wagers than the penny slots. A penny slot with a minimum fifty cents bet versus a quarter machine with a one credit minimum.

Welcome to deceipt 101 out of the casino playbook.

The penny machines often relate back, in one way or another, to the number of lines or ways that a player can win. I know that there's no law that says that the denomination has to make sense.

Other than the jackpot, for this game, it's binary: You either win or lose and the amount won (if you win) is some multiple of $5. The only exception is that progressive wins won't necessarily be a multiple of $5, but $5 denomination VP machines with progressives can go up in penny increments if they want to, so I don't personally consider that reflective of anything.

Saw a video of this on Vital Vegas twitter account. Reminded me of some of those scammy machines you see in cruise ship casinos.

Voted No in the poll.

I wonder if by having the progressive increment on winning plays only, the casino can avoid having to roll-over amounts in excess of the max, as the progressive would be considered funded by the casino, not the players.

Remember when you would swear that a claw game, “Cheated,” by dropping the desired object intentionally?

Well, according to some patents I found (but not necessarily for this)…and as we know from the rules, it does drop it intentionally. However, it’s in a casino, so it’s not cheating.

“Display for the entertainment and excitement of the player.”

What’s that? You can’t use the verbiage, “To trick,” in a patent?

Quote: Mission146

Remember when you would swear that a claw game, “Cheated,” by dropping the desired object intentionally?

Well, according to some patents I found (but not necessarily for this)…and as we know from the rules, it does drop it intentionally. However, it’s in a casino, so it’s not cheating.

“Display for the entertainment and excitement of the player.”

What’s that? You can’t use the verbiage, “To trick,” in a patent?

you arent wrong



paging Zcore to tell us how these machines most likely dont have these settings allowed

OH and the main thing - most of the laws i have read always include that main caveat - whereas they can deviate from the laws "if stated in the rules" ... ill try to find a real legal example of what i mean when im not at work

Here's food for thought. We know the claw/ball thing is just for show and that the game decides whether you win or lose the moment you make the wager.

The game has a provision for awarding the win even if the claw fails to deliver a ball to the winning area.

What happens if a round is supposed to be a loss but a malfunction causes the ball to drop into the winning area by mistake?

Quote: sabre

Here's food for thought. We know the claw/ball thing is just for show and that the game decides whether you win or lose the moment you make the wager.

The game has a provision for awarding the win even if the claw fails to deliver a ball to the winning area.

What happens if a round is supposed to be a loss but a malfunction causes the ball to drop into the winning area by mistake?

I was thinking about that.

From this patent or a substantially similar patent, I gathered that the machine communicates to the claw that the ball is supposed to be dropped on a play that has been determined to lose.

It makes me wonder when in the process that takes place and if there would be some way to cause that communication not to happen. That would almost certainly be illegal, of course, so I would obviously not recommend such a course of action, but it does have me curious.

To answer your question, the only way to know would be for a ball to make it to the winning area and the player NOT get paid. Any ball that makes it and the player does get paid would have to be assumed that was supposed to happen.

Heatmap,

Thank you for sharing that video!

I guess the moral of the story is: If it’s a game, it probably cheats.

Heatmap, props for the zcore reference. Made me chuckle.

Quote: linksjunkie

If anyone wants to see this in action there is 2 minute video on YouTube.

Search “go go claw slot”

People definitely clueless

Let me save the forum the trouble of searching.


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMmkFFt-P9o

It's a clever concept. You have to admit it.

Skill game? Here's your skill game suckers!

I just wrote up a page on the game, Cash Grab. You can see I decided to refer to the game as Cash Grab as opposed to Go Go Claw.

As always, I welcome all comments, questions, and corrections.

Quote: Gialmere

It's a clever concept. You have to admit it.

Skill game? Here's your skill game suckers!

It’s a clever concept like Three Card Monte is a clever concept. I wonder if it will also make clever use of shills?

Quote: Wizard

I just wrote up a page on the game, Cash Grab. You can see I decided to refer to the game as Cash Grab as opposed to Go Go Claw.

As always, I welcome all comments, questions, and corrections.

Well played!

Quote: Mission146

Heatmap,

Thank you for sharing that video!

I guess the moral of the story is: If it’s a game, it probably cheats.

im going to have to ignore this was said - as it has been my main objective since day one of coming here

Why not make this machine somewhat skill based? Is it impossible to do that?

Quote: FinsRule

Why not make this machine somewhat skill based? Is it impossible to do that?

I’m not sure. If it was, ‘Impossible,’ then the, ‘Impossibility,’ would likely have something to do with satisfying minimum return requirements.

Quote: FinsRule

Why not make this machine somewhat skill based? Is it impossible to do that?

I think that could be done legally. They could achieve the 75% rule the same way slots do, but making wins dependent on past performance. Cue -- enter the vultures.

In this case, I think giving everybody a fair and equal chance is the way to go.

Quote: FinsRule

Why not make this machine somewhat skill based? Is it impossible to do that?

if they want to rig like games like keymaster (be comes true skill when it's ready to pay out)

Not sure if this entirely pertinent, but we ALWAYS used to win the JUMBO prize at games of skill at our big ol' Amusement Park. Until they changed the rules, that is.

We gave away all the GIANT GORILLAS but I still have some of the ELECTRIC GUITARS.

- I suspect Mrs Q will make me give away most of those, too.

......................


all of the poll's percentages add up roughly (rounding) to 189%

I don't get it

but then, there's a lot of stuff I don't get

Edit - I think I got it

the poll was intended to be comical so the percentages are also comical

is that the ticket? - I think that's the ticket - sorry for being so slow



.

Can someone save me time here. I got a little wet(can I say that here?) when I saw talk about "40% of the amount wagered is put into the jackpot". Now down to an 8% meter move, but then someone mentioned it was capped.

What amounts do they start out at, and what amounts do they get capped at?

Quote: lilredrooster

......................


all of the poll's percentages add up roughly (rounding) to 189%

I don't get it

but then, there's a lot of stuff I don't get

Edit - I think I got it

the poll was intended to be comical so the percentages are also comical

is that the ticket? - I think that's the ticket - sorry for being so slow

When you create a poll thread, you can choose to let each member vote for multiple choices, or just one. This thread is the former. That is why you see more votes than members.

Vote early and often, my friend! :)

Quote: lilredrooster

...is that the ticket?....

A poll can either allow people to vote for one option (signified by circle selectors) or more than one option (signified by square selectors). So the percentage of a one option poll tells how the voters divide amongst all the choices while a multi-option poll tells the percentage of voters agreeing with each of the given choices.

Quote: AxelWolf

Can someone save me time here. I got a little wet(can I say that here?) when I saw talk about "40% of the amount wagered is put into the jackpot". Now down to an 8% meter move, but then someone mentioned it was capped.

What amounts do they start out at, and what amounts do they get capped at?

The answers you seek are in the 4th picture of the first post in this discussion.

Quote: LoquaciousMoFW

The answers you seek are in the 4th picture of the first post in this discussion.

thanx.

Quote: LoquaciousMoFW

The answers you seek are in the 4th picture of the first post in this discussion.

They are also in my page on Cash Grab.

For the record, I voted “maybe“.

I’ll probably take a couple turns at it just for the goofiness factor. And probably to take a selfie, in a “look at what stupid crap I’m doing now” kind of thing.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

For the record, I voted “maybe“.

I’ll probably take a couple turns at it just for the goofiness factor. And probably to take a selfie, in a “look at what stupid crap I’m doing now” kind of thing.

I’ll get a picture of myself pretending to take a leak on it without putting any money in.

Is only the Wizard allowed to watch Mdawg play it?

Quote: Wizard

In watching other play several times, the game always at least initially grabs a ball. However, in the several times I watched, every time the ball fell out of the claw before getting to the chute.

I have seen it where the claw did not grab a ball. I think the free extra attempt may be a fail safe against that happening if it was supposed to be a winning play and the claw didn't grab anything.

Genius idea for a game like this. Been making a lap through downtown several mornings each week and this game almost always has someone playing it, along with a group watching. It seems to be able to come close to the same type of social table game atmosphere from a machine. I wonder if other arcade style games could also work well. One of the few times I didn't see someone playing the downstairs one, there was someone playing the one upstairs, with a cameraman filming, most certainly for some social media product. After carefully moving the claw and winning he said to the camera "this is my new game".

Quote: TomG

I have seen it where the claw did not grab a ball. I think the free extra attempt may be a fail safe against that happening if it was supposed to be a winning play and the claw didn't grab anything.

Makes sense.

That encourages people who don’t read the rules to think they won with skill on the second attempt.