Volatility and Slot machines

Hi guys,

I’ve watched a lot of Cowboy Slots on YouTube and I get confused whenever they talk about a game’s volatility being a better strategic decision than a game’s payback percentage when finding a winning slot machine.

If you take my example, what would be the optimal play? Say you play a slot machine with two game configurations: a high volatile version and a low volatile version, both set with the same payback percentage.

If your goal was to try to win the top line progressive of say $5000 with a $100 bankroll, betting, say, $5 a spin, would you play the low volatile version or the high volatile version if it was only a single visit? What about if you planned to repeat it over 10 visits? Would it make a difference to your chances of winning that prize if you played the low vs high volatile version?

Thanks for any input, this stuff really confuses me.

Cowboy Slots has managed to prove that he doesn't know a thing about slots, so I wouldn't believe anything he says.

Quote: Roberto21

Hi guys,

I’ve watched a lot of Cowboy Slots on YouTube and I get confused whenever they talk about a game’s volatility being a better strategic decision than a game’s payback percentage when finding a winning slot machine.

If you take my example, what would be the optimal play? Say you play a slot machine with two game configurations: a high volatile version and a low volatile version, both set with the same payback percentage.

If your goal was to try to win the top line progressive of say $5000 with a $100 bankroll, betting, say, $5 a spin, would you play the low volatile version or the high volatile version if it was only a single visit? What about if you planned to repeat it over 10 visits? Would it make a difference to your chances of winning that prize if you played the low vs high volatile version?

Thanks for any input, this stuff really confuses me.
link to original post

The only thing that would make a difference in winning the top prize would be knowing the probability of that specific result. In theory, one slot machine with a higher probability of winning the top prize than a separate slot machine could still have lesser overall volatility.

For example, one close comparison is 100% Jacks or Better and 100.067% Double Double Bonus:

https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/tables/double-double-bonus/

https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/tables/jacks-or-better/

As you can see, not only does the JoB have the greater top prize (It is just 9/6 with a Royal to make 100%), but that top prize is also more likely to be won by the player due to strategy. However, if you plug both of these games into the WoO Calculator, you will see that the Variance is roughly 12 points higher with the DDB game.

With that, I don't think any assumptions can be made vis-a-vis top jackpot probability just based on overall volatility.

I think what they might be suggesting is that machines with greater volatility lend to a better opportunity to have a winning day, which could be generally true. For example, a 95% machine with zero volatility would just mean that you bet $5.00 and automatically get a return of $4.75 every time, so you could ONLY lose on a machine like that.

Jacks or Better compared to DDB is another good example of that. We can use the Beating Bonuses simulator here:

And, plugging that in, see a winning session percentage of about 30% over 10k hands.

The DDB yields a much higher win percentage, per 10k hand session, which is kind of the nature of the two games. With DDB, there are many paths to having a profitable 10k hands because of all the quads whereas, with JoB, it's mostly just slow losing until you hit a Royal.

As far as the individual top jackpot goes, the short answer is it just depends on the probability of that jackpot. The higher volatility machine will often have a higher top jackpot probability, but it is not necessarily so.

Hoping to win $5000 with a $100 bankroll is a dream, not a goal. Winning the lotto is a dream, not a goal. Going home with more money than you came with is a goal. It's good to have dreams, but goals work better.

Thanks for the detailed response. I should add that I’m assuming the odds of hitting the jackpot are the same for both versions, but either way it seems like your chances of winning it on any given day are higher for the high volatile version, based on what you’re saying?

I should also add that Cowboy Slots advocate for low volatile slot machines in terms of increasing your chances of coming out a winner. But like you say, at the extreme end, with zero volatility, a player has no chance of walking out ahead so I would argue that’s a worse strategy.. I guess if you look at it in terms of limiting your losses the case could be made that the low volatile version is a better choice in the short term, but if both versions have the same overall payback percentage, what is the point of applying a loss limit strategy rather than a potential winning strategy? If your goal is to ultimately win during your casino visit..

I just think the blanket statement they make that ‘low volatile machines are the best to play’ is a little misleading. Yeah, your chances of losing are lower, but are your chances of winning higher? I would think not.

Quote: Mission146

As far as the individual top jackpot goes, the short answer is it just depends on the probability of that jackpot. The higher volatility machine will often have a higher top jackpot probability, but it is not necessarily so.

Roberto, this last sentence of Mission's is the one that applies to your situation. Do not assume the chances of hitting the jackpot are the same for high and low volatile versions. My normal assumption is that the jackpot is more likely to hit on the higher volatility pay schedule but you will get less smaller pays so you will not be able to play as long on the same bankroll.

Quote: Roberto21

Thanks for the detailed response. I should add that I’m assuming the odds of hitting the jackpot are the same for both versions, but either way it seems like your chances of winning it on any given day are higher for the high volatile version, based on what you’re saying?

I should also add that Cowboy Slots advocate for low volatile slot machines in terms of increasing your chances of coming out a winner. But like you say, at the extreme end, with zero volatility, a player has no chance of walking out ahead so I would argue that’s a worse strategy.. I guess if you look at it in terms of limiting your losses the case could be made that the low volatile version is a better choice in the short term, but if both versions have the same overall payback percentage, what is the point of applying a loss limit strategy rather than a potential winning strategy? If your goal is to ultimately win during your casino visit..

I just think the blanket statement they make that ‘low volatile machines are the best to play’ is a little misleading. Yeah, your chances of losing are lower, but are your chances of winning higher? I would think not.
link to original post

If we assume the same overall return percentage for both machines, then generally, I think a player is more likely to have a winning session on a higher volatility game, depending partially on how many spins the session consists of. For example, Jacks or Better has a lower probability of gain for a 10k session of hands than DDB based on the above, however, if the session is only 100 hands instead, then JoB offers a greater probability of winning a session mostly owing to the fact that Two Pair (a very frequent hand) pays two-for-one as opposed to Even Money.

See? So, everyone wants to make grand and sweeping generalizations of what game does what...what game is more likely to yield a win and it can't be done. In order to compare two games, you would want to do the following:

1.) Know the return percentages.
2.) Establish a bet amount for each game.
3.) Establish how many trials are to be played.
4.) Know the probabilities and pays for every single outcome.
5.) Bankroll

Knowing all of that, which slot players generally will not and do not, you could compare two games with absolute certainty.

Of course, I can make a generalization and say that more volatility yields a better probability of having winning results on a negative expectation game over a large sample size of results where the overall RTP is the same for both games. That's fine, but it doesn't quantify sample size. Using Beating Bonuses and comparing JoB to Double Bonus (because I am not putting DDB pays and probabilities in by hand again) here's what I get comparing JoB to DB..and I have modified DB regular quads to pay 52.5-For-1 in order to make the House Edge closer to the same:

100 Hands: DB: About 30.7%, JoB: Generally Over 39%, sometimes over 39.5%

500 Hands: DB: Over 39% JoB About 36.5%-37.5%

With that, the number of hands played matters. With one hand, the probability of profit on JoB is obviously higher because it has a greater overall percentage of profitable outcomes due to how Two Pair pays. With the 500 hand sample, however, we are starting to see more players hitting quads, which don't help as much on JoB.

Bankroll is also a relevant factor because, for my simulations, I made it such that a total bust out was impossible. When you factor in the potential for a very limited bankroll, then in terms of a single session, you might have a greater probability of a winning session on the less volatile machine because the greater volatility machine may also result in busting out more quickly.

So, the short answer is: There is no short answer.

Thanks for your answer and clarification DRich, and you’re right, the odds for hitting the top jackpot could be set different for high vs low volatile versions, but let’s assume they’re not.

I’m thinking specifically of a linked progressive on a multi-denomination machine with the same payback percentage for each denomination, but differing number of paylines. I assume the odds of hitting the jackpot are the same across the board, but the version with the less paylines (and therefore, higher volatility) is still the better version to play in the short term if your goal is to win the progressive with a limited bankroll.

Quote: Roberto21

Thanks for your answer and clarification DRich, and you’re right, the odds for hitting the top jackpot could be set different for high vs low volatile versions, but let’s assume they’re not.

I’m thinking specifically of a linked progressive on a multi-denomination machine with the same payback percentage for each denomination, but differing number of paylines. I assume the odds of hitting the jackpot are the same across the board, but the version with the less paylines (and therefore, higher volatility) is still the better version to play in the short term if your goal is to win the progressive with a limited bankroll.
link to original post

If the probability of hitting the top jackpot is the same for both machines, then the probability of hitting the top jackpot, per spin, is obviously the same.

That being the case, if the goal is to hit the top jackpot, you get into the question of which machine configuration might allow for the most spins on a limited bankroll.

Going back to the Beating Bonuses simulator, I have given the player a bankroll of 100 bets with the goal of playing 1,000 hands of both Jacks or Better and Double Bonus, again adjusting for the regular quads on DB to pay 52.5 so that the House Edge of both is nearly the same based on their starting House Edges.

With that, the probability of finishing 1,000 hands with a profit is much lower on Double Bonus because a very high percentage of players (more than 45%) lose the 100 units and fail to even play 1,000 hands. The bust out rate on JoB simulations is 15-17%, depending on the simulation, so about a third of that of DB.

By necessity, that means that more hands of JoB were played, therefore, the players were more likely to hit a Royal Flush (top jackpot) playing JoB because they got a greater average number of hands in due to the low volatility.

If I increase the goal number of hands to 10,000 on a 100 bet bankroll, then more than 86% of the DB players bust out before even playing that many hands. The bust rate of just over 85% for JoB, trying to last 10,000 hands, is slightly lower, but not much different. The overall profit rate is roughly the same because the majority of players who have survived the 10,000 hands at all are ahead in both cases.

Of course, it took the JoB players longer to bust out, on average, so more of them had more opportunities to hit a royal.

When I make it 5,000 hands, nearly 72% of JoB players bust out before they can make it and over 79-80% of DB players bust out.

2,500 hands to be played and more than 68% of DB players bust out before they can play them whereas just over 50% of JoB players bust out.

25,000 hands and more than 92% of DB players do not make it while this is under 92% for JoB players...and the JoB players who busted out, based on previous simulations, played a greater average number of hands.

So, when you isolate the probability of hitting the top jackpot based on a certain bankroll, lower volatility can sometimes yield a greater probability of doing so assuming same probability per spin and same RTP otherwise because the lower volatility can also mean that you can survive a greater number of spins, on average.

The short answer remains: There is no short answer.

Thanks for the detailed response and examples you gave Mission146. Especially, the simulations you ran. The results paint a pretty interesting picture.

It is clear that there are quite a few factors to consider, and really no right or wrong answer to this question - It’s context specific, with bankroll size playing a major factor.

I think in terms of exercising caution, playing low volatile machines is the smarter and safer option for a player with a limited bankroll, in terms of stretching out their length of play and therefore chances of hitting the jackpot. A high volatility game may be a better choice for a player with a larger bankroll, and this is a strategy Cowboy Slots also teach; that is, ‘start on a low volatile machine, and if you win, move up to a higher volatile one with your winnings’.

At the end of the day, I think they do a pretty reasonable job at promoting responsible gambling and teaching smart game play, so I don’t really have anything too bad to say about them other than perhaps they go a little too deep into some topics, like volatility, which can fly over most player’s heads.

Quote: Roberto21

Thanks for the detailed response and examples you gave Mission146. You have made it clear that there is quite a few factors to consider, and really no right or wrong answer to this question - It’s context specific, with bankroll size playing a major factor.

I think in terms of exercising caution, playing low volatile machines is the smarter and safer option for a player with a limited bankroll, in terms of stretching out their length of play and therefore chances of hitting the jackpot. A high volatility game may be a better choice for a player with a larger bankroll, and this is a strategy Cowboy Slots also teach; that is, ‘start on a low volatile machine, and if you win, move up to a higher volatile one with your winnings’.

At the end of the day, I think they do a pretty reasonable job at promoting responsible gambling and teaching smart game play, so I don’t really have anything too bad to say about them other than perhaps they go a little too deep into some topics, like volatility, which can fly over most player’s heads.
link to original post

That's not a, "Strategy," or to the extent that it is, it's a goal-specific strategy. There are no absolute tips that I would purport to give to any recreational slot player playing a negative expectation game because, over a large enough sample size, the inevitable result would be, provided they could only play long enough, that every single one of them will go bust.

If someone presented me with bankroll factors and told me what goal they had for their play, in advance, then I could perhaps compare two machines and tell them which one makes it more likely that they would accomplish whatever their goal is. Of course, I would need to know everything about the machine in terms of individual pays and probabilities.

I've only hopped and skipped on a few of their videos, so have no strong opinion on them. Volatility is unimportant to most slot players because, for most, they see a machine that they think looks fun and they play it.

And, quite frankly, if I wanted to play a negative expectation slot machine with no mechanism by which I would profit (such as free play) on the back end, then I wouldn't put a lot of thought into it beyond, "That game looks fun," either.

Yes, I completely agree with your take Mission146. That’s why I do my research and ask questions on forums like this to keep me grounded and not let these so-called ‘experts’ lead me down a bad path.

Slot machines are entertainment devices. It’s a shame people won’t just leave it at that. I find it ironic that real advantage slot channels only get a fraction of the views that these fluff ‘talk shows’ and their pseudo-experts get..

Quote: Roberto21

Yes, I completely agree with your take Mission146. That’s why I do my research and ask questions on forums like this to keep me grounded and not let these so-called ‘experts’ lead me down a bad path.

Slot machines are entertainment devices. It’s a shame people won’t just leave it at that. I find it ironic that real advantage slot channels only get a fraction of the views that these fluff ‘talk shows’ and their pseudo-experts get..
link to original post

I'm unsurprised by that. People that seek out this information are naturally predisposed to wanting to believe the lie that there is an easy way to win on slot machines and hit big jackpots. In general terms, there's not.

Advantage slot play is about understanding the situations on variable-state machines that may be advantageous, and when it comes to actually beating machines with nothing happening (such as casino offers) on the back end, it's mostly singles and doubles to nickel and dime your way to long-term profits.

Players don't want to hear that; they want to hear how they can win big jackpots NOW with an absolute minimum amount of effort on their part. So, even if they went to lengths to seek out the actual truth of how to beat machines one on one, they wouldn't want to hear it anyway and would leave unsatisfied.

Bitcoin is a perfect example. Buy it now and you'll be rich later.

Quote: billryan

Bitcoin is a perfect example. Buy it now and you'll be rich later.
link to original post

You're finally on board.

AxelWolf coins should be your #1 investment. They are 100% backed by cash, Eco friendly with a limited supply, so obviously, they will Go up in value.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: billryan

Bitcoin is a perfect example. Buy it now and you'll be rich later.
link to original post

You're finally on board.

AxelWolf coins should be your #1 investment. They are 100% backed by cash, Eco friendly with a limited supply, so obviously, they will Go up in value.
link to original post

Wolf coins sir, rolls off the tounge better.
I will buy a s%!* ton of them. Todays price 00000000000000.315