Publicly available documents for slot machine technical standards?
I (thought) I read somewhere that if a bonus on a video slot reveals prizes that the player did not pick then the player could have won those prizes by selecting the alternate symbol. For example if 15 shamrocks appear and you pick one that reveals 100 credits and thats what you win. IF the slot then reveals the other symbols and one had a 10,000 credit value under it then you would have in fact won 10,000 by picking the other symbol. This seems intuitively correct because otherwise it would be very similar to the "near miss" programming that is restricted by various regulatory agencies.
So does anyone know if there are any publicly available standards or even if confidential ones exist?
Thanks,
Mark
Quote: marksolbergI know there are certain documents available on the Nevada Gaming Commission's website, http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm . But I'm wondering if there are other standards that either public or private that regulate the technical operation of slots. My question stems from a bet I have with a fellow gaming worker about the display of possible bonus outcomes on slots.
I (thought) I read somewhere that if a bonus on a video slot reveals prizes that the player did not pick then the player could have won those prizes by selecting the alternate symbol. For example if 15 shamrocks appear and you pick one that reveals 100 credits and thats what you win. IF the slot then reveals the other symbols and one had a 10,000 credit value under it then you would have in fact won 10,000 by picking the other symbol. This seems intuitively correct because otherwise it would be very similar to the "near miss" programming that is restricted by various regulatory agencies.
So does anyone know if there are any publicly available standards or even if confidential ones exist?
Thanks,
Mark
Doesn't anyone really think such rules would be tight enough to prevent to machine makers from doing pretty much what the casinos want?
That's actually quite interesting, considering for example pokie machines here in Australia, one in particular.
From my playing experience, I noticed if the machine was paying out a reasonable amount, if you were lucky enough to get
feature within a feature, no matter what the feature result was horrible (this feature let's you select 1 of 5 characters and they randomly supposedly get different amounts of free spins and turn 1-3 symbols into subs).
Yet when I got the feature after a long play gap from the last, the feature generally produced much better results (double the free spins, 2-3 subs instead of just 1).
Unless it was an amazing 3 machine (the same game, 3 different machines) co-incidence, it's like the feature is fixed to a degree.
Which I would think is not on, and there were other stronger indications too but I won't go too much into detail.
But it sounds like what you are saying with this "near miss" business.
has language prohibiting near miss programming, and also language that says the bonus rounds are part of the game cycle with predetermined awards. I think you could read that as proscribing near miss programming for any part of the game, bonus or not. But best ask GLI.
Quote: marksolbergThis seems intuitively correct because otherwise it would be very similar to the "near miss" programming that is restricted by various regulatory agencies.
There is a widespread belief that near miss programming is illegal under regulations. There was a case about 30 years ago in Nevada that ruled that one particular algorithm for near miss programming was illegal. But the concept is very much alive and well and programmed into almost every machine. There have been psychological studies on the effect on problem gamblers (including how the companies milk that old Nevada ruling to convince people that near misses were made illegal).
On the slot section of Wizard of Odds, he shows you an old Red White and Blue machine and how it is statistically programmed for near misses.
