EV and Progressive Slots

I have been running some queries through ChatGPT to see if you can calculate the breakeven point for a progressive jackpot if all you know is the theoretical RTP of the machine and the progressive contribution amount and it appears you can. It gave me this formula:

Breakeven Point (J) = (100% - Effective RTP) / Effective Contribution

Multiplied by the Seed Value

For example, assume a machine has a theoretical RTP of 92% and a single progressive with a seed value of $100.00 with a 1% progressive contribution. The Breakeven Point (J) is as follows:

J = (100% - 91%) divided by (1% of 92%)

Multiplied by 100.00

is $978.26. Therefore, the jackpot is breakeven at $978.26.

My question is, is this method of calculation valid? Can you work out the breakeven point from the overall RTP and progressive contribution amount alone? And can you take this even further and extrapolate the odds of hitting the jackpot from this information alone?

**edit** Just realised I need to know the jackpot odds of hitting to solve this problem. Assuming the $100.00 reseed is funded by the 91.08% RTP for line hits, then I’d need to know what dollar amount above the seed value it hits at on average to work out how much 0.92% of the RTP is. Glad I never paid for ChatGPT lol

That's not what ChatGPT was designed for so you got a response that wasn't worth paying for.

You might be able to ask it stuff like that in the future if it is trained on proper data.

I hope so. Hopefully it can analyse video footage too!

Quote: Roberto21

I hope so. Hopefully it can analyse video footage too!
link to original post

I wonder what happens if I slap all of the par sheets in that mother … and ChatGPT is absolutely worth the money I’m essentially done with asking people for any advice or fact or anything. People can go kick rocks for all I care. I just tell it give me a short concise one paragraph answer and it tells me anything I want to know. Of course it has hallucinations but for the most part I could care less because I fact check anyways. People care about hallucinations because they are too lazy to check and then look stupid when they try to regurgitate the “fact”… I’ve been there heh

Quote: heatmap

Quote: Roberto21

I hope so. Hopefully it can analyse video footage too!
link to original post

I wonder what happens if I slap all of the par sheets in that mother … and ChatGPT is absolutely worth the money I’m essentially done with asking people for any advice or fact or anything. People can go kick rocks for all I care. I just tell it give me a short concise one paragraph answer and it tells me anything I want to know. Of course it has hallucinations but for the most part I could care less because I fact check anyways. People care about hallucinations because they are too lazy to check and then look stupid when they try to regurgitate the “fact”… I’ve been there heh
link to original post

What I’ve noticed with ChatGPT is it seems to give you the answer you want, rather than whats ‘correct’ or accurate, especially if you ask it leading questions. Mind you, this is with regards to slots related advantage play which it’s not wise to yet. But yeah it becomes a bit of an echo chamber after a while. It’s too open to suggestion to be a useful tool, for this particular niche anyway.

Quote: Roberto21

Quote: heatmap

Quote: Roberto21

I hope so. Hopefully it can analyse video footage too!
link to original post

I wonder what happens if I slap all of the par sheets in that mother … and ChatGPT is absolutely worth the money I’m essentially done with asking people for any advice or fact or anything. People can go kick rocks for all I care. I just tell it give me a short concise one paragraph answer and it tells me anything I want to know. Of course it has hallucinations but for the most part I could care less because I fact check anyways. People care about hallucinations because they are too lazy to check and then look stupid when they try to regurgitate the “fact”… I’ve been there heh
link to original post

What I’ve noticed with ChatGPT is it seems to give you the answer you want, rather than whats ‘correct’ or accurate, especially if you ask it leading questions. Mind you, this is with regards to slots related advantage play which it’s not wise to yet. But yeah it becomes a bit of an echo chamber after a while. It’s too open to suggestion to be a useful tool, for this particular niche anyway.
link to original post

everyones experience in theory should be different if were all training our own personal model... ive been surprised at some of the stuff it regurgitates

It shouldn't be surprising that AP answers are not forthcoming from AI tools. People seem to misinterpret what artificial intelligence means.

It has to be trained on data. AP data is notoriously kept under wraps. No training means non answers.

Asking chatgtp for AP answers is like asking an 8 year old. He will give you answers. They probably won't be correct

Quote: darkoz

It shouldn't be surprising that AP answers are not forthcoming from AI tools. People seem to misinterpret what artificial intelligence means.

It has to be trained on data. AP data is notoriously kept under wraps. No training means non answers.

Asking chatgtp for AP answers is like asking an 8 year old. He will give you answers. They probably won't be correct
link to original post

If you ask generative AI about topics where most of the available public information is accurate, then the AI does an amazing job of synthesizing an answer in well-written paragraphs. When the topic is one where much of the available information is disinformation, AI does a horrible job because it does not have the human ability to sniff out propaganda and disinformation.

Most of what is written on the internet about gambling is nonsense and click bait. The information behind some paywalled sites might be better for training. If AI was trained on this forum, it would be forgiven for thinking that certain games like craps and roulette are very important. The AI would probably ignore very many important AP games and methods because they are rarely mentioned here.