Published par sheet

U.S. Patent 6,190,255 to WMS contains a par sheet for Jackpot Party. Thought some of you would find this interesting (including the Wiz). See Figs. 4-11.

Here's the link on Google Patents.

Thanks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is for a 3-reel version of Jackpot Party. I've never even seen such a game.

Take a look at this article:

Quote: Lasol

Take a look at this article: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f26012214ht85033/fulltext.pdf

Kevin A. Harrigan and Mike Dixon persuaded the Canadian government that the companies that developed the slot machines that are used in Canada were obligated to provide PARS sheets for them to do their research on problem gaming. They have written a long list of articles using research on these sheets.

I've read some of their articles and a big part of them is revealing the design of the slot machine. Particularly devices like the "near miss" and incentives that are built in to the machines to play maximum coins.

The conclusion, however is fascinating as they recommend that Ontario should only approve tight machines since these are the least addictive.

Quote: J Gambl Stud (2010) 26:159–174

Multiple Versions of the Same Game and Public Policy
Our final implication regarding multiple versions of the same game is for public policy. Williams and Wood (2004) have shown that slot machines are the most addictive form of gambling in Ontario with 60% of slot machine revenue being derived from moderate and severe problem gamblers. Based on the concerns that we have raised in this paper regarding multiple versions of the same game, we feel that jurisdictions should consider approving only games with a certain payback percentage such as 85%, or perhaps a small range such as from 85.0 to 87.0%. This would mean that there would be no ‘‘hot’’ or ‘‘cold’’ games in the jurisdiction and it would avoid any problem gambling concerns that may be associated with having multiple versions of the same game. Furthermore, we suggest that jurisdictions should regulate a lower payback percentage (such as 85%) rather than a higher one (such as 98%) as the higher payback machines appear to be more addictive.

.....

Quote: pacomartin

The conclusion, however is fascinating as they recommend that Ontario should only approve tight machines since these are the least addictive.

So the problem gambler, should be able to force all gamblers to play at only tight machines and force all casinos to only have tight machines?
Should problem drinkers be able to force wine makers to only off poor quality wines and problem drivers force manufacturers to only offer ugly, underpowered cars?

Professionals who specialize in gambling addiction agree that video poker provides an exceptionally fast track to addiction. Among the 5% of all gamblers who develop a problem, it takes those who bet on horses 20 years to "hit bottom," as Gamblers Anonymous puts it. By contrast, video gamblers get to that stage in just over two years. Why? Video poker has in spades the qualities that make up the addictive "power" of a game, according to Las Vegas clinical psychologist Robert Hunter: speed (a good player can go through as many as 12 hands a minute); the built-in ability to keep playing (many video-poker outlets are open 24 hours, and it's not unusual to hear of someone's playing 36 hours straight); the perception that skill is involved (largely false, Hunter says); and the game's hypnotizing effect. "It's like a trip to the twilight zone," says Hunter.

Quote: buzzpaff

and the game's hypnotizing effect. "It's like a trip to the twilight zone," says Hunter.

That describes my wife when she plays. She can sit there for hours staring at the screen of a regular slot machine, where it would bore me to tears. I have an older friend who acts the same way and he has a genius IQ. He says its like a drug to him, he literally won't leave until he has lost all the money he brought and has maxed out the cash he can get on his cards for the day. I won't go with him anymore, it too pathetic for me to watch. His excuse is, his wife usually wins what he loses, so its OK. This is BS, every time I've seen her go she loses just like he does. Its all those trips I don't see that she wins thousands. Bulloney she does...

The state is easily one of the worst offenders. Randomly choose an instant lottery game
Game #876 - Gus Bucks from PA State Lottery


... 33 top prizes of $1,000, more than 139,000 prizes from $10 to $100 and more than $4 million in total cash prizes.
Overall odds of winning a prize: 1:4.74

From the rules I can deduce that there are 7,920,000 tickets printed (roughly the number of people in PA between the ages of 18 and 65).

There are actually 139,326 prizes of exactly $10 (understatement in advertising)
There are actually $4,113,450 if you don't count the $2 the $100 and $1000 prizes (understatement in advertising)
These kinds of understatements in advertising are helpful if you are testifying before a committee that says you are misleading the poor and ignorant. Since the numbers mean little or nothing to most people it is to your advantage to say you grossly underestimate the numbers in the ads. You don't count the $2 prize, since most people buy 2 more tickets anyway, and you don't count the larger prizes.


While the overall odds of winning a prize, are 1:4.74, the overall odds of winning a prize of $10 or more are 1:57 . Real truth in advertising would be to publish the following table.

1 in:	win prize of equal or greater value
4.74	free ticket
9.59	$2
22.59	$5
57	$10
235 (being dealt a straight)	$20
1,081	$40
2,474	$100
240,000	$1,000

The odds are 1 : 280,000 of being struck by lightning according to Lightning Safety Institute which are similar to your odds of winning $1000.

So the state could publish a cumulative odds table, and it could publish the amount they keep, and it could publish the total number of tickets. Then if someone wants to play the game, they would at least have all relative information.

Quote: pacomartin

Real truth in advertising would be to publish the following table.

Not only do they publish that table, in slightly different form here

but they also publish the list of remaining prizes for a game in progress here

Obviously, the latter doesn't happen in a slot game where plays are independent, but you could theoretically use the "remaining prize" information to detect AP situations with specific scratch-ticket or pull-tab sets.

Quote: MathExtremist

Not only do they publish that table, in slightly different form here; but they also publish the list of remaining prizes for a game in progress here

Obviously, the latter doesn't happen in a slot game where plays are independent, but you could theoretically use the "remaining prize" information to detect AP situations with specific scratch-ticket or pull-tab sets.

My point is that most people can't go from individual probabilities to collective probabilities or a prize equal to or greater. The 1:4.74 that is so prominently displayed is relatively meaningless.

The number of remaining prizes cannot be used to calculate a possible shift in odds since they do not reveal how many tickets were printed nor how many tickets are remaining. They state that there are 31 grand prizes left, but not how many tickets have been sold. They never reveal the most critical statistics, i.e. the hold percentage.

The simplest statistic to reveal would be the total number of tickets printed in the run. Failing to print that simple information is the worst kind of cheat.

All in all you would have to agree that the state is not making any serious attempt to show how really awful this lottery ticket is compared to the tightest setting legally permitted on a slot machine. All those workers who collect part of their pay to collectively buy a box of lottery tickets would be far better off if they went down to the local casino and bet on a progressive slot machine.


PA returns only 60.9% of their gross sales in lottery tickets in the form of liability for prizes.

Quote: pacomartin

The odds are 1 : 280,000 of being struck by lightning according to Lightning Safety Institute which are similar to your odds of winning $1000.

'Jever see that television ad for the lottery where an actor says something about your chances of being hit by lightning and just then in the far background a massive lightning bolt strikes the ground?