Analysis of Lobstermania
What I did was use the information provided in that paper about Lobstermania and look at the math a little more carefully. I present my results in my new page Lobstermania. I invite all here to have a sneak preview. As always, I welcome corrections, comments, and questions.
By the way, the PARS sheet ultimately was released due to the Canadian Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any Canadian attorneys on the forum who can help me get more?
1) Is there a way, sitting in front of the machine, that you can tell if you're sitting at an 85% machine or a 96.2% machine? I'm assuming it would be too difficult, for example, to count the number of clams on reel 1.
2) You write, "The way the game would work would be to choose 5 random numbers, one for each reel, and each to where to stop for each reel." I've seen Lobstermania in Washington state tribal casinos, and my understanding is that these are video lottery terminals (VLTs), which select a prize and then display reels to match that prize. Is that a distinction with a difference in this case?
Quote: travisl
2) You write, "The way the game would work would be to choose 5 random numbers, one for each reel, and each to where to stop for each reel." I've seen Lobstermania in Washington state tribal casinos, and my understanding is that these are video lottery terminals (VLTs), which select a prize and then display reels to match that prize. Is that a distinction with a difference in this case?
I'm interested in the answer to the above Q.
Quote: travisl1) Is there a way, sitting in front of the machine, that you can tell if you're sitting at an 85% machine or a 96.2% machine? I'm assuming it would be too difficult, for example, to count the number of clams on reel 1.
It wouldn't be easy. You could determine the reel stripping, like how I did with Jackpot Party. Then do the math on the line pay return with those symbol frequencies. I think the scatter and bonus returns will remain the same, which I already provided.
Quote: travisl2) You write, "The way the game would work would be to choose 5 random numbers, one for each reel, and each to where to stop for each reel." I've seen Lobstermania in Washington state tribal casinos, and my understanding is that these are video lottery terminals (VLTs), which select a prize and then display reels to match that prize. Is that a distinction with a difference in this case?
I'm not up to speed on Washington gambling laws, but I was at the Northern Lights casino several years ago and asked an employee a question about the "slots" there. She got very defensive and insisted they were not slot machines. I then asked how they were different with the machines in Vegas and all she could say was that in in her casino one had to buy a voucher and then put the voucher in the machine.
So, I could make some guesses, but maybe somebody else on the forum is more familiar with the gaming laws in Washington than I am. In particular, I think MathExtremist might know a thing or two.
Quote: ahiromuI've heard Washington State "slots" described as video pull tabs. I think that was from some random person on here though - from limited experience they're set to insultingly low paybacks.
Yeah, I think Iowa and Florida have them too. It is like a pull tab game, where there is a finite pool of outcomes. When the pool is exhausted they shuffle them electronically and play through them again. Whatever the player wins they display it in the form of some other game. However, the slots at the Northern Lights looked so legitimate. Usually these pull-tab slots look very low budget.
Quote: WizardYeah, I think Iowa and Florida have them too. It is like a pull tab game, where there is a finite pool of outcomes. When the pool is exhausted they shuffle them electronically and play through them again. Whatever the player wins they display it in the form of some other game. However, the slots at the Northern Lights looked so legitimate. Usually these pull-tab slots look very low budget.
Iowa generally does have Class III gaming machines (the Vegas-style; I always get the number confused). However, KANSAS and I believe Oklahoma use Class II, though they are not the pull-tab style, they are bingo-style. Same idea though.
I only have one question, though. I didn't see anywhere in the original paper whether the lobster values are selected with replacement or not. This math is calculated as though a player can get the same lobster value for each lobster. If it is weighted without replacement, then the math is a little more complicated and would result in a lower overall pay.
Washington: these games are linked to a central determination system where a back end system pulls a win amount from a finite pool of wins. The system then instructs the video terminal how much to pay. Then it's up to the machine to display a win for that amount.
Florida: these games have a small bingo card somewhere on the display. The results from the bingo award a specific win amount then the game is responsible for showing a win in that amount. This is similar to WA in that the game does not use rng to decide reel stops.
I saw machines with such displays at G2E.Quote: CrystalMathFlorida: these games have a small bingo card somewhere on the display.
This may be unique to this manufacturer, and I don't know which manufacturer this was, but, it was NOT part of of the main display. It was in the little LCD display normally used to show the player's name and to access player's club free play, etc.
I was looking at it. I saw the 5x5 number pattern, but still didn't "get it" until a salesman came over and told me that it's the bingo game for Class II machines. I remarked that I never knew that it was actually visible to the player.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
I was looking at it. I saw the 5x5 number pattern, but still didn't "get it" until a salesman came over and told me that it's the bingo game for Class II machines. I remarked that I never knew that it was actually visible to the player.
Not only are the visible to the player, but in Oklahoma, they also make a REALLY ANNOYING clanging noise every time somebody hits on it. It's like because you got a bingo, you hit a jackpot, regardless of what the payout is. I still have night tremors from those sounds, and that trip was 3 years ago!
Link to the FOI act in Ontario: link here
The study conclusion itself is interesting
Quote: harrigan/dixon studyIn this research, we have used information provided in PAR Sheets to learn more about the structural characteristics of slot machine games. Where such information was lacking (e.g., the bonus mode of Lucky Larrys Lobstermania) we either played or observed others playing slot machines in a real gambling venue to gain a further understanding of
these slot machines. In particular, the PAR Sheets show detailed information about the overall design of slot machine games and provide specific information about the frequency of wins, losses, and near misses. The analysis provides a number of intriguing
findings.
These include the following:
(a) With a bankroll of $100.00 and making the maximum wager, one has an 89% chance of encountering a hand-pay of at least $125.00 (assuming one continues to play until the bankroll is depleted);
(b) a substantial number of wins are actually losses. For gamblers placing the maximum bet on 15 lines of a nickel machine, 35% of their signalled wins will be less than their wager per spin;
(c) the myth that there are loose and tight slot machines is actually true and could contribute to the evolution of gamblers systems and other faulty cognitions;
(d) bonus modes are highly salient environments associated with wins that are in the view of the gambler a very good place to be.
Quote: boymimboLink to the FOI act in Ontario: link here
Thanks. Do you think it would apply equally to Quebec, since the casinos there are also government owned, as far as I know? I have better connections in Montreal.
Quote: dlevinelawSeminoles are Class III as of 2010.
So, my info was outdated. I was there in February of 2007 and every game was "bingo."
Quote: WizardI recently stumbled upon an academic paper that was based on PARS sheets for four different slots. The paper is PAR Sheets, probabilities, and slot machine play: Implications for problem and non-problem gambling.
What I did was use the information provided in that paper about Lobstermania and look at the math a little more carefully. I present my results in my new page Lobstermania. I invite all here to have a sneak preview. As always, I welcome corrections, comments, and questions.
By the way, the PARS sheet ultimately was released due to the Canadian Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any Canadian attorneys on the forum who can help me get more?
If you do another slot analysis in the future, could you do one of a progressive video slot, since those can actually be beaten if the progressive is high enough? For example, maybe the playboy slot machine? That would be really cool.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI saw machines with such displays at G2E.
This may be unique to this manufacturer, and I don't know which manufacturer this was, but, it was NOT part of of the main display. It was in the little LCD display normally used to show the player's name and to access player's club free play, etc.
I was looking at it. I saw the 5x5 number pattern, but still didn't "get it" until a salesman came over and told me that it's the bingo game for Class II machines. I remarked that I never knew that it was actually visible to the player.
They used to have some of these at Pechanga in California. My understanding is that the tribe was allowed so many slots but the demand was much higher so they supplemented with these. It was really annoying because you would push the button to start the machine and then the reels would start spinning while it was waiting for a bingo game for you to join. Then you had like 3 seconds to "daub" the bingo card which you did by...pressing the button again. If you did not daub you did not win. So I usually ended up pressing the button 3 or 4 times per game. You would get whatever the reels showed plus some fraction of a dime if you won anything. It was slow and anoying.
maximum wager, one has an 89% chance of encountering a hand-pay of at least $125.00
(assuming one continues to play until the bankroll is depleted);
This comes from page 15:
With a maximum bet of five credits on all 15 lines (a total of 75 credits, or $3.75), there
are 649,847 outcomes that are hand-pays, which means that, on average, a player gets a
hand-pay every 399 spins (259,440,000 ÷ 649,847 = 399). When playing continuously
every 3 s, 399 spins take 20 min (399 x [3 ÷ 60] = 20). We considered a scenario in
which a player arrives with a bankroll of $100 and makes maximum wagers of $3.75
until broke. On average, the player would make 356 plays on the 92.5% version ($100 ÷
[$3.75 x .075] = 356) and thus have an 89% probability of getting a hand-pay ([356 ÷
399] x 100 = 89%).
How can this possibly be true? If I have an 89% of winning $25 and a 10% chance of losing $100 I'm ahead right there. If you leave right after any hand pay you'll be up more than $25 on average 90% of the time?.
Quote: KarmicI am confused by the conclusions of the paper, specifically (a) With a bankroll of $100.00 and making the
maximum wager, one has an 89% chance of encountering a hand-pay of at least $125.00
(assuming one continues to play until the bankroll is depleted);
This comes from page 15:
With a maximum bet of five credits on all 15 lines (a total of 75 credits, or $3.75), there
are 649,847 outcomes that are hand-pays, which means that, on average, a player gets a
hand-pay every 399 spins (259,440,000 ÷ 649,847 = 399). When playing continuously
every 3 s, 399 spins take 20 min (399 x [3 ÷ 60] = 20). We considered a scenario in
which a player arrives with a bankroll of $100 and makes maximum wagers of $3.75
until broke. On average, the player would make 356 plays on the 92.5% version ($100 ÷
[$3.75 x .075] = 356) and thus have an 89% probability of getting a hand-pay ([356 ÷
399] x 100 = 89%).
How can this possibly be true? If I have an 89% of winning $25 and a 10% chance of losing $100 I'm ahead right there. If you leave right after any hand pay you'll be up more than $25 on average 90% of the time?.
It's not true; with apologies to Dr. Harrigan, his method is incorrect. Consider a reductio ad absurdum: a game where the player bets the entire $100 bankroll on one roll of a die, either gets a $470 handpay on a six or loses otherwise. The house edge is 5%. However, using the logic above:
a) on average, a player gets a hand pay every 6 rolls (6 outcomes / 1 hand pay = 6);
b) on average, a player makes 20 plays until broke (100 / (100 * 0.05) = 20)
c) therefore, there is a 333% chance of getting a hand pay. ( (20 / 6) * 100 = 333%)
It's impossible to have > 100% chance of anything, but that chance was derived using the same method as that which derived the 89% figure. Both the method and the results are invalid.
Now, for the astute reader: where is the error and how do you correct it?
Quote: MathExtremist
b) on average, a player makes 20 plays until broke (100 / (100 * 0.05) = 20)
On average a player makes fewer plays until broke. Calculating the number of plays using the house edge is not correct. 5 of 6 times he's broke in one play. I feel like once upon a time I knew math and how to calculate what it would actually be but right now it escapes me ;)
