Bonita
If you got your hands on the accounting, you should have also been able to see what the progressive total was at the time. Then it's a simple thing to ad the progressive to the total paid out to see if the machines are at (or at least near) the published return.
As you can see, most of the return comes from the most common winning hands that everyone is likely to see during a reasonable amount of time. I know it's not slots, but I don't think they would be THAT much different, though probably a little more top-heavy in the return.
Quote: BonitaWizard, or anyone else. I am curious if you could ballpark the average payback percentage of a slot machine (video) if you did not take into account the top jackpot ever hitting. I have seen the accounting systems for some IGT machines that have been in play for about 8 months. I was shocked that a 98.5% payback machine could be paying back less than half of that. Greatly apprcieated. Thanks.
Bonita
For example, on the Blazing Sevens 95.45% game, if the top prize (three blazing 7's that pays 1000) was not available, the game pays 87.31%. That is, the top prize contributes 8.14% towards the overall return. I have seen games where the features contribute over 20% -- if you don't hit a feature it can feel like you are sinking fast.
In general, you would need access to the PARS (paytable and reel strip) sheet for the individual game to determine this value.
--Dorothy
Quote: BonitaWizard, or anyone else. I am curious if you could ballpark the average payback percentage of a slot machine (video) if you did not take into account the top jackpot ever hitting. I have seen the accounting systems for some IGT machines that have been in play for about 8 months. I was shocked that a 98.5% payback machine could be paying back less than half of that. Greatly apprcieated. Thanks.
Bonita
Bonita,
If there is a slot machine that is paying back less than half of 98.5% then it is malfunctioning. This is assuming any reasonable amount of play. I'm wondering if you might have misinterpreted the data you saw. It would not be too uncommon for a game that holds 1.5% for the casino to hold 3% over a certain period of play. This might seem like it's paying back only half of what it should since it's holding twice as much as expected. As an example, $1,000,000 coin in x 98.5% par = $985,000 player return. $1,000,000 x 97.0% actual return = $970,000 return to the player. In order for the pay back to be only 50% of what it should the game would have to hold $492,500 (instead of $15,000)for the casino. This doesn't happen with any reasonable amount of play.
Quote: DorothyGale
For example, on the Blazing Sevens 95.45% game, if the top prize (three blazing 7's that pays 1000) was not available, the game pays 87.31%. That is, the top prize contributes 8.14% towards the overall return. I have seen games where the features contribute over 20% -- if you don't hit a feature it can feel like you are sinking fast.
In general, you would need access to the PARS (paytable and reel strip) sheet for the individual game to determine this value.
--Dorothy
Dorothy,
You are correct in observing that more and more of a slot machines payback comes in the form of features, what I would call slot bonus rounds. I believe that most people play these games for the bonus rounds, not necessarily for the pays on the main game. If you look at the actual pay for the top award combination it's often quite low compared to the total amount wagered. A typical game with a $2.50 max bet (25 lines x 10 credits per line) might have a top award of 3000 x line bet. That's a $300.00 jackpot for a $2.50 bet. Not exactly life changing.
Mark