New York airport "Slots"
What Is the Difference between Video Lottery Terminals and Slot Machines?
From the VP angle, I totally get it. The game may look like Video Poker, but it's not dealt from a real deck, it's impossible to figure out the return percentage, there's no real strategy (the fairy comes and fixes your hand if you throw away a winner), etc. etc.
But compared to a regular slot machine, nothing about the VLT mechanism vs. an independent RNG machine inherently hurts or harms the players, as far as I can tell. A VLT game could be structured such that the RTP (return to player) of an average bet is 99% just as easily as an RNG machine could be programmed with an RTP of 80%. I understand that with the VLT approach, depending on specific implementation, the percentage might vary and not be constant from one hand to the next, depending on the pool of remaining "tickets." But that doesn't seem to be a negative on its face...in fact it might even be a positive, since VLTs might actually be "due" in the ploppy-understood sense, unlike a traditional slot.
Is it just that VLTs tend to be programmed with lower returns in general?
Edit: Added closing comment.
Quote: AcesAndEightsCan someone explain to me the disdain for VLTs, outside of the context of Video Poker?
From the VP angle, I totally get it. The game may look like Video Poker, but it's not dealt from a real deck, it's impossible to figure out the return percentage, there's no real strategy (the fairy comes and fixes your hand if you throw away a winner), etc. etc.
But compared to a regular slot machine, nothing about the VLT mechanism vs. an independent RNG machine inherently hurts or harms the players, as far as I can tell. A VLT game could be structured such that the RTP (return to player) of an average bet is 99% just as easily as an RNG machine could be programmed with an RTP of 80%. I understand that with the VLT approach, depending on specific implementation, the percentage might vary and not be constant from one hand to the next, depending on the pool of remaining "tickets." But that doesn't seem to be a negative on its face...in fact it might even be a positive, since VLTs might actually be "due" in the ploppy-understood sense, unlike a traditional slot.
Is it just that VLTs tend to be programmed with lower returns in general?
It's a Genie!
Quote: AcesAndEightsBut compared to a regular slot machine, nothing about the VLT mechanism vs. an independent RNG machine inherently hurts or harms the players, as far as I can tell.
It might.
I don't know how they work, so maybe I'm all wrong. But in some lotteries there is a set number of prizes of varying amounts (think scratch cards, for example). If VLT slots operate that way, it means there is just one jackpot, say, per period of time, ten second prizes, and so on. Whereas on a regular, random slot machine in Vegas, the odds of hitting a jackpot are the same for every pull.
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyPerhaps variance plays a role in why states prefer Class II VLT's. An RNG CLass III slot might have a "bad day" as far as the state is concerned and award too much in returns. As I understand it, the state is guaranteed their pound of flesh with Class II VLT operations. That is, the state isn't gambling on their returns!
Edit: Added closing comment.
FYI, electronic pull-tab VLTs are not Class II. They are Class III, but that's only relevant when a tribal gaming operation runs them anyway because IGRA only applies to tribal gaming. In New York, the VLTs are regulated by the state, and the state can make whatever rules it wants.
Edit: I just read that article about the purported difference between slots and VLTs. It is very wrong.
Quote: MathExtremistI just read that article about the purported difference between slots and VLTs. It is very wrong.
The WoO site has about the same information posted as part of Ask the Wizard: Non-Casino Games - FAQ under the question beginning with In New York state they have Video Lottery Terminals (VLT’s) at off-track betting spots.: VLT’s are glorified pull-tab games. There is a predetermined pool of outcomes. Also wrong? if so, in what way?
I'm not sure how I feel about the VLT system. There is definitely something that I don't like about it, but I can't put my finger on it. It just doesn't work how I feel that it is "supposed" to work.
Quote: NareedIt might... If VLT slots operate that way, it means there is just one jackpot, say, per period of time, ten second prizes, and so on. Whereas on a regular, random slot machine in Vegas, the odds of hitting a jackpot are the same for every pull.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI'm not sure how I feel about the VLT system. There is definitely something that I don't like about it, but I can't put my finger on it. It just doesn't work how I feel that it is "supposed" to work.
I think Nareed nailed it.
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyThe WoO site has about the same information posted as part of Ask the Wizard: Non-Casino Games - FAQ under the question beginning with In New York state they have Video Lottery Terminals (VLT’s) at off-track betting spots.: VLT’s are glorified pull-tab games. There is a predetermined pool of outcomes. Also wrong? if so, in what way?
No, that part is correct -- about the NY state games. But pull-tab VLTs aren't Class II; they don't have anything to do with tribal gaming necessarily, as they're operated both by NY state and WA tribal, among others; they are not "preprogramed (sic) to payout at specific times"; and they are not all linked together playing from the same pool of outcomes.
The following paragraph conflates the operation of actual Class II bingo-based games with the operation of pull-tab based Class III games:
Quote:VLTs are usually equated more with games like bingo, pull-tabs, scratch-offs, or lotto than they are with slot machines. This is because there are a pre-determined number of winners, and players are competing with each other for a prize rather than against the house. There is also not necessarily a winner in each game.
That's just a mess. And it also doesn't distinguish between finite-pool pull-tab VLTs in NY with RNG-based VLTs in, say, Oregon, West Virginia, Rhode Island, or Delaware. In fact, the VLT games in a vast majority of jurisdictions that regulate them would be called "slot machines" in Nevada or New Jersey. I can drive five minutes from my house and play real, RNG-driven video poker on an Oregon Lottery VLT.
For pull-tab type games, though, I don't really see a distinction.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice... For pull-tab type games, though, I don't really see a distinction.
Wouldn't the pull-tab type games be a special case where previous results influence future EV? If a particular machine has been played all day without a significant payout, would that mean it's "more due," something that doesn't apply to RNG machines?
Thanks for the answer, MathExtremist, and a tip of my hat to you for using "conflate!"
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyWouldn't the pull-tab type games be a special case where previous results influence future EV? If a particular machine has been played all day without a significant payout, would that mean it's "more due," something that doesn't apply to RNG machines?
What I meant was, I don't see the difference between class II VLT and class III VLT (is there such a thing as class III VLT?)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat I meant was, I don't see the difference between class II VLT and class III VLT (is there such a thing as class III VLT?)
I get from what's been posted and referenced in this thread that Class II VLT's have a finite set of results. Each wager gets you one of those results, and the particular result is then no longer available from the pool. Periodically the pool is refreshed with an additional batch of possible results. The state/tribe knows that if the entire pool is sold they will have an exact, known profit since composition of the prize pool is known. Obviously, there is no incentive for the state/tribe to stop taking wagers even when the pool has little to no EV for the buyers. Class III VLT's employ an RNG selection from a pay/probability table, but prizes awarded do not change the EV for the next wager. It is possible that the state/tribe will take a loss on a particular machine, but like other games they rely on the long-term return to mean results and, of course, the "house edge." That's how I understand the difference. I could be wrong!
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyI get from what's been posted and referenced in this thread that Class II VLT's have a finite set of results. Each wager gets you one of those results, and the particular result is then no longer available from the pool. Periodically the pool is refreshed with an additional batch of possible results. The state/tribe knows that if the entire pool is sold they will have an exact, known profit since composition of the prize pool is known. Obviously, there is no incentive for the state/tribe to stop taking wagers even when the pool has little to no EV for the buyers. Class III VLT's employ an RNG selection from a pay/probability table, but prizes awarded do not change the EV for the next wager. It is possible that the state/tribe will take a loss on a particular machine, but like other games they rely on the long-term return to mean results and, of course, the "house edge." That's how I understand the difference. I could be wrong!
Sorry, what I meant was, I don't see the difference between class II pull-tabs and class III pull-tabs. Are class-III pull-tabs an oxymoron?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat I meant was, I don't see the difference between class II VLT and class III VLT (is there such a thing as class III VLT?)
It's the opposite; there really isn't such a thing as a Class II VLT; those are usually called "bingo machines" or. Class II games are those that are operated by tribes without needing a tribal-state compact. Pull-tab or finite-pool VLTs are Class III. That was the holding of several Fed. Circuit cases in the early 90s after tribes, who were naturally trying to get away with as much slot-like gameplay as they could after IGRA but without compacting, were experimenting with lots of different permutations of EGM gameplay. It's a fascinating history, one I recently had occasion to research in great detail. The bottom line is that EGMs using central determination and finite pools (video pull-tabs) are all Class III under IGRA:
http://openjurist.org/14/f3d/633/cabazon-band-of-mission-indians-v-national-indian-gaming-commission-j
Also, while there's a pretty narrow and well-defined category of games that fall under the "Class II" moniker, based as it is on federal statute, the "VLT" label applies to many different types of games. One common thread is that a state or provincial lottery, as opposed to a private gaming enterprise, is typically responsible for authorizing and monitoring VLTs. RNG-driven games in Oregon or Delaware are "video lottery terminals" while the same games in Nevada would be "slot machines." The RNG and math models may be exactly the same, but in Nevada the casino is doing the back-office accounting while in Oregon it's the state lottery. On the other hand, video pull-tab games (that look like slots) in New York are also called VLTs. And in Washington tribal locations, where the gaming machines are hooked up to a central-determination system made by the same vendor (MGAM) as in New York, the machines are instead called "TLS" - Tribal Lottery System. http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/tribal/tribal-lottery-system.aspx
