General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I believe it is a law for these machines to be random number generated but how does a genuinely random process in the long run tilt in the favour of the bookmaker?
I'm talking specifically FOBT's not house edge
I'm talking specifically FOBT's not house edge
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 53
|
By:
But it's all about house edge on each of the games. All payouts are under the true odds.
|
|
By:
payout of 35 chips on a straight up when there are 37 numbers on the Roulette wheel ...
 |
|
By:
I've never seen the FOBT's in the shops, but I thought they were all roulette, do they play other games too? If it's single zero roulette they have a 2.7% edge, double zero 5.4%, but the popular arcade fruit machines are much worse than that, it's amazing how the desperate play them month after month and pump their dole money or wages through them, they never seem to learn.
|
|
By:
Oh theres more than roulette now, they've crafted all sorts of weird and wonderful games that have got lots of flashing lights and annoying jingles I assume it's that easy to fool and ammuse this new breed
Essentially they look like glorified fruit machines, I'm just ignorant to how the margins are gained i favour of the house |
|
By:
Judge they just don't pay out true odds on any of the selections on any of the games.
|
|
By:
The machines are random, the public are not.
I will try to find a video on youtube a mate of mine did for his college students in Montreal. He did this 'study' by having his students play against his roulette numbers that were generated through animation. One machine was random One machine was programmed to have a pattern that repeated a sequence of black and red as well as certain number that could easily be picked up (i.e. 2 lower third, 1 middle, 1 upper). Few picked up on the winning pattern that was right in front of their eyes. One machine was totally fixed to let you win a bit then whenever you upped your stake, ate it back pocketing 10% then returning to 'normal' random. All three machines made him money even after some students figured out the pattern (they had an alloted time or number of spins). Those that were advised that they had started with a virtual $100 and now had (I believe $500) didn't stop despite even being told the 'machines never let you have more than $500' and offered lunch vouchers to stop, didn't. In the end, fixed or not, he made money from all the machines. The interesting result from the students that were polled: When he asked which machine was 'fixed', they chose the random machine. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Along similar lines Apple had to rework their randomly generated shuffle feature when it first came out cause people thought it didnt feel random
fair one Vis, I see what your saying be intresting to know the %ages relative to the probabilities and payoffs, call me a cynic but Im sceptical of the true randomness of these machines |
|
By:
TheJudge, I think it comes down to wording:
- do you think they are 'not random' or 'fixed' ? For me, 'fixed' would mean that it is programmed to take back profits, the 'program' remaining random when people are losing 'on their own' 'Random' would mean a 'set pattern' that the programmer feels will cause users to THINK they see a pattern then, in a sense, pull the rug out from under them. To combat the (perception) of 'fixed' or non-random, there only has to be one move in legislation: All machines must be used by programs and games supplied by a government body and not by a firm supplying gaming companies. So the programmers have to present the chips to the government then they are installed by a gaming control board. They need to remove what is known as "seed" numbers that are suppose to guarantee randomness. ----- When Montreal first opened its new casino, four or five people won huge amounts on Keno the first month. They said they had sat there and watched the numbers and made notes on it. They scored $50,000 at a time. They shut the Keno machine and eventually "changed the chip" and reopened. They had with held one or two that had won on the last day but quietly paid them out. At the time, a friend of mine who was a journalist found several incidents where there had been big keno pay outs when casino's first opened. Two basic theories was that it is done for 'publicity' as part of a promotional budget with the larger casino's that were privately owned. The other, that during installation, the chip is supplied with flags that a certain combination was going to come up and the money went down and that the 'team' in Montreal got greedy and it became obvious early. It actually was 'closer' to the latter (though there were more than just the one person): You need to read the whole article: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/how_to_beat_keno.htm |
|
By:
but how does a genuinely random process in the long run tilt in the favour of the bookmaker?
If you have a random process with only a 1% edge, it will always tilt in the favour of whoever has that edge - maybe not over a week or a month, but over a year (with constant use) it will tilt |
|
By:
The 'edge' means nothing. The stats means nothing.
Because there are more losers than winners. Simple and serious. You are doing a thread that thinks that the people that walk up to the machine know the math. Most just spread the coins around "to win" and feel like they won when, at the end of the day, their losses will always exceed their gains. Now, if you know the math AND you see it works against you, don't play. Simple. You might as well hang around cruise ships, watch someone loose for half an hour on a machine and step in to gamble for the win. |
|
By:
katverrat I get that any set of trials of an event will converge to the true probabilities over time, its more a case of when you put your £1 in press spin and the virtual wheels just start rolling is the script of the programme genuinely randomly generated
good points SS All machines must be used by programs and games supplied by a government body and not by a firm supplying gaming companies. So the programmers have to present the chips to the government then they are installed by a gaming control board. that's one of the points I was alluding to, I was unsure if it was done this way I know SIS supply the program in some shops I wondered what governance there was of them I suppose I meant fixed, or at least the programme tilted in favour of the bookies from a programmed point of view not percentages, it would be best to understand the permutations and the payoffs to get a better idea of how slanted in there favour the game is maybe I'll go into the bookies with a bit of money and play one and see mmmmmmmmmmm.............  |
|
By:
Judge - dont ask where I got this from ....
but a report I have, from a major supplier over a 20 week period, showed that across their entire estate (ie 1000's of FOBT's)... a weekly average of £88m was staked over all games the payout was 96.65% in the highest week and 96.10% in the lowest week based on roulette being the main game at approx 97.3% (which i think is completely randomly generated) and the poker/slots/others at approx 93% these figures bear out the true edge the machines have, without any human programming |
|
By:
I used to go in betting shop most days and I remember when these things were brought in they set the payout level at a high rate to suck people in then once they had enough hooked they started racking it back. I don't know if it's true, but I was told by an insider that the way these work is all the machines in the shops have numbers between 1 and 8 and they are linked on a server so it calculates the lowest payout for all the machines that are numbered say 2 and all will pay out on the lowest liability for the company overall for each spin, so in some shops players win but in others lose, but the end result is that it costs the bookies the least possible,that is why they make most of their profits from them. The idea that the number is randomly generated is rubbish bookies are not in the business of taking risks. I know some people that play them so much that they can tell you what number will be the result as soon as the ball starts spinning. Not an ever playing field in my opinion horrible things I would much rather bet on sports. I will give you an example many years ago I was in the betting shop when it was closing and someone I know was playing one the manager called across to him take the £92 Paul time to go home, he had a balance of £76 showing on the screen you guessed it when the ball landed he had £92 - enough said. It was then that I decided to give them a wide berth.
|
|
By:
Possible the most apt username on here?
It is not often you get a post that consists entirely of errors and incorrect assumptions. Well done. |
|
By:
Nice kat, 3(ish)% margin would imply its only stacked slightly in favour of the bookmaker, with their focus being on increasing turnover
|
|
By:
The concept of a random selection is deeper than appears at first sight.
The machines in question should be,I repeat should be,completely random but consider the "random play" selection on your ghetto blaster,does it ever repeat a track just played?Has it ever played the same track three times in succession?I doubt it. With a house percentage of 2.703% for single zero and 5.263% for double zero (straight numbers) there is no need to cheat if you can keep the overheads to a minimum and keep the shooters shooting. ....................................................................................... Single zero player expectation 35*(1/37) - 1*(36/37)=-1/37 Double Zero player expectation 35*(1/38) - 1*(37/38)=-2/38 |
|
By:
The stats are totally, totally skewed to justify these machines. "We give back 97%" way the bookmakers.
No. You have positioned machines that prey on those who are most vulnerable to 'impulse' gambling. They then put money into a machine. More people lose than win. Infact, hundreds of people lose money. It may be only £30 but it is two days of food, perhaps for their children. The machines then give back, ON AVERAGE, X%. But this is over the entire network. For this, I will say 4%. So this means that if THE NETWORK takes £5,000 you give back £4,800.00. What this means is: If, on average, 200 people spend £25.00 2 times BIG WINNER takes back: £1200.00 7 take back $200 = £1400.00 100 take back $20.00 = £2,000 ****RETURNS BELOW THE AVERAGE IN**** 20 take back £10 = £200 So, based on this....only 4.5% profit from their 'investment'. Also, bear in mind, the 7 who TAKE BACK £200, perhaps two of them started with £200. So now just over 3% of the users made money. And perhaps this is 50 shops...so when one shop has 5 profiting, it means somewhere around 45 shops, there were no winners. So stop with the stats. The only stat is "how many people walk away with more money than they put in?" This answer is a click away. Someone needs to ask this question and you will then see how many people are affected by these machines. And when the answer returns "less than a percent", then perhaps the government will do something. |
|
By:
I assume by this logic that you are also going to be lobbying for a ban on casinos, fruit machines, lotteries etc?
|
|
By:
Firstly, the stats I quoted are not bookmaker stats - they are machine supplier stats that I'm sure, the supplier would want to show a lower pay back % to enhance the attraction to their customers (bookmakers). It was taken over a recent 20week period - if you dont believe it, then thats up to you
Secondly - your right - regular players will always lose. The only possible winners are the lucky few that can walk away (for life) after a large win. Because of the addictive nature of the machines, I doubt any human being can do this, especially after they have had a win. You ask 'how many people walk away with more money than they put in' - well I'd guess its less than 0.1% (since the first time they put their money in the machine) - but the govt make large revenue out of these machines and do you really think they give a hoot about the players? Finally I'm not trying to justify these machines - I'm as much against them as you are - but random gen nos - they really are |
|
By:
I am addressing the stats which are hilarious presentation to justify the machines being there.
Walking into a casino, I, myself, have dropped several hundred in an evening. My view was it was a night out. That said, the line-up at the phone to call credit card companies to get credit was a sad, sad sight. Lotteries. Yes, they affect people. But I don't know to what affect (please post articles). But, per the thread, people are very focused the pay-outs of these machine and hunting for an edge. The stats don't offer any perspective to how an individual would do. |
|
By:
Surely the point is that any gambling product with a negative expectation will create 100% losers in the long run. I'm not sure that is in dispute.
The question is whether there is a problem with that. If there is then all non skill based gambling would have to be abolished. |
|
By:
I think it comes down to location.
For example: In Australia, you can have a bet and a pint at the same time almost everywhere in the country. In the UK, no betting in pubs. FOBT's are located on high streets and can be found every few hundred yards. Someone with compulsive behavior doesn't stand a chance. |
|
By:
the point of the thresd was if they are genuine random numbers
|
|
By:
the point of the thresd was if they are genuine random numbers
The answer is yes. |
|
By:
FOBT's are located on high streets and can be found every few hundred yards. Someone with compulsive behavior doesn't stand a chance.
Is that not true for any potentially addictive product? Cheap alcohol for example is available everywhere in UK. I'm sure this causes problems for some people with compulsive behaviour. The question is whether the damage caused is acceptable. Loads of things will cause harm to small portions of society. |
|
By:
The stats don't offer any perspective to how an individual would do.
The stats show that for every £100 staked you will lose approx £3.50 Yes, you could win £1000's before returning to this average - but return to it you will, with constant play |
|
By:
No kat,what it means is that the house will win.It does not mean that all punters will each lose an average of 2.7% of their stake.
|
|
By:
dunlaying - these are the true odds you are accepting - like the house, if you play adinfinitum, you will lose the same % that the house wins
|
|
By:
It does not mean that all punters will each lose an average of 2.7% of their stake.
It does. The problem is that the stake is not the amount of cash that you start with rather it is the total value of all plays. |
|
By:
No,the expectation is what the bank can realistically expect to win it does not mean it will win it.
|
|
By:
The longer the term, the more likely it is that the house will win exactly the expected amount - there can be no denying that.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Back to the 'random' issue.
Per my earlier post(s), people perceive that they are fixed because most people lose. However, from a technical aspect, the 'definition' of random seems to be influenced by 'clocks' and 'seed numbers' and have to be centralized to one system |
|
By:
is a roulette wheel itself any more random than a computer program ?
|
|
By:
I have 250,000 poker hands stored on my PC and of those, just over 10,000 went all in to a showdown. I ran the races report on the software I own (Holdem Manager 2) and won 49.1% of them (50.9% lost). I can break those stats down further if I want but my point is over 10,000 hands I'm getting almost exactly as it should be. When I run the same races report at 100,000 I will expect far closer to 50%.
I have no problems with the RNG on any gambling site. A FOBT that says it pays out 97% will pay out 97% over a large enough sample. It's that large sample that matters and how these machines win in the long term. |
|
By:
It is impossible for a computer to throw out random numbers
|
|
By:
@zealot...how so?
|
|
By:
“One thing that traditional computer systems aren’t good at is coin flipping,” says Steve Ward, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. “They’re deterministic, which means that if you ask the same question you’ll get the same answer every time. In fact, such machines are specifically and carefully programmed to eliminate randomness in results. They do this by following rules and relying on algorithms when they compute.”
You can program a machine to generate what can be called “random” numbers, but the machine is always at the mercy of its programming. “On a completely deterministic machine you can’t generate anything you could really call a random sequence of numbers,” says Ward, “because the machine is following the same algorithm to generate them. Typically, that means it starts with a common ‘seed’ number and then follows a pattern.” The results may be sufficiently complex to make the pattern difficult to identify, but because it is ruled by a carefully defined and consistently repeated algorithm, the numbers it produces are not truly random. “They are what we call ‘pseudo-random’ numbers,” Ward says. For most applications, a pseudo-random number is sufficient, he adds. “For example, if you want to do a random sampling of a large set of data, you’ll need numbers to feed into the program so that the samples are more or less evenly distributed. Using pseudo-random numbers is perfectly acceptable in this case because there’s no quantitative advantage in the degree of randomness.” Similarly, a CD player in “random” mode is probably really playing in pseudo-random mode, with a pattern that is discernible if you listen carefully enough. Not all randomness is pseudo, however, says Ward. There are ways that machines can generate truly random numbers. And the importance of true randomness is not to be underestimated, he adds. “If you go to an online poker site, for example, and you know the algorithm and seed, you can write a program that will predict the cards that are going to be dealt.” Truly random numbers make such reverse engineering impossible, he adds. There are devices that generate numbers that claim to be truly random. They rely on unpredictable processes like thermal or atmospheric noise rather than human-defined patterns. The results might still be slightly biased towards higher numbers or even numbers, but they’re not generated by a deterministic algorithm. (A similar online solution is available at random.org.)—Jason M. Rubin |