5 ms·

My first job out of Uni was making "games" for slot machines. My soul is forever damaged (not joking). I have horror stories over how much thought goes into t

by Tistel 10y ago

My first job out of Uni was making "games" for slot machines. My soul is forever damaged (not joking). I have horror stories over how much thought goes into the "design." In a given jurisdiction (State/Province/County) there will be rules about the payout percentage. Anywhere from 90 to 98%. So lets assume 95% percent payout. In the long run, you give me a dollar, I give you back $0.95. Most of the time its zero, sometimes its a bit more than you put in to spin and once in a blue moon its huge. But, on average, you give me a dollar, I give you $0.95. This is where biology / psychology comes into play. All the games from all the manufactures pay the same (in the long run) in a given state (its the law). The trick is to find the magic reward frequency (think Skinner box from Psych 1000). Occasionally a huge one with not much in between? Lots of little wins and hardly any super huge jackpots? Most of the reward frequencies don't work. The person can escape thinking the game is not fun. There are a few rare evil/magic frequencies that just trap the poor person. Here is where it gets super evil. When one manufacturer's new game starts to do well in market, other manufacturers will do research (study the content of the reels (the spinning things) from a video capture) and reverse engineer the game's math/reward frequency. So the same way that AI RNN is a exploring a multidimensional problem space and trying to jump out of local optima to find the true optimal solution. The gambling industry is exploring the dimensions of the mind trying to find the optimal Skinner box to take all your money. They are exploiting a bug in our brains design. We evolved to run around the Savannah and throw things with weird accuracy. We just are not built to defend against it. They should be banned.

downandout 10y ago
Most of the slots these days are just cabinets with touchscreen LCDs, a bill changer, a player's card reader, and a computer running software. Of course it's evil, but I'm surprised they aren't split testing the reward frequencies, and then having the software adjust automatically to the one that generates the most total action for the game. That way they wouldn't have to ripoff other manufacturers' games when they start doing well....all the games would be optimized over time for maximum appeal/profit/addiction.
- thefalcon 10y ago
  Gaming regulators prohibit many on-the-fly changes to machines while on the floor. Online casinos certainly could and probably are doing some variation of this though, and all those manufacturers sell "at home" software versions of their machines and would be smart to be doing split testing of player behavior in that software.
  - downandout 10y ago
    I'm aware, but most gambling regulations are heavily influenced by lobbyists. If the industry realized how much more money they could make from this, they would get it approved.
    - grogenaut 10y ago
      Gambling regulation's #1 worry is fraud/theft. Everything has to be predictable. Builds have to be repeatable. Think about that, gcc has to emit the same binary / assets down to the timestamps from the same inputs. Java too. All source is read, all rng's are run massive numbers of times to experimentally prove them. Program storage needs to be non-volitale and they will run an arc welder across the frame of the box to try and skew the computer. All of this is to say that they are ultra paranoid of changes that could lead to fraud. Remote updates without their review woudn't pass. With their approval and auditing maybe. Source: My boss worked in this industry and talks about it basically every lunch.
- kartan 10y ago
  > I'm surprised they aren't split testing the reward frequencies Of course this is done. It is just slower than in the web as other people has pointed out you can't change things on the fly. I worked for the gambling industry and we had a statistics department that take care of this kind of things. You try different machines and you have different local maximums: - There is the machine for the slow player that is there all day. It gives back a lot of small rewards so people keep playing and playing. It doesn't makes so much money but makes sure that your section of machines (each section is from a different company) is never empty. - There are hard machines for places like Las Vegas. People bets hard and expects big colorful prices. - There are machines for the small town casinos. This machines are softer than the ones in Las Vegas. But also optimized for its target audience. Then there is the amount of noise, your section of machines should look like is giving prices all the time. The design of the cabinet (in Mexico they have a place to put plates as people eats there). Yes. It is serious business. And there are a million considerations that each company takes into account. A/B testing was there a lot before the web was a thing.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
I wonder to what extent the "magic reward frequency" happens to correlate with market movements.
oska 10y ago
> They should be banned. I would instead suggest mandating a payout percentage of 100%, i.e. the machines make no profit for the owner. Venues might still buy them as ‘entertainment’ but not as profit centres. Instead they would be a customer attraction cost (purchase price plus electricity) for venues like bars and clubs, just like hiring live entertainment. Gamblers will still gamble on them, thinking they'll be the lucky ones to get the jackpot (and beat the odds) but there would be far less of them around because they wouldn't be profitable to own in themselves. And there would be no motive to make them addictive (because again, no profit motive).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
micaksica 10y ago
> The gambling industry is exploring the dimensions of the mind trying to find the optimal Skinner box to take all your money. They are exploiting a bug in our brains design. We evolved to run around the Savannah and throw things with weird accuracy. We just are not built to defend against it. They should be banned. So we should ban viral mechanics, those old Facebook games, dark UI/UX patterns, and pay-to-play mobile games as well? They often work in the same manner, and yet you yourself appear to know the risks and appear to be immune to them. For the record: I like gambling. I like drinking, too. I have neither a gambling addiction nor an alcohol addiction. Should I be disallowed these things I find pleasurable because a subset of the population abuses these things?
- trcollinson 10y ago
  Most of these questions are deeply philosophical and I have no answer for you. But I will ask you this: if giving up on gambling which you are not addicted to but find pleasurable saves a subset of the population that cannot control their own abuse of gambling, would you do it? In fact, to be a bit more specific, if you giving up gambling saved the next Scott Stevens and that persons family from the financial ruin and death that they bring on themselves, would you do it? Of course, there are counter arguments to this. How can we know that giving up on gambling or even removing the whole gambling industry will help or save anyone? I have no answer. Only opinion. It's a rough one.
  - dlss 10y ago
    > if giving up on gambling which you are not addicted to but find pleasurable saves a subset of the population that cannot control their own abuse of gambling, would you do it? This is a very interesting question, thanks for posting it. For me the answer is yes. Another question: if someone who isn't addicted to gambling doesn't give up gambling to save those who are addicted, what punishment would you support the state imposing? (jail, fines, forced "treatment", etc) And another: if someone who is addicted to gambling doesn't give up gambling, what punishment would you support the state imposing? (jail, fines, forced "treatment", etc) I ask these questions because I don't think analogous ones were considered before launching the drug war. For me the answer to both is a whole-hearted "no punishment".

by Tistel 10y ago

downandout 10y ago

Most of the slots these days are just cabinets with touchscreen LCDs, a bill changer, a player's card reader, and a computer running software. Of course it's evil, but I'm surprised they aren't split testing the reward frequencies, and then having the software adjust automatically to the one that generates the most total action for the game. That way they wouldn't have to ripoff other manufacturers' games when they start doing well....all the games would be optimized over time for maximum appeal/profit/addiction.

thefalcon 10y ago
Gaming regulators prohibit many on-the-fly changes to machines while on the floor. Online casinos certainly could and probably are doing some variation of this though, and all those manufacturers sell "at home" software versions of their machines and would be smart to be doing split testing of player behavior in that software.
- downandout 10y ago
  I'm aware, but most gambling regulations are heavily influenced by lobbyists. If the industry realized how much more money they could make from this, they would get it approved.
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    Gambling regulation's #1 worry is fraud/theft. Everything has to be predictable. Builds have to be repeatable. Think about that, gcc has to emit the same binary / assets down to the timestamps from the same inputs. Java too. All source is read, all rng's are run massive numbers of times to experimentally prove them. Program storage needs to be non-volitale and they will run an arc welder across the frame of the box to try and skew the computer. All of this is to say that they are ultra paranoid of changes that could lead to fraud. Remote updates without their review woudn't pass. With their approval and auditing maybe. Source: My boss worked in this industry and talks about it basically every lunch.
kartan 10y ago
> I'm surprised they aren't split testing the reward frequencies Of course this is done. It is just slower than in the web as other people has pointed out you can't change things on the fly. I worked for the gambling industry and we had a statistics department that take care of this kind of things. You try different machines and you have different local maximums: - There is the machine for the slow player that is there all day. It gives back a lot of small rewards so people keep playing and playing. It doesn't makes so much money but makes sure that your section of machines (each section is from a different company) is never empty. - There are hard machines for places like Las Vegas. People bets hard and expects big colorful prices. - There are machines for the small town casinos. This machines are softer than the ones in Las Vegas. But also optimized for its target audience. Then there is the amount of noise, your section of machines should look like is giving prices all the time. The design of the cabinet (in Mexico they have a place to put plates as people eats there). Yes. It is serious business. And there are a million considerations that each company takes into account. A/B testing was there a lot before the web was a thing.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

I wonder to what extent the "magic reward frequency" happens to correlate with market movements.

oska 10y ago

> They should be banned. I would instead suggest mandating a payout percentage of 100%, i.e. the machines make no profit for the owner. Venues might still buy them as ‘entertainment’ but not as profit centres. Instead they would be a customer attraction cost (purchase price plus electricity) for venues like bars and clubs, just like hiring live entertainment. Gamblers will still gamble on them, thinking they'll be the lucky ones to get the jackpot (and beat the odds) but there would be far less of them around because they wouldn't be profitable to own in themselves. And there would be no motive to make them addictive (because again, no profit motive).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

micaksica 10y ago

> The gambling industry is exploring the dimensions of the mind trying to find the optimal Skinner box to take all your money. They are exploiting a bug in our brains design. We evolved to run around the Savannah and throw things with weird accuracy. We just are not built to defend against it. They should be banned. So we should ban viral mechanics, those old Facebook games, dark UI/UX patterns, and pay-to-play mobile games as well? They often work in the same manner, and yet you yourself appear to know the risks and appear to be immune to them. For the record: I like gambling. I like drinking, too. I have neither a gambling addiction nor an alcohol addiction. Should I be disallowed these things I find pleasurable because a subset of the population abuses these things?

trcollinson 10y ago
Most of these questions are deeply philosophical and I have no answer for you. But I will ask you this: if giving up on gambling which you are not addicted to but find pleasurable saves a subset of the population that cannot control their own abuse of gambling, would you do it? In fact, to be a bit more specific, if you giving up gambling saved the next Scott Stevens and that persons family from the financial ruin and death that they bring on themselves, would you do it? Of course, there are counter arguments to this. How can we know that giving up on gambling or even removing the whole gambling industry will help or save anyone? I have no answer. Only opinion. It's a rough one.
- dlss 10y ago
  > if giving up on gambling which you are not addicted to but find pleasurable saves a subset of the population that cannot control their own abuse of gambling, would you do it? This is a very interesting question, thanks for posting it. For me the answer is yes. Another question: if someone who isn't addicted to gambling doesn't give up gambling to save those who are addicted, what punishment would you support the state imposing? (jail, fines, forced "treatment", etc) And another: if someone who is addicted to gambling doesn't give up gambling, what punishment would you support the state imposing? (jail, fines, forced "treatment", etc) I ask these questions because I don't think analogous ones were considered before launching the drug war. For me the answer to both is a whole-hearted "no punishment".