3 ms·

wouldn't a payoff of 97% means that with a fixed amount of money going in, over time you end up with $0? the payoff is exponential in the wrong direction, right

• kopos 9y ago
  That is the wrong interpretation - atleat the math says so. The 97% payout is a payout over millions (billions) of 1$ bets made on the machine - called the game cycle. You have to remember that players win and lose too. Theoretically, if I were to wager 1$ over a million spins, I should be left with 970K$. That is what happens too if we consider the payout of the machine over the full lifecycle of the slot game. The problem is that a player's funds are always limited. So when they hit a losing streak, they would lose all money by the time a winning streak can come their way. The house however has theoretically infinite funds at their disposal.
• jklein11 9y ago
  The graph for the payouts would look like exponential decay.[1] Lets say you walk in with 1000 dollars in your pocket. If the payoff is 97 percent, you would expect the money in your pocket to be .97^n where n is the number of times you took the bet. Each bet reduces the money in your pocket by 3% While the curve approaches zero, the real limit is the minimum bet of that particular game. 1. http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixD/AppendixD.html http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixD/Appendi...
  • kopos 9y ago
    Not really. The graph for payout would be jumping up and down. With an exponential decay, you would mean no player would make any money. You should remember, the industry would not have been so lucrative or addictive if there were no wins at all!