4 ms·

I call bullshit. There’s no way an industry as highly regulated as gambling which is effectively a license to print money, would be manipulating the odds on mac

by koolba 3y ago

I call bullshit. There’s no way an industry as highly regulated as gambling which is effectively a license to print money, would be manipulating the odds on machines that are individually registered with the state gaming commission. The risk to the business for being completely shut down outweighs any weekend profit for getting a whale to stick around.

kadoban 3y ago
It probably depends how the regulations are written. Can the odds be _better_ than advertised without the casino getting in trouble? Then they'd quite plausibly have a range they could play with.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  As far as I know, they have to be exactly equal to the advertised payouts. This prevents stupid shit like making one of your slot machines "hot" as an advertising trick.
- andy800 3y ago
  Game odds are very rarely advertised. Sometimes it is trivial to calculate or simulate the game (blackjack, roulette, craps, video poker) because all of the game parameters are known (i.e. 52-card deck, 38 slots on an American roulette wheel, two 6-sided dice) as are all the payouts. Slot machines, however, are opaque because the probability of hitting any specific combination is unknown to the public. The machine can promise that a 7-7-7 result will pay $5000 but you have no idea how often a 7-7-7 is supposed to hit. Sometimes a casino will take some less popular machines and configure them with an extremely low payout percentage (3% for example) and because the players would not otherwise know this, the casino will put a sign up "97% payout!" to try to attract some value-oriented players, just like a retail store takes old merchandise and puts it in a bargain bin at 50% off.
nonethewiser 3y ago
What rule is that against? I don’t necessarily doubt you I just dont have any intuition about this. Because it seems like its already completely legal to play unfair games.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
keyle 3y ago
There is no need to tweak the odds. Every machine is scheduled exactly to give a certain amount back while raking a profit. They're not there for you to profit, at least in the long term. An example of this is the simple claw machines. One was full of teddy bears and I knew the operator. He told me point blank the machine will drop 16/17 times, "someone's got to pay for the teddies, and he ain't me!"
- yowzadave 3y ago
  In many cases the stuffed animals at carnival games cost less than the $1 it costs to play the game—you could win every play and they’d still make money off you.
  - keyle 3y ago
    Yes, but remember that an operator has further costs. First, he has to pay the machine that wasn't cheap to buy outright. Second, he has to share revenues with the venue hosting the machine. That goes between 20-60% AFAIK. Then there is the maintenance cost, time spent lubing and adjusting, and restocking + travel time. So yes, overall, the operator better make sure you don't just pay for the teddies!
sacnoradhq 3y ago
It's highly-regulated in favor of the house. These gambling concerns are criminal-adjacent corporations with political connections and weak campaign finance laws.
- freeopinion 3y ago
  To call them "criminal-adjacent" seems like a conservative western tradition. I'm not a casino apologist, but it's not like they have some hidden agenda. It's gambling. Did you misunderstand that? It's a game of odds and the house controls the odds. Did you misunderstand that? Edit: Clearly you don't misunderstand that, so what's the complaint? Gambling has a very strange effect on the human psyche. I never hear anybody come back from Disney World bragging about how much they won. But I've met tons of people who "always win in Vegas". I know a few people who seem addicted to Disneyland. I never understood it. Season passes every year. Maybe one visit a month. Even when they don't have children. It seems weird to me. But the effects of gambling on people's brains is even more weird. It is only criminally-adjacent in places that perceive a giant risk to people and so have made it illegal. Otherwise, it is as criminally-adjacent as any source of wealth or power that has an incentive to build barriers to entry and to stifle competition.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    Yes, people might have biases. In this case though, Vegas really was developed by the mafia.
    - freeopinion 3y ago
      This is an interesting question. I don't think the first casino in Vegas was established by the mafia. The mafia's involvement later on is well documented. The mafia's current involvement is not so well documented. If you believe that the mafia was eventually exercised from Las Vegas and look at the development before and after that point... We could have a reasonable discussion about whether the development post-mafia dwarfs the development under the mafia and whether the development under the mafia dwarfs the development pre-mafia. But the claim seemed to me to be about the present day. Today, I think the industry falls about the same place as big-oil or big-pharma or big-auto or big-politics. That is, plenty of people would call them all criminal-adjacent. But it still makes me wince a little. I'm sympathetic to them all being heckled, though.
freeopinion 3y ago
You are wrong. And it is arguably worse than that. I'm a little skeptical about "high rollers" playing on any machine at all, but the machines are, in fact highly regulated and highly controlled. I'm always amused to see ads about the "loosest slots in town." It's not really false advertising, because the slots are regulated and everybody sets them at exactly the legal limit. But then there is what is allowed to happen when you don't win. If the machine has already calculated that you will not win on a particular "pull" it can manipulate the loss in advantage ways. For instance, it can land on 7-7-spinning..., spinning, one cherry away from 7. You just missed by 1! So close! The world thinks they have uncovered a big new secret when they realize that social media sites study human physiology to optimize dopamine release in their victims^H^H subscribers^H^H account holders. Casinos have been at it for lifetimes. I don't know why you would think there is a risk to the business if a casino lets a guest win an extra game or two.
- dubcee349 3y ago
  Not every machine is at the legal limit. Just like not every black jack table is at the best odds for casinos.
- andy800 3y ago
  > the slots are regulated and everybody sets them at exactly the legal limit. It's unlikely there is any slot machine in Nevada "at the legal limit." Every gaming device must be set to theoretically pay out a minimum of 75% of wagers -- i.e. the maximum it may keep (or "hold") is 25%. This is, of course, a theoretical number, on any given day a particular machine may hold more, or it may have negative hold -- just like if you flipped a coin enough times, occasionally you'd get long streaks of heads or of tails, even though theoretically it should be 50/50. In reality slot machines are typically configured to hold between 6 and 15%. A slot machine holding 25% would be an awful experience and simply not get repeat play. Slot manufacturers prepare each game with a range of options that the casino can choose from, but none of them would deliberately ruin their own game by offering a 25% hold option on a slot machine. Nevada Gaming Control Act Regulation 14: 14.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices. 1. All gaming devices must: (a) Theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts wagered, which must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device. https://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=18669 https://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1...
tiberious726 3y ago
It's entirely true, modern slot machines get a ticket from a central server detailing the results it will show. They do analytics on all of this using Splunk btw (they can actually afford it, lol), there are some really cool talks out there if you look around.
- andy800 3y ago
  This usually depends on the jurisdiction. Class III machines are independent and each one contains its own RNG. Class II obtain their randomness from a central server, and are usually configured to actually be a bingo machine or some other pooled wagering mechanism, and the "slot machine" that you see is a mask for the pre-determined outcome. In the US, almost all commercial casinos (Nevada, New Jersey, Mississippi, etc) use Class III games while native American casinos use a mix of Class III and Class II. Typically, Class III are preferred by casinos and by gamblers. Here's another source: https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/state_news/casino-101-a-breakdown-of-class-i-ii-and-iii-gaming/article_6f5519fd-a68a-5ea2-b551-6bd62b72c7de.html https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/state_news/casino-1...
aeternum 3y ago
The actual regs matter. For example it is well known that with penny slots, the house takes a larger cut than larger denomination lots. Significantly, something like 9% vs. 5%. Then supposedly Casinos put higher payout slots in high visibility areas such as the edge of a high traffic walkthrough, or with good sight lines. This would make a lot of sense from a marketing POV, make the winners more visible.
xattt 3y ago
I imagine this works out because by assuming a temporary “odds” debt that is repaid over the next day or so by other customers.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
You're assuming regulations == good. In Vegas, slot machines for example have a legally mandated payout rate. This means it is illegal for them to be random and therefore fair. They are required by law to be rigged.
- silasdavis 3y ago
  A process with a particular expected value can still be random.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I think in this case it's not a legally mandated expected value, but a legally mandated payout rate. As in, it actually must pay out a percentage of what's taken in, over a certain time period. I don't think a fully random process can guarantee that.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      Of course it can. Unless you start playing word games to manipulate what “fully random” means. You can set the odds of a fully random process, just take an rng returning a uniform distribution between 1 and 100 and set the bar at whichever threshold you want, or do the same with dice, the odds of any given face is 1/faces, so get however many faced dice you need then set the faces (or a threshold again for numbered faces) e.g. on a 20-faced dice you set the threshold at 3+ and you’ve got a 90% payout rate.
      - vl 3y ago
        This is obviously incorrect: Let’s say they have to pay on each 500-play window, on true random, operator can end up with all 500 plays as non-paying and break the law. This is why they are programmed to increase payout odds if there was no payout for long time, and this is why some players wait for such machines. (In modern casinos machines are pooled, so it’s actually more complicated)
bigbacaloa 3y ago
No one manipulates stock offerings either. The SEC is just too good at it's job.

by koolba 3y ago

kadoban 3y ago

It probably depends how the regulations are written. Can the odds be _better_ than advertised without the casino getting in trouble? Then they'd quite plausibly have a range they could play with.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
As far as I know, they have to be exactly equal to the advertised payouts. This prevents stupid shit like making one of your slot machines "hot" as an advertising trick.
andy800 3y ago
Game odds are very rarely advertised. Sometimes it is trivial to calculate or simulate the game (blackjack, roulette, craps, video poker) because all of the game parameters are known (i.e. 52-card deck, 38 slots on an American roulette wheel, two 6-sided dice) as are all the payouts. Slot machines, however, are opaque because the probability of hitting any specific combination is unknown to the public. The machine can promise that a 7-7-7 result will pay $5000 but you have no idea how often a 7-7-7 is supposed to hit. Sometimes a casino will take some less popular machines and configure them with an extremely low payout percentage (3% for example) and because the players would not otherwise know this, the casino will put a sign up "97% payout!" to try to attract some value-oriented players, just like a retail store takes old merchandise and puts it in a bargain bin at 50% off.

nonethewiser 3y ago

What rule is that against? I don’t necessarily doubt you I just dont have any intuition about this. Because it seems like its already completely legal to play unfair games.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

keyle 3y ago

There is no need to tweak the odds. Every machine is scheduled exactly to give a certain amount back while raking a profit. They're not there for you to profit, at least in the long term. An example of this is the simple claw machines. One was full of teddy bears and I knew the operator. He told me point blank the machine will drop 16/17 times, "someone's got to pay for the teddies, and he ain't me!"

yowzadave 3y ago
In many cases the stuffed animals at carnival games cost less than the $1 it costs to play the game—you could win every play and they’d still make money off you.
- keyle 3y ago
  Yes, but remember that an operator has further costs. First, he has to pay the machine that wasn't cheap to buy outright. Second, he has to share revenues with the venue hosting the machine. That goes between 20-60% AFAIK. Then there is the maintenance cost, time spent lubing and adjusting, and restocking + travel time. So yes, overall, the operator better make sure you don't just pay for the teddies!

sacnoradhq 3y ago

It's highly-regulated in favor of the house. These gambling concerns are criminal-adjacent corporations with political connections and weak campaign finance laws.

freeopinion 3y ago
To call them "criminal-adjacent" seems like a conservative western tradition. I'm not a casino apologist, but it's not like they have some hidden agenda. It's gambling. Did you misunderstand that? It's a game of odds and the house controls the odds. Did you misunderstand that? Edit: Clearly you don't misunderstand that, so what's the complaint? Gambling has a very strange effect on the human psyche. I never hear anybody come back from Disney World bragging about how much they won. But I've met tons of people who "always win in Vegas". I know a few people who seem addicted to Disneyland. I never understood it. Season passes every year. Maybe one visit a month. Even when they don't have children. It seems weird to me. But the effects of gambling on people's brains is even more weird. It is only criminally-adjacent in places that perceive a giant risk to people and so have made it illegal. Otherwise, it is as criminally-adjacent as any source of wealth or power that has an incentive to build barriers to entry and to stifle competition.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Yes, people might have biases. In this case though, Vegas really was developed by the mafia.
  - freeopinion 3y ago
    This is an interesting question. I don't think the first casino in Vegas was established by the mafia. The mafia's involvement later on is well documented. The mafia's current involvement is not so well documented. If you believe that the mafia was eventually exercised from Las Vegas and look at the development before and after that point... We could have a reasonable discussion about whether the development post-mafia dwarfs the development under the mafia and whether the development under the mafia dwarfs the development pre-mafia. But the claim seemed to me to be about the present day. Today, I think the industry falls about the same place as big-oil or big-pharma or big-auto or big-politics. That is, plenty of people would call them all criminal-adjacent. But it still makes me wince a little. I'm sympathetic to them all being heckled, though.

freeopinion 3y ago

You are wrong. And it is arguably worse than that. I'm a little skeptical about "high rollers" playing on any machine at all, but the machines are, in fact highly regulated and highly controlled. I'm always amused to see ads about the "loosest slots in town." It's not really false advertising, because the slots are regulated and everybody sets them at exactly the legal limit. But then there is what is allowed to happen when you don't win. If the machine has already calculated that you will not win on a particular "pull" it can manipulate the loss in advantage ways. For instance, it can land on 7-7-spinning..., spinning, one cherry away from 7. You just missed by 1! So close! The world thinks they have uncovered a big new secret when they realize that social media sites study human physiology to optimize dopamine release in their victims^H^H subscribers^H^H account holders. Casinos have been at it for lifetimes. I don't know why you would think there is a risk to the business if a casino lets a guest win an extra game or two.

dubcee349 3y ago
Not every machine is at the legal limit. Just like not every black jack table is at the best odds for casinos.
andy800 3y ago
> the slots are regulated and everybody sets them at exactly the legal limit. It's unlikely there is any slot machine in Nevada "at the legal limit." Every gaming device must be set to theoretically pay out a minimum of 75% of wagers -- i.e. the maximum it may keep (or "hold") is 25%. This is, of course, a theoretical number, on any given day a particular machine may hold more, or it may have negative hold -- just like if you flipped a coin enough times, occasionally you'd get long streaks of heads or of tails, even though theoretically it should be 50/50. In reality slot machines are typically configured to hold between 6 and 15%. A slot machine holding 25% would be an awful experience and simply not get repeat play. Slot manufacturers prepare each game with a range of options that the casino can choose from, but none of them would deliberately ruin their own game by offering a 25% hold option on a slot machine. Nevada Gaming Control Act Regulation 14: 14.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices. 1. All gaming devices must: (a) Theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts wagered, which must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device. https://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=18669 https://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1...

tiberious726 3y ago

It's entirely true, modern slot machines get a ticket from a central server detailing the results it will show. They do analytics on all of this using Splunk btw (they can actually afford it, lol), there are some really cool talks out there if you look around.

andy800 3y ago
This usually depends on the jurisdiction. Class III machines are independent and each one contains its own RNG. Class II obtain their randomness from a central server, and are usually configured to actually be a bingo machine or some other pooled wagering mechanism, and the "slot machine" that you see is a mask for the pre-determined outcome. In the US, almost all commercial casinos (Nevada, New Jersey, Mississippi, etc) use Class III games while native American casinos use a mix of Class III and Class II. Typically, Class III are preferred by casinos and by gamblers. Here's another source: https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/state_news/casino-101-a-breakdown-of-class-i-ii-and-iii-gaming/article_6f5519fd-a68a-5ea2-b551-6bd62b72c7de.html https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/state_news/casino-1...

aeternum 3y ago

The actual regs matter. For example it is well known that with penny slots, the house takes a larger cut than larger denomination lots. Significantly, something like 9% vs. 5%. Then supposedly Casinos put higher payout slots in high visibility areas such as the edge of a high traffic walkthrough, or with good sight lines. This would make a lot of sense from a marketing POV, make the winners more visible.

xattt 3y ago

I imagine this works out because by assuming a temporary “odds” debt that is repaid over the next day or so by other customers.

friend_and_foe 3y ago

You're assuming regulations == good. In Vegas, slot machines for example have a legally mandated payout rate. This means it is illegal for them to be random and therefore fair. They are required by law to be rigged.

silasdavis 3y ago
A process with a particular expected value can still be random.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think in this case it's not a legally mandated expected value, but a legally mandated payout rate. As in, it actually must pay out a percentage of what's taken in, over a certain time period. I don't think a fully random process can guarantee that.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    Of course it can. Unless you start playing word games to manipulate what “fully random” means. You can set the odds of a fully random process, just take an rng returning a uniform distribution between 1 and 100 and set the bar at whichever threshold you want, or do the same with dice, the odds of any given face is 1/faces, so get however many faced dice you need then set the faces (or a threshold again for numbered faces) e.g. on a 20-faced dice you set the threshold at 3+ and you’ve got a 90% payout rate.
    - vl 3y ago
      This is obviously incorrect: Let’s say they have to pay on each 500-play window, on true random, operator can end up with all 500 plays as non-paying and break the law. This is why they are programmed to increase payout odds if there was no payout for long time, and this is why some players wait for such machines. (In modern casinos machines are pooled, so it’s actually more complicated)

bigbacaloa 3y ago

No one manipulates stock offerings either. The SEC is just too good at it's job.