Dear Mark,
All too often I am able to line up two of the highest jackpot winning symbols
but never the third. Sometimes the third will appear, but not directly on the
line needed for me to win the machine's highest award. My question is:
is the casino doing this to induce play, or is it just a coincidence? Sue L.
We've all been there, Sue; Treasure Chest, Treasure Chest, and then . . . why
you blankety-blank!
What you are describing, Sue, — winning combinations appearing more often
than would occur randomly — is called "near-miss" programming. Although
I can't speak to the legality of "near-miss" programming for
each and every gaming jurisdiction, I can state that it has been ruled illegal
in both New Jersey and Nevada; and most states' Gaming Commissions tend
to follow the big boys.
Because the reel display of modern slot machines is controlled by computer
software, sure, a slot machine could be programmed to frequently display combinations
that are close to winning combinations. Repeatedly displaying Treasure Chest,
Treasure Chest, and a non-Treasure Chest can tease players into a playing frenzy
because they think they're almost winning.
We need to also consider, Sue, with 20 symbols on a reel and possibly 256 stopping
points, Treasure Chests can appear above or below the payline and seem as a
"near-miss," but even so, slot machines cannot be specifically programmed
to show "winning combinations" at a mathematically impossible frequency.
The "near miss" must be just as likely to occur as any other equally
randomly distributed combination.
Dear Mark,
Getting paid "to" one versus "for" one to the player
means what? Steve S.
A payoff of "9-to-1" means the winner is paid nine chips for every
chip bet; and since the winner keeps the chip wagered, he winds up with 10 chips
in hand.
When the payoff is "9-for-1," the winner is paid nine chips for every
chip wagered; however, Steve, the house keeps the originally wagered chip, leaving
the winner with 9 chips in hand. Words to watch for!
Dear Mark,
After going through two rolls of quarters, I got up from a cold machine
and moved one machine over. A lady then started playing on the machine I had
just left hits a $10,000 jackpot on her first three quarters. Was I a day late
and a dollar short? Del E.
Not even a second late and six bits short.
Most players, Del, falsely reason, "If I had played just three more quarters,
that $10,000 jackpot would have been mine." But even gluing your hopeful
fanny to that same machine's stool would not have given you that $10,000
jackpot. Why? Because the results of a modern slot machine's spin depend
on exactly when the spin began.
The Random Number Generator (RGN) within the machine is constantly generating
random numbers at a rate as high as a million per second. As soon as the lever
is pulled (or the "Play" button pressed) the most recently generated
random number is used to determine the outcome. Since results vary depending
on exactly when the handle is yanked, an earlier or later pull by you would
have created a completely different outcome.
Consequently, Del, it is highly unlikely that you would have received the same
result if you had played three additional quarters. The only way you could have
had the happy lady's booty was for her to say to you, "It's all
yours, Buster" at the end of the down pull, and she gives you her seat
while the reels were still spinning. Sure, it's a corny example, but I'm
trying to drive home the point on how improbable the 10K was of being yours.
Gambling Wisdom of the Week: "Poker is the game closest to the
western conception of life, where life and thought are recognized as intimately
combined, where free will prevails over philosophies of fate or of chance, where
men are considered moral agents and where — at least in the short run —
the important thing is not what happens but what people think happens. —John
Lukacs
