The best example is the large progressive Megabucks slot machine that I’ve posted about before. You should be shot if you are playing that machine without playing max credits. That slot machine already has a low payback, usually between 85-88%, and by not qualifying for the jackpot. Like all machines, slot machines malfunction sometimes. Sometimes such a screwup makes the player think she's won a huge jackpot, which feels like a gut-punch when she learns she didn't actually win. There are three types of malfunctions that make players think they won: Display errors.
Additional information: My wife cannot afford to play the maximum bet, but when she hits the jackpot combinations, she thinks she missed out. I keep telling her that I believe the odds of hitting those combinations would significantly decrease if she paid the maximum, but she doesn’t believe me. In statistics terminology, it would make sense to maintain the same expected return (payout multiplied by probability), in order to obtain the same overall percent payback for different players (although I doubt they are required to maintain such consistency). Using this assumption, if the payout increases disproportionately relative to the size of the bet, the probability would have to decrease. This would also be a good way for the casino to dupe players into increasing their bets to the maximum.
Slot machines are pegged to payout at a certain % by a computer chip. This percentage does not alter due to bet size at any time, so increasing your bet is essentially just losing your money faster. Higher denomination machines are typically programmed to payback a higher % than lower denomination ones, so that a $.25 machine will pay better than a $.05 machine which will pay better than a $.01 machine.
Regardless of bet size, even with the inflated jackpots for max bet, the expected payback remains the same on slot machines to the best of my knowledge. I don't think it's like video poker where betting max bet inflates jackpot size and increases expected value, but i'm not 100% sure.
As to MAX COIN... Most, but not all, slot machines offer inducements for players to play max coin but read the payout table to be sure that final coin actually buys you something. However, whether you put in Minimum Coin, Maximum Coin or Something in between, once you hit that little red button... its all up to the random number generator and the random number generator just goes along and does its thing with no knowledge at all about how many coins are in there or whose player card it is or if they've been tipping the waitress or not. So the EVENT is not influenced by the number of coins, only the payment for that event.
Expected payback? You mean each and every press of the little red button has to be a certain expectation?
The general rule is that a higher denomination machine returns a greater percentage, yes, but going to max coin on a lower denomination has to be compared. Its amount bet times expectation.
The odds do not change when you bet max. I believe that some jurisdictions require identical odds. I've never, out of hundreds of games, seen a game that behaves differently.
There would be no advantage for a gamemaker to do that kind of manipulation. The probability of hitting the jackpot is so low, that the manufacturer is free to riase the payout without changing the EV of the game very much.
It is very popular for the machines to be designed so that the player to be denied an entire class of high payouts if he does not put in max coin. Even though the house edge may not be that much worse, the player will eventually see hit a case where he would have been paid a much higher payout if he had more coins.
But every machine design can honestly say it has a lower house edge if you play more coins. It doesn't say how much lower.
An example from a real machine is 8.04% HA for 1 coin, and 7.48% and 7.30% for 2 or 3 coins.
One thing I will say now is that I think more of the average payout is related to the jackpots than you might think. For example, one local casino (Hollywood, FL) states that it pays out 94% of the bets wagered (i.e. a house advantage of 6%). I would conjecture that 5% or 10% if that payout is related to the jackpots. If it was really small – say 1% – then you would expect that, on the average, your credits would decrease by only $7 for every $100 you wager (such as 100 pulls on a $1 machine). But I will bet your average losses are much higher than that, unless of course, you hit a big win. This is because a significant portion of the 94% payback is related to the big wins.
I may be confusing the issue by using the word “jackpot”. I am not talking about the huge progressive jackpots of 100’s of thousands or millions that are rarely ever paid, but rather the smaller payouts of $1,000 to $10,000 that you might find on nickel and quarter machines. My wife, who only plays slots 5 to 10 hours a week, hits 3 or 4 of these “jackpots” every year. I know because I have to claim them on our tax return. Maybe I should call them 'big wins' rather than 'jackpots'?
Our next casino trip is later this week, so I should have a decent example to post sometime this weekend. If I am right about this, it is very important for players (such as my wife) to understand, so they don’t get duped into losing a lot of money, especially mine!
Question: Many slot machines offer a disproportionately higher return on the jackpot combination when the maximum size bet is played. Do they also decrease the odds of hitting the jackpot combination when the maximum bet is played?
Additional information: My wife cannot afford to play the maximum bet, but when she hits the jackpot combinations, she thinks she missed out. I keep telling her that I believe the odds of hitting those combinations would significantly decrease if she paid the maximum, but she doesn’t believe me. In statistics terminology, it would make sense to maintain the same expected return (payout multiplied by probability), in order to obtain the same overall percent payback for different players (although I doubt they are required to maintain such consistency). Using this assumption, if the payout increases disproportionately relative to the size of the bet, the probability would have to decrease. This would also be a good way for the casino to dupe players into increasing their bets to the maximum.
Your wife is right she did miss out on a bigger jackpot for not playing the maximum coins. The odds of hitting the jackpot do not change weather if she bets 1 coin or 2 but the payout changes. Casinos offer better payouts for max coins because they want to encourage people to bet the max. The odds could go from 96% payback to a 97 or 98% payback from minimum to max coins.
We’ve all seen the small notice on the slot machine that says something like, “Machine malfunction voids all pays and plays.” Have you ever really thought about what you would do if it happened to you?
Stephen Wilkinson was playing his favorite slot machine at the Philadelphia Park casino in Pennsylvania when he hit the jackpot for $102,000. The machine lit up, the jackpot music started to play, and on the screen it congratulated him on his win of $102,000. People quickly gathered around and began congratulating him, in fact the women beside him was so excited she phoned her husband to tell him the news. Well, Stephen was in for a big surprise but it wasn’t $102,000.
After several minutes of casino employees huddled in deep discussion, they made their way over to Stephen to congratulate him on his win. Wrong! They made their way over to let him know that there was a machine malfunction, and he did not hit the jackpot. However, they would compensate him for the malfunction by providing him with two free tickets to their buffet. No, I’m not making that part up. They tried to reconcile the situation by giving him two free buffet tickets. Unless there was gold and diamonds on the buffet, that doesn’t seem like just compensation to me.
Why Do Slot Machines Get Stuck At Their Max Jackpot Winning
What do you think? Do you think the casino should have to pay the money, or are they not liable because they have the warning on the machine? What about if it happened to you, how do you think you would respond? What would you do?
Let’s take a look at similar situation that occurred, you may have a different reaction. This actually happened to a fellow gambler that I know and it happened on a video poker machine instead of a slot machine, but video poker machines are classified as “slots” and have the same malfunction warning on each machine. This story has a slightly different twist to it, but ironically it was for about the same amount of money.
John was in the casino when he noticed a single progressive video poker machine. A single progressive simply means that the machine is not hooked up to any other machines, the jackpot rises as someone plays that machine only. Many video poker single progressives have a large display above the machine that lets the customer know how high the jackpot is. John noticed a $1 denomination ($5 for max play) video poker machine where the display read that the jackpot was $104,000 for a royal flush. If you don’t play video poker, just know that a normal payout for a royal on a $1 machine is $4,000. The progressives are reset at $4,000 and move up as the game is played.
John knew something wasn’t right. It’s almost mathematically impossible for a $1 video poker progressive machine to get over $100,000 without a royal flush being hit. If it got up to $20,000 it would be big news and you wouldn’t be able to play the machine because it would be packed with people. John decided to play and see what happened. The entire time he played the jackpot was still listed as $104,000 and was increasing as he played. After about an hour, sure enough John hit a royal flush.
What do you think happened?
- A) The casino paid him the $104,000 that was advertised on the machine.
- B) They paid him nothing because there was a machine malfunction.
- C) They paid him the reset jackpot value of $4,000.
- D) They paid him some other amount.
Why Do Slot Machines Get Stuck At Their Max Jackpot Winnings
If you guessed option C you would be correct. The casino explained to John that the progressive counter display had malfunctioned and they would not pay him the $104,000. John didn’t fight it too much because he knew there was nothing he could do. I think he was most upset at the fact that they paid him the minimum of $4,000, which is the reset amount, instead of at least compensating him something extra since it was a progressive. They claimed that the malfunction voided everything, and basically they were saying he’s lucky to be getting the $4,000.
Why Do Slot Machines Get Stuck At Their Max Jackpot Money
What is your feeling on this situation? Is it different from the first story? Does it matter that John knew something was amiss when he sat down at the machine? I would love to hear your thoughts, and any similar situations that may have happened to you or someone you know.