Hope you're all enjoying a Chaotic and Frictionless Christmas!
Bent Copper wrote:Some Allwins are easier to win at than others, but this still doesn't mean that there is any skill involved.
True, but in the case of the 3-Ball Seven Win
which was hard at first but got easier and remained so, I feel bound to conclude that skill was involved.
OK, an anecdote about one allwin isn't very convincing. How to demonstrate that chaos doesn't rule supreme? Trying to replicate shots by pulling the trigger back to the thumb stop won't do because the most important bit of friction in the whole system, to my mind, is that between trigger and thumb. Putting aside such factors as smoothness of metal, moistness, greasiness, stickiness and texture of skin, this friction is mediated through the angle and pressure with which the thumb is applied. The initial momentum of the ball is controlled as much by this as by how far the hammer is retracted.
What's needed is something like the coin tossing machine suggested earlier. Remarkably, Mr Bryan created just such a device for testing the later version of the Payramid and (if memory serves me right) the 3 Ball allwins. Impressively referred to as the "mechanical robot", it played the games continuously with machine precision. Results would be logged before the robot was incrementally adjusted for a slightly different shot. It was designed to empirically determine a game's percentage return. Thanks to the variable pressure unit
, at no setting would the robot keep winning, but the question is whether it would have done so otherwise. I doubt it, on account of the chaotic variables BC described, but if it is
a game of skill, all I have to believe is that the robot would have done better on some settings than others. This does seem likely to me.
Bent Copper wrote:You should only really count the number of times that the ball goes in the cup that you were 'aiming' for. You shouldn't count the times that you missed, but you just ended up lucky.
Isn't that a bit like saying that because we rarely hit the exact spot on the dartboard we're aiming for, darts is essentially a game of chance? One could argue that an assessment of skill should not only count winning shots that were close to the cup aimed for but also losing shots that nearly won. I'm not suggesting, of course, that the degree of chance is the same in playing darts and allwins.
JC wrote:Now consider a game on an allwin. The player clearly has influence on the game; whether or not he has control over the outcome is another matter; but he does have influence.
I thought this point of Jerry's was interesting because it represents the line taken by many British slot machine manufacturers including those who grafted skill stop buttons
onto one arm bandits. Players could use them to halt the reels, but almost certainly not to control where they landed. Surprisingly, this narrow definition of "skill" as a synonym for "influence" seems to have carried weight with the authorities for many years.