Page 2 of 7

Re: Allwin Skill

Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:53 pm
by JC
Ah! Friction. Yes, I sort of neglected that, probably because I had been down the pub all evening, the effects of which were beginning to show by 2.00 in the morning! I was, however, talking partially theoretically, and in theory, if the hammer strikes the ball in exactly the same way each time, with exactly the same force then friction too will be constant. However, allwins are not precision scientific instruments, and Bent Copper is entirely right to consider such things as float and play in the hammer mechanism. I agree entirely that a minute change in the way the hammer strikes the ball from one game to the next will make a considerable difference to the outcome of the game.

Unfortunately, it's Christmas eve, and my wife has just told me we've got to go down the pub again! Now! She also said something about sad slotties........

So this will have to wait till another time (maybe tomorrow morning when she's not looking - no I'd never get away with it)!

I wish you all a Merry Christmas

Jerry :D

Re: Allwin Skill

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:11 pm
by john t peterson
I never thought I'd live to see the day that Chaos Theory was used to explain my favorite hobby. I always felt it had more relevance to my marriage.

Re: Allwin Skill

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:23 pm
by pennymachines
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.

Re: Allwin Skill

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:00 pm
by JC
So, the festivities are over (for the time being) and I've been allowed back into slottie land. Chaos theory eh? Wow! Things are getting serious now. I have some knowledge of the chaos theory, or at least I did many years ago. My interest started to diminish though, when the maths started to get silly! However, as with all mathematical theories and models, it is only theory. Although guest suggests a valid application for the chaos theory, I don't believe it has any great relevance with respect to allwins.

The chaos theory embodies many mathematical models, which can be applied to specific situations. Most of us will have heard of the Butterfly Effect. This, by example, suggests that a butterfly flapping it's wings on one side of the world, could be the cause of a hurricane on the other side of the world. I'll try to explain how this works in general terms. Imagine an event, which is represented by a line ab where a is the point at which the event starts, and b is the point at which it ends. Now, in the extreme, if the number of deviations the event can take is infinite, then point b will be infinitely wide.

Now let's apply this to a game on an allwin (the event). The event starts the instant the ball is struck (point a). The event finishes when the ball lands in one of a number of cups (point b). Although there are an almost infinite number of deviations the ball can take during the course of the game, the outcome is always the same: the ball will land in one of a number of cups. The question is: what influences the ball to land in a specific cup. Which I think is where we started! Can the player influence the outcome? Either way, this is not hurricane stuff!

I still stand by what I said at the outset: I do not believe an allwin is a game of pure chance; and if this is the case, then there must be the potential for skill. Pennymachines makes a very useful analogy with darts: clearly a skilled player will expect better success than a novice. When I chuck a dart, I tend to aim for the board in general, and if I get the dart somewhere close to the board, I've done well. And yet, a skilled player will get his dart to land more or less at the point at which it was aimed.
But are there not just as many variables in a game of darts as there are in a game on an allwin? The manner in which the dart is thrown; the friction between the players fingers and the dart at the point it is thrown; the friction through the air; the distance the dart travels. A skilled darts player learns to minimise the effects of these variables.

Is it not conceivable that this could also be possible with allwin play?

Jerry :-?


Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:38 am
by bryansjim
Merry Christmas and happy new year to one and all.
With out offending anybody you seem to have lost the plot who cares if some machines are easy to win on as most machines are now in collectors hands.
I have a Bryans uwin that my kids empty on as regular basis I can not see how this was a viable machine for any commercial operator.I have various one arm bandits which seen to have reasonable payouts the jennings govenor being the best of them.At the end of the day its Christmas and everybody needs to drink a bit more wine and beer and enjoy your family around you instead of talking about skill and payouts and that sort of thing. God bless one and all and if any rare Bryans machines come about (cheap )give me a shout.
All the best Jim :D

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:34 pm
by pennymachines
Hey Jim, I think you lost the plot - we weren't discussing whether some machines were easy to win on. If the skill/chance topic doesn't intrigue you - unlike Chritmas, it ain't compulsory! But don't begrudge those of us who feel compelled to sneak away from the festive cheer and our beloved families for half an hour to debate it.

Experiment Time

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:51 pm
by woody
Is anyone willing to have 1,000 goes at their allwin using what they consider to be skill and work out their total winnings and then do another 1,000 using completely random goes ie not bothering about the amount of pressure applied to the lever etc. (Of course we could then start a whole new thread on what random means :D )

We could then divide one number by the other and come up with the X Factor - of course this would vary perhaps depending on your experience of the machine and "feel" for the machine in the first 1000 goes or would it? - X Factors on the identical machines with different users might give us an indication of whether one person was better than another and possibly whether skill is involved?

Yours Empirically :-o


Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:15 pm
by bryansjim
Well i've had my hands well and truly smacked. :shock: I was only voicing my opinion on the subject (England used to be a free country). As for begruging folk time away from their family at Chritmas I don't.
Happy New Year! :mad:

Re: Allwin Skill

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:11 am
by pennymachines
Sorry Jim - didn't mean to sound severe. Note to self - must use more smileys :D
I'm too young to remember when England was a free country.
Happy New Year to you.


Re: Allwin Skill

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:30 pm
by Yorkshire Pudding
After a morning following Mrs Pudding around the January sales yesterday, I think I now have a slightly deeper understanding of Chaos Theory...

Happy New Year everyone!