General vintage slot machine related topics.
User avatar
badpenny
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6366
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 12:41 pm
Location: East Midlands
Contact:

machine mart????

Postby badpenny » Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:26 am

Sorry I gave away that tip about the Machine Mart allwins. Looks like they've all been snapped up in the New Year sales.

I missed that, do you mean the shop that sells garden shed versions of lathes and compressors and sends me "manager's special offers" every fortnight? and all because I once bought a very useful box of split pins from them.

Incidently I used all the different versions of SEARCH on this site to try and discover the original quote and couldn't even find the one posted yesterday. I imagine that was my fault and urge you all to be grateful that when it comes to my hap hazard attempts at flicking swithes and pressing buttons I never succeeded to a career in the nuclear industry ......... also if you're looking for someone to indiscriminately fire ball bearings around a steel track just write "Search" above the trigger then come back and collect me after a day or two.
Badpenny :boggle:

User avatar
bryans fan
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 10:15 pm
Location: Somerset

Re: Allwin Skill

Postby bryans fan » Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:59 pm

I would personally like to thank PennyMachines and Bent Copper for this lengthy debate, you have proved to my wife that there are people far more obsessed with slot machines than me!
What you two are doing up in the early hours is beyond me!
For what its worth, I have already voted skill.
I have found that with my allwins my sucess rate improves with practise. We have a 10 year old visitor who can win chocolate from a R&W allwin seemingly at will.
Incidentally he can virtually empty my circle skill of candy sticks until his mother puts a stop to it!

Thanks for a lively debate to all who have contributed. Nuff said?

PS I always get my machines from Screwfix

User avatar
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 5113
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Location: The Black Country
Contact:

Re: Allwin Skill

Postby pennymachines » Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:25 pm

To be honest, I think we're in danger of overdoing it now
I suspect we overdid it on the first page, but what the hell!
previously you said that skill was involved in multi-cup Allwins (although you now seem to have back-tracked a bit)
On the contrary, I forward-tracked - in my first post I said a multicup was an example of an allwin where "luck clearly predominates" and later revised this to "I'm not certain a multicup is pure luck". That's the position I still hold. I'm not strongly convinced either way. If there is skill, I would expect it to take much longer to demonstrate.

In your first post, you made the bold claim that the allwin game "is just as random as a one-arm bandit." In my first post I said there were some allwins in which luck predominates and others in which skill is significant. So I could accuse you of back-tracking by wishing to disqualify any allwins I propose as skill games on the grounds that they're "special cases". Unlike you, I made no claim about allwins in general. All the games I allege are skill were common in arcades and the first task of a skilful player was to home in on them while ignoring the others.
Bent Copper wrote:Yes, and much safer for you too!
I didn't realize I was in danger. Perhaps I will have to call upon those super-powers!

Badpenny - put Machine Mart into the Forum Search, select "Search for all terms" and "Display results as: Posts" and you should get a full list of relevant posts. The full company name was Amusement Machine Mart and some of their allwins were Extrawin, Crackerjack, Time Limit, Win-A-Race, Beat the Clock, Double Your Win and Payola, any of which would make good test cases for the skill challenge.

Chaos Theory cropped up in a book I was reading last night, this time applied to billiards:
Barrow & Silk: The Left Hand of Creation wrote:Suppose we forget about the effects of air resistance and friction that stop the ball moving on a real table. If we could hit the ball with absolute precision, we could, using Newton's laws of motion, predict the subsequent position and speed of all the balls exactly.... Suppose we could know the starting state even as well as quantum theory allows. This would then enable us to reduce our uncertainty about the cue ball's position to an accuracy billions of times smaller than the size of an atomic nucleus. Yet after only about fifteen collisions with other balls, this infinitesimal uncertainty expands to the dimension of the entire table.

Bent Copper
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: UK

Re: Allwin Skill

Postby Bent Copper » Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:54 am

PennyMachines wrote:In your first post, you made the bold claim that the allwin game "is just as random as a one-arm bandit." In my first post I said there were some allwins in which luck predominates and others in which skill is significant. So I could accuse you of back-tracking by wishing to disqualify any allwins I propose as skill games on the grounds that they're "special cases". Unlike you, I made no claim about allwins in general. All the games I allege are skill were common in arcades and the first task of a skilful player was to home in on them while ignoring the others.
I didn't see the need to mention any particular Allwin in my original post, but perhaps I should have done. It was designed to provoke discussion (and succeeded). What I said was there was no skill involved in playing "an Allwin". I didn't say that there was no skill involved in playing "any Allwin that's ever been invented" which is your mistaken interpretation. It's obvious that the discussion has to be confined to generalities, otherwise anybody could just come along and say "I knew a rare type of Allwin once where skill was involved, so I say all Allwins are games of skill" (In fact this is what a number of people have said!) This is such a ridiculous interpolation that I didn't expect anybody to propose it as a serious argument, and I didn't think there was a need for me to specifically rule out 'special' Allwins in my original post.

So I am sorry if my original post wasn't worded specifically enough. By "an Allwin" I was referring to the common configurations similar to a Playball or a 10-Cup (the type of Allwin that you would draw if somebody asked you to draw an Allwin). Almost every Allwin manufacturer made these types of machines, and this is what people would consider to be the 'standard' Allwin configuration. I suppose the Bryans versions would be the Ten-cup and the Five-win.

I also made the mistake of not defining what I meant by skill and luck. It has become apparent that people's definition of a skilful game varies; something which I hadn't anticipated. I agree that there may be a small amount of perceived skill involved, but I think this is completely overruled by so much randomness in the machine that any skill element becomes negligible and can be discounted. Other people have said that providing there is some minute skill or influence involved, however insignificant, then it must be a game of skill. I don't agree with that as a definition of skill. You could use the same argument to say that tossing a coin was a game of skill. Strictly speaking, Yes it is, but not in any real or practical way. I think it is the same with an Allwin. Clearly the definition of a game of skill is a subjective one. I suppose what I should have asked is: "Does luck or skill predominate?"
Chaos Theory cropped up in a book I was reading last night, this time applied to billiards:
Barrow & Silk: The Left Hand of Creation wrote:Suppose we forget about the effects of air resistance and friction that stop the ball moving on a real table. If we could hit the ball with absolute precision, we could, using Newton's laws of motion, predict the subsequent position and speed of all the balls exactly.... Suppose we could know the starting state even as well as quantum theory allows. This would then enable us to reduce our uncertainty about the cue ball's position to an accuracy billions of times smaller than the size of an atomic nucleus. Yet after only about fifteen collisions with other balls, this infinitesimal uncertainty expands to the dimension of the entire table.
And what did they say about Allwins? :P

Bent Copper
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: UK

Postby Bent Copper » Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:19 pm

Guest wrote:And I have to admit that I couldnt drop the ball in the same position with any certainty at all. The reason is that there seems to be a very fine line between the ball dropping to the left and dropping to the right and I don't think it's possible to operate the machine with that much precision just by feel alone.
I think you've hit on an important point there. It was always my impression that the difference in momentum between the ball going to the left or going to the right of the playfield was much smaller than you'd expect. But this is something I can't prove or quantify in any way.

I first noticed this when I once played a U-Win. It became apparent to me that most balls missing the left-hand lose hole would have sufficient momentum to carry them right over the 'U' and into the right-hand lose hole, even though this didn't seem logical. Bryans obviously knew about this effect and very cleverly designed the shape of the U to maximise it, but I think it is present on all Allwins.

It's probably this same effect that is responsible for many more balls dropping on the right-hand side of a gallery than on the left-hand side. It seems that most of the balls that make it up the left-hand side of the spiral have sufficient momentum to either do another circuit, or fall just short and land on the right-hand side. Only rarely does a ball just make it over the track and land on the left-hand side (it happens of course, but far less often). Why is this?

Perhaps it is because the ball is travelling from left to right when it's going over the top, but the momentum could just as easily run out when the ball is on the left. Perhaps there's a different amount of friction at the top and bottom of the track and the ball loses most of its momentum at the bottom, and hardly any at the top. Perhaps it's due to the effect of gravity, which has the opposite effect on the left and right side of the spiral. Whatever the cause, this right-hand bias means that the momentum has to be controlled to within very fine limits to 'aim' the ball anywhere other than on the right-hand side of the gallery or playfield.

User avatar
john t peterson
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Allwin Skill

Postby john t peterson » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:33 pm

"It is more effective to beg forgiveness than ask permission." Socrates.

User avatar
bryans fan
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 10:15 pm
Location: Somerset

Re: Allwin Skill

Postby bryans fan » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:14 pm

My wifes` first question is always "where is it going?" So perhaps it would pay you to have an answer ready!! Now that`s skill!

jimmycowman
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:05 pm
Location: staffordshire

Re: Allwin Skill

Postby jimmycowman » Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:14 pm

just ask the wife one question why do you want so many pairs of shoes?!?!? youve only got one set of feet

Bent Copper
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: UK

Re: Allwin Skill

Postby Bent Copper » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:36 am

Guest wrote:Mr Kirkup said: "If there is an element of chance (e.g. the shuffling of the cards), I am satisfied that it is gaming." - the same reason that allwins are currently adjudged to be games of chance.
The Gaming Board's opinion is as extreme as some of the contributors here, but in the opposite direction.

While the Gaming Board's attitude is that if a game is only 1% luck and 99% skill, it is a game of luck; many people here seem to think that if a game is only 1% skill and 99% luck, it is a game of skill.

Personally, I think both of these extreme views are as nonsensical as each other - although it's nice to have the law on my side (for a change). :P

Of course, any legal definition has to be objective and unambiguous, so there is a need to adopt the extreme view, but unfortunately, this doesn't tell us anything about the mechanics of Allwins!

User avatar
margamatix
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:22 pm
Location: Margate

Re: Allwin Skill

Postby margamatix » Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:45 pm

I think Mr Bryan built his business and made his fortune from people who thought an Allwin was a game of skill.......I have also known people (and I'm sure this is going to ring a bell) who used to claim that pulling down the handle on a mechanical one-armed-bandit VERY VERY SLOWLY and then giving it a sharp tug just before tipping point would influence the chances of winning.

All successful amusement machines work on the principle of "Oooh, I was so close, I'll just have another go because I'm bound to win next time"


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests