Info wanted to improve an Autofruit emulation

[13rebel]

I feel sure that it will be a 2d position as the Top Ten has one 12d payout position, two 6d payouts and six 4d wins.This is in line with Jamiesons 'Top Dog' payouts, although Top dog has 37 pins on the rotor and no switch for lose positions, not the 36 mentioned on the Top Ten machine. On the Top Ten machine this results in a payout of 56.7% with the switch set to zero lose positions. This is assuming randomness which appears to be questionable according to one post. It will be interesting to find out the effect of the switch in the various positions e.g. does it only affect the 2d wins etc.?

[beromat]

OK, so I assumed the missing values were 5 and 4.

I upgraded the program to the first stage as outlined above and updated the download file, so at least the lights flash the way the real thing does. I haven't used the "real" payout mapping as I didn't see the point of making a fun money computer game less attractive to play by making it meaner!

I'm not convinced about going any further with that program as the next step would be to add a Lemon = 6D option, but that wouldn't be right as it would be only using setting (0) of the "little man" switch. That would inevitably lead to the subsequent adding of an emulation of that switch to make a proper job, which would make the game even meaner, and, as I said, turning people off playing by making the game even meaner just doesn't seem like a good idea. With the 8D machine I have more carte blanche to go my own way with the payouts as most people have never used one, so won't be disappointed by that.

How mean is the game? Well there is a web site run by a guy I know in Vegas under the byline of The Wizard of Odds https://wizardofodds.com. He consults for the casinos about the odds they should set for new games and does all sorts of other statistical analysis for them. But, on the flip side, he shares his knowledge and advice for the punters via the web site. So you can take it he knows what he is talking about. Looking on his site at several slot machines in the US casinos, the payout is typically between 85 and 95% though he reports one or two outside that range (yes some really are higher!).

What of our little game? My version of the payouts, which I figured before I knew how the machine works, were based on the idea of the total payouts for each symbol would be the same over that statisticians favourite 36 plays with each possible outcome happening just once. Do that and you end up with getting back 24D for 36D paid on any one symbol. That is a payout of 66.66...% So if you do the hypothetical experiment for each symbol, that takes 180D and returns 120D. If we try that with the actual mappings (assuming the missing value was window 4 as stated above) then the return on 180D is only 106D, a percentage of 58.88...%. Assuming the 9 Losses setting only knocked out 2D wins (ho ho ho!) that is another 18D off, which is an 88D return, so that return will actually be worse than 48.88...%. Not exactly encouraging is it? But to be fair, these are amusements not genuine gambling devices and many others also have returns that a gambler would find appalling.

The unbalanced spread of symbols actually used in the real machine introduces another Achilles heel. On the payouts I was proposing there is no optimal strategy. Whatever you do loses the same amount on average, your only choice is how fast you lose it (by playing more than one coin at a time). On the actual machine, you do have an optimal strategy to minimise your losses which is to always play the Cherries as there are more of them than Oranges and those are the only two symbols over represented.

Cheers,
Derek

[13rebel]

beromat,you seem to acknowledge in your opening line of position 4 and 5 are missing that there are 37 pin positions. this being the case then the calculation base is 185 [not 180].The missing positions are both 2d not 2d and 6d,this leads to a calculation of 104/185 = 56.2%. This is based on both the Autofruit [6d version] and Top Ten machine as a friend has both these machines.This is also the case with Top DOG machine. If the switch is set to 9 lose at the 7x 2d ,positions,1 x 6d and 1x4d positions for example then the return to player is 43.2%. Surely an operator would not set the return to player amount at this measly amount would they?

[brigham]

OOOOPS!
I can't find how to edit the original list, so please accept my apologies, and insert the following information:

Pin 15 is connected to 'Win' 2 in both cases.

The 'Odds' adjuster simply replaces a number of 'Win' positions with the same number of 'Lose'.
(The position number of the selector IS the number of 'Lose' positions inserted. I have the figures if you want them).

[beromat]

13Rebel, no the two guesses were one for each list, not two for the same list. Brigham's post contained two lists in one table, one for no bet and one for bet.

Brigham, thanks for the update and all the previous info, most helpful. I wrote another program to try to spot sequences, as the thing is supposed to be non-random. This new info will simplify it and its results. It's not doing me much good though! I suspect it's more complicated than that as I've only been able to find short sequences. I'd stand more chance if I could see some slightly longer sequences than those on the videos, but unless I come across one in an arcade on a day when I have my old and slow tablet PC with me I doubt that will happen.

[brigham]

Beromat,
If you are using the 'No Bets' sequence instead of the actual payout one, you aren't emulating the gameplay.
There are SEVEN 1/- payouts in that sequence. You'll soon have the tube empty.
As for the sequence, it isn't relevant. It is neither planned nor controlled. It is no different from using a 'random numbers' table, or the second thousand places of π. My only interest in it is because it is there, and is therefore a challenge.

[badpenny]

Ensuring a constant reoccurrence of memory regarding the technical preferences as utilised in the 1960s, don't forget ….

* The electricians from then recommended responsive incremental applications.
* Forward-looking innovators preferred front edge end user innovation.
* They were keen to revamp and reutilise their front facing reciprocal enhancement.
* Before launching a new machine, they realised the urgency to get on-message about the total asset innovation.
* The upgraded model would now offer systemised reciprocal alignment guaranteed to baffle small boys.
* Repurposing integrated next-generation protocols while listening to the harmonics of The Kinks always worked.
* However maximizing informational empowerment abstractions was too basic and fooled nobody.


BP

[beromat]

Nope!

In my emulation I am using the real no bet list for display and my own (fairer) payout list.

In my analysis tool I am using the real payout list on the videos of real machines.

So I am making use of all the information, but not in the same program!

So far I can find sequences of 6 symbols with the 7th not matching if a LOSE has occurred. Or sequences of 5 with the 6th not matching if there was no LOSE. The difference is that LOSE seems to cause a 1 position shift, which when I allowed for it produced the longer sequences.

If anyone is interested the increments I'm checking for are 1,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,25,29,31,35. I left out all multiples of 2 and 3 as those numbers would cause many positions to never be hit. I'm also not looking at higher or negative increments because, if you renumber the positions to be 0 to 35, all those other possible values map onto to the ones listed by using modulo 36 arithmetic, which is custom made for coping with circular repeating items such as the rotor.

Cheers,
Derek

[brigham]

Looks like I'll have to ascertain the length of the sequence after all.
You could do it mathematically. There are only three variables, so either LCM or HCF would do it. (I can't remember which. 11+ was too long ago).
Or you could do it empirically, thus:
Wait until ELVIS pays 1/-.
Stop the machine, and mark the position of all three rotors with Marking Blue.
Start the machine, and count how many games occur before all three marks are back in the same position.
To 'prove' your result, ELVIS will pay 1/-.
This will be the LONGEST run of games before the cycle repeats. If the notches on the VARIATOR disc are symmetrical, a number of shorter sequences, or 'sub-multiples' may exist.

[beromat]

That sounds too much like hard work for something that started out as just curiosity! You'd better leave it, unless you're one of those people who can't. I'm a bit like that, but not totally!

Yes school was a long time ago, so I mistakenly thought casually mentioning modular arithmetic would be understood by all. But I was just checking the school syllabus and I see it doesn't come in until A level! So apologies to all who never did maths at A level, but you can find many explanations on the web. I'm not sure why it comes that late in the curriculum, because it really is trivial. I'm sure junior school kids could hack it if they had to!

Cheers,
Derek

[badpenny]

What does "at A level" mean?

[beromat]

Sorry, another assumption, that UK game machines enthusiasts are in the UK! The easiest way to explain it is to go back a few decades when the UK education system was quite simple. At age 16, the then and current minimum school leaving age, you sat exams in several subjects which, if you passed, were regarded as formal qualifications and were called O Levels, where the O meant Ordinary. If you stayed on another two years you took more formal qualification exams, but in fewer subjects which were called A Levels where the A stands for Advanced (as opposed to Ordinary).

Since then O Levels have been replaced and new vocational exams have been introduced as alternatives to A Levels, but in amongst the mire, we still have A Levels!

Just going back to my previous observation about where Modular arithmetic comes in the school syllabus, when you think about it, it is even stranger that the concept is not introduced in general at Junior schools, because we are all taught at that age to tell the time, which of course is a particular implementation of modular arithmetic and should tell you how trivial the subject is! (Although, mathematicians like to dress it up with words the average person may find strange, it is actually simple!)

Cheers,
Derek