Allwin Skill

General vintage slot machine related topics.
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 6638
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Reaction score: 56
Location: The Black Country

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by pennymachines »

I'm glad to see this topic continues to generate an almost religious fervour...

Returning to a couple of points made on the previous page:
Guest wrote:Surely the ball has the same momentum when it leaves the track however many times it goes round the spiral. The ball goes round the track until the momentum has dropped to a certain level.

I don't think I can argue with that. Perhaps I should have said it's easier to control the ball by keeping the shot short (less travel = less chaos).
Guest wrote:I don't think this business about dropping the ball in the top centre has any influence at all.

I'm not entirely convinced by the argument here. When I suggested that multicups may not be pure luck, I added this "applies particularly to the large 24 Cups". However, I believe there must still be a statistical advantage to aiming the ball above the centre cup. To put my reasoning in words would be rather cumbersome, so I'll try to bamboozle you with a picture (below). Idealized ricochet patterns are represented by four lines fanning down from each cup. Although it's highly simplified, a more realistic picture would demonstrate the same symmetry. The green and red lines indicate respectively winning and losing trajectories. If we follow the lines of a ball falling towards cup 2 there are a total of 15 winners. For cups 1 and 3, there are 12 winners each, and for cups 4 and 7 only 3.
Unfortunately, I can't do the experiments. I don't own a multicup, having dismissed them as "too random".
Bent Copper wrote:many people here seem to think that if a game is only 1% skill and 99% luck, it is a game of skill.

I don't see anyone saying this. I think those in the skill camp believe it to be a significant factor in many allwins. Nevertheless, if a game was only 1% skill, it would still result in a skilful player coming out about 10 coins ahead of an unskilful one if they each played 1000 coins.
The question I posed in the Skill v Luck Poll was "Do you believe there's an element of skill in some payout allwins, or do you think they're 100% chance?" - maybe I should have asked "Do you believe there's a significant element of skill in some payout allwins, or do you think they're almost 100% chance?".
If there was any skill involved allwins wouldn't have lasted 80+ years. With the millions of people playing them they would have made the operaters bankrupt in no time.

Not so. As I've said before, a game can be designed so that a skilful player can increase their odds. This is true of many modern fruit machines which reward strategic play.

Although we've used the mechanical one arm bandit as the paradigm of a game of pure chance, even this is not clear cut. Margamatix's remark about people trying to skilfully manipulate the handles on these machines brought to mind something I read a long time ago. It's explained here by Donald Catlin: Non Random Randomness.
Donald Catlin wrote:In 1946 an Idaho potato farmer was visiting a friend of his in Las Vegas who was a slot mechanic and was repairing broken slot machines. This Idaho farmer, while helping out his friend with the repairs, noticed that some machines of that vintage had a non-random feature. These machines contained a device called the clock fan, which determined how far each reel would turn on the next spin based upon when the pull lever was released during a 7 or 8 second period following the previous play. By noting the current stopping position of the reels a skilled player could reduce the range of sequential stopping positions of the reels on the next play by the way in which the pull lever was released. According to Scarne [Scarne, John, Scarne's New Complete Guide to Gambling, Simon & Schuster, 1974, pp 451-456] the man put his idea to the test and relieved Las Vegas of about $30,000 in slot winnings in a two-week period. I can't vouch for the amount but subsequent events proved that he was on to something...

...by 1949 to 1950 there were hundreds of players using this Idaho farmer's technique and they were called Rhythm Players. In 1950 there was even a pamphlet published explaining how to "rhythm" a machine. These players took the Nevada casinos for millions of dollars but by 1951 the fun was over. The slot manufacturers had developed and installed on each machine a device they called a variator which insured that each play was completely random and independent from the previous play.


One thing this demonstrates rather well, is that even when manufacturers intended to make mechanical games of pure chance, they could not easily do so.

By all accounts, Rhythm Play was more effective than the better known Rhythm Method commonly used before the invention of oral contraceptives. :)
Attachments
10cupPattern.gif
10cupPattern.gif (5.94 KiB) Viewed 7045 times
User avatar
margamatix
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:22 pm
Reaction score: 0
Location: Margate

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by margamatix »

PennyMachines wrote: Not so. As I've said before, a game can be designed so that a skilful player can increase their odds. This is true of many modern fruit machines which reward strategic play.


Can't say I agree with this statement contained on the website on the link you gave......

You have to give the slot game at least 7 pulls, but when you reach the teens, it's becoming increasingly obvious its a cold machine.

Let's suppose you pick ten as your naked pulls. The instant you reach ten pulls with zero return, you finish that session. Don't even think about another pull, just leave. One more will lead to another then another and so on, before you know it, you've just given one machine all your cash.

As I understand it, an modern electronic machine with automatic self-percentaging is *more* likely to pay out, the longer it has gone without doing so.
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 6638
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Reaction score: 56
Location: The Black Country

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by pennymachines »

You're suggesting the games monitor their payouts and adjust future payouts accordingly? I think that would run counter to some gaming restrictions. In some American States, changes to the payout percentages have to be done in the presence of Gaming Control Board officials. But I know very little about modern fruits. Maybe someone can clarify.

My understanding is that the machines apply a pre-programmed set percentage upon each play. Therefore, the likelihood of a payout remains unchanged regardless of what went before. However, we digress...
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 6638
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Reaction score: 56
Location: The Black Country

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by pennymachines »

Your diagram is nothing like what happens in real life. First of all the balls dont fall vertically from the top. They fall from the left side so the whole diagram is skewed.

As was pointed out by a previous contributor, the ball drops when it has lost its centrifugal momentum. Granted, it may still have a slightly angular approach but where it comes from is less important than where it first makes contact with the cups - either 1, 2, 3, 4 or 7. I think the diagram shows quite effectively that it has the greatest probability of deflecting to another target if it strikes cup 2.
Then you seem to have balls going straight through the centre cups as if they didnt exist!

I'm not sure what you mean. I've drawn the same four lines from each cup representing four possible angles of deflection from each target. There are no vertical lines running down from the cups because that, as you say, would be impossible.
And also balls often bounce horizontaly to the cup next door.

They do, but I left them out for simplicity. They would be shown by lines connecting the cups horizontally and would strengthen my point. Cup 2 would then be seen to have 6 direct lines to adjacent cups whereas cups 1 and 3 only have 4.
You've only got to play one of these allwins for a few minutes to see that the balls dont follow any regular patterns at all, they just bounce about all over the place.
That may appear to be the case in the short term and forms much of the game's appeal but thanks to the laws of physics and the fixed layout of the playfield there will indeed be regular patterns discernable in the long term. These would be revealed by statistical analysis of balls descending down the playfield. In the absence of such intensive study we can still infer much simply by observing the layout. We can say with certainty, for example, that a ball bouncing off cup 7 is very unlikely to land in cup 2. It is these patterns of probability I tried to represent in the diagram. If you think they are incorrect, perhaps you could draw an alternative version. If you don't believe there are any patterns of probability, we'll have to agree to differ.
Poll Question wrote:Do you believe there's an element of skill in some payout allwins, or do you think they're 100% chance?

I take your point that my wording of the poll question could be read the way you suggest. I took it to mean (and assumed others would) "vote skill if you think most allwins have a significant skill element". Twelve people have already voted, so I can't really change it now.
Bent Copper
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:44 pm
Reaction score: 0
Location: UK

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by Bent Copper »

PennyMachines wrote:Unfortunately, I can't do the experiments. I don't own a multicup, having dismissed them as "too random".
As has already been pointed out by somebody else, if you think they are too random then you must think they are random. They can't be too random and not random at the same time! :P
Nevertheless, if a game was only 1% skill, it would still result in a skilful player coming out about 10 coins ahead of an unskilful one if they each played 1000 coins.
And would a 'skilful player' really consider that to be a worthwhile reward for all his so-called skill? We're down to degrees of skill again now, and I've already said more than enough about that.
Although we've used the mechanical one arm bandit as the paradigm of a game of pure chance, even this is not clear cut. Margamatix's remark about people trying to skilfully manipulate the handles on these machines brought to mind something I read a long time ago. It's explained here by Donald Catlin: Non Random Randomness.
I've heard of this before, under the name of 'Clocking'. I dismissed it as utter rubbish and nothing more than an Urban Legend. But this would probably be a good subject for another topic (which I won't start!).
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 6638
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Reaction score: 56
Location: The Black Country

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by pennymachines »

How about "too random for my liking - but not totally random"?

I thought "clocking" was what you did to the odometer before selling the car. :mrgreen:

If the Rhythm Play story was "utter rubbish", why did manufacturers see the need to introduce the variator in 1951?
It's the little fork-shaped device operated by a gear that meshes with the bull gear on this Sega clock. It has an arm with a piece of leather attached to it that rubs against the fan shaft to slow the clock by varying amounts.
Attachments
SegaVariator.jpg
SegaVariator.jpg (27.57 KiB) Viewed 6953 times
Bent Copper
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:44 pm
Reaction score: 0
Location: UK

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by Bent Copper »

PennyMachines wrote:If the Rhythm Play story was "utter rubbish", why did manufacturers see the need to introduce the variator in 1951?
Because they could.

It's the same as the Bryans device, just a sales gimmick. I don't believe there was a need for it.
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 6638
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Reaction score: 56
Location: The Black Country

Post by pennymachines »

As you said - a good subject for another topic. How about "Do you believe there's an element of skill in some mechanical bandits, or do you think they're 100% chance?" Maybe not though...

How about "Does God play slot machines?" This one should be easier. Probably bring us back to Chaos Theory though.
Bent Copper
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:44 pm
Reaction score: 0
Location: UK

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by Bent Copper »

PennyMachines wrote:As was pointed out by a previous contributor, the ball drops when it has lost its centrifugal momentum. Granted, it may still have a slightly angular approach but where it comes from is less important than where it first makes contact with the cups - either 1, 2, 3, 4 or 7. I think the diagram shows quite effectively that it has the greatest probability of deflecting to another target if it strikes cup 2.
Actually, the balls do come in at a steep angle from the left, often as much as 45 degrees. As has been said before, a lot of them hit the right-hand cup, and then even bounce back to cups 1 or 2, so your diagram is all right in theory, but the truth is much more complicated than that.

Even if your diagram was right, it's still pointless because it's not possible to operate the machine with the required degree of accuracy to make the ball go where you want it to go. As has been said by others (and me :) ) it's a very fine line between the ball going left and going right, and it's not possible to operate the machine with that much precision just by feel alone. There are so many variables in the way the trigger is positioned and released, and the way the hammer strikes the ball and spins it, that even if the trigger is pulled back to the exact same spot every time, the ball will still land in a completely different position.
As you said - a good subject for another topic. How about "Do you believe there's an element of skill in some mechanical bandits, or do you think they're 100% chance?" Maybe not though...
I think there's the same element of chance in a Bandit as there is in an Allwin. Hope that answers your question. :D
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 6638
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Reaction score: 56
Location: The Black Country

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by pennymachines »

So you're saying a bandit is a game of skill? No need to answer that. :wink:
Bent Copper wrote:it's not possible to operate the machine with the required degree of accuracy to make the ball go where you want it to go
Pennymachines wrote:Whether the ball can be "aimed", our first point of contention, can't be resolved by argument
We are going in circles now. The only way out of this impasse is the empirical route Woody suggested.

I just ran a very brief experiment on the most bog-standard allwin I could lay my hands on - a 1930s BMCo. Wizard. It has the typical five-win gallery topped by bouncy pins and a lose hole at each end. A win pays one penny and a returned ball.

I played 20 coins aiming to drop the ball in the centre of the gallery, needless to say, often missing the mark completely and, when I hit it, the ball frequently bounced out of play. I felt I did best when concentrating hard and focusing on the centre of the gallery.

I then played 20 coins aiming to lose. At first I was unsure which end of the gallery to go for and had several wins before realizing it was easier to target the right side (as one might expect).

The results: aiming to win = 11 coins, aiming to lose = 6 coins.

You'll have to take my word for it that I didn't cheat or run any previous "unsuccessful" tests. And before you tell me - I appreciate that 40 coins has virtually no statistical relevance. If I could maintain the same percentage over 1000 coins it might start to count as evidence for skill - but without witnesses it wouldn't be very credible evidence.

John P's proposal of a public skill-luck trial seems the way forward.
User avatar
JC
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:38 pm
Reaction score: 9
Location: Kent
Contact:

Skill v Chance

Post by JC »

Well, it would appear that Pennymachines has finally laid down the gauntlet.
In the good old days, Pennymachines and Bent Copper would have fought this out like men: with drawn swords, pistols or maybe even have thrown allwins at each other. However, in this enlightened age, it's doubtful the European Union would let us get away with that sort of politically incorrect (though most honorable) behavior.
So, here's what I propose: Following the success of the Coventry auction last year, Mechanical Memories Magazine will be organising a similar event in the spring (date to be announced), and I offer these two adversaries the opportunity to fight this out in public.

On receipt of positive response from you both, I'll come up with rules of engagement. But please - don't let this thread run to eight pages!

Jerry :D
User avatar
john t peterson
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:40 pm
Reaction score: 7
Location: USA

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by john t peterson »

A most bold and gracious offer, JC. May I be so precocious as to offer a suggestion? Have two allwins options: one game labeled "skill" and the other "chance."

Our two noble knights shall conduct the experiment for the allwin most close aligned to the philosophy to which they ascribe.

Given the breath of this thread, the winner shall be recognized as as "Sir Rants-a-lot."
Bent Copper
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:44 pm
Reaction score: 0
Location: UK

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by Bent Copper »

Bent Copper might secretely use some skill to try and win as well, and that would invalidate the results.
Dammit :-x . I was hoping nobody would think of that :D
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 6638
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Reaction score: 56
Location: The Black Country

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by pennymachines »

As Guest says, a normal player wouldn't deliberately play to lose, and that's the difficulty with any test we try to devise. If we let lots of people play five goes each, naturally they'll be playing to win whether they mean to or not (because that, as pointed out, is the normal way to play). If my score is lower than their aggregate score, it might just mean that even without "warming up" the average player is more skilful than I am.

By the same token, a tournament between Sir Lucky Bent Copper and Sir Pennymachines Skill might just prove that Sir Lucky is the true master of the game.

As I said before, my point is not that I'm a skilful player, but that any reasonably dextrous player (maybe 90% of all players) can and will use skill to improve their chances of winning on an allwin, and this is true whether or not they believe it's a game of skill or chance.

The only way around this I can think of is to get players aiming to win and then aiming to lose and see if there's any difference in the outcome. If so, it would suggest they can to some degree influence where the ball ends up - which is the question we are trying to answer.

Another seven pages to agree the terms of engagement?
User avatar
JC
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:38 pm
Reaction score: 9
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by JC »

I'm not sure aiming to lose proves anything. I think the most accurate and reliable method of setting up a skill v. chance test would be to have, say, 100 players each having one go, against one player having a hundred goes. Clearly, it would be inpossible for any player to exercise any skill with just one go, as he would have no reference. But with 100 goes, one player would easily develop a feel for the machine, and thus prove whether or not it is possible for a player to influence the outcome.
pennymachines
Site Admin
Posts: 6638
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:12 am
Reaction score: 56
Location: The Black Country

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by pennymachines »

I'm not sure aiming to lose proves anything.
Why not? If the players are given an equal number of attempts to win, it would be a clear test of whether or not they can influence the outcome. Anyway, give it a try yourself - you may decide, as I did, that losing requires just as much skill as winning.

In your proposal any skill should certainly be reduced by lack of "warm up", but 100 people taking one "random" shot each sounds a bit dull. Couldn't we come up with something more interactive and involving?

I'm sure we can think of something, but in the meantime I promise not to post again in this thread. I don't want to be banned from my own website for being too boring.

Hello? Is anybody listening...
User avatar
margamatix
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:22 pm
Reaction score: 0
Location: Margate

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by margamatix »

Bent Copper wrote: Because they could.

It's the same as the Bryans device, just a sales gimmick. I don't believe there was a need for it.

What he said.

For the rhythm method to work, it would be necessary for each reel to turn by the exact same distance each and every time. If it could be stated that reel 1 turned for (say) 11 full revolutions and then 7 symbols, each and every time, then you could predict where it would stop next. But the simple fact is that one armed bandits do not work like this. For the reel to travel one symbol further or less is enough to render the system useless, and this, in reality, is what happens..

As for a modern AWP, the percentage payout can be adjusted by the engineer, as different territories have differing minimum payout rules. How would this be possible, without changing the symbols on the reels if the spin of the reels was random?

Why do you so often see a situation where seven nudges are needed to obtain a jackpot but the machine gives you six?


When I was a minicab driver, I used to take plenty of passengers who were skilled at emptying fruit machines using various systems, to the point where they made enormous sums of money doing it.

Funnily enough, they all seemed to live in bedsits on the top floors of semi-derelict B& B houses, and ask me if they could pay me next thursday when their Giro arrived.
User avatar
margamatix
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:22 pm
Reaction score: 0
Location: Margate

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by margamatix »

I've just done a brief experiment using a Sega Diamond & Star mechanical bandit dating from the mid 1960s.

On each occasion, I started with three "BAR" symbols on the payout line (there is only one BAR on each reel) and I pulled the handle in an identical way each time and then noted where the reels stopped.

First pull- Plum Plum Bell

Second pull- Orange Cherry Bell

Third Pull- Orange Orange Lemon
User avatar
margamatix
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:22 pm
Reaction score: 0
Location: Margate

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by margamatix »

3ReelRon wrote:
But the situation is bit different in the UK. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine
...in the UK, a fruit machine takes on an amount above its payout percentage before winning, so if a payout is 95%, a machine will make the player lose £10 before paying out £9.50. As such, it is sensible to watch for people playing these machines but not winning as the likelihood of a win increases.
This is exactly what I am saying.

On a mechanical bandit, each play is completely unaffected by any play which has gone before, and is completely random- wins happen solely by the laws of mathematical chance. On a mechanical bandit, the likelihood of a win never increases or decreases and there is no such thing as a "hot" or "cold" machine.

The fact that this is not the case with an AWP, and that an AWP can alter its likelihood of payng a win is enough to tell you that the reels are not stopping at random.
User avatar
john t peterson
Posts: 1335
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:40 pm
Reaction score: 7
Location: USA

Re: Allwin Skill

Post by john t peterson »

My head is reeling now. I always knew I was not smart enough to gamble. The foregoing eight pages confirm it. :shock:
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests