Slot Machine & Vegas trivia

[uniman]

Couple of years ago on the old site I remember a thread on Las Vegas trivia. Believe it was Fanninislots who posted it?
Really enjoyed reading the posts. So I thought reviving the old post would be entertaining.
Recently came accross some interesting facts so I'll post the first trivia question. Actually three questions.
After about 48 hours I will post the answers. Hopefully my sources are correct!! (and any corrections are welcome!)

Question;    What slot manufacture had the first "virtual stop" reel machine in a Vegas casino?
                 What year did this take place?
                 What Vegas casino had the first "virtual stop" reel machine?

One correct answer gets    and Karma+
Two correct answers get    and Karma+
Three correct answers get  and Karma+
Ok, it's just for fun.

[Brianzz]

So if we get them all wrong do we get a free Universial slot machine? 

[uniman]

So if we get them all wrong do we get a free Universial slot machine? 

Yes you do!!!  Just need to retrieve prize at the bottom of Lake Mead!!
Gotta be one down there somewhere.

[StatFreak]

So if we get them all wrong do we get a free Universial slot machine? 

Yes you do!!!  Just need to retrieve prize at the bottom of Lake Mead!!
Gotta be one down there somewhere.

The only problem will be detaching the dead body chained to it.     

[Op-Bell]

I'm going to guess Gamex in 1975, but I don't know where.

(I know the correct answer is probably Universal, though!)

[uniman]

Well, here is what I have.
In 2007 there was a paper written by Kevin Harrigan at The University of Waterloo, ON, Canada. The title was; "Slot Machines: Pursuing Responsible Gaming Practices for Virtual Reels and Near Misses"
In his paper Harrigan quotes Nevada Gaming Board transcripts. Those transcripts state that in 1983 a company called Elsinore petitioned the board to approve a new gaming device with virtual stops. Bob Maxey, president of Elsinore told the the board that his company had already been testing an 88 stop virtual stop slot machine made by Summit. Forty-four of these machines were placed at The Four Queens Casino in downtown Vegas as a trial.
So there you have it.
Manufacture; Summit
Year;  1983
Where; Four Queens Casino


I always thought it would have been after the 1984 Telnaes patent. Surprised to see it was a year before!

[stayouttadabunker]

That pretty neat!
I wonder how long before 1983 they actually came up with the idea and prototype design?
I guess what I'm trying to say is: The idea may have started on a dinner napkin somewhere...

[StatFreak]

Well, here is what I have.
In 2007 there was a paper written by Kevin Harrigan at The University of Waterloo, ON, Canada. The title was; "Slot Machines: Pursuing Responsible Gaming Practices for Virtual Reels and Near Misses"
In his paper Harrigan quotes Nevada Gaming Board transcripts. Those transcripts state that in 1983 a company called Elsinore petitioned the board to approve a new gaming device with virtual stops. Bob Maxey, president of Elsinore told the the board that his company had already been testing an 88 stop virtual stop slot machine made by Summit. Forty-four of these machines were placed at The Four Queens Casino in downtown Vegas as a trial.
So there you have it.
Manufacture; Summit
Year;  1983
Where; Four Queens Casino


I always thought it would have been after the 1984 Telnaes patent. Surprised to see it was a year before!

That pretty neat!
I wonder how long before 1983 they actually came up with the idea and prototype design?
I guess what I'm trying to say is: The idea may have started on a dinner napkin somewhere...

In doing my research to answer these questions, the Tenlaes patent was the oldest related patent that I was able to find, and all of the online information indicated that IGT was the owner. I was sure that it not the right answer, as it would have been too simple, so I didn't post a response. However, during my research I downloaded the Telnaes patent and other information relating to it.

The answer to your question is that, while the patent was finally published on May 15, 1984 (Patent #4,448,419), it was first filed in the U.S. patent office on February 24, 1982 (application #06/352048). It's not surprising to find that they were "quietly" testing machines before the patent was granted.

By the way Uniman, I also came across a copy of the Durham patent (#5,456,465) while doing my research , as well as the Stepper slot patent (Stepper patent #4,099,722, issued on July 11, 1978), which predates Tenaes, but does not describe a method of symbol mapping.

[StatFreak]

Here's an interesting paper published in 2006 by Australian barrister Tim Falkiner, and co-authored by Roger Horbay, basically comparing all modern slot machines to cheating devices on the basis that they conceal and distort the true nature of their operation, and claiming that this practice contributes to problem gambling. They compare virtual stops and the unbalanced weighting of symbols to rigged dice and gaffed carnival games, and point out that all casino table games and video card games are held to a different standard of transparency to the customer than slots. They are careful to say that the machines do operate within the limits of current gaming laws to avoid being sued.

Op-Bell, they even describe the old mechanical machines that had only possible 10 stops on the reels while displaying 20 to fool the customer into believing that a jackpot was much more likely that it truly was.


What these authors don't seem to understand, in my opinion, is that, while they have some valid points, no slot machine could be made to pay out less than 100% if all of their complaints were addressed: the slot machine would become unviable as a gaming device. Still, it would be nice to see more truth in advertising regarding slots, including the requirements that the payback percentage of every game be disclosed to the customer, as well as the odds of hitting the jackpot.   Dream on..

[Op-Bell]

...the requirements that the payback percentage of every game be disclosed to the customer...

That would be nice, but then nobody would ever play Megabucks, Wheel of Fortune, or any machine at the Airport. 

Interestingly enough, when the New Mexico Indian gaming compact was finally agreed in 1998 (I was working there at the time) it included a requirement that every machine display its payback percentage. Needless to say, this was furiously unpopular with the Tribes companies that operated the casinos for the Tribes. Sandia Casino got round it by displaying the hit frequency on each machine, which they got away with thanks to the complete ignorance of the political appointees responsible for enforcement.

The NM compact was a joke anyway. It ran to something like 120 pages - most compacts are about a 5 page formality - and quite clearly included at least one special item for each member of the state congress. But I digress.

[Op-Bell]

(Now I've had time to read the Australian paper)
In its way, it's as misleading as the problem they're trying to draw attention to, since you have to read the small print at the end to discover that both authors are anti-gambling activists. They are also remarkably ignorant, or else they're being deceitfully disingenuous. No slot machine has, or ever had, "balanced reels" in the sense of having equal numbers of the same symbols on each reel, and every player knows that, so the call at the end of the paper to force machines to have "balanced reels" is a disguised call for abolition. Weighted virtual reels, ok they have a point. But regarding video machines, what they apparently don't know is that the strips you see rolling past during the game are not the same strips you see when the reels stop. There are "teaser" strips that show the punters lots of jackpot and high-pay symbols while the game runs, then as each reel stops, the machine cuts in the percentage strips for the last few steps. If they had known that, they surely would have made a huge fuss about it.

[StatFreak]

...the requirements that the payback percentage of every game be disclosed to the customer...

That would be nice, but then nobody would ever play Megabucks, Wheel of Fortune, or any machine at the Airport. 
...

I'm not so sure. People know (or can find out) the odds for most table games and for video slot games and they play them anyway. A savvy Craps player wouldn't touch the proposition bets with a ten-foot dice stick, but those bets still see a lot of action. I'm the type of player who won't place a bet without knowing the house edge and as many of the gory details as possible, yet I still plunk an occasional $20 into a WOF machine. I treat it like any 50 million to 1 shot lottery ticket and wager accordingly.

What it might do would be to force casinos to increase payback percentages overall (due to inter-casino competition) and to more evenly distribute them amongst their machines (intra-casino competition). i.e., players would probably stay away from machines displaying noticeably lower payback percentages than their nearby neighbors, and would have hard numbers to use when comparing the machines in one casino to those in another.

Just as with the Craps proposition bets, there would still be plenty of people willing to play an 85% WOF or Megabucks for a chance at becoming rich, but at least patrons would be able to make an informed "purchase" decision.

[StatFreak]

(Now I've had time to read the Australian paper)
In its way, it's as misleading as the problem they're trying to draw attention to, since you have to read the small print at the end to discover that both authors are anti-gambling activists. They are also remarkably ignorant, or else they're being deceitfully disingenuous. No slot machine has, or ever had, "balanced reels" in the sense of having equal numbers of the same symbols on each reel, and every player knows that, so the call at the end of the paper to force machines to have "balanced reels" is a disguised call for abolition. Weighted virtual reels, ok they have a point. But regarding video machines, what they apparently don't know is that the strips you see rolling past during the game are not the same strips you see when the reels stop. There are "teaser" strips that show the punters lots of jackpot and high-pay symbols while the game runs, then as each reel stops, the machine cuts in the percentage strips for the last few steps. If they had known that, they surely would have made a huge fuss about it.

Good points. (psst -- I won't tell them about the video slot tactic if you don't. ) 

I did notice that they were anti-gambling activists. I attributed their cry for balanced reels to ignorance of the basics of slot design, but you may be correct in pointing out that they knew this and carefully crafted their argument to disguise their full agenda, which would make them as deceptive as those whom they are fighting.


However, I still think that they have valid points with regards to near misses and weighted virtual stop reels.

Consider Roulette as a virtual slot. The player would walk up to the table to play. The wheel would be hidden under a cover, except for a small space that showed the final resting place of the ball, and the casino would have the right to install a wheel that was weighted any way they pleased, as long as each of the numbers appeared at least once. They would not have to disclose to the patron any details about their wheel other than the fact that it paid back at least 75% as required by law, and every roulette table would be different, including those within the same casino.

Imagine walking up to a video poker machine where the odds of getting each card were unknown and unbalanced -- and different for every machine. How would people react to a video poker machine that constantly displayed three or four cards to a Royal on the deal, but never quite hit the last card on the draw, and worse, always seemed to give the player a card one away from the one that he needed.


When a casino offers a new table game, they don't tell the player the house edge, but the player can figure it out on his own because the game has to be transparent. Card games must use complete decks, or multiples thereof. Dice games must use fair dice that can be seen and understood by the players. The rules and payouts must be clearly described. When I see a new table game, I ask for a handout copy of the rules and payouts, then go to my room and break out my trusty calculator. I can't do that with a slot.

[jay]

I do have an issue with symbols that you cannot land on = that I find deceptive.
I don't have any issue with virtual stops creating the near miss effect as those are legitimate "blanks".

I would much rather see percentages manipulated by an increased number of virtual stops as opposed to weighting certain outcomes - but in the mathimatical scheme of things it doesn't really matter.

It wouild be good to see percentages listed on every slot but I believe your average player would find it deceptive.

Presume the slot had 100% payback.
The only wins were 2, 4 & 8 coins based on a 1 coin bet.

To win 2 coins you would need to lose 50% of the time... or play 1 win 1.
To win 2 & 4 coins you would need to lose 6 times to win 1.
To win 2 & 4 & 8 you would need to lose 14 times to win 1.

Each of these assume a linear win/lose.
If you had a run of 50 losses I am sure very few people would be hard pressed to view this as 100% payout.

[StatFreak]

You've hit on one of the fundamental differences between slots and table games. In most cases, table game wagers are bets for a single outcome and payoff. With slots, a single bet covers a wide range of possible winning outcomes. This method requires the odds of winning a prize to be much lower than the value of the prize, even if the payback is 100%. The exception to this are buy-a pays, although strictly speaking, they are hybrids of multiple pays and purchased pays. The buy-a-pay feature allows the S+ Sizzling Sevens game to offer a 1000 coin top prize with a very low a 1 in 4,096 chance of occurrence. The Double Diamond theme by comparison, which has a three coin top prize of 2500 coins, has only a 1 in 46,656 chance of occurrence.

[reho33]

OK Stat, so number of reels does not translate into lower odds right? The odds are still determined by the game chip and virtual reels?

[uniman]

I do have an issue with symbols that you cannot land on = that I find deceptive.
I don't have any issue with virtual stops creating the near miss effect as those are legitimate "blanks".

I would much rather see percentages manipulated by an increased number of virtual stops as opposed to weighting certain outcomes - but in the mathimatical scheme of things it doesn't really matter.

It wouild be good to see percentages listed on every slot but I believe your average player would find it deceptive.

Presume the slot had 100% payback.
The only wins were 2, 4 & 8 coins based on a 1 coin bet.

To win 2 coins you would need to lose 50% of the time... or play 1 win 1.
To win 2 & 4 coins you would need to lose 6 times to win 1.
To win 2 & 4 & 8 you would need to lose 14 times to win 1.

Each of these assume a linear win/lose.
If you had a run of 50 losses I am sure very few people would be hard pressed to view this as 100% payout.

Reminds me of IGT's Hundred or Nothing game. Not very popular at the casino's.

[StatFreak]

Reminds me of IGT's Hundred or Nothing game. Not very popular at the casino's.

Now there's a slot that launched an ex-slot designer's new career in insurance sales...

...or maybe it went something like this: 
"What idiot shipped our testbed machine & kit to the Palms?! Mal°°f is on the phone and he's pulling his entire order!"
"Quick, call our guy at the NGC and get it approved before I call Mal°°f back -- and come up with a convincing story."

One color, one payout, one coin... Once in the history of slots...

I might take Joey's kit, just to mess around with it...

[uniman]

You've hit on one of the fundamental differences between slots and table games. In most cases, table game wagers are bets for a single outcome and payoff. With slots, a single bet covers a wide range of possible winning outcomes. This method requires the odds of winning a prize to be much lower than the value of the prize, even if the payback is 100%. The exception to this are buy-a pays, although strictly speaking, they are hybrids of multiple pays and purchased pays. The buy-a-pay feature allows the S+ Sizzling Sevens game to offer a 1000 coin top prize with a very low a 1 in 4,096 chance of occurrence. The Double Diamond theme by comparison, which has a three coin top prize of 2500 coins, has only a 1 in 46,656 chance of occurrence.

When you look at a buy-a-pay like Sizzling 7's it's like playing two games at once. Universals version, Magnificent 7's has 32 virtual stops per reel with several chips having twelve chances at the jackpot. (32x32x32)/12=2730.66. I believe Sizzling 7's has one chip like this.
Chances of hitting Red 7's is 1 in 682.66. Chances of hitting mixed 7's is 1 in 218.45.

So, for two coin play all the bar(s) and blank hits comes out to a 97.0337% payback with their best chip. A hit every 7.4478 spins on average
The third coin only gives you the 7's payouts and has a 97.0459% payback with their best chip. A hit once every 156 spins on average