Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Senior Member Random$$Slots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    2,649
    Likes (Given)
    474
    Likes (Received)
    1547

    Itís not a myth; players can detect slot machine hold percentage

    Poster's Note: I maintain that slot players that play enough slots in more than one casino can feel the difference in Slot Hold %s (AKA, payback %). The UNLV/SDSU study was not properly designed and allowed Slot Volatility to hide the Hold % due to a limited sampling of play. If you want to see what I mean, watch Professor Random talks about Volatility ( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6rjwaBDpNP43K33LNPOvi_0CdpMhSRv- ). If you want to experience the difference in Slot Hold % yourself, spend 3 days playing Penny slots in Reno/Sparks (not downtown Reno) and then spend 3 days playing slots in South Lake Tahoe (Harrah's/Harveys). Reno/Sparks has the loosest average Slot Holds (7.3%), and the two Caesars properties in Tahoe have the tightest (11.1%, or 52% tighter than Reno/Sparks). There is a good chance that you will feel the difference.

    -------

    By Buddy Frank, CDC Gaming Reports

    August 3, 2019 at 3:00 pm

    I have met and debated Dr. Anthony Lucas several times in the past. I generally applaud his efforts in gaming education at UNLV and his authorship of multiple informative articles about the gaming world. However, his recent studies (done with colleague Katherine Spilde of San Diego State University) proclaiming that itís a myth that players canít detect tighter slot machines, in my opinion, can cause significant harm to the gaming industry.

    This is not because I doubt any of the data, nor the conclusions they have drawn from that limited data. Using their numbers alone, it seems to prove that their selected group of machines will earn more, without a decline in play levels, if the hold percentages are tightened for a period of time.

    However, Iím convinced they theyíve made an elemental error that many slot directors learned to correct years ago. They are looking only at data from the machines and not whatís happening with the players. I agree that a player cannot ďfeelĒ the hold percentage one way or another in a short period of time. Manufacturers openly certify this condition on every official PAR sheet proclaiming that slots only hold true as they approach 10 million handle pulls.

    Examining only machine data, as this study did, will often show a game with a high win index like 1.2. In other words, a machine that is doing 20% more win than the house averages. Before having player data, we looked only at that index and/or the trending of that index. If a machine went from 1.2 initially, then 1.4 a month later and 1.8 a month after that, we thought we had a winner. Not surprisingly, many of those machines continued growing and became superstars like ďBuffaloĒ and ďDancing Drums.Ē While some did great, others surprisingly (and rapidly) fell in the toilet. There was simply no way we could predict the future hits from the misses. At least until we started looking at player patterns.

    The folly was that we really didnít know if one player, or hundreds of players, were pulling those handles or depositing those coins or credits. Once we started combining machine and player data (for our carded play) we could see how long individual players stayed on a game (time on device) and, more importantly, how often they came back to that machine (repeat play).

    Looking at performance in this new way was very revealing. We could spot a strong game very early and eliminate those with false starts quickly. Often, a new machine was so attractive, it was almost impossible to resist giving it a try. But, if it had shallow bonus rounds, poor hit frequencies or just boring game mechanics repeat play was near zero. Often, the indexes stayed strong only as long as your supply of ďvirginĒ players lasted.

    By using this player data, combined with machine data, we often had a truck waiting to remove future weak games just after they hit the tipping point. It saved us weeks and months of having poor performers on our floor. It was something previously impossible.
    In the recent ďmythĒ article, the writers said, ďThe results (of our studies) showed no evidence of players moving away from higher-coin-in percentage machines to their lower percentage counterparts.Ē Lucas and Spilde donít know that. They only know what happened at the machine, not what the player experienced. That exclusion could be fatal.

    In the CDC Gaming Reports interview, Lucas said, these tightened machines could generate up to $100 per day more. If that came from 1,000 players, itís only 10 cents each. But what if it were just one or two players. Again, Lucas and Spilde donít know that. From a subjective perspective, would you notice $50 to $100/day difference in your entertainment budget? For most medium sized casinos, that $100/day/machine would amount to $200,000/day or more in revenue. Sounds good, but are you sure your customers would be delighted to cough up an extra $200,000 each day for the same experience?

    Staying subjective, slot manufactures (off-the-record) are clearly with me on this issue. Privately, they hate it when a game designed for 8% is put on a floor at 13%. Through the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers (AGEM), theyíve even sponsored studies to show that tightening holds has not benefited overall revenues. Remember, manufacturers are on our side. They want us to make more profit and want their games to work today and tomorrow. Iíve heard one say, ďletís hope they donít destroy the goose thatís been laying our golden eggs.Ē

    In the CDC article, Lucas also says that ďPAR has almost nothing to do with time on device.Ē #!@@!##! Say what? Here the authors again mix player and machine perspectives. Variance can give wildly different time-on-device numbers for individual players on the same PAR game losing the same amount. But the machine statistics will reflect quite different actual game hold percentages.
    All that aside, there is a direct mathematical correlation between PAR and play time if you add the caveats of ďaverageĒ and ďplay over time.Ē Remember, ďplay over timeĒ is exactly what casino marketers seek to accomplish with every campaign. Strong repeat play is the Holy Grail of marketing success. Mathematically, moving a 7% hold game to 9% will reduce ďaverageĒ visit length. Are you so busy that youíre tired of having guests stay in your building? A six-hour entertainment experience will go to just over four hours. No one will notice? The gift shops and restaurants wonít be less full and team member tips wonít decline? Really?

    Want some empirical evidence? If you examine the just released numbers from the Nevada Gaming Control Board for the last 12 months ending in June 2019; youíll see that the Las Vegas Strip added 1.4% more machines this year and tightened all their games to a record high of 8.16%. As the new study surmised, their revenues rose 3.95%. But across town in North Las Vegas, where the slots are much looser (6.66%), revenues grew 5.00% with 1.4% fewer machines. Loose, not greed, is good.

    Iím somewhat surprised that casino owners are not bothered by this. I know that many of the corporate financial types have adopted this strategy wholeheartedly and love the short-term returns. It seems right in line with charging higher parking and resort fees. But doesnít anyone think that revenue hungry legislators might also see this as an excellent opportunity to boost our gaming tax rates? Theyíll ask, ďWhat harm could it do, just crank up your hold again.Ē When operators argue in protest, they may seem a bit two-faced since many of them are now supporting this argument that ďplayers canít tell.Ē Nevada has fought off past attempts at raises, and Oklahoma operators are battling an effort to stop a proposed increase of their taxes now. This study certainly wonít help either of them.

    I once suggested to Lucas, that if players donít notice, why not take the hold to 90% or 100%? He looked at me like I was an idiot, because he knew that players would leave. It was my assumption that he believed that bleeding to death slowly was much better than killing the ďgooseĒ all at once. Why not prevent the bleeding in the first place?
    RandomSlots

    www.RandomSlots.com
    Learn about Slots & Casinos

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    143
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    79
    Play at the Tampa Hard Rock, no matter what day, what time, what slot, what denomination, you will get 1% payback, and that is not exaggerating.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Random$$Slots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    2,649
    Likes (Given)
    474
    Likes (Received)
    1547
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeB View Post
    Play at the Tampa Hard Rock, no matter what day, what time, what slot, what denomination, you will get 1% payback, and that is not exaggerating.
    Florida is among the looser States that report slot statistics. Be glad you donít go to casinos in Pennsylvania.

    https://www.randomslots.com/states_comparison.shtml



    Sent from my iPhone using Slot Fanatics
    RandomSlots

    www.RandomSlots.com
    Learn about Slots & Casinos

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    173
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    113
    Wow after looking at the holds no wonder I like Vegas so much. I live in PA and play in PA and Maryland. My wife and I both seem to have a lot longer play on our money in Vegas. Now it makes sense. I believe with the examples given after a few days a person would notice the difference. Interesting information.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    918
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    822
    I had the chance to play at Fallsview Casino in Niagara Falls a week ago. We played hard, for three hours $5/spin to $25/spin, and only lost $800. And the bulk of that was in the last ten mins when my wife and I jumped on The Walking Dead and Buffalo Grand.

    Completely different than in Ohio casinos.

  6. #6
    Senior Member SlotM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,667
    Likes (Given)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by willslotforcash View Post
    I had the chance to play at Fallsview Casino in Niagara Falls a week ago. We played hard, for three hours $5/spin to $25/spin, and only lost $800. And the bulk of that was in the last ten mins when my wife and I jumped on The Walking Dead and Buffalo Grand.

    Completely different than in Ohio casinos.
    Fallsview is probably the hardest Casino in Canada to win at. They have the Payout range set to the absolute lowest. You wont see many big wins there. You may notice more little (10-25x) wins however.

    Sent from my SM-G950W using Slot Fanatics mobile app

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    450
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    228
    Total side note: a few weeks back at Hollywood Charles Town, a tech had to come by and fix my machine. The statistics popped up (it was a Lock-it-Link Piggy Bank, the one on the far left if you are facing it) ... and I was stunned. It showed Winning and Losing Spins, and it was something like 30000 winnings spins, but 80-90 thousand losing spins. Now, this obviously has little to do with payback percentages, but still, that is an insanely wide spread, IMO.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Random$$Slots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    2,649
    Likes (Given)
    474
    Likes (Received)
    1547
    Quote Originally Posted by wisherman View Post
    Total side note: a few weeks back at Hollywood Charles Town, a tech had to come by and fix my machine. The statistics popped up (it was a Lock-it-Link Piggy Bank, the one on the far left if you are facing it) ... and I was stunned. It showed Winning and Losing Spins, and it was something like 30000 winnings spins, but 80-90 thousand losing spins. Now, this obviously has little to do with payback percentages, but still, that is an insanely wide spread, IMO.
    Slots often quote a hit frequency spec. For example, a 50% hit frequency means half the spins win something, even if a tiny amount. Higher volatility slots tend to have lower hit frequencies. A 25% hit frequency is not unusual.


    Sent from my iPhone using Slot Fanatics
    RandomSlots

    www.RandomSlots.com
    Learn about Slots & Casinos

  9. #9
    Senior Member slotmanjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    685
    Likes (Given)
    82
    Likes (Received)
    422
    A couple of weeks ago I saw a slot tech working on a Ainsworth $1 denom. Coin In $6,900,000 coin out $6,100,000! 88.9% payback?

    So that one machine has made the casino $800,000 in 3 years and it's not even a popular title.

    My worst experience playing has always been in south Florida, yet they say they have the loosest machines.
    Please Subscribe SLOTMANJACK on Youtube.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/slotmanjack

  10. #10
    Senior Member cman420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    807
    Likes (Given)
    1386
    Likes (Received)
    920
    I have heard Florida to be pretty bad. I typically only gamble at 2 casinos lately. One is Native American and one is state run. I always do better at the state run place. Twin River vs Mohegan.

    Here American casino guide shows our Payback is awesome at Twin! @Rich99 check this out! We are 90.89! Mohegan is 89 percent!

    https://www.americancasinoguide.com/...l#Rhode-Island

    Be sure to check out my channel. Some fun wins:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPLN3AwlW7j2jJpROQfk2Kg

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •