- This topic has 89 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
You can claim they are random as the book says but when I popped in one day and saw a man playing the Roulette with the last 4 numbers being
0
I refuse to believe they are random.
I don’t ‘claim’ they are random, they
are
random and are regulated to be so. What you choose to believe is irrelevant.
There was a thread started on FOBT’s in the Mail online (I think) where a number of correspondents pointed out sequences such as yours as ‘proof’ the machines were fixed.
This is all a psychological trick caused by the brain’s desire to create order from a chaotic situation. As such, in any run of random numbers, a sequence such as 21-21-21-21 or 1-2-3-4 will always stand out. However, were I to create my own sequence, say 16-37-22-9, this too would occur in the fullness of time but unless someone was specifically looking for such a sequence it would go unnoticed. There is no difference between the three examples given apart from the non-linear form of the third group. This is why you never hear players saying “It’s all fixed, I had a run of 16-37-22-9”.
In fact, the only thing unusual about a sequence of four 0’s is how incredibly unusual (nigh on impossible in fact) it would be if it
never
occurred.
Mike
Yeah I know what you’re on about it’s called "clustering" it’s how we recognize and store numbers in our short term memory due to our ballistic covert eye movements that use "spotlight" searching based on locations not objects.
Anyway, it still doesn’t prove the theory that they are random and after that day I’ll never believe they are after that highly improbable occurance of four 0 in a row.
Yeah I know what you’re on about it’s called "clustering" it’s how we recognize and store numbers in our short term memory due to our ballistic covert eye movements that use "spotlight" searching based on locations not objects.
Anyway, it still doesn’t prove the theory that they are random and after that day I’ll never believe they are after that highly improbable occurance of four 0 in a row.
Your second paragraph is a classic example of what the psychology community defines as cognitive dissonance.
Your first is an example of what the psychology community defines as ‘talking bollocks’.
Mike
Spot on Betlarge
There’s been several references to ‘ignorance’ on this thread
Successive governments have buggered around no end with the secondary school curriculum. I would like to think – though don’t believe – that the study of probability and chance has been elevated to the core of the maths curriculum from Year 1; hence reducing ignorance and permitting yer FOBT player to at least play the game with eyes half open rather than tight shut
Probability and matters of chance – and the bookmakers know this – are largely counter-intuitive, epitomised by these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_conceit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale … _system%29Correct, this is an absolute failure of education. It is totally essential that our children understand probability, even in it’s most rudimentary way. I do remember it was quite a part of my economics A-level, and that was back in 1839 or whatever.
The similarity between those who cry that FOBT’s don’t pay out at 97% (ergo: they are fixed) and those who fall for rip-off or short-term loans for example, is stark.
In the same way that the latter cannot recognise the nefarious effects of rapidly compounding interest on their loans or credit, so the former do not see the identical effects of compounding and thus rapidly-degrading stakes on FOBT’s. The 97% seems a generous payout on the machines, but due to this endless compounding of -3%, the effects are far worse than the standard 83% return on horse racing win singles, due to the speed and number of plays.
The theory behind the maths in both cases is identical.
Mike
The theory behind the maths in both cases is identical.
Edification on the theory is available to all online and probably free at some taxpayer funded library if you’ve dumped your taxpayer funded gift (aka
jobseekers
allowance) into a sparkly machine at a licensed betting office of your own free will and cant afford the connection.
Who’s the loser?
Your second paragraph is a classic example of what the psychology community defines as cognitive dissonance.
Your first is an example of what the psychology community defines as ‘talking bollocks’.
Mike
Didn’t know Newspapers were offering qualifications in psychology? what did you have to do, read the report and learn the exciting big words and now you’re ready to teach someone who has a degree in the subject?
The theory behind the maths in both cases is identical.
Edification on the theory is available to all online and probably free at some taxpayer funded library if you’ve dumped your taxpayer funded gift (aka
jobseekers
allowance) into a sparkly machine at a licensed betting office of your own free will and cant afford the connection.
Who’s the loser?
That requires some effort and discipline CR, traits that I’d venture tend to be lacking in the typical FOBT disciple, or indeed gambler in general
No it needs knocking into all when forced to sit in a school classroom. In my opinion, basic probability theory, notwithstanding it demanding an opening of the mind and a little lateral thinking, is a damn sight easier to grasp than quadratic equations which are presumably still drummed into all prior to the age of 16
For the majority a grasp of algebra, whilst being a valuable broadening of the mind – education for education’s sake – will be of little relevance on ‘life’s journey’ but a grasp of probability of relevance to many, well to those in the UK who spend a collective 8 Billion punting their hard or non-earned away at least
So which of those two should be emphasised in the maths curriculum?
art for art’s sake
money for God’s sakeSociety is the loser
The theory behind the maths in both cases is identical.
Edification on the theory is available to all online and probably free at some taxpayer funded library if you’ve dumped your taxpayer funded gift (aka
jobseekers
allowance) into a sparkly machine at a licensed betting office of your own free will and cant afford the connection.
Who’s the loser?
The taxpayer.
Mike
And there is no way on this Earth that these machines are random.
They are completely random. I believe regulated under the 2005 Gambling Act.
The great thing about these machines from a bookmakers point of view is that they don’t
need
to be fiddled in any way. They genuinely do offer a 97% payout – the endless degradation of stakes due to the rapid play, along with their psychologically addictive programming combines to make that a 0% return for most players (ie. they play until skint).
Mike
They are not random. If you’ve watched the roulette numbers produced, you’ll realise this.
And who regulates them, not what act ? The data, the turnover, the profit ?
And then there’s the philosophical science question – can any machine be random ?
Your second paragraph is a classic example of what the psychology community defines as cognitive dissonance.
Your first is an example of what the psychology community defines as ‘talking bollocks’.
Mike
Didn’t know Newspapers were offering qualifications in psychology? what did you have to do, read the report and learn the exciting big words and now you’re ready to teach someone who has a degree in the subject?
Okay, now you have a Psychology degree to add to the fact that you consider yourself to be "the most knowledgeable Horse Racing enthusiast in the United Kingdom".
Sorry Bruce, I just feel there is a massive sense of artifice surrounding you. Your first paragraph about ‘clustering’ is simply nonsensical.
Mike
This is why you never hear players saying “It’s all fixed, I had a run of 16-37-22-9”.
Mike
If you play roulette, you won’t as there’s no 37
But you will hear a regular roulette player say they’ve had a lovely run of 28,7,29,18,7,22. All within a few spaces on the wheel.
Still think you’re over-complicating things – it’s just a sign of the times, society today encourages mass gambling and avoidance of responsibility for what people do and unlike twenty years ago anyone can get credit cards, bank loans, payday loans, etc.
The next big thing will be mobile apps and nobody will be talking about FOBTS, court cases will happen as people will claim someone gambled on their phone when they left it unattended so they shouldn’t have to pay up.
FOBTs aren’t the problem, society is and that’s down to society itself, in my opinion.
You reap what you sow.
Still think you’re over-complicating things – it’s just a sign of the times, society today encourages mass gambling and avoidance of responsibility for what people do and unlike twenty years ago anyone can get credit cards, bank loans, payday loans, etc.
The next big thing will be mobile apps and nobody will be talking about FOBTS, court cases will happen as people will claim someone gambled on their phone when they left it unattended so they shouldn’t have to pay up.
FOBTs aren’t the problem, society is and that’s down to society itself, in my opinion.
You reap what you sow.
I would certainly agree with that, I feel the way we have moved to an ‘easy money’ society is reprehensible. FOBT’s certainly aren’t the root of the problem for sure, but stacking them up in ever-increasing numbers (especially in deprived areas) just makes things so much worse.
I also get pretty annoyed when I see various bookmaker’s reps selling FOBT’s as ‘a bit of fun’ when, let’s be honest, they are anything but for their users.
Mike
This is why you never hear players saying “It’s all fixed, I had a run of 16-37-22-9”.
Mike
If you play roulette, you won’t as there’s no 37
But you will hear a regular roulette player say they’ve had a lovely run of 28,7,29,18,7,22. All within a few spaces on the wheel.
My point exactly.
Mike
In this country the numbers do not have to be random, all that is regulated is the payout percentage. The numbers are simply a "fun" representation of the outcome, the machine could instead display either "you win" or "you lose".
So for example if the player has chosen 7 and the machine has determined this is a losing play it simply has to display any other number except 7, so it could display 0. Next go the same rules, so it can display 0 again, doesn’t have to pick a random losing number. The machines do not have to be rigged to ensure profit, all they have to do is exactly what it says on the label – give back the stated percentage, and therefore keep the remainder. The shop will always win in the long run.
In other countries the regulations are different, and some machines do pick random numbers by having a dedicated chip constantly cycling through numbers, many thousands per second. The chosen number is determined by a player action, for example the instant they hit the play button.
It’s easy to blame FOBT players for their addiction, in fact it can be quite satisfying leading to a sense of superiority. But it’s a sad state for a person to be in and it’s no accident the machines foster addiction, that’s exactly what they are designed to do.
It’s easy to blame the bookmakers, no-one likes bookmakers. But they are a business and they are just doing what a business must do – make as much profit as possible within the confines of the law.
So, next time election day comes around please remember which government was responsible for the gambling acts that allow these machines that make addicts of vulnerable people in order to swell the profits of large bookmakers. The same bookmakers who choose to dodge taxes and fair contribution to the racing industry by moving offshore, and taking jobs with them. Yes, the supposed party of the working class.
4 pages to arrive at "it’s all Blair’s fault?" – slow going TRFers
People did their dough on gambling in the early eighties but there was no internet to report it, no forums to discuss it on, no social networking for people to tell each other what they were doing – there was sod all telly then too and unless you studied documentaries and news programes and read every newspaper going, a lot of what went on probably slipped you by.
Nowadays everything is so much more available and visible which makes it look worse, I doubt FOBTs will be the topic next year, we’ll have moved on again.
We’re probably only halfway down the slippery slope.
That requires some effort and discipline CR, traits that I’d venture tend to be lacking in the typical FOBT disciple, or indeed gambler in general
No it needs knocking into all when forced to sit in a school classroom. In my opinion, basic probability theory, notwithstanding it demanding an opening of the mind and a little lateral thinking, is a damn sight easier to grasp than quadratic equations which are presumably still drummed into all prior to the age of 16
For the majority a grasp of algebra, whilst being a valuable broadening of the mind – education for education’s sake – will be of little relevance on ‘life’s journey’ but a grasp of probability of relevance to many, well to those in the UK who spend a collective 8 Billion punting their hard or non-earned away at least
So which of those two should be emphasised in the maths curriculum?
Certainly no argument from me on a more practical approach to curricular maths, Drone and no better place to start than probability.
But along with that and despite living in a genuine information age, society as a whole gets dumber by the day, and is largely happy to dwell there from what I can make out.
On a broader point I wonder how much "education" really goes on at school anyway. Training certainly, but you can train an animal.
x-factor rules
Oooh, one of my fav subjects here!
The randomness question pertaining to the Wibbly Wobbly Wheel of Death isn’t going to go away.
I know it seems ridiculous to suggest bookies would rig machines, but if they could get away with it and satisfy legislation, would it not be tempting?
Where is the clear information in the public domain on how these machines work?
There must be one software engineer somewhere who can tell us? (seems not). Why such secrecy?
The FOBT’s used to pick the same number remotely when a punter pressed the start (spin) button – now each machine requests it’s number individually. So, in theory, each machine could look at each individual spin and determine what number comes up….but, of course, that would be crooked.
For the erudite scientists amongst us that poo poo the claims of skullduggery with these machines I would advise playing them and then going to a real casino.
I know you probably won’t do this for multifarious reasons or perhaps just one very good one, but I have played the FOBT and been to a casino on many occasions and played the roulette.
On the FOBT you often get your number up immediately after you removed your chips from that number. The amount of near misses (heart stoppers on fruit machines) is very high. Hardly anyone seems to win when I’ve been in the bookies. You also get reverse numbers 13/31 12/21 23/32 which could be construed as trying to give players a sense of knowing what is coming next.
The above hardly happens in the real casino from my many visits there. Sure, some peeps get shafted, but there are plenty of people winning and TRULY random sequences. I happily will lose there knowing it is down to luck. And, strangely enough, it seems easier not to be totally shafted there then it does on the bookie roulette. I accept that the spins are not as fast and furious in a real casino.
Is it really that far-fetched to think that FOBTs are programmed with complex psychology to make them more addictive to players – whilst still meeting their percentage (the naturally random 97.3)?
The way in which it takes the money, not just the percentage at the end of the auditing year, is surely important?
There are also £500 jackpot fruit machines in the bookies that say they are random – and yet the stake the player uses determines the percentage at which it plays. I’m told by the manager that this is because of the different prizes for different stakes aspect. Hmmm.
It’s funny, many people felt banks were unimpeachable 20 yrs ago, and now many of us think they’re decidedly dodgy. Many don’t trust them with their money anymore.
Imagine if that happened with betting shops? (*dripping with ironic feigning*)
Zip
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.