Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cheating Fruit (Slot) Machines

Posted by timothy on from the who'd-a-thunk-it dept.

ebbdr writes "Ever think that fruit machines cheat you? You would be right, at least in the UK. This article provides proof that fruit machine outcomes are predetermined and that the players inputs have little, if anything to do with it. And it lets you download the emulators and machine code required to test the hypothesis for yourself...."

7 of 535 comments (clear)

  1. SF by ShawnDoc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hmmm, outside of San Francisco I don't think this story will have much draw in the U.S.

    1. Re:SF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      I can think of plenty of places that would kill for a homosexual-dispensing mechanism of some sort.

      The Slashdot offices, for example.

  2. poor proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    First off, who cares about a stupid U.K. gambling machine?

    The machines in Las Vegas are highly regulated, and that's more relevant to the slashdot audience.

    but even still, why didn't they disassemble the ROMS and print the code? I'm not convinced by an empirically run experiment. Where it a natural phemonemon, it would have successful, but for computer code, their rigor is lacking.

  3. So What? by amcox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The authors have made an awful big deal over something which isn't really that important. In a computer controled gamble, the processor has to pick the outcome at some point. When you first put your money in and spin, the outcome is determined after you decide to play. For that second bet, the outcome is determined before you decide to play. Essentially, the gamble is in whether or not to take that additional bet, not going higher or lower. The companies are not comitting fraud, they are just dressing the second bet with the high/low feature to make it more interesting.

    1. Re:So What? by amcox · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It does carry with it a chance of winning, it's just that that chance applied and the outcome picked before you choose to gamble high/low. They might be lying by implying that the outcome is generated based on your high/low choice as opposed to your choice to play high/low, but the final result is the same. The raffle analogy is flawed, because people do win sometimes, no matter what they pick for the high/low.

  4. Re:Damnit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Whats wrong with some slut swallowing semen?

    Would you rather she spit it up on your shirt?

  5. Re:Damnit! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    How many poor people do you know, exactly? The ones I know are all pretty dumb. So much so, that when I meet one that's sharp, that I can talk to, it's a real surprise. The rich people I know are all educated, and they get things done, the smart way. They're always hustling to make sure they get the best of everything. Contrast this to the poor, who won't even get up and drive to the store to get their kid out of pissy diapers.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!