Slots Max Bet on Slots Theory

So I've traversed casinos across the country that appeal to all walks of life and I've picked up on enough anecdotal evidence to develop a theory that I want to run by all you. I call it the Max Bet Paradox.

The theory goes as such, in casinos where there's generally thriftier gamblers (min betters), the short term return on slots is lower when making max bets. But, when making min bets, your short term returns are higher.

Here's an example, I was playing at Ocean's this weekend and noticed a lot of people playing minimum bets. Being the financially irresponsible person that I am, I went for max bets. Within 3 hours, I was down $2,500 over a sample of 15 different slot machines. None wanted to hit and they ALL ate money.

The following day, I tried a different strategy, I was betting minimum bet but was hitting more often. And, I did this with only 200 dollars. In other words, with 1/10th of the pool of funds, my money lasted me THREE days, until late Monday night when I left.

At the Wynn, I noticed this too. Much higher rate of return max betting as everyone else in the casino tends to max bet.

Harrahs AC, I lose every time on slots, but at Caesar's, which has higher max bettors, I have lost maybe $400 over the course of 2 4-day trips. Ballys / pH versus Caesar's Palace I've experienced the same thing.

Am I crazy? Or is it because slots need to "accrue" a certain amount before paying out. Probably why you don't see progressives hit until you get higher in the payout amount...

 

I seldom do absolute max bet, but again almost never play absolute minimum, unless I'm playing out single digit credits.

You play longer playing less than maximum.

 

Nope you're not and I notice this on the game where you're suppose to hit six of the money symbols. People betting low consistently trigger that and I where I bet max am the unicorn in the bunch.

 

It's called a paradox, by the way, because max bets typically provides 10x bet multiplier vs 1x, 2x, etc from the other bets.

 

This is illegal everywhere in the US, afaik.

All random. And with some slots min bets have the same payback percentage as max bets. But almost always min bets will make your money last longer because you're simply betting less.

 

Yep, the Mrs. & MIL can drag after hour after hour after hour playing minimum bet. The one game to which they are linked forever is the "Dragon Spin". I think, but am not sure, that the five bonus payout levels differ depending on the amount bet, the minimum being $.50 and the max somewhere around $3.0 ~ $4.0. They deliberately never play max bet, because the goal is to sit for hours in front of the machine. That's it. Duration. Not dollars won. I don't understand their decision making process, but there are only about three machines they play. And it's the same thing on all of them. Doesn't matter if they're foregoing a chance at a bigger payoff, or bigger bonuses, etc. Nope. It's almost as if they're paid by the hour.

 

I’m a max bettor.....1 countem hp in over 10 visits to strictly mlife properties. So no....you are not crazy!!!

 

I can't afford max bet with my bankroll so I play machines like Lock it Link that pay some of their bonuses (mini, minor, etc.) at any level. It's all random anyhow.

 

I agree that in the long-run, it evens out to the same hold (depending on denom). HOWEVER, in the short term, if people aren't betting max bet at the casino, but rather do min bets. You may not make the same return even given a proportionally bankroll. I feel that the psuedorandom number generators must have met certain thresholds before paying out

 

If I am correct, the only RNGs that are legal in Nevada are those that do nothing but return random numbers, meaning numbers that are evenly distributed and not predictable.

 

If you think casinos break laws, that's fine, but I tend to think the casinos just let math and volume do its work. Casinos NEVER have a losing month for their entire slot floor revenue. The only game that could possibly change that is a Megabucks win, but IGT pays that jackpot out, not the casino.

 

Saw something similar in a sample size of one night max betting tilt
(never much liked slots, and still don't, GF kills them, I never do),
but I think the big handpays posted around may indicate it is a risk of ruin / bankroll issue.

don't forget to calculate drinks consumed!

 

Spdandpwr, I support your theory 100%. After years of playing, thousands of hours, watching my wife play minimum bet and winning thousands, I have no doubt.

 

That's what I've always heard, too, but how do you explain "Must hit by $xxx" jackpots? That's not a random event, it's a trigger. If that can legally be triggered, so can other events - like paying out more bonuses at min bet to entice players to up their bets.

 

Honestly i still think it's a random event. The probability of hitting it just approaches 1 the closer you get to the must hit by point.

So if it's a must hit by $500, at $250, it might be 1 in 100,000 to hit, but at $499.90, it might be something like 1 in 10. And the bigger bettor moves the meter faster, so overall he/she has a greater chance to win the must hit than the smaller bettor.

And in theory a slot manufacturer could make a higher bonus frequency for lower bets in theory, but I don't get the impression that is done in practice. I would more likely attribute this to a person betting max sitting next to a min bettor and the min bettor has the luckier machine at the time and is getting more bonuses. That will stick in your mind much more than when it's you getting lucky and the min bettor's machine is cold as ice.

 

I believe it has to do with the higher number of pulls you get at a lower bet. With more pulls, there is a better chance that you can "ride out" the "dead spots" that the PRNG provides. JMHO.

At $0.80 per pull, you get 5x more pulls than at $4.00 a pull

 

One night I got concert tickets from my casino and the Marketing director was in the suite as well. He mentioned something about the ability on slot machines to have different payback percentages by bet level on machines. I took that as the 1X payback % on machine A could be set to say 85%, whereas the 5X on the same machine could be say 92%, or vice versa, with the 2,3,4 X being independent, but I logically assume between the two ends. Could be wrong there, not a slot tech. Maybe I will ask a floor person I know when I get a chance. I assume that if this is true, the lowest % couldn't be set below the state mandated minimum %, but you never know.

Thinking this could impact the original question if the lower bet is set to a higher % than the higher bet..........

 

I've always assumed that, if they could adjust it - I don't really know for sure, they would have less hold at the higher bet levels and more hold at the lower levels.

 

IIRC, heard higher selected denominations (i.e.> .01) have lower holds, not necessarily higher bets as far as max bets...

 

After playing slots as long as I have been, I firmly believe (and no one will change my mind, so don't even bother to try), that the lower the bet, the better the machine pays. Siberian Storm, Day of the Dead, even the Buffalo machines. Far, far too many times have I been sitting next to someone who is playing 40, 50, 60 cents a spin, and they are doing far better than I am with my $3, $4, $5 (or more) bet per spin. This hasn't happened just once, nor is it in 10 minutes of play. I used to go to the locals A LOT. Sometimes, I was sitting next to these people for hours. That is why I always try to find the highest denomination on a machine that I can. A really good example was my July trip at Bellagio. I did far better playing on a nickel Buffalo Gold in High Stakes (where at $3 a spin - I was playing the lowest amount possible) then I have ever done playing $3 on a penny machine.