Odds for winning on RAY´s slots?

[HollowPoint]

My friend insisted that he is a winning player on RAY´s fruitslots. I laughed at that, and proposed betting on his winning strategy. He got aggravated, as we were quite toxicated, so we made a bet over a trip to Spain.

He´s supposed to put €500 in RAY´s slots, play it thru, and be winning. I wonder if anybody knows what the probability of this bet is? It´s clear that I have a positive EV here, but I´m curious of my edge...

So what is the likelyhood of winning, if you put €500 in a finnish fruitslot, and play it thru?

[Winnergambling]

Hi,

Usually the return percentages are in the ~90% area. You can look specific return percentages to RAY slots from here.

Doubling every win to maximum would be +EV move for your friend.

[Peixinho]

You should put in your "T&C" that sledgehammers should be kept at least 10 metres from the slot machine...

Really, I'm curious of what's your friends strategy?

[HollowPoint]

He insisted that when he always only puts €4 into the machine and cashes out if he wins, and quits, he makes profit. He didn´t understand that he´s not really quitting, because he´s putting new money in next time he plays, weather it´s next day or next year, the game continues.

How could doupling make the bet EV+ for him? While he plays he´s taking the worst of it with 10% house edge, and then taking another risk losing all possible winnings with multible bets with 1.53/1.8 odds?

The money won doesn´t count on the playthru requirements, unless he cashes it out first and inserts back to the machine. I was very spesific that he has to invest €500 to playing, possible winnings won´t count unless cashedout first. So doubling doesn´t count on playthru.

If I understand this right, his chance of winning should be the same as making 500 €1 bets with 10% house edge and winning, when the maximum winning with one bet is €40. I just dont have an idea how to count it, but it´s hardly +EV for him??? You got me worried for a while, stop doing that!

[Winnergambling]

Doubling is +EV for him, because doubling up has lower house edge than regular gameplay.

[Peixinho]

Doubling is +EV for him, because doubling up has lower house edge than regular gameplay.

I didn't even think this. Doubling is also +EV because it increases variance (making the trip to Spain in your expense more likely) and when playing -EV games, variance is your best and only friend.

[HollowPoint]

I think WG is on wrong tracks here. First, a less negative EV doesn´t mean that the outcome would be positive in the longrun, it´s still -EV if the house has an edge, even if it´s smaller.

And the lesser house edge is not so simple, making the bet 4 times in a row with 5% house edge should accumulate the house edge to around 20% IMO. And because you have to make another win spinning the basic game to get back to doubling when you loose the money you tryed to double, the house edge should actually increase even more.

IMO the best strategy for him would be to bet the biggest allowed bets, and cashout every win immidiedly. In this case the variance would be biggest with the smallest effect of house edge. The worst he can do is to play with minimum bets, and double every win to the max. Correct me if (when) im wrong?

Anyway, with even money stakes between us, I think the sledgehammer is the only way he could make this +EV bet..

[Winnergambling]

Nope, I am correct

[Peixinho]

I think WG is on wrong tracks here. First, a less negative EV doesn´t mean that the outcome would be positive in the longrun, it´s still -EV if the house has an edge, even if it´s smaller.

Your thinking is incorrect, you aren't talking about the same thing. If your EV is for example -10 per hour and the alternative way gives you -7 per hour you should stop playing both but if you must continue playing for example to get to Spain, you choose -7. Your Expected Value is +3 compared to the other. I think WG thought that doubling counts for wagering before you said that it doesn't.

[Winnergambling]

I think WG thought that doubling counts for wagering before you said that it doesn't.

Yes, I made this assumption.