Thread Rating:
- 9 Quick Hits Jackpot
- Hand Paid Quick Hit Jackpots
- Quick Hit Slot Winners
- Quick Hits Jackpots In Casinos
Spin the reels and win the quick hits jackpot in your favorite games and slot machines! The developers have done everything to make the players like this Quick Hits free casino game. The good news for gamblers is the fact that the Quick Hit slot offers not only the winnings in the main game, but also the ability to disrupt the jackpot. There are jackpots for each level from five to nine Quick Hit symbols, which each jackpot being progressively bigger. Generally the nine Quick Hit symbols jackpot is the biggest (although there are some games, such as Quick Hit Platinum, where there’s a jackpot over the top of that).
Quick Hit Fever high limit from the Slot Museum. 25c crazy bonus.THIS IS FROM THE SLOT MUSEUM. ★HELP SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL! BECOME A YOUTUBE MEMBER★ https.
camapl
I wouldn't speculate on the Playmate version of the game, because I only know the probabilities for Quick Hits Platinum. If I were to speculate, then I would say the game has a license from Playboy, which would cost both Bally Tech and the casino more money, so the overall returns would be worse. They could be the same, though, I don't know.
According to slotspert on Slot Machines Forum, Playboy Platinum games have a return between 85% and 96%, which is backed up by Global Business Gaming, which indicates a hold between 4.10% and 14.92%. With a lower possible minimum return, I would agree with Mission to play the QHP over the Playboy if given a choice. However, if I find these progressives linked to only Playboy Platinum machines, I would expect that the jackpot frequencies would be the same (because I have seen one of these linked to a QHP game), adjust for the 3% lower return, and bang away at those bunnies! ;-}
Quote: Mission146
I could be wrong, but I don't believe so. The reason is because the Expected Return is based on one unit bet, which is already $1.50.
The problem I see is adding a value in unit bets to a dollar amount. This fails 'unit analysis.' You may be questioning why the numbers that I get are higher than yours and yet you have had success with your numbers. Perhaps it is because neither of our numbers take into account the rate of meter rise from the jackpots that we aren't playing for. In other words, my decision of when to play for the 6QH is dependent on the base return, the bet amount, and the frequency and reset of the 6QH jackpot. Consider this, the 'base return' with respect to 6QH is 88% plus the meter rise rates of all the other meters. Sure you could discount, or exclude, the meter rise of the higher jackpots, but if you do that, you might as well discount ALL of the return from these. Food for thought.
On a slightly different subject, does anyone know the frequency of the top jackpot (for 5 Quick Hit Platinum symbols)? The info that I have seen only includes the ones for 5 through 9 Quick Hit symbols..
Thanks again for the info and the sim analysis!
tringlomane
According to slotspert on Slot Machines Forum, Playboy Platinum games have a return between 85% and 96%, which is backed up by Global Business Gaming, which indicates a hold between 4.10% and 14.92%. With a lower possible minimum return, I would agree with Mission to play the QHP over the Playboy if given a choice. However, if I find these progressives linked to only Playboy Platinum machines, I would expect that the jackpot frequencies would be the same (because I have seen one of these linked to a QHP game), adjust for the 3% lower return, and bang away at those bunnies! ;-}
That's a good sign. It's definitely possible to do that, you just keep the total number of symbols constant, but in the case of the bunny game, you substitute lower paying symbols for higher ones to lower the overall return.
9 Quick Hits Jackpot
Mission146
That's a good sign. It's definitely possible to do that, you just keep the total number of symbols constant, but in the case of the bunny game, you substitute lower paying symbols for higher ones to lower the overall return.
Exactly, and it is in that way that one QHP machine will even differ from another, because the Progressive Probabilities remain a constant regardless of the base return percentage. I might also suggest, with the frequency of Bonus Games being what it is, perhaps the symbol distribution for the Bonus Games is the only thing that is changed, it'd be nearly impossible for a player to notice that.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Mission146
According to slotspert on Slot Machines Forum, Playboy Platinum games have a return between 85% and 96%, which is backed up by Global Business Gaming, which indicates a hold between 4.10% and 14.92%. With a lower possible minimum return, I would agree with Mission to play the QHP over the Playboy if given a choice. However, if I find these progressives linked to only Playboy Platinum machines, I would expect that the jackpot frequencies would be the same (because I have seen one of these linked to a QHP game), adjust for the 3% lower return, and bang away at those bunnies! ;-}
That makes sense, and if this is the case, you might look for a machine such as, 'Hee-Haw,' to see if it is linked up to a QHP, that could be interesting. The general premise of both games, as with Playboy, is exactly the same.
Quote:
The problem I see is adding a value in unit bets to a dollar amount. This fails 'unit analysis.' You may be questioning why the numbers that I get are higher than yours and yet you have had success with your numbers. Perhaps it is because neither of our numbers take into account the rate of meter rise from the jackpots that we aren't playing for. In other words, my decision of when to play for the 6QH is dependent on the base return, the bet amount, and the frequency and reset of the 6QH jackpot. Consider this, the 'base return' with respect to 6QH is 88% plus the meter rise rates of all the other meters. Sure you could discount, or exclude, the meter rise of the higher jackpots, but if you do that, you might as well discount ALL of the return from these. Food for thought.
On a slightly different subject, does anyone know the frequency of the top jackpot (for 5 Quick Hit Platinum symbols)? The info that I have seen only includes the ones for 5 through 9 Quick Hit symbols..
Thanks again for the info and the sim analysis!
I think that makes sense, as I have not taken into account the rate of the meter rise at all. I wouldn't discount the Base Returns of the higher payouts, personally, just because it is part of the Base Return. That would be similar to discounting the RF in Video Poker as part of the Base Return, given the fact that the RF is unlikely. My other argument for including it, particularly for 8 QH at a minimum, is the fact that if you pursue this as an advantage play enough, it becomes increasingly likely that you will hit 8 QH and 9 QH at some point.
I'm afraid I have never seen a probability for the 5 QHP symbols, but rest assured, it isn't very good!
camapl
..That would be similar to discounting the RF in Video Poker as part of the Base Return, given the fact that the RF is unlikely. My other argument for including it, particularly for 8 QH at a minimum, is the fact that if you pursue this as an advantage play enough, it becomes increasingly likely that you will hit 8 QH and 9 QH at some point.. Voodoo dreams casino.
Well put, sir, especially the analogy to the RF. It has been suggested that when playing for a quad or SF progressive, not to include the contribution to the RF meter, as the cycle length is so much larger. So, I say why not discount RF's entirely - how is the base return any more important than the progressive contribution? Count it all or discount it all. Does that make me an all or nothing kind of guy?
The thing to keep in mind is that including the entire contribution to the return of an event that is less likely than the event that you're 'going for' can negatively affect the bottom line for any single attempt. However, including it will lower your play number letting you 'go for' it more often. The more often you can make the same +EV play, the sooner you realize long term profits. Theoretically.
As you said, Mission, if this is a play for you more often, eventually you will hit those 'harder to hit' hands. In practice!
* Actual results may vary.
Mission146
Well put, sir, especially the analogy to the RF. It has been suggested that when playing for a quad or SF progressive, not to include the contribution to the RF meter, as the cycle length is so much larger. So, I say why not discount RF's entirely - how is the base return any more important than the progressive contribution? Count it all or discount it all. Does that make me an all or nothing kind of guy?
I can understand why someone might disclude the RF Progressive or base return from such a calculation in pursuit of a quad or SF Progressive, if it is a play that they don't think they are going to make very often. They're basically looking at what their short term expectation is, based on the fact that they are really going after the SF or Quads.
In reality, the best way to do it would probably be to look at the average number of plays necessary to hit that SF, determine the probability of hitting the RF in that number of plays, assuming Optimal Strategy, multiply that probability by the overall return that the RF represents (base + Progressive) and then factor that number into the overall return. Again, that's if you're not playing this a ton. If you believe that you will find such a play and play it to the extent that the RF actually becomes expected in the number of plays you will make, lifetime, then I would argue that you at least include the Base Pay on the Royal.
That's why I certainly argue for including the Base Pays for the 8 QH, at a minimum. I've actually seen Eight, but it was on the flat-top Quick Hits, not the Progressive game. I probably am expected to have seen 8QH on the QHP machine by now (even though I haven't), I've probably made over 200,000 plays on QHP, lifetime, so I include the 8 QH. I should not have seen the 9QH by now, though.
Quote:
The thing to keep in mind is that including the entire contribution to the return of an event that is less likely than the event that you're 'going for' can negatively affect the bottom line for any single attempt. However, including it will lower your play number letting you 'go for' it more often. The more often you can make the same +EV play, the sooner you realize long term profits. Theoretically.
Right. In my opinion, it's all about whether you want to define a short-term expectation or a long-term expectation. If you want to define a session expectation, then figure out how many plays it should take to hit the desired outcome, then determine the probability of hitting the longer-shot outcome based on that number of trials, and multiply it by the overall ER of the longer shot outcome to get a, 'Session,' expected return for that outcome.
Again, if this is going to be a long-term play for you to be looking for these machines at +ER, then you could always include the full amount of those longer shot outcomes, particularly 8QH in your ER, because with enough total plays, you're expected to hit it at some point. That's why the 9QH is a bit different, in my opinion, even if you pursue this play at +ER at every opportunity, I don't know that you ever reach a total amount of plays where hitting the 9QH becomes an expected result. It would take a tremendous amount of plays just to have a 50% probability of hitting it.
The other problem with session expectations is that you may have a combination of elements (i.e. 5QH, 6QH and 7QH) that put the overall play at over 100% ER, but hitting the 5QH might drop you back down under 100% ER. How do you look at that? If it is the combination, rather than any one result putting you at +ER, to such an extent that hitting any one of them would drop you under 100% ER, then the most likely result is to eventually hit the 5QH which would necessitate that you stop playing. In this event, if this isn't going to be a long-term play for you, then you might choose not to play unless Any individual progressive puts you at over 100% ER, based on the Base Returns.
If it is a long-term play, though, even in combinations in which it takes all three to put you at over 100% ER, eventually you would hit either the 6QH or 7QH prior to hitting the 5QH, despite the greater likelihood of hitting the 5QH in any individual session.
Robert215
Hand Paid Quick Hit Jackpots
Please allow me to join this established thread :PThe distinction between the idea of a 'short term' expectation and 'long term' expectation (quoting from the messages above) is indeed very intriguing.
This reminds me of some discussions for table games about whether you do have the advantage on every hand or not (since 'in the long run we're all dead'), and how one should treat his/hers entire life as one single long session.
If I'm not mistaken, what Peter Liston did was what Mission described as the 'long term' expectation, using exponential approximation for Probability{NOT hitting within n spins} = (1-p)^n with extremely low p and large n.
I guess he took n = one cycle length = 1/p as a reference point to see if it's there's an advantage or not, comparing the jackpot (including the increase during these future n spins) to n * Bet * HE.
Does this sound reasonable?
Besides that, similar to what camapl pointed out, I'm also confused by the calculation shown at the end of the very first page(post) of this thread:
The increases (from the base of jackpots) are:
$2000
$1025
$150
$125
$15
The increase to ER is:
(15 * 0.004347826086956522) + (125 * 0.0007524454477050414) + (150 * 0.00010721561059290232) + (1025 * 0.00001141331020235799) + (2000 * .0000004822530864197531) = 0.18801856298666977
The new ER should be: 0.18801856298666977 + .8805 = 1.0685185629866698 or 106.85185629866698%
My question is, it seems that 0.18801856298666977 is the DOLLAR AMOUNT increased PER SPIN, not yet a percentage per dollar bet.
That is, I think $0.18801856298666977 / $1.50 ~= 12.535% is the increase in expected return.
One can then add this 12.535% to the base return of 88.05% (which already includes the jackpot base amount).
Does this make sense?
I have no idea why that 6.8~6.9% advantage was 'confirmed' by the simulation.
Mission146
Please allow me to join this established thread :P
The distinction between the idea of a 'short term' expectation and 'long term' expectation (quoting from the messages above) is indeed very intriguing.
This reminds me of some discussions for table games about whether you do have the advantage on every hand or not (since 'in the long run we're all dead'), and how one should treat his/hers entire life as one single long session.
If I'm not mistaken, what Peter Liston did was what Mission described as the 'long term' expectation, using exponential approximation for Probability{NOT hitting within n spins} = (1-p)^n with extremely low p and large n.
I guess he took n = one cycle length = 1/p as a reference point to see if it's there's an advantage or not, comparing the jackpot (including the increase during these future n spins) to n * Bet * HE.
Does this sound reasonable?
The distinction between the idea of a 'short term' expectation and 'long term' expectation (quoting from the messages above) is indeed very intriguing.
This reminds me of some discussions for table games about whether you do have the advantage on every hand or not (since 'in the long run we're all dead'), and how one should treat his/hers entire life as one single long session.
If I'm not mistaken, what Peter Liston did was what Mission described as the 'long term' expectation, using exponential approximation for Probability{NOT hitting within n spins} = (1-p)^n with extremely low p and large n.
I guess he took n = one cycle length = 1/p as a reference point to see if it's there's an advantage or not, comparing the jackpot (including the increase during these future n spins) to n * Bet * HE.
Does this sound reasonable?
Yes, and I'm sure he did a better job of it than I did.
Quote:
My question is, it seems that 0.18801856298666977 is the DOLLAR AMOUNT increased PER SPIN, not yet a percentage per dollar bet.
That is, I think $0.18801856298666977 / $1.50 ~= 12.535% is the increase in expected return.
One can then add this 12.535% to the base return of 88.05% (which already includes the jackpot base amount).
Does this make sense?
I have no idea why that 6.8~6.9% advantage was 'confirmed' by the simulation.
That is, I think $0.18801856298666977 / $1.50 ~= 12.535% is the increase in expected return.
One can then add this 12.535% to the base return of 88.05% (which already includes the jackpot base amount).
Does this make sense?
I have no idea why that 6.8~6.9% advantage was 'confirmed' by the simulation.
I believe it is because the Progressive Probabilities and the Base Pays of the jackpots already assume that $1.50 is being bet, so as a result, the increases to the jackpots are still from the standpoint of $1.50 being bet.
Rather than looking at it in dollars and cents, look at the $1.50 as one unit. The 5QH pays 10 Units for 1 Unit and the increase to the Progressives is 10 Units making the pay 20 Units for 1 Unit. The $1.50 amount bet is already assumed, so no additional accounting for it is needed.
Robert215
Rather than looking at it in dollars and cents, look at the $1.50 as one unit. The 5QH pays 10 Units for 1 Unit and the increase to the Progressives is 10 Units making the pay 20 Units for 1 Unit.
yeah, thus the contribution of the increase in expected return (per unit bet) by 5QH should be
10 (unit) * 0.004347826086956522 = 0.043478.. = expected extra return per unit
for the $15 --> $30 in the example.
This 0.043478 is the amount that should be added to the base ER of 0.8805, not the 15*0.004347826086956522
This conversion should be done for all other jackpots increment as well, and this is equivalent to dividing $1.50 afterwards.
I do understand that the ER = 0.8805 already includes the none-jackpot payouts and all the jackpot base amount.
Quick Hit Slot Winners
However, the way that 0.18801856.. was calculated on page 1 indeed has a $ attached to it (the 15, the 125, the 150, the 1025, etc), and I think this bet size should be accounted for.Similarly, I agree with what camapl said earlier (page 3), that
.1195/0.004347826086956522= 27.485
for 5QH is the number of UNITS needed on top of the base = 10 units,
and 10 + 27.485 = 37.485 units ~= $56.23
I'm not questioning your analysis or anything, just a bit confused by the numbers :P
Thanks.
Robert215
Quick Hits Jackpots In Casinos
Edited: oops repeated post