Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Volatility, House Edge and Prize Structure of Gambling Games

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Gambling Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study used simulations to examine the effect of prize structure on the outcome volatility and the number of winners of various game configurations. The two most common prize structures found in gambling games are even money payoff games (bet $1; win $2) found on most table games and multilevel prizes structures found in gambling machine games. Simulations were set up to examine the effect of prize structure on the long-term outcomes of these games. Eight different prize structures were compared in terms of the number of winners and volatility. It was found that the standard table game and commercial gambling machines produced fairly high numbers of short term winners (1 h), but few long term winners (50 h). It was found that the typical even money game set up produced the lowest level of volatility. Of the multilevel prize structures examined, the three simulations based on commercial gambling machines were the least volatile. The results are examined in terms of the pragmatics of game design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note this assumes a speed of one spin per 6 s. Both the spin rate and house edge estimate are fairly conservative figures. Some machines can be played faster and some machines take a larger house edge.

References

  • Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 31–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Gambling Digest. (2007). Canadian partnership for responsible gambling downloaded November 30, 2009, from www.cprg.ca/articles/Canadian_Gambling_Digest_2005_2006.pdf.

  • Cardoza, A. (1997). How to win at gambling. New York: Cardoza Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Counter, A., & Davey, B. (2006). What is the Ontario problem gambling helpline (OPGH)? Paper presented at the conference of the Responsible Gambling Council (Ontario), Toronto. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from www.rgco.org/articles/anne_counter_brad_davey_discovery_2006.pdf.

  • Delfabbro, H. H., & Winefield, A. H. (1999). Poker-machine gambling: An analysis of within session characteristics. British Journal of Psychology, 90(3), 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, M. (1996). Why ‘slots’ equals ‘grind’ in any language: The cross-cultural popularity of the slot machine. In J. McMillen (Ed.), Gambling cultures: Studies in history and interpretation (pp. 152–166). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, M., Hinchy, J., England, S. L., & Fabre, J. (1992). On the determinants of persistent gambling behaviour. I. High frequency poker machine players. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 237–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, M. R., MacLin, O. H., & Daugherty, D. (2006). An evaluation of response allocations to concurrently available slot machine simulations. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 232–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dorion, J. P., & Nicki, R. M. (2001). Epidemiology of problem gambling in Prince Edward Island: A Canadian microcosm. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 413–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, N., Smith, D., & Thomas, T. (2004). Electronic gaming machines: Are they the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling? Addiction, 100, 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernkvist, M. (2009). Creating player appeal: Management of technological innovation and changing pattern of industrial leadership in the U.S. gaming machine manufacturing industry, 1965–2005. Goteberg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • G2E. (2009). Preview to the 2009 Global Gaming Expo, Las Vegas. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1go7o/G2EPreview2009/resources/1.htm.

  • Harrigan, K. A. (2007). Slot machine structural characteristics: Distorted player views of payback percentages. Journal of Gambling Issues, (20). Downloaded January 9, 2007, from www.camh.net/egambling.

  • Harrigan, K. A., & Dixon, M., (2009). PAR Sheets, probabilities, and slot machine play: Implications for problem and non-problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23. http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue23/06harrigan.html.

  • Haruvy, E., Erev, L., & Sonsino, D. (2001). The medium prizes paradox: Evidence from a simulated casino. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22(3), 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IGT. (2009). Slotline. Show Edition, November 2009. Nevada: IGT.

  • Kilby, J., Fox, J., & Lucas, A. F. (2004). Casino operations management (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, A., & Eadington, W.R. (2007). Bright ideas: “Knowledge should defeat fear”—understanding the high stakes game of Baccarat—Part II. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from www.urbino.net/bright.cfm?specificBright=%E2%80%9CKnowledge%20Should%20Defeat%20Fear%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%93%20Understanding%20the%20high%20stakes%20game%20of%20Baccarat%20-%20Part%20II.

  • Mizerski, D., Jolley, B., & Mizerski, K. (2002). Disputing the “crack cocaine of gambling” label for electronic gaming machines. Paper presented at the National Association for Gambling Studies, Sydney.

  • OLG. (2010). Lotto 649. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from http://www.olg.ca/lotteries/games/howtoplay.do?game=lotto649.

  • Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries. Report no. 10. Canberra, Australia: AusInfo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schull, N. D. (2005). Digital gambling: The coincidence of desire and design. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 597, 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N. E., & Ferentzy, P. (2010). The natural life history of a lottery: The importance of large wins in the establishment and survival of a lottery. International Gambling Studies, 10(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N. E., & Horbay, R. (2003). Doubling revisited: The mathematical and psychological effect of betting strategy. Gambling Research, 15, 16–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N. E., & Horbay, R. (2004). How do slot machines and other electronic gambling machines actually work? Journal of Gambling Issue, (11), 10–50. http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue11/index.html.

  • Urbanoski, K. A., & Rush, B. R. (2006). Characteristics of people seeking treatment for problem gambling in Ontario: Trends from 1998–2002. Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues, 16, 77–97 [Online]. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from www.camh.net/egambling/issue16.

  • Weatherly, J. N., & Brandt, A. E. (2004). Participants’ sensitivity to percentage payback and credit value when playing a slot-machine simulation. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support to CAMH for salary of scientists and infrastructure has been provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (OMHLTC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Epidemiological Research Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell Street, T524, Toronto, ON, M5S 2S1, Canada

    Nigel E. Turner

Authors
  1. Nigel E. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nigel E. Turner.

Additional information

The project involved simulations and therefore did not require an ethics review. The ideas expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), the University of Toronto or OMHLTC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, N.E. Volatility, House Edge and Prize Structure of Gambling Games. J Gambl Stud 27, 607–623 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-011-9238-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-011-9238-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation