Slot games – as the most popular games of chance in present days – have been investigated in problem gambling research from various perspectives: psychological, technical-engineering, mathematical-statistical, and ethical.

Such a focus is justified, given that important risk factors for a problematic gambling behavior were found as associated with slots.

From the ethical perspective, in a paper in Journal of Gambling Issues (2014) I have analyzed the secrecy on the PAR sheets of the slot games on which their producers persevere and argued that it is not rationally justified, while the exposure of the parametric configuration of any game of chance is an ethical obligation.

Even though fairness of the games in any respect falls within the ethics of gambling, official regulations about slots have not changed essentially over the last two decades in any jurisdiction. However, fairness is not only a commercial (somehow optional) attribute of a service/product, but in the slots case has implications for problem gambling, and therefore regulating bodies should take into account the fairness criteria.

 Slots as a special game of chance

 Slots have a special status among the games of chance, just because their parametric configuration is kept secret by their producers. Despite this non-transparency, slot machines have gained and maintained a high popularity among gamblers.

The PAR (Probability Accounting Reports) sheets, exposing the parameters of the design of slot machines and probabilities associated with the winning combinations are kept secret by game producers, and the lack of data regarding the configuration of a machine prevents people from computing probabilities and other statistical indicators. In brief, it prevents gamblers from playing informed.

The only available statistical indicator for slots is the RTP (Return to Player or payback percentage). Most producers of the slot games display the RTP (as constrained by local regulations or by free will); however, this indicator is subject to various misconceptions and misinterpretations for a wide range of players.

Slots games come with other several risk factors for developing problem gambling, and the most striking is the near-miss effect. There are several myths and misconceptions about slots circulating among slot players.

Valuable insights from the slots design and analyses of their relationship with the risk factors in problem gambling have been provided over the last two decades with the works of Harrigan, Dixon, and Turner. These include how the parametric design is manipulated to create the false (engineered) near misses, which influence the player to continue spinning the machine.

Fairness of gambling

The concept of fairness in gambling is broader and has multiple facets. We can talk about fairness of the games being truly random (1), fairness in regard to payout (2), fairness in regard to the transparency of information about the games (3), and fairness in regard to description and advertising (4).

In regard to the fairness no. (1) – which I called in a past paper ‘technical fairness’ –randomness is employed in the physical processes of the games with the role of ensuring fairness of the games, and this fairness has two facets:  

a) Fairness of the game with respect to all its players: No player should have any advantage over the others with respect to the possibility of determining or predicting the outcomes of the game; and b) Fairness of the operator: Outcomes that are theoretically possible in the same measure should remain equally possible in practice. These two principles say that chance has to be effectively and fairly served, and the luck factor has to be decisive in the games of chance, as their name suggests. They pertain to the functional and ethical roles of randomness in gambling, and these roles are fulfilled in modern electronic games by the RNGs (Random Number Generators).

In regard to fairness no. (2), the house’s profit in gambling comes from a difference between the payout odds and the true odds. This difference (in whatever amount) is not unethical in itself: Gambling is a product (or service) like any other on the market, and as long as any commercial product is fairly sold with a surplus price, why should gambling be different? Hence we may fairly call this type of fairness as ‘commercial fairness’. Yet two or more games can be compared with respect to their commercial fairness by the amount of this difference. Also an amount of this difference beyond some “common sense” or otherwise defined and accepted limits can qualify a game as commercially unfair.

In regard to fairnesses no. (2) and no. (3), they are not direct attributes of the games themselves, but of the attitudes of people dealing with them in the gambling industry (operators, casinos, affiliates, websites, and other media promoting them).

How fair are the slot games?

 If taking into account the secrecy on their parametric configuration, slot games are unfair as gambling products, once the players are prevented from playing them informed. I have argued in 2014 that the hypothetical reasons for such secrecy do not submit to a logical analysis:

1. The trade secret and intellectual ownership reasons fail against the generality of the math formulas and equations used in the inner design of the game;

2. The fear of losing players who face the real odds of winning attached to their games, fails against the a priori expectation of the players for low and very low odds of winning and against the lottery example, in which lottery players continue to play against the lowest odds of winning.

Given the near miss effect and other psychological effects (like the illusion of control), which are intentionally embedded in the constitution of a slots game, they are again unfair.

As for their commercial fairness, analyses of existent PAR sheets proved that the difference between the probabilities of winning some top prizes and their associated payout rates are huge, while these probabilities compete with the minute odds of winning lottery jackpots. I am currently working on defining the adequate mathematical measure for such commercial fairness, involving the two factors: probability of winning and payout rate.

Problem gambling and the ethics of slots

 Playing fair or unfair games is after all a matter of free will for the consumers, even more so in the situation when some aspects are known beforehand, as is the case with the secrecy on the parametric configuration of slots.

The concern of the researchers in problem gambling is that the risk factors associated with slots are related and are sometimes the effect of the unethical aspects of this game.

The academic literature on the near-miss effect and illusion of control shows clearly these relationships. Besides, playing informed is itself a norm of responsible gambling.

In a recent paper (2024), I argued that the concern itself of the players for the technical fairness of a game is problematic from the problem gambling perspective: The effort and resources allocated by players for overcoming such concerns are not justified when weighed against the much more certain harms produced by a problematic gambling behavior, in particular gambling-specific cognitive distortions. In questioning technical fairness of the slot games, players forget that they can fall prey to the illusions, fallacies, and misconceptions related to slots and perhaps it is better to play an unfair game rather than to expose oneself to the problem gambling risks.

While regulating bodies and legislation answered well the concerns for technical fairness by establishing the obligation of every casino to have their software (and RNG) tested and audited by an independent expert third party, no major step has been taken in regard to imposing the transparency of the essential information regarding the configuration of slot games.

One of the possible reasons is that players did not express such concern aloud or in an organized mode; however, the governmental policy makers should consider the opinions of experts and researchers  rather than players in the gambling domain.

This situation reflects a gap in communication between the gambling regulating bodies and the academic community of gambling studies or insufficient influence from the latter side.

References:

Bărboianu, C. (2014). Is the secrecy of the parametric configuration of slot machines rationally justified? The exposure of the mathematical facts of games of chance as an ethical obligation. Journal of Gambling Issues, 29 (1).

Barboianu, C. (2024). Non-mathematical dimensions of randomness: Implications for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 36(1).

Dixon, M. J., Harrigan, K. A., Jarick, M., MacLaren, V., Fugelsang, J. A., & Sheepy, E. (2011). Psychophysiological arousal signatures of near-misses in slot machine play. International Gambling Studies, 11(3), 393-407.

Gainsbury, S., Parke, J., & Suhonen, N. (2013). Consumer attitudes towards Internet gambling: Perceptions of responsible gambling policies, consumer protection, and regulation of online gambling sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 235-245.

Griffiths, M. (1991). Psychobiology of the near-miss in fruit machine gambling. The Journal of psychology, 125(3), 347-357.

Harrigan, K. A., & Dixon, M. (2009). PAR Sheets, probabilities, and slot machine play Implications for problem and nonproblem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, Vol. 23, 81–110.

Harrigan, K. A. (2007). Slot machine structural characteristics: Distorted player views of payback percentages. Journal of Gambling Issues, Vol. 20, 215-234.

Harrigan, K. A. (2008). Slot Machine Structural Characteristics: Creating Near Misses Using High Award Symbol Ratios. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, Vol. 6, 353-368.

Harrigan, K. A. (2009). Slot machines: Pursuing responsible gaming practices for virtual reels and near misses. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, Vol. 7, 68-83.

Leonard, C. A., & Williams, R. J. (2016). The relationship between gambling fallacies and problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 30(6), 694.

Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Gambling addiction and the evolution of the  “near miss”. Addiction Research and Theory, 12(5), 407-411.

Probability Theory Guide and Applications. Slots. https://probability.infarom.ro/slots.html

Turner, N. E., & Horbay, R. (2004). How do slot machines and other electronic gambling machines actually work? Journal of Gambling Issues, Vol. 11.

Image credit: youthlab.id

A PhilScience project.