I had asked how VLTs are programmed. I said: > > And is there any truth to the idea, as one of my students > > claimed, that if someone gives up after playing for a long time > > without a payoff, there's a jackpot just waiting for the next > > player? If this were true variable ratio, this would be the case, > > but somehow I doubt it for a VLT.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Kenneth M. Steele helpfully replied: > > If the VLT was programmed on a true VR then passage of time has > no effect on probability of reinforcement. Only responses > count. Basically, the probability of reinforcement should be > constant across responses. > > A better schedule for the house might be a mix of the following.. > A progressive variable ratio (a schedule in which the VR > requirement is increased with each successive reinforcement) > with a clock which decreases the requirement in the absence of > responding. I hadn't meant to suggest that the passage of time was involved. But if it was programmed on VR, then if one produces many responses without payout, the probability of a payout must rise (i.e. you must be getting to the end of a long ratio). So if one player gives up, it means that the next player would have a better chance. Because of this, on reflection, I doubt that this is how it's done. There's another schedule, called a random ratio, which seems more likely. This reinforces each response with a preset probability of winning. However, the critical feature is that the probability is the same regardless of how many previous responses you make (like a coin flip). So I'd bet (yes!) that this is the schedule that's used. In response to Mike Scoles on this, I'd say that probability does change with VR responses (you get some information from prior responses), so it's not a "gambler's fallacy". But this would be the case for programming on a random ratio, where hitting the jackpot on any response is completely independent of events on previous trials. With reference to Linda Woolf's speculation that playing a "hot" machine is an effective strategy, I'd bet (again!) that this is probably superstitious behaviour in the Skinnerian sense, for which gambling provides ideal circumstances. However, I suppose it's possible that some machines are programmed for a more generous payout than others. And I'm puzzled by her reference to "kicking back for free sodas and a boat ride". Here the terminals are always in sleazy bars, where the word "free" isn't in their vocabulary, much less sodas or boat rides. I can see that some serious first-hand research on this question is called for. Wonder if I can get a grant to do it? How about if I offer them double their money back if the research pays off? -Stephen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at: http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
