For VLTs, wins and losses typically appear as credits or dollars on the video terminal screen. As play progresses, credits/dollars fluctuate up or down until reduced to zero or the player redeems the credits. slot machines are 'coin-in, coin-out'; the winnings are paid in coins immediately and directly to the player.' Slot machines seem simple enough. Pull a handle, the reels spin and either you win or lose. That’s the basic experience for the player but ‘under the hood‘ there are important differences between several types of devices that are often identified as ‘slot machines‘.THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SLOT MACHINES, ‘BINGO’ MACHINES AND VLTs. Slot machines seem simple enough. Pull a handle, the reels spin and either you win or lose. By law, only class iii slot machines can actually be called “slot machines”. All class ii games will be referred to by another name. Common names for class ii slot machines include Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs) and Bingo Liners (machines programmed to pay out like a bingo card game).
What’s the difference between VLTs and slot machines?
VLTs and slot machines are both considered electronic gaming devices. In Saskatchewan, VLTs are located in licensed bars and restaurants with a lounge endorsement and are ‘coin in, ticket out’ devices. Revenues from VLTs are split between government (85 per cent) and the site contractors (15 per cent). Slot machines are located at the provinces six SIGA casinos as well as Casinos Moose Jaw and Regina. Revenues from slot machines go to Saskatchewan First Nations, the government’s General Revenue Fund and to help support charitable causes.
Related Questions
I just read that article about the purported difference between slots and VLTs. It is very wrong.
The WoO site has about the same information posted as part of Ask the Wizard: Non-Casino Games - FAQ under the question beginning with In New York state they have Video Lottery Terminals (VLT’s) at off-track betting spots.: VLT’s are glorified pull-tab games. There is a predetermined pool of outcomes. Also wrong? if so, in what way?
I'm not sure how I feel about the VLT system. There is definitely something that I don't like about it, but I can't put my finger on it. It just doesn't work how I feel that it is 'supposed' to work.
It might... If VLT slots operate that way, it means there is just one jackpot, say, per period of time, ten second prizes, and so on. Whereas on a regular, random slot machine in Vegas, the odds of hitting a jackpot are the same for every pull.
I'm not sure how I feel about the VLT system. There is definitely something that I don't like about it, but I can't put my finger on it. It just doesn't work how I feel that it is 'supposed' to work.
I think Nareed nailed it.
The WoO site has about the same information posted as part of Ask the Wizard: Non-Casino Games - FAQ under the question beginning with In New York state they have Video Lottery Terminals (VLT’s) at off-track betting spots.: VLT’s are glorified pull-tab games. There is a predetermined pool of outcomes. Also wrong? if so, in what way?
No, that part is correct -- about the NY state games. But pull-tab VLTs aren't Class II; they don't have anything to do with tribal gaming necessarily, as they're operated both by NY state and WA tribal, among others; they are not 'preprogramed (sic) to payout at specific times'; and they are not all linked together playing from the same pool of outcomes.
The following paragraph conflates the operation of actual Class II bingo-based games with the operation of pull-tab based Class III games:
VLTs are usually equated more with games like bingo, pull-tabs, scratch-offs, or lotto than they are with slot machines. This is because there are a pre-determined number of winners, and players are competing with each other for a prize rather than against the house. There is also not necessarily a winner in each game.
That's just a mess. And it also doesn't distinguish between finite-pool pull-tab VLTs in NY with RNG-based VLTs in, say, Oregon, West Virginia, Rhode Island, or Delaware. In fact, the VLT games in a vast majority of jurisdictions that regulate them would be called 'slot machines' in Nevada or New Jersey. I can drive five minutes from my house and play real, RNG-driven video poker on an Oregon Lottery VLT.
For pull-tab type games, though, I don't really see a distinction.
... For pull-tab type games, though, I don't really see a distinction.
Wouldn't the pull-tab type games be a special case where previous results influence future EV? If a particular machine has been played all day without a significant payout, would that mean it's 'more due,' something that doesn't apply to RNG machines?
Thanks for the answer, MathExtremist, and a tip of my hat to you for using 'conflate!'
Wouldn't the pull-tab type games be a special case where previous results influence future EV? If a particular machine has been played all day without a significant payout, would that mean it's 'more due,' something that doesn't apply to RNG machines?
What I meant was, I don't see the difference between class II VLT and class III VLT (is there such a thing as class III VLT?)
What I meant was, I don't see the difference between class II VLT and class III VLT (is there such a thing as class III VLT?)
I get from what's been posted and referenced in this thread that Class II VLT's have a finite set of results. Each wager gets you one of those results, and the particular result is then no longer available from the pool. Periodically the pool is refreshed with an additional batch of possible results. The state/tribe knows that if the entire pool is sold they will have an exact, known profit since composition of the prize pool is known. Obviously, there is no incentive for the state/tribe to stop taking wagers even when the pool has little to no EV for the buyers. Class III VLT's employ an RNG selection from a pay/probability table, but prizes awarded do not change the EV for the next wager. It is possible that the state/tribe will take a loss on a particular machine, but like other games they rely on the long-term return to mean results and, of course, the 'house edge.' That's how I understand the difference. I could be wrong!
I get from what's been posted and referenced in this thread that Class II VLT's have a finite set of results. Each wager gets you one of those results, and the particular result is then no longer available from the pool. Periodically the pool is refreshed with an additional batch of possible results. The state/tribe knows that if the entire pool is sold they will have an exact, known profit since composition of the prize pool is known. Obviously, there is no incentive for the state/tribe to stop taking wagers even when the pool has little to no EV for the buyers. Class III VLT's employ an RNG selection from a pay/probability table, but prizes awarded do not change the EV for the next wager. It is possible that the state/tribe will take a loss on a particular machine, but like other games they rely on the long-term return to mean results and, of course, the 'house edge.' That's how I understand the difference. I could be wrong!
Sorry, what I meant was, I don't see the difference between class II pull-tabs and class III pull-tabs. Are class-III pull-tabs an oxymoron?
What I meant was, I don't see the difference between class II VLT and class III VLT (is there such a thing as class III VLT?)
It's the opposite; there really isn't such a thing as a Class II VLT; those are usually called 'bingo machines' or. Class II games are those that are operated by tribes without needing a tribal-state compact. Pull-tab or finite-pool VLTs are Class III. That was the holding of several Fed. Circuit cases in the early 90s after tribes, who were naturally trying to get away with as much slot-like gameplay as they could after IGRA but without compacting, were experimenting with lots of different permutations of EGM gameplay. It's a fascinating history, one I recently had occasion to research in great detail. The bottom line is that EGMs using central determination and finite pools (video pull-tabs) are all Class III under IGRA:
http://openjurist.org/14/f3d/633/cabazon-band-of-mission-indians-v-national-indian-gaming-commission-j