I actually got this wrong thinking about it, 0.08% would amount to 1,250 attempts on average to win the 100k. At $100 per go, $125,000 to win 100,000. I think, but just on my phone and haven't really thought about it much!
Two and three would be most definitely legal. Four and five would be legal as well as you're just doing separate games at the same time. Six is legit too, for the same reasons as four and five, as is seven. All of them are legal.
Briefly scanned replies, haven't even read the original post, simply because I'm replying to this. A casino is different to the lottery, we don't use random number generators behind the screen. You see it in action, the dispensers and what not. The only thing that is unfair about the casino is house favor, and the potential chance that one of our staff members alters the contents of the dispensers to give yourself or themselves an advantage. Which I really hope does not happen. It's 10x easier to scam people in a lottery than it is through dispensers, as they're logged in game.
Very well, I get where is the problem now. So, let's recapitulate. Above from the particular word used (lottery/raffle/whatever) to call the game, which I don't really care about (and that's why I insisted so much in defining what is meant with "lottery"), the real no-go is this: when either the prize, or the probability-per-token, or both, depend on the number of players and on the amount of tokens each one of them purchased. And this is a no-go, mostly because it would be a pain for staff to guard against fraud. So, for a game to be allowed, the prize and the probability-per-token must be clearly defined prior to the game. And, on top of this, as it has been clarified in this thread, the chances are to be determined solely in-game (no use of external random generators). Am I correct? If I am, then I want to propose what in my opinion would make rules much more clear. I propose to substitute this: with this: This new rule includes the old one and makes clear what it is that makes a game illegal. With the old rule, someone could invent a weird game, that has nothing to do with a lottery or raffle, where however the prize and probability depend on a number of factors out of control. And that weird game would be legal, following the old rule, even if it is very prone to scam. With the old rule, a game seems illegal or legal only if looks like a raffle or not. With the new rule, a game is illegal or legal if it is prone to scam or not. I showed you with my game (7): it looks a lot like raffle, at least the player's experience is very similar, however it's perfectly legit. My phrasing might not be perfect and you are more than welcome to improve it, but please don't say "let's just stick with the old rule". The old rule is way more prone to loopholes than my attempt. P.S.: Yes, my attempt is longer than the old rule, but that's not a valid reason to just toss it away. If we were to judge rules only for their length, then the best rules would be no rule at all.
*facepalm* Making the rules too strict will make finding loopholes much easier. A general idea of what isn't allowed is a perfect rule to have in place. For god's sake please stop trying to get this suggestion approved. Players should have enough common sense to know what is and isn't rigged, or able to be rigged when it comes to gambling.
I agree with part 2 of your suggested rule, I 50/50 agree with part 1. Casinos these days do not tell you that you have an average 95-97% return on roulette tables (That's the return on my local IRL casino, was offered a job hence why I know). If they advertised this, they'd have less people play (most would still play but not all). I'm definitely willing to make it compulsory to tell people the dispenser contents, upon REQUEST, however. Then the players can calculate their probabilities assuming they have some basic to moderate mathematics skills (Depending on game complexity). I'll be honest, some games in my casino are so complex that it's very challenging to calculate the win rate, profitability, etc. Some are realistically "impossible" to calculate, games that are non-dispenser-result based and more based on where the item lands, unless you run 10,000 trials then you'll have to guess. Even so 10,000 trials won't be accurate, so I'm all for a rule about being honest with statistics where possible, but I dont want to say "you have a 1/9 chance to win x6" because that doesnt sound good, I am willing to say that there is 1 diamond in the dispenser and 8 dirt, the diamond results in x6 bet. They can figure it out if they so wish.
Wow. I haven't even read everything that everyone's said but just how much everyone is arguing over this shows how unclear this is, because everyone has their own opinion on what the rule means, or what some definition means, or how you can interpret a certain word. This is exactly why the rule needs to be made clearer.
You are welcome to find loopholes in my phrasing, if you can find, it will surely be considered a constructive critic aimed at improving the situation. But if you don't, why would I ever consider you comment worth of attention? My attempt, as I showed, includes the old rule and thus makes illegal not only raffles, but everything that can be considered an attempted scam. My attempt is less prone to loopholes than the old rule, so please shut up if you don't have anything constructive to say, you're just polluting this thread with unnecessary hatred. I think this change would comply: And What about this: But I'm not fully convinced. How would you rephrase it?
Unfortunately quotes don't quote quotes. I was saying perhaps make it compulsory to be honest about dispenser contents upon request, not purposely post the statistics BEFORE they inquire about it. Your 2nd point will take the above into account, if they ask about it then I'll happily say (and I do currently) that dispenser A contains X of Y, Dispenser B contains Y of X, Dispenser C contains X of Z, etc, etc. If they ask. EDIT: After reading the suggestion properly, didn't realize how off-topic we/I am. Sure define raffles better, but the definition doesn't have to be complex. I run games that involve 3+ players at my casino, but they're not raffles.
The definition doesn't have to be complex. This suggestion is just suggesting there needs to be one. I've suggested a basic one in my first post, if you have any better ideas reply with a better definition.
Like... instead of putting signs up with the contents of dispensers, I'd rather just tell them once they ask.
What a lot of people are getting at is that in-game casinos calculate things in-game (such as how much grass spawns when you use bonemeal) as opposed to using random number generators outside the game. How about we change Clause 2.3 - Player Run Lotteries Any player run lottery is disallowed and will be treated as attempted scams or actual scamming depending on the situation. This includes any type of raffle or lottery that requires a buy in. to Clause 2.3 - Player Run Lotteries Any player run lottery is disallowed and will be treated as attempted scams or actual scamming depending on the situation. This includes any type of raffle or lottery that requires a buy in and calculates the winner(s) outside the server It's adding in an extra 7 words, and the rule is still very simple. But it clears up the problem of in-game casinos possibly being illegal. What do all of you think? Should I edit the suggestion to include this definition?
I don't see how it can be argued that this rule is actually unclear... it's a rule that has been successfully used and applied for years. Not weeks, not months, years. If this were unclear, logic dictates that this issue would have come up before and stuck around. To me this simply seems to be trying to play on the fact the word "lottery" has multiple definitions that could be applied, even though it seems that everyone on this suggestion knows what the rule is intended to mean.
It wouldn't be a big deal to add an extra 7 words though. Most people have the common sense to know where the rule should/shouldn't apply, but there might be a few people who lack that common sense and would benefit from the rule being that tiny bit more specific.
