Buzzwords

[Kirk Bevins]

The quiz machine at our pub was updated last week with more games and updated versions. One of the new games is called Buzzwords.

They give you 9 letters and you have to make as many words as you can from it at least 2 letters long in 3 minutes. You have to reach a certain number of points to win a prize (increments of £1 for various points stages). If you get the 9 letter word, you get 50 bonus points. You can also choose to change grid but it will cost you 10 seconds.

Now I thought I'd be quite good at this and looking at the leaderboard, I was top of the 9 letter words offered but nowhere near the number of words offered table but I now have the highest score on the local's machine. My best number of words offered is 81 and the best on the machine is 94. I watched the lady who has the record and she can press the buttons quick (as can I) but the difference is her tactic. She has never got a 9 letter word and just goes for loads of 4s and 5s and then quickly presses new grid, loses 10 seconds, but then continues with 4s and 5s. I worked out it's 40 points for a 4 letter word, 50 for a 5 letter word and so on, thus rendering this 50 points bonus for a 9 letter word pretty useless as the time it may take you to get the 9 you could have offered 3 5 letter words and be on a higher score.

The machine tries to screw you over by setting ridiculous high target scores for the £1 or indeed give you shit letters. I had MOCKINGLY on the machine today which was so difficult to get many words from. Even pressing new grid I got a ridiculous grid with three Os, a D a Y and some other junk.

Today I was happy I got a decent grid; the letters making GARNISHES and it even accepted SHEARINGS from me. 100 bonus points in the bag and I was really going quickly with my words (it doesn't allow rude words so ARSE wasn't valid). So many 3s, 4s, 5s and 6s from this and when my time was out it told me I had only offered 61 words. I have no idea how the woman who has the record managed 94. I reckon scrabble players would be ace at this as I try some 4s that aren't valid and end up looking for 7s and 8s. Really fun game though.

[Charlie Reams]

Sounds a bit like SooTwist, a game I wrote many years ago which was basically an advanced version of the crappy old Yahoo game TextTwist (I think it was a Yahoo game). I think at least a few people reading this will have spent a few happy hours Twisting their Soo.

[David O'Donnell]

Probably a bit of cheating going on. It's a pity because it raises the standard needed to actually win out on these machines.

[Charlie Reams]

Probably a bit of cheating going on. It's a pity because it raises the standard needed to actually win out on these machines.

How would you cheat? Genuine question, I haven't played quiz machines much. You could write a program but it seems like the limiting factor is speed of entry anyway, so that wouldn't be a great help.

[David O'Donnell]

Probably a bit of cheating going on. It's a pity because it raises the standard needed to actually win out on these machines.

How would you cheat? Genuine question, I haven't played quiz machines much. You could write a program but it seems like the limiting factor is speed of entry anyway, so that wouldn't be a great help.

I agree that one of the limiting factors is speed of entry but another is availability of words. There is probably a significant time difference between "oh yeah, hearings" and simply "hearings". That way all you'd need to cheat is some sort of anagram maker.

So, if we accept cheating as a method, either:

a) speed of entry and availability of words via a hand held device that can plug directly into the machine, or;
b)availability of words via hand held device and manual entry.

Either way, in the right hands, they'd have an unfair advantage on Kirk.

[Kirk Bevins]

She wasn't cheating - I've seen her play it loads. Also, if there were no cameras/bar staff around then it would be interesting to whack a solver open and just pound out all the words quickly, then when complete do new grid and continue. Would be interesting to see if it's remotely possible to get anywhere near the jackpot.

[David O'Donnell]

She wasn't cheating -

Try and fuck her then cos she sounds awesome.

[Jon Corby]

Yup, we have a Scrabble program on a mate's iPod touch that we use to cheat our little balls off on this game. You can basically take it for one prize (£3 is our max) if it's had a bit of play, and then the prize goes right out of reach (3,500 points or so). I think it's actually gone off the machine now.

[Ryan Taylor]

Yup, we have a Scrabble program on a mate's iPod touch that we use to cheat our little balls off on this game. You can basically take it for one prize (£3 is our max) if it's had a bit of play, and then the prize goes right out of reach (3,500 points or so). I think it's actually gone off the machine now.

I always thought you was an honest man, Jon Corby.

[Jon Corby]

Yup, we have a Scrabble program on a mate's iPod touch that we use to cheat our little balls off on this game. You can basically take it for one prize (£3 is our max) if it's had a bit of play, and then the prize goes right out of reach (3,500 points or so). I think it's actually gone off the machine now.

I always thought you was an honest man, Jon Corby.

Oh, I am. I... er... just didn't see it mentioned anywhere in the rules that I couldn't use a solver

(Problem is (and speaking as someone who did this for a number of years) - if a machine CAN be exploited, then it definitely WILL be. So you either have to accept that and steer clear, or join in and take your share!)

[Jon O'Neill]

Yup, we have a Scrabble program on a mate's iPod touch that we use to cheat our little balls off on this game. You can basically take it for one prize (£3 is our max) if it's had a bit of play, and then the prize goes right out of reach (3,500 points or so). I think it's actually gone off the machine now.

I always thought you was an honest man, Jon Corby.

Oh, I am. I... er... just didn't see it mentioned anywhere in the rules that I couldn't use a solver

(Problem is (and speaking as someone who did this for a number of years) - if a machine CAN be exploited, then it definitely WILL be. So you either have to accept that and steer clear, or join in and take your share!)

So does this rule stop at quiz machines?

[Jon Corby]

So does this rule stop at quiz machines?

What rule?

The "if it can be exploited, it will be" one?

Depends. Traditionally quiz machines are harder to exploit - it's easy to chuck out hard/rare questions and enforce very harsh time constraints, plus depending on the structure of the game, it can keep you firmly in its pocket (Cluedo for example can have you spinning forever answering questions for no prize if it wants).

If it were possible on Buzzwords to get the jackpot fairly easily using a solver, people would be doing it. The programmers seem to have thought of it though, and made the targets very reactive to small wins on the previous goes. Of course, I'm basing this just on my own play which probably is less than Kirk or this other lady by the sound of it (btw - does she actually win money, or just hold the records for the most words? If it's the latter, that's kinda pointless) It may chuck the JP out every now and again, but if you can't tell when, then it isn't really "exploitable". As it is, you can, for 50p, get a small win (if there's one available) up to £3. A lot of the time you probably won't even get that. Not really worth the hassle.

So I guess the full rule should be "if it can be exploited [and it's worthwhile] it will be". Connect 4 machines appeared on these pub quiz machines a few months ago, and then disappeared again because they were exploitable (playing perfect Connect 4). If it's doable, and worthwhile, people will do it.

[Jon O'Neill]

That it's okay to cheat if other people cheat?

[Jon Corby]

That it's okay to cheat if other people cheat?

Depends on the circumstances, obviously.

[Jon O'Neill]

That it's okay to cheat if other people cheat?

Depends on the circumstances, obviously.

What particular differences in circumstances between cheating at Buzzwords and, say, cheating against a cheat at Countdown, make one not wrong and one wrong(I assume this is your stance on cheating at online Countdown?)?

[Jon O'Neill]

Hang on, didn't see your edit. Let me read that first.

[Marc Meakin]

Everybody cheats sometimes.

[Jon O'Neill]

Yeah, I'm still puzzled. It seems to me a bit like claiming for whiplash when you get hit in your car, regardless of whether you have it or not. It's difficult to prove either way so you just hold your neck and get a doctor's note for an easy four-figure payout from the insurance company. Just because other people do it doesn't make it right. In fact, it's wrong, because it means premiums will be more expensive for everyone else. Just like they have to reduce the payout of these machines to counteract the shady actions of CHEATS LIKE YOU.

[Marc Meakin]

Yeah, I'm still puzzled. It seems to me a bit like claiming for whiplash when you get hit in your car, regardless of whether you have it or not. It's difficult to prove either way so you just hold your neck and get a doctor's note for an easy four-figure payout from the insurance company. Just because other people do it doesn't make it right. In fact, it's wrong, because it means premiums will be more expensive for everyone else. Just like they have to reduce the payout of these machines to counteract the shady actions of CHEATS LIKE YOU.

Have you never cheated at anything ever in your life.
Even DoD has cheated.
Well he once cheated death anyway.

[Charlie Reams]

I dunno if it is cheating really, when you put a game like that out in a public yet largely anonymous space you fully expect people to win "by any means necessary". I mean, is it cheating to have 10 people stand around and answer the quiz questions, when the machine is clearly designed for a single operator? There's always a temptation to define cheating as "whatever I don't do".

[Jon Corby]

Hang on, didn't see your edit. Let me read that first.

Yeah, don't worry, the edit had nothing to do with what you were asking - I did a pre-emptive edit answering a different question.

To answer this:

What particular differences in circumstances between cheating at Buzzwords and, say, cheating against a cheat at Countdown, make one not wrong and one wrong(I assume this is your stance on cheating at online Countdown?)?

I don't like cheating in a game against another person. Both of you cheating isn't much better, because then you're effectively playing a different game to the one that you're supposed to be playing. Plus also, neither player is likely to be open about their cheating. When I play Buzzwords, I'm basically playing a machine with the aim of getting some money out of it. Sure I guess I'm partially playing against other people who have put their money in, but they might have been cheating for all I know and just not been very good, or anything. I don't know. They're not there. They made a choice to put their money in and have a go, I didn't coerce it out of them with the promise that I'd play fairly. They might even have been playing on their own, while I've got three mates helping me. The machine is already chucking loads of extra variables at them, sometimes it will chuck an easy game, sometimes a hard one. It's just not the same thing. I'm not playing directly against them as such. If I was playing a link-up game of Buzzwords against somebody, cheating wouldn't be okay.

This is fairly obvious though, isn't it?

[Jon O'Neill]

I dunno if it is cheating really, when you put a game like that out in a public yet largely anonymous space you fully expect people to win "by any means necessary". I mean, is it cheating to have 10 people stand around and answer the quiz questions, when the machine is clearly designed for a single operator? There's always a temptation to define cheating as "whatever I don't do".

I think it's a bit rich that Jon Corby waltzes around the forum acting like a beacon of righteousness, castigating people for trying to fudge a numbers game or Hansford a conundrum, and yet he openly cheats quiz machines.

[Jon Corby]

I dunno if it is cheating really, when you put a game like that out in a public yet largely anonymous space you fully expect people to win "by any means necessary". I mean, is it cheating to have 10 people stand around and answer the quiz questions, when the machine is clearly designed for a single operator? There's always a temptation to define cheating as "whatever I don't do".

I think it's a bit rich that Jon Corby waltzes around the forum acting like a beacon of righteousness, castigating people for trying to fudge a numbers game or Hansford a conundrum, and yet he openly cheats quiz machines.

If they were fudging numbers games or Hansfording conundrums on a pub quiz machine to try and win some money, I wouldn't care a jot. It's different when you're playing a game against somebody. Do you really not see that?

[Jon O'Neill]

Hang on, didn't see your edit. Let me read that first.

Yeah, don't worry, the edit had nothing to do with what you were asking - I did a pre-emptive edit answering a different question.

To answer this:

What particular differences in circumstances between cheating at Buzzwords and, say, cheating against a cheat at Countdown, make one not wrong and one wrong(I assume this is your stance on cheating at online Countdown?)?

I don't like cheating in a game against another person. Both of you cheating isn't much better, because then you're effectively playing a different game to the one that you're supposed to be playing. Plus also, neither player is likely to be open about their cheating. When I play Buzzwords, I'm basically playing a machine with the aim of getting some money out of it. Sure I guess I'm partially playing against other people who have put their money in, but they might have been cheating for all I know and just not been very good, or anything. I don't know. They're not there. They made a choice to put their money in and have a go, I didn't coerce it out of them with the promise that I'd play fairly. They might even have been playing on their own, while I've got three mates helping me. The machine is already chucking loads of extra variables at them, sometimes it will chuck an easy game, sometimes a hard one. It's just not the same thing. I'm not playing directly against them as such. If I was playing a link-up game of Buzzwords against somebody, cheating wouldn't be okay.

This is fairly obvious though, isn't it?

Alright, if that's what allows you to sleep at night then fine. I don't think it's okay to cheat because "for all I know they've been cheating", nor because the machine creates a lot of variance itself.

And fwiw think team play is fine, they're pretty much designed to get money from groups of drunken idiots with pockets full of quids.

If they were fudging numbers games or Hansfording conundrums on a pub quiz machine to try and win some money, I wouldn't care a jot. It's different when you're playing a game against somebody. Do you really not see that?

Yes, I do see that, but do you not see that your cheating is affecting people, but instead of affecting one person the effect is diluted across many people?

[Jon Corby]

Just like they have to reduce the payout of these machines to counteract the shady actions of CHEATS LIKE YOU.

No they don't, the machine will adjust whether payouts are 'fair' or 'cheated'. What they really have to do is try and make a machine that isn't exploitable, because people WILL work out how to exploit if it can be done. They manage this pretty well with most games. Buzzwords doesn't lend itself at all well to this kind of machine for this precise reason.

Years ago there was an awesome Telly Addicts quiz game which ended with a game of 'pairs', which you accumulated time and bonuses for during the main game. It was a wicked game, and you always thought you had a reasonable shot at winning (which you did). Nowadays, everybody has a digital camera in their pocket so you just can't have that kind of game anymore. It's a shame, but a fact of life. It's also a lovely thought that you would refuse the easy £5 in order to play the game fairly, but I genuinely don't see it

[Jon O'Neill]

Just like they have to reduce the payout of these machines to counteract the shady actions of CHEATS LIKE YOU.

No they don't, the machine will adjust whether payouts are 'fair' or 'cheated'. What they really have to do is try and make a machine that isn't exploitable, because people WILL work out how to exploit if it can be done. They manage this pretty well with most games. Buzzwords doesn't lend itself at all well to this kind of machine for this precise reason.

Years ago there was an awesome Telly Addicts quiz game which ended with a game of 'pairs', which you accumulated time and bonuses for during the main game. It was a wicked game, and you always thought you had a reasonable shot at winning (which you did). Nowadays, everybody has a digital camera in their pocket so you just can't have that kind of game anymore. It's a shame, but a fact of life. It's also a lovely thought that you would refuse the easy £5 in order to play the game fairly, but I genuinely don't see it

I honestly have never cheated one of these machines and I'd feel like a fucking massive douche if I pulled out a digital camera or word solver to play one. More of a douche than if I tried to fudge a numbers game. (against you, having read this thread).

[Jon O'Neill]

Saying that, in my youth I have kicked the back of one of those 5p machines to get loads of 5ps to fall out the chute. But I'm not saying that was moral. That was just pure theft.

And I do appeal for corners when I know it's a goal kick in football.

[Jon Corby]

Alright, if that's what allows you to sleep at night then fine. I don't think it's okay to cheat because "for all I know they've been cheating", nor because the machine creates a lot of variance itself.

If we're gonna get that anal, perhaps you'd care to quote me the part of the game rules which tells you you can't use a solver on your iPhone.

And fwiw think team play is fine, they're pretty much designed to get money from groups of drunken idiots with pockets full of quids.

What about multiplayer games like Crystal Maze, where you all play separately as Player 1, 2, 3, 4 and accumulate tokens individually for the end game. Is it cheating if I do some games for other players that I'm really good at, and they do some for me, in order to try and win money?

Yes, I do see that, but do you not see that your cheating is affecting people, but instead of affecting one person the effect is diluted across many people?

Yes, very diluted across very many people. But the people who lost before would have already lost their money regardless, and the people who come along after do so knowing that someone else might have just won. You probably know that I used to play fruit machines for a living, so for the most part it's the same deal there - the machine was set to pay at a %age so SOMEBODY was always gonna get the winnings. It's just about knowing when and how to play to ensure that it's you and not someone else. What's the problem with that? Everybody else plays with full knowledge that they might be going on after somebody's won.

[Jon Corby]

I honestly have never cheated one of these machines and I'd feel like a fucking massive douche if I pulled out a digital camera or word solver to play one. More of a douche than if I tried to fudge a numbers game. (against you, having read this thread).

Oh well, I think it's using ingenuity. You're playing against a machine, not directly against other players. As I keep saying, everybody plays accepting that they don't know if the machine's gonna be nice to them, or if it's just paid out a shitload. If I could guarantee myself a £5 playing pairs by taking photos of the cards, I'd run the machine dry (yes, we have tried this with those Poker games that show you the deck as well).

Interesting discussion though

[Jon O'Neill]

If we're gonna get that anal, perhaps you'd care to quote me the part of the game rules which tells you you can't use a solver on your iPhone.

It probably doesn't say in the rules that you're not allowed to take a sledgehammer to the bit where all the $$$ is kept and run far into the night to spend your newly found wealth on cheeseburgers. Likewise I don't think there's a rule on apterous which says you can't fudge numbers games. We're not talking about rules here, we're talking about what's right and wrong.

What about multiplayer games like Crystal Maze, where you all play separately as Player 1, 2, 3, 4 and accumulate tokens individually for the end game. Is it cheating if I do some games for other players that I'm really good at, and they do some for me, in order to try and win money?

I don't think using multiple human minds to play a quiz machine constitutes cheating.

Yes, very diluted across very many people. But the people who lost before would have already lost their money regardless, and the people who come along after do so knowing that someone else might have just won. You probably know that I used to play fruit machines for a living, so for the most part it's the same deal there - the machine was set to pay at a %age so SOMEBODY was always gonna get the winnings. It's just about knowing when and how to play to ensure that it's you and not someone else. What's the problem with that? Everybody else plays with full knowledge that they might be going on after somebody's won.

The point is that the win% is lower to account for people who stand there with a solver/digital camera. Honest players like me are being punished financially by your cheating actions. Being vigilant and correct timing are human skills, just like knowing a lot of shit or being good at anagrams.

Oh well, I think it's using ingenuity. You're playing against a machine, not directly against other players. As I keep saying, everybody plays accepting that they don't know if the machine's gonna be nice to them, or if it's just paid out a shitload. If I could guarantee myself a £5 playing pairs by taking photos of the cards, I'd run the machine dry (yes, we have tried this with those Poker games that show you the deck as well).

It's a case of when it's being nice, it's not being as nice as it would if everybody played nicely, or it's not being nice as frequently as it would.

Interesting discussion though

Yeah, I think my ten or so replies in this thread makes it seem like a give a fuck, which I don't.

[Jon O'Neill]

ten or so replies

That was my tenth. Pretty impressive, and I didn't even use a calculator.

[Kirk Bevins]

I was part of an online forum discussing games (I joined as I wanted hints for Hex) and it was discussed on there frequently about people who were really good at the games and kept winning and they were asked to leave the premises - some were even banned. I'm sure if I got a solver out of my pocket and played this, I'd be barred.

[Jon Corby]

If we're gonna get that anal, perhaps you'd care to quote me the part of the game rules which tells you you can't use a solver on your iPhone.

It probably doesn't say in the rules that you're not allowed to take a sledgehammer to the bit where all the $$$ is kept and run far into the night to spend your newly found wealth on cheeseburgers.

Well, that point is kinda covered by law so that's a poor example.

The point is that the win% is lower to account for people who stand there with a solver/digital camera.

No it isn't. Why would you think that? The payout % can be the same regardless of how people play. The guy with the camera just has more chance of getting a share.

[Charlie Reams]

The point is that the win% is lower to account for people who stand there with a solver/digital camera.

No it isn't. Why would you think that? The payout % can be the same regardless of how people play. The guy with the camera just has more chance of getting a share.

Just basic economics isn't it?

[Jon Corby]

The point is that the win% is lower to account for people who stand there with a solver/digital camera.

No it isn't. Why would you think that? The payout % can be the same regardless of how people play. The guy with the camera just has more chance of getting a share.

Just basic economics isn't it?

Yes. I call it bas-onomics.

[Kirk Bevins]

Read this article. Feel a bit sorry for him but I'm slightly concerned they think the "speed of scoring" was highly unusual. Maybe I should slow down?

[Jon O'Neill]

If we're gonna get that anal, perhaps you'd care to quote me the part of the game rules which tells you you can't use a solver on your iPhone.

It probably doesn't say in the rules that you're not allowed to take a sledgehammer to the bit where all the $$$ is kept and run far into the night to spend your newly found wealth on cheeseburgers.

Well, that point is kinda covered by law so that's a poor example.

See apterous example then.

The point is that the win% is lower to account for people who stand there with a solver/digital camera.

No it isn't. Why would you think that? The payout % can be the same regardless of how people play. The guy with the camera just has more chance of getting a share.

Let's say the machine has an expected payout of 20p for every £1 that goes in. If you cheat, you win more of the time, so your EV goes up - but the machine's payout doesn't. Which means everyone else's EV goes down. Their EV has dropped because you cheated. You took money from them. Simples.

[Charlie Reams]

Let's say the machine has an expected payout of 20p for every £1 that goes in. If you cheat, you win more of the time, so your EV goes up - but the machine's payout doesn't. Which means everyone else's EV goes down. Their EV has dropped because you cheated. You took money from them. Simples.

That's a totally circular argument though, since you assumed that using a solver is in fact cheating. Winning by answering the questions really fast also lowers everyone else's expected payout, would you consider that cheating?

[Jon Corby]

I was part of an online forum discussing games (I joined as I wanted hints for Hex) and it was discussed on there frequently about people who were really good at the games and kept winning and they were asked to leave the premises - some were even banned. I'm sure if I got a solver out of my pocket and played this, I'd be barred.

I got barred from a few places when I was playing fruit machines - seriously, once you are armed with the knowledge, skill and experience to play fruit machines profitably, a massive chunk is being able to play without arousing suspicion. Bear in mind for the most part that you're going to be going into pubs often on your own, buying a soft drink, playing the machine and getting out in a pretty timely fashion, and it becomes tricky. (Another massive chunk is finding good locations that other players haven't found).

I got surreptitiously followed once from one pub to another by an irate landlord who reckoned his machine was getting robbed for hundreds every week (which was most likely somebody using a bar on it). Definitely wasn't me - I used to play it legit and could take 1 or 2 jackpots off it for 20/30/40 profit or so. Anyway, next pub (a foody pub chain) he watches me take 45 out of one machine (he wouldn't believe that I'd misjudged it a bit and actually lost about 7-10 quid on it, which I had) and 75 out another (for about 50 profit) and kicks off, making a massive scene about how I'm up to something and robbing them. He then asked how much I had on me, and said he'd shut up if I paid him off, and when I just laughed at that he got a bit aggressive, and eventually a barman came over and he told him to call the police. I said I'd like the police called too as this prick was starting on me, and instead we both got taken to the manager's office. Luckily for me, the manager was a completely sound bloke, and said to this other guy that he knows there are people who do just know how to play. Had he been another clueless prick I could have well got a beating. Irate landlord left in a huff, while I had a bit of a chat with the manager where he said I was welcome back in his pub, but it was probably best if I didn't play the machines. He even then escorted me back to my car just in case the other dude was waiting outside (as he had brought a punter from his own pub with him)

I've also been accused of using my mobile to tamper with machines and barred, and other such nonsense. I never did anything remotely illegal, but there are a few ways to illegally rob machines so most landlords just instantly assume you're up to no good if you're consistently winning.

As for my Buzzwords pub, it's opposite my work so I doubt they'd want to bar anybody from our office without good reason. If we were caning the machine for loads, maybe. The odd quid on Buzzwords a couple of times a week (which we pretty much gave up doing because it was kinda hard work for little reward) wouldn't really be worth it.

[Jon O'Neill]

I was part of an online forum discussing games (I joined as I wanted hints for Hex) and it was discussed on there frequently about people who were really good at the games and kept winning and they were asked to leave the premises - some were even banned. I'm sure if I got a solver out of my pocket and played this, I'd be barred.

I got barred from a few places when I was playing fruit machines - seriously, once you are armed with the knowledge, skill and experience to play fruit machines profitably, a massive chunk is being able to play without arousing suspicion. Bear in mind for the most part that you're going to be going into pubs often on your own, buying a soft drink, playing the machine and getting out in a pretty timely fashion, and it becomes tricky. (Another massive chunk is finding good locations that other players haven't found).

I got surreptitiously followed once from one pub to another by an irate landlord who reckoned his machine was getting robbed for hundreds every week (which was most likely somebody using a bar on it). Definitely wasn't me - I used to play it legit and could take 1 or 2 jackpots off it for 20/30/40 profit or so. Anyway, next pub (a foody pub chain) he watches me take 45 out of one machine (he wouldn't believe that I'd misjudged it a bit and actually lost about 7-10 quid on it, which I had) and 75 out another (for about 50 profit) and kicks off, making a massive scene about how I'm up to something and robbing them. He then asked how much I had on me, and said he'd shut up if I paid him off, and when I just laughed at that he got a bit aggressive, and eventually a barman came over and he told him to call the police. I said I'd like the police called too as this prick was starting on me, and instead we both got taken to the manager's office. Luckily for me, the manager was a completely sound bloke, and said to this other guy that he knows there are people who do just know how to play. Had he been another clueless prick I could have well got a beating. Irate landlord left in a huff, while I had a bit of a chat with the manager where he said I was welcome back in his pub, but it was probably best if I didn't play the machines. He even then escorted me back to my car just in case the other dude was waiting outside (as he had brought a punter from his own pub with him)

I've also been accused of using my mobile to tamper with machines and barred, and other such nonsense. I never did anything remotely illegal, but there are a few ways to illegally rob machines so most landlords just instantly assume you're up to no good if you're consistently winning.

As for my Buzzwords pub, it's opposite my work so I doubt they'd want to bar anybody from our office without good reason. If we were caning the machine for loads, maybe. The odd quid on Buzzwords a couple of times a week (which we pretty much gave up doing because it was kinda hard work for little reward) wouldn't really be worth it.

How much money did you make on fruities, might I ask? Hourly rate?

Let's say the machine has an expected payout of 20p for every £1 that goes in. If you cheat, you win more of the time, so your EV goes up - but the machine's payout doesn't. Which means everyone else's EV goes down. Their EV has dropped because you cheated. You took money from them. Simples.

That's a totally circular argument though, since you assumed that using a solver is in fact cheating. Winning by answering the questions really fast also lowers everyone else's expected payout, would you consider that cheating?

I think we had established that it was cheating, and I was making the point that it costs other people money, rather than costs the machine money.

[Kirk Bevins]

I remember one of the 9 letter words I missed now....it was HOUBARAS + H. I typed HOUBARAS in and it told me it wasn't a word. I was furious as I wanted to look clever, although I couldn't see the 9. I've just used a solver and the 9 is valid in Countdown and is pretty obscure.

[Jon Corby]

How much money did you make on fruities, might I ask? Hourly rate?

Friday/Saturday evenings were generally easiest and would usually be £150-£250 profit for maybe 4 or 5 hours. If I was playing during the day (which I'd usually have fitted in between school runs) probably around £100-£150. Best times were when I was working (ie, proper IT work), and doing maybe a couple of evenings a week with the weekend. It does get harder the more you play, because as I said above finding a lot of good locations is difficult. Generally I'd easily be clearing £750-£1k (profit, no tax) most weeks. That's massively averaged out though, for 6 months I had a machine that I could visit about twice a week, and empty of £120 within about 10 minutes. That's almost a grand a month just off one machine for about an hour and a half's "work"! It got quite hard and stressful to be doing it full-time at the point when I gave up, but I fucking miss it now, I really do.

I think we had established that it was cheating, and I was making the point that it costs other people money, rather than costs the machine money.

I agree that yes, ultimately it's "cheating", but as Charlie said above I think you're doing it in an arena where you have to accept that everybody's gonna do everything they can to win by any means necessary. That's just got to be a given. You're not trying to prove who's good at the game, or who is clever enough to get the highest score, you're trying to win money. Expecting people to play totally fair like you would on apterous is just naive. For example, there was a fruit machine (old Barcrest called Supercharged) where you could get into the top feature EVERY time you got on the board by getting in a certain position and pressing a weird combination of buttons. You could basically empty the thing in twenty minutes. Cheating, yeah? But you would refuse to do it on the grounds that it was unfair on other people who chose to chuck their money in it? Give over!

[Ryan Taylor]

Yup, we have a Scrabble program on a mate's iPod touch that we use to cheat our little balls off on this game. You can basically take it for one prize (£3 is our max) if it's had a bit of play, and then the prize goes right out of reach (3,500 points or so). I think it's actually gone off the machine now.

I always thought you was an honest man, Jon Corby.

I wrote this precisely because of your zero tolerance to anything shifty on Countdown. After reading that discussion I'm going to start using my solver against Apterous Rex and get Kirk to do my Daily Duels for me.

[Jon Corby]

Yup, we have a Scrabble program on a mate's iPod touch that we use to cheat our little balls off on this game. You can basically take it for one prize (£3 is our max) if it's had a bit of play, and then the prize goes right out of reach (3,500 points or so). I think it's actually gone off the machine now.

I always thought you was an honest man, Jon Corby.

I wrote this precisely because of your zero tolerance to anything shifty on Countdown. After reading that discussion I'm going to start using my solver against Apterous Rex and get Kirk to do my Daily Duels for me.

Scum. Worse than Hitler.

[Charlie Reams]

I was furious as I wanted to look clever

[Michael Wallace]

and get Kirk to do my Daily Duels for me.

Scum. Worse than Hitler.[/quote]
Kirk's not that bad.

[Eoin Monaghan]

I remember one of the 9 letter words I missed now....it was HOUBARAS + H. I typed HOUBARAS in and it told me it wasn't a word. I was furious as I wanted to look clever, although I couldn't see the 9. I've just used a solver and the 9 is valid in Countdown and is pretty obscure.

BROUHAHAS, was one of the teasers yesterday.

[Jon Corby]

I agree that yes, ultimately it's "cheating"

Just to reinforce this point, if you happened to look at the Buzzwords high score table in the Ham & Blackbird (when it was still there - I'm pretty sure the game has been removed) you would see several entries under the name 'CHEATERS'

[Lesley Hines]

I remember one of the 9 letter words I missed now....it was HOUBARAS + H. I typed HOUBARAS in and it told me it wasn't a word. I was furious as I wanted to look clever, although I couldn't see the 9. I've just used a solver and the 9 is valid in Countdown and is pretty obscure.

BROUHAHAS, was one of the teasers yesterday.

Lol, nice. I'd never have got it, but C.S. Lewis uses it quite a bit.

[Jon Corby]

Just to come back to this, because of my 'background' I clearly look at these things a little differently to the rest of you. I'm always on the lookout for something that can be exploited on machines like this. In the case of Buzzwords it's kind of a "yes you can cheat to play practically optimally, but actually it doesn't really get you that far". As I said, after trying it a few times, we gave up, and decided that the machine is already tuned (as you'd expect) for dealing with people playing optimally, and it's neither fun nor worthwhile to play (cheating or otherwise).

But if on a machine that has been played normally, you could get to £10 (is that the jackpot, or is it £20? Dunno) within a couple of games before it tightens up, then you've actually got a goldmine on your hands. I would have spent the weekends touring pubs and doing this. Honestly. Pretty much every pub has one. It's not about trying to get the high score or be seen as clever in the pub, it's about making some significant easy cash.

For the most part, I play the games normally and as "honestly" as anyone else, just to kill half an hour and socialise with mates over a beer. But if I do spot something on a game and think "I wonder..." then it's just gotta be tried out. There genuinely could be thousands in it.

[Jon Corby]

Yeah, I'm still puzzled. It seems to me a bit like claiming for whiplash when you get hit in your car, regardless of whether you have it or not. It's difficult to prove either way so you just hold your neck and get a doctor's note for an easy four-figure payout from the insurance company. Just because other people do it doesn't make it right. In fact, it's wrong, because it means premiums will be more expensive for everyone else.

Didn't address this directly earlier, but again this is covered by law. This is blatantly fraud. Nothing I've ever done on machines is fraudulent.

[Jon O'Neill]

Yeah, I'm still puzzled. It seems to me a bit like claiming for whiplash when you get hit in your car, regardless of whether you have it or not. It's difficult to prove either way so you just hold your neck and get a doctor's note for an easy four-figure payout from the insurance company. Just because other people do it doesn't make it right. In fact, it's wrong, because it means premiums will be more expensive for everyone else.

Didn't address this directly earlier, but again this is covered by law. This is blatantly fraud. Nothing I've ever done on machines is fraudulent.

Alright, but we were debating morality, not law. I think we can agree that the two aren't entirely congruent or fudging a numbers game would lead to a jail sentence.

[Jon Corby]

Alright, but we were debating morality, not law. I think we can agree that the two aren't entirely congruent or fudging a numbers game would lead to a jail sentence.

...which it will if proposition 304 passes. And we all pray it will.

Generally speaking, if I could work out a way to get some money from a company (or spread from a lot of people), and it wasn't illegal, and wasn't heinously immoral, I'd probably do it.

That was a bit of a sweeping statement which I haven't really thought through, but I think in essence it's true.

Edit to add: Also if it's not too much effort

[Kirk Bevins]

In Doncaster at the weekend we ate in a Wetherspoons which had a Buzzwords on. I couldn't believe it when I looked at the high score table. Several names were on there but the top score was 240 with 0 nine letter words and 12 words was top. My worst score is about 2000 with 1 nine letter word and about 60 words so I was gonna easily top the table. I decided to play it and, sure enough, the target for £1 was (unlike my machine at my local of around 3000) 1200. I ended up with over 4000 points (as it gave ridiculously easy 9s with lovely letters like ASTEROIDS) and I won £5. Best I've ever done from this machine. I really wanted to tour Donny (like Jon) but we didn't.

In York last night I went clubbing. In a nightclub there was Buzzwords. Again I checked out the high score table. A worse situation was there with a max score of 120. That's pretty crap. I told my mate that my lowest was over 2000 and I'd definitely win cash. He didn't believe me but he loved how quick I was typing the words in and it got a few people watching (probably thinking I'm a boring geek) but I took £3 from it. Not as nice letters, one of the nines was SHUFFLERS.

Anyway my point is, if it was savvy to go to pubs without buying a drink and just playing Buzzwords (whilst it's a newish game and they have crap high scores on) then I reckon I could make a fair profit.

[Jon Corby]

Interesting stuff Kirk. £4.50 profit isn't really that brilliant (obviously it's very good in terms of playing a quiz machine, but I mean in terms of a proper revenue source), but did it tighten up instantly after paying out one prize, or did it come down gradually? Did you think you could have achieved a higher prize with a solver (and accomplice)?

I don't think I've ever seen the one in my local < 3,000 points for the first prize, usually it's just under 4,000 (ie unattainable).

I've always wondered how those itBox machines work in terms of payout - does each game have its own separate payout %, or is it overall, or what?

[Ryan Taylor]

Ryan's fable #23

Every week for the past year a young man played on a machine called Lucky Landings at the casino. Recently he profited £118 2 weeks ago today, £73 the following Thursday and then £214 the Thursday after that and he was feeling pretty awesome about himself having just won £160 (£123 in one bonus round!!) at the weekend. He then foolishly became greedy and lost all of his winnings and then spent another ton that he'd come out with ending up with him having to gamble his last few pound coins in order to afford a taxi home. He realised gambling was a mugs game and he still feels absolutely sick at his loss. There is a bridge conveniently positioned 50 yards from the casino.

[Lesley Hines]

Ryan's fable #23

There is a bridge conveniently positioned 50 yards from the casino.

So people don't have to swim across the river while they're walking home, having gambled their taxi fare?

[Ryan Taylor]

Ryan's fable #23

There is a bridge conveniently positioned 50 yards from the casino.

So people don't have to swim across the river while they're walking home, having gambled their taxi fare?

Exactly.