This field study examined performance data from reel slot games located in two casinos. The paired design incorporated games that appeared identical to the players but featured substantially different, yet concealed, pars (i.e., prices). The results revealed significantly elevated revenues for the high-par games, despite egregious price hikes, while also failing to provide compelling evidence of rational play migration to the low-par games. The latter result suggested that frequently visiting players were not able to detect differences in the pars of games, even over lengthy sample periods. These outcomes were produced by the greatest par gaps of any paired-design study. These expanded gaps also generated the greatest revenue gains within this research stream. Increasing pars may represent a rare opportunity for operators to increase revenues, without concern for eventual brand damage or loss of market share. Limitations regarding the current uses of reel pars are also revealed.
CrosonR.SundaliJ. (2005). The gambler’s fallacy and the hot hand: Empirical data from casinos. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(3), 195–209.
6.
DixonM. J.FugelsangJ. A.MacLarenV. V.HarriganK. A. (2013). Gamblers can discriminate “tight” from “loose” electronic gambling machines. International Gambling Studies, 13, 98–111.
7.
EdwardsW. (1961). Probability learning in 1000 trials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 385–394.
HarriganK. A.DixonM. (2010). Government sanctioned “tight” and “loose” slot machines: How having multiple versions of the same slot machine game may impact problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 159–174.
13.
HawJ. (2008). The relationship between reinforcement and gaming machine choice. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(1), 55–61.
KerenG.WagenaarW. (1985). On the psychology of playing blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications for decision theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(2), 133–158.
17.
KlebanowA. (2006, December). What players really want. Indian Gaming Magazine, 16(12), 48–49.
LegatoF. (2015, March19). Slot floor exodus. Global Gaming Business Magazine, 14(4), 18–20, 22, 24.
21.
LegatoF. (2019, May28). Revisiting the RTP. Global Gaming Business Magazine, 19(6), 18–20, 22, 24.
22.
LucasA. F. (2019). Impacts of increased house advantages on reel slots. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2018-0577
23.
LucasA. F.BrandmeirK. D. (2005). Short-term effects of an increase in par on reel slot performance. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 9(2), 1–14.
24.
LucasA. F.SinghA. K. (2011). Estimating the ability of gamblers to detect differences in the payback percentages of reel slot machines: A closer look at the slot player experience. UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal, 15(1), 17–36.
25.
LucasA. F.SpildeK. A. (2019a). A deeper look into the relationship between house advantage and reel slot performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 60(3), 270–279.
26.
LucasA. F.SpildeK. A. (2019b). How changes in the house advantage of reel slots affect game performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 60(2), 135–149.
SundaliJ.CrosonR. (2006). Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler’s fallacy. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 1–12.
32.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110.
33.
WeatherlyJ. N.BrandtA. E. (2004). Participants’ sensitivity to percentage payback and credit value when playing a slot-machine simulation. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 33–50.
34.
WeatherlyJ. N.ThompsonB. J.HodnyM.MeierE. (2009). Choice behavior of nonpathological women playing concurrently available slot machines: Effect of changes in payback percentages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 895–900.
