How to Mount Equipment

Equipment is available in pairs in nine slots. These slots are grouped by type of improvement (the way they affect the tank): combat power, vitality, and specialization. Each type of improvement has three possible slots.

Unlocking equipment slots takes credits. Once paid for, they unlock instantly, and the cost to unlock them depends on the slot level and the vehicle Tier:

To unlock the equipment slot, you need to select it in the equipment window and tap Unlock (in the bottom right corner of the equipment window).

Equipment and Bonuses

Here are the bonuses that various equipment offers.

Why is this? First, when you need to choose from two equally tempting options, you'll start carefully studying the characteristics and features of each particular tank. And secondly, this approach will prevent making your vehicle "imba": modules offering similar bonuses are usually located in the same slot, and you can’t mount them all at the same time.

Combat Power

This type of equipment affects the gun characteristics in various ways.

Level I Slot

This is the only slot with contents that can vary for different vehicles: in some cases you'll have Ventilation, in others—Rammer.

1. Option 1: Improved Ventilation
   

   

   Ventilation is available only for "drummers" and vehicles with machine guns. For other vehicles, this slot offers the Rammer.

   +5% to all crew skills

2. Option 2: Gun Rammer
   
   

   The Rammer is available for vehicles with conventional guns and also for open cabins. For other vehicles, this slot offers Ventilation.

   -7% to reload time

3. Calibrated Shells
   

This equipment increases armor penetration:

• +5% for AP shells
• +5% for ARCR shells
• +10% for HEAT shells
• +10% for HE shells

Level II Slot

1. Enhanced Gun Laying Drive
   

   

   +10% to aiming speed
2. Supercharge
   

   

   +30% to shell velocity
   % to armor penetration decrease with distance

Level III Slot

1. Vertical Stabilizer
   

   

   +15% to accuracy when moving and during turret traversestrong>
2. Refined Gun
   

   

   % to dispersion at meters
   

Vitality

The tank with this equipment will receive fewer critical hits, survive longer, and repair faster

Level I Slot

1. Protected Modules
   

   

   +10% to engine, transmission, and ammo rack protection
   +10% to suspension and fuel tank durability
2. Reinforced Fighting Compartment
   

   

   +10% of crew protection % to damage from ramming

Level II Slot

1. Enhanced Armor
   

   

   +4% to hull and turret armor
2. Improved Assembly
   

   

   +6% to vehicle durability

Level III Slot

1. Enhanced Tracks
   

   

   Enhanced Tracks automatically repair tracks to fully restore track HP (without using the Repair Kit). This upgrade does not speed up suspension repair.
   Unless the module is mounted, the hit and repaired track is highlighted in yellow. It will be operational, but with lower durability, and can be destroyed more easily.
2. Toolbox
   

   

   +30% to repair speed

Specialization

Here you have to choose between viewing range and concealment, or speed and maneuverability, as well as between different bonuses to consumables' effects.

Level I Slot

1. Improved Optics
   

   

   Bonus to viewing range (but not more than metres):
   +5% for tank destroyers
   +7% for heavy tanks
   +10% for medium and light tanks
2. 2. Camouflage Net
   

   

   -3–7% to the visibility of moving vehicles
   -6–14% to the visibility of the vehicles stationary for more than three seconds
   

   Bonus to concealment depends on the vehicle class.

Level II Slot

1. Improved Control
   

   

   +10% to the top traverse speed of the vehicle
2. Engine Accelerator
   

   

   Bonus to acceleration:
   +5% for medium and light tanks,
   +7% for heavy tanks and tank destroyers

Level III Slot

1. Consumable Delivery System
   

   

   +15% to consumables cooldown speed
2. High-End Consumables
   

   

   +30% to consumables duration (Engine Power Boost, Adrenaline)

A tank competently "stacked" with equipment across all nine slots significantly improves its performance. Cumulatively, these characteristics add up to being much better than those of the same tank with the "old" equipment.

Remember: there is a wealth of combinations of new equipment ( options!), and once you unlock the slot, you can switch equipment whenever you feel like it.

Long-time Steelers owner, Art Rooney paid a $ franchise fee, in during the height of the Depression, to the NFL for the rights to establish a team in Pittsburgh. There is some doubt about the truth of the matter, but no one ever discounted the story. Legend has it Art made the money from a winning parlay bet at the track. His betting endeavors do not simply end there either! During these early years owning a football team was not quite as profitable as today, he used the $, payout from another winning parlay to continue funding his team. He later sold the team to Alex Thompson, a New York Playboy, and then used the proceeds of the sale to buy a 70% stake in the Philadelphia Eagles.

So, Art Rooney, founding father of the Steelers, not only paid for the NFL franchise with money derived from sportsbetting, but he continued to fund the team that way. Those two bets and probably many others turned into a tidy profit that eventually left him with a neat $ million profit by the end of his time. Art Rooney lived the American dream and obviously loved gambling, admitting to the fact under questioning by the FBI. A FBI report even linked Rooney with a group that owned and operated slot machines around the Pittsburgh area.

With Art’s passing in , he left an equal share to his five sons. Dan Rooney, now the majority shareholder, took several years of convincing to talk his brothers into selling their shares to him. By late things eventually came to a head after NFL regulations banning team owners from involvement in gambling establishments forced two of Dan’s brothers into relinquishing their shares to him. The restructure left Dan holding an 80% share in the team.

How this Lead to Online Slots

The brothers chose to sell their team shares to Dan since both operate racetracks with slots machines on the premises, which the two preferred to concentrate their attention on. Operating a land-based gambling establishment in the US has become an increasingly attractive proposition since state law determines all online casinos can only qualify for an operator license if formally partnered with a land-based casino. This means many land-based casinos now enjoy a substantial advantage from an increase in revenue due to their licensing of online casinos. The recent legalization of online casinos in the US also means many people who were previously unable to go to a land-based casino now had convenient access to a vast variety of online casino games. Playing at an online casino offers many advantages, but one of its greatest benefits is that many sites offer many games that are free to play and without downloading. This means a massive variety of free online slots games have become available to US players.

Breaking Steelers Tradition

Traditionally, since the s the Steelers resisted trading any first-round picks. In contrast, during the past few years the Steelers, on several occasions displayed unorthodox behavior at times when it would provide them with a winning edge presently or somewhere down the line in future. To date, their educated guestimates have proven correct, paying-off handsomely in the future. Proof of this come through the signing of Tyson Alualu, which proved so effective it countered the loss of Javon Hargrave the third-round selection who closed a long-term contract as defensive tackle for the Eagles during the offseason.

Joe Haden’s signing also came as a surprisingly huge move for the Steelers, but made sense considering the situation in which Pittsburgh was in at the time with its cornerback, they took a calculated risk which again paid off quite handsomely. Signing Steven Nelson was also a huge gamble, especially after the Chiefs chose not to offer an extension after the expiration of his rookie contract.

Arguably one of last season’s most underrated players, Nelson contributed notably to Pittsburgh’s third place league finish in pass defense. The Steelers recent trend for making successful unorthodox moves continues with two major ones, in & with Colbert’s trade and Devin Bush’s acquisition to upgrade their inside linebacker options after having lost Ryan Shazier in the late season.

Finding the Correct Offensive Lineup

Despite the focus remaining on defense from through for the Steelers, Pittsburgh continued to place emphasis on getting the right offensive pieces in position for the future. Players showing enough promise to have the potential to become tomorrow’s offensive stars. The Steelers team was the first to start 4 – 0 since Pittsburgh’s Super Bowl team that managed to take home four Vince Lombardy trophies in six years. The ’79 team boasted the talents of Terry Bradshaw at quarterback during a two-year peak in his career.

Ben Roethlisberger, a year past elbow surgery, bulleted three touch-downs to Chase Claypool, rookie receiver that also made the necessary yards to become the first Steeler to nail three touchdowns in a single game since , having ground-out yards during 32 carries resulting in 2 more touchdowns. Despite the attention paid to Steeler defense after its dominating performance. In light of this, the Steeler’s offense has proven to be more than capable so far this season.

In , Kevin Colbert, arguably the best executive at evaluating prospective receivers nominated JuJu Smith-Schuster for his second-round pick. An immediate starter in Pittsburgh, JuJu, as rookie burst onto the scene, winning Team MVP for , going on to establish himself as the #1 receiver at the start of his final contractual year for the Steelers. The same year, further in support of and adding to the team’s success comes Pittsburgh’s third round pick James Conner as new running back for the Steelers.

In , Conner earned his Pro Bowl honors having churned out a per-game average of all-purpose yards. In the wake of an injury ridden Conner marked his return to top form with a spate of consecutive of yard rushes so far this year. Both players turned out superlative performances supported by teammates with matching skill levels, arriving in the form of the second-round pick receiver James Washington as well as third-round pick receiver Diontae Johnson, joined by Benny Snell, running back, and rookies Anthony McFarland at running back, and Chase Claypool as receiver. This un-starred draft grouping at its core still leaves the Steelers with its best skill positions depth since Tomlin’s taking the helm in

Steelers Commits to Defence

If asked, most fans of the offense will include the Steelers as a prime example of maximized achievement. earmarks the year Big Ben tied for the NFL passing title with Drew Brees, simultaneously Le’Veon Bell and Antonio Brown both recorded the best seasons of their respective careers. Their offensive strength culminated in a year where Pittsburgh experienced no problems racking up points. However, a less than on par defense saw the Steelers wind-up 18th position in league scoring, 27th position in allowed passing yards, and 28th position allowed touchdown passes.

Down to Brass Tacks

One of the more effective, but highly underrated tactics which the Steelers can use to improve their in-game advantage, is the “tackle for loss” since it immediately eliminates most of the playbook. Turning the advantage even further in Pittsburgh’s favour is that they are not only good at it, in fact they currently lead the NFL in successful TFLs. With 42 TFLs in 5 games Pittsburgh currently boasts the highest TFL stats of any defensive lineup since

Leading the league in TFLs could further turn the odds in favor of the Steelers,it means that you often get ball carriers before they can ever get started, which remains one of the most effective ways of preventing players like Derrick Henry from getting up to speed. Another important issue to resolve is finding a capable replacement for Devin Bush.

Undoubtedly Ben Roethlisberger remains the switch that turns up the heat behind the Pittsburgh offense. After 17 seasons for the Steelers Big Ben undoubtedly stands behind one of the strongest and most talented units this year, and his post elbow surgery performances proves he’s still at the very top of his game.

To allow the Steelers to perform at their best they may need to re-look at the blocking schemes is their playbook. The team can have good offense and still score good points without a brilliant running game, however, it is unlikely for the team to rack up a ton of game wins if they do not develop the capacity to close out. Furthermore, a raft of other adjustments and alternative moves and plays need to be made on a weekly basis depending on their opponents to keep the defense solid and the offense fresh. 

When you muster the awesome strength of the mighty buffalo and head for the reels, there are more ways to win than you can imagine. Designed by Playtech and one of the most powerful slots on the market today, Buffalo Blitz is a game for those who want something bigger and better than average. It’s a game inspired by the Wild West that features six reels and up to a whopping 4, win lines. It has a return to the player that, as you have seen, is %, a fairly high figure. The maximum prize is 1, coins, and it has free spins and multipliers.

Here are five symbols related to the theme and they include the buffalo (which can appear stacked on all reels), the lynx, the raccoon, the elk, and the bear. The lowest values ​​are the usual 9, 10, J, Q, K and A. The blue diamond is the Wild, it appears on reels two through six and applies a multiplier of 2x, 3x or 5x to whatever win it contributes.

The control panel for the Buffalo Blitz gaming machine is located on the console under the reels:

• Info, shows the prizes for each symbol combination and the characteristics of the special functions.
• Coin Value sets the coin value from to 5 credits.
• Total Bet, shows the amount of the bet per spin.
• Win, reflects the last profit.
• Autoplay, will allow to assign a series of 10, 25, 50 or 99 automatic spins.
• Turbo speeds up the rotation of the reels.
• Spin initiates a spin of the reels.

Playtech’s Buffalo Blitz slot is available in demo mode for free

Pros & Cons

About The Author

by Victor Bagan

Since , Victor has been collaborating with different international media related to online gambling, casino games, and the eGaming sector. He has created a player-friendly site in collaboration with many experts in the area, sincerely and selflessly offering the most valuable information about online casinos.

Abstract

In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of an exaggerated return rate on players&#x; errors of estimation and irrational beliefs. Conventional return rates for slot machines are set around 92&#x;, whereas online gambling websites often use much higher return rates during demonstration (demo) play. Seventy college students were randomly assigned to play a virtual slot machine programmed to reflect a 92&#x; return rate (control group) or a &#x; return rate (experimental group). They completed self-reported measures of errors of estimation (e.g., chances of winning and losing) and irrational beliefs (e.g., having already won guarantees future wins) before and after playing a virtual slot machine for 10 min. Results from mixed 2 × 2 analyses of variance revealed statistically significant differences in errors of estimation (i.e., chances of winning, chances of winning the jackpot, chances of neither winning nor losing) between the experimental and control groups. Furthermore, participants estimated having less chance of losing during a slot machine session after exposure to the exaggerated return rate. Given the fact that many online gambling websites use similar exaggerated return rates during the demo period of their virtual slot machines, the present results suggest that this tactic may incite players to behave differently than they would otherwise during a gambling session. Implications for responsible gambling strategies are discussed.

Keywords: return rates, irrational beliefs, errors of estimation, virtual slot machines, responsible gambling

Résumé

La présente étude visait à évaluer l&#x;impact d&#x;un taux exagéré de retour sur les erreurs d&#x;estimation et les croyances irrationnelles des joueurs. Les taux de retour conventionnels pour les machines à sous sont établis à environ 92&#x;, tandis que les sites de jeux en ligne utilisent souvent des taux de retour beaucoup plus élevés dans les démonstrations de jeux. Soixante-dix étudiants universitaires ont été assignés au hasard à une machine à sous virtuelle programmée qui reflète un taux de retour de 92 &#x; (groupe témoin) ou une autre affichant un taux de retour de  &#x; (groupe expérimental). Ils ont complété des mesures auto-déclarées des erreurs d&#x;estimation (p. ex., les chances de gagner et de perdre) et des croyances irrationnelles (p. ex., avoir déjà gagné garantit des gains futurs) avant et après avoir joué à une machine à sous virtuelle pendant 10 minutes. Les résultats d&#x;analyses de la variance (mixte 2 x 2) ont révélé des différences statistiquement significatives dans les erreurs d&#x;estimation (c&#x;est-à-dire les chances de gagner, les chances de gagner le jackpot, les chances de ne pas gagner ni de perdre) entre le groupe expérimental et le groupe témoin. De plus, les participants ont estimé avoir moins de chances de perdre pendant une séance de machine à sous après avoir été exposés au taux de retour exagéré. Étant donné que de nombreux sites de jeux en ligne utilisent des taux de retour exagérés similaires pendant la démonstration de leurs machines à sous virtuelles, les résultats actuels suggèrent que cette tactique peut inciter les joueurs à se comporter différemment que pendant une séance de jeu avec une machine affichant un taux de retour conventionnel. On y aborde les conséquences pour les stratégies de jeu responsable.

Introduction

Gambling is a popular activity in the province of Quebec, Canada. For instance, 75&#x; of the adult population is estimated to take part in at least one form of gambling during the course of their lives (Kairouz et al., ). This popularity can be partly explained by the accessibility and diversity of available gambling activities (Dowling et al., ). New technologies enable the gambling sector to flourish and allow gamblers to engage in these activities from the comfort of their own homes (Productivity Commission, ). With online gambling, any person over 18 years of age can play at any moment of the day without having to spend time and money on transportation, which can raise concerns about the prevention of gambling problems. Research suggests that access to gambling and the intrinsic characteristics of online games place individuals at greater risk of developing gambling problems (Cole et al.,  Griffiths,  Griffiths et al.,  MacLaren et al., ,  Siemens &#x; Kopp, ). A gambling disorder is defined as recurrent and persistent engagement in gambling activities that causes the individual significant distress (American Psychiatric Association APA , ). The prevalence of gambling disorders in the general population is estimated to be between &#x; and &#x; among those who engage in traditional gambling activities (Dyke,  Gerstein et al.,  Kairouz et al.,  Kessler et al.,  Welte et al., ) and is estimated to be between 5&#x; and 18&#x; among online gamblers (Griffiths &#x; Barnes, , Griffiths et al., ). Considering that gambling disorders occur more frequently in individuals who play online, it seems important to understand the different factors that contribute to this problem.

Machine Characteristics

A number of studies have examined the influence of machine characteristics on gambling behavior. For instance, video lottery terminals (VLTs) have been shown to attract more at-risk and disordered gamblers (&#x;) than occasional gamblers (&#x;), who prefer traditional lottery games such as scratch tickets or draws (Kairouz et al., ). VLTs are electronic slot machines that are considered to be continuous games because of the short lapse of time between the bet and the result (Diskin &#x; Hodgins, ). Consequently, players can gamble continuously on these machines. This feature makes it necessary for the gambler to self-regulate his or her behavior and thus is more likely to be associated with gambling problems (Dowling et al.,  Kairouz et al., ). In addition, VLTs have stimulating audiovisual effects and allow the player to bet more than one credit on the same line or to bet on more than one line at a time (Kairouz et al., ). The amount time and money one can spend on these machines is virtually limitless.

Online VLTs

VLTs are now available online, and the websites on which it is possible to play these games often offer the player a free trial. The player receives fake credits to try out the game. The problem with these trials, however, is that the return rate changes when the demonstration (demo) mode is over and the player begins to use real money. The return rate is defined as the proportion of the bet that is returned to the player (Harrigan et al., ). For example, if the return rate is 92&#x;, then, on average, for every dollar put into the machine, the player will receive 92 cents. To attract new players, the owners of online gambling websites often exaggerate the return rates in trial versions (Sévigny et al., ). Online hosts are not obligated to conform to any specific rules and therefore can use such a strategy to get people to bet money. In one study, Sévigny et al. () selected websites on which they played games and found that 45 (39&#x;) of them had a return rate of over &#x; in their trial version. The return percentages of VLTs are normally between 85&#x; and 98&#x; (Harrigan &#x; Dixon, ).

These trials reward the player with multiple gains, which can lead players to believe that online VLTs are a sure way of making money. In a recent study, Bednarz et al. () examined the impact of being exposed to a free trial of roulette on players&#x; behavior. They found that gamblers who participated in a trial bet significantly more money than did those who did not participate. Given the fact that players more easily remember their wins than their losses (inherent memory bias Toneatto et al., ), they could end up overestimating their chances of winning or underestimating their chances of losing during the actual game when playing with real money. Some authors suggest that the demo versions of slot machines, either online or on a traditional VLT, entice players to think that they can make bigger and more frequent gains (Derevensky &#x; Gupta,  Griffiths,  Griffiths &#x; Parke,  Griffiths &#x; Wood,  Sévigny et al., ). These beliefs are not based on reality and are therefore considered irrational.

Irrational Beliefs

It is well known that the majority of gamblers hold irrational beliefs towards gambling, regardless of their level of gambling experience (Fortune &#x; Goodie,  Goodie &#x; Fortune,  Joukhadour et al.,  Ladouceur et al.,  Ladouceur &#x; Sévigny,  Monaghan et al.,  Walker, ). These beliefs can lead players to spend more time and money gambling than they can afford (Lalande &#x; Ladouceur, ). Irrational beliefs are therefore known to play a significant role in the development and maintenance of gambling disorders (Fortune &#x; Goodie,  Walker, ). Many irrational beliefs can be grouped under Tversky and Kahneman&#x;s () heuristic and bias theory. Heuristics are cognitive shortcuts that allow an individual to make a judgement when he or she does not have sufficient information. These shortcuts can lead to errors of judgement because they do not represent a complete and precise evaluation of the situation (Fortune &#x; Goodie, ). When an individual constantly uses the same heuristics, they make repeated errors of estimation, which, with time, become irrational beliefs.

Although most studies use a return rate similar to those in the casinos of between 85&#x; and 98&#x;, online slot machines in trial mode have a return rate of about &#x; (Sévigny et al., ). This unrealistically high return rate may lead to erroneous estimates of the chances of winning and losing and may contribute to the development of irrational beliefs. Given the fact that irrational beliefs are a risk factor in the development of gambling disorders, it is important to determine whether the trial machines can modify the estimates and beliefs of the players.

The Present Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of exaggerated return rates (comparable to those of online slot machines in trial mode) on young adults. We used a 2 × 2 (Condition × Time) experimental design to test the effect of return rates on participants&#x; erroneous estimates and cognitive distortions. We expected to find an increase in errors of estimation and irrational beliefs only in the experimental group at the second measurement time.

Method

Participants

The sample size was determined by using G Power (Faul et al., ). Anticipating a medium effect size and choosing a statistical power of and a p-value of , we determined that 86 participants were needed to detect a statistically significant effect. After receiving ethical approval for this study, we advertised it to undergraduate students at our university via email and through brief classroom visits. All persons interested in the study were invited to send an e-mail to the research team. They were then contacted by phone to determine their eligibility. Participants had to be at least 18 years of age and could not present a gambling problem as determined by the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Only one person was deemed ineligible because of symptoms of a gambling disorder. The final convenience sample included 70 participants, 32 men and 36 women (two people did not indicate their gender), all undergraduate students at BLINDED FOR REVIEW. The average age was years (SD ). Although low participation rates allowed us to recruit only 70 participants, larger than expected effect sizes revealed some statistically significant group differences (see Results section). Most participants (n 55 &#x;) had already participated in some form of lottery and only 15 people (&#x;) had never participated in any form of lottery. Of the 55 people who had already gambled, 28 (40&#x;) had played on slot machines. The experimental and control groups had similar sociodemographic profiles and gambling experience.

Procedure

Participants were randomly allocated to either the exaggerated return rate group (&#x;) or the conventional return rate group (92&#x;). In both groups, participants used credits to gamble on a computer simulation of a slot machine. Before playing, each participant completed a series of self-reported questionnaires. Ten minutes into the game, a lapse of time sufficient to change the beliefs of players (Monaghan et al., ), they received a message asking them if they wanted to continue playing and how much money they would be willing to bet in a future gambling session. Regardless of their answers, the game ended. The participants were then asked to complete another series of questionnaires before being debriefed about the study&#x;s objectives and hypotheses.

Measures

A virtual slot machine was created by one of the authors of the study on Visual Basic It was a reproduction of a basic slot machine with 3 reels, with all possible winning combinations illustrated underneath the reels. Two versions of the virtual slot machine were created. The experimental group played with an exaggerated return rate of &#x;, whereas the control group had a conventional return rate of 92&#x;, the average return rate of Loto Québec&#x;s VLTs (Loto Québec, ). In order to provide the same sequence of events for each condition, we did not randomize the gains and losses.

The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (Ferris &#x; Wynne, ) was used to measure a person&#x;s level of participation in gambling, the presence and severity of a gambling problem, and the consequences of the problem on the player&#x;s life. We used only the questions on participation in gambling (e.g., In the past 12 months, how often did you bet or spend money on lottery tickets like the , Super 7, or POGO ) and on the severity of their problem (e.g., Have you wanted to stop betting money or gambling, but didn&#x;t think you could ). The index situated the participants as being non-problem gamblers, low-risk gamblers, moderate-risk gamblers, or problem gamblers. Cut-off points were used to determine group membership, as suggested by Ferris and Wynne (), and only non-problem gamblers could participate in the study. The instrument shows good psychometric properties, including concurrent validity with the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5 5th ed. APA, ). Predictive validity is moderate (), although Smith and Wynne () revealed that it is higher than that for both the DSM-5 and the SOGS. Cronbach&#x;s alpha in this sample was Test-retest reliability was

The Erroneous Estimates and Irrational Beliefs questionnaire (Monaghan et al., ) was used before and after exposure to the virtual slot machine. Four items measured erroneous estimates and five measured irrational beliefs. Erroneous estimates are defined by Monahan et al. () as incorrect knowledge of the odds of winning, losing, winning the jackpot, and neither winning nor losing. Participants indicated the odds for each event in a single game from 0&#x; to &#x;. A sample item is, What do you think is the chance you will come away with more money than you started with after one session of playing an electronic gaming machine The five irrational beliefs included the illusion of control, superstitious beliefs, independence of chance events, the gambler&#x;s fallacy, and misunderstanding of random outcomes. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed, on a scale from 0&#x; to &#x;, with statements such as, If the machine has not paid out for some time, what do you think are your chances of winning on the next few spins . A mean score per group was calculated for each of the four erroneous estimates. A mean score for each irrational belief was also calculated. No psychometric results are available for this scale because it was created by Monaghan et al. () for the purposes of their study. This questionnaire was chosen because it is the only one that covers irrational beliefs while also considering erroneous estimates under the heuristics and bias theory (Tversky &#x; Kahneman, ).

In the sociodemographic questionnaire, participants were asked to report their age, gender, education level, and current program of study.

Analytical Strategy

To detect group differences on errors of estimation over time, we used a mixed ANOVA with each error (four ANOVAs in total). Paired student t tests were then used to verify whether the changes between T1 and T2 were statistically significant for both groups. The same analytical strategy was used for the five irrational belief variables. Finally, an independent t test was used to compare the amount of money that participants in each condition reported being ready to gamble on a real slot machine.

Preliminary Analyses

Before running the analyses, we checked the conditions for applying the two-factor mixed model ANOVA to the present data. Box and whisker analyses revealed 12 univariate outliers (which were dispersed equally in both groups). Because the data represented valid answers, they were retained. Only one participant&#x;s results were removed because the responses were incongruent with the rest of the data. We evaluated the normality of the sample distributions by calculating asymmetry scores divided by their standard error (Field, ). Z scores smaller than 3 were considered to reflect approximately normally distributed data. In total, three distributions were slightly asymmetric (irrational beliefs at T1 for the control and experimental groups and irrational beliefs at T2 for the experimental group only). Considering that ANOVA is robust towards non-normality (Field, ) and to preserve the original units of measurement of the scales to facilitate their interpretation, we decided not to transform the data. Levene&#x;s test indicated homogeneous variance for the control and experimental groups concerning irrational beliefs and erroneous estimates at T1 (p  ). However, at T2, the variances were heterogeneous (p  ). For the reasons mentioned earlier, the data were not modified. Box&#x;s test of equality of covariance matrices was p for erroneous estimations and p  for irrational beliefs.

Results

A summary of the results is presented in Table&#x;1. These results are described in greater detail below.

Estimation of the Chances of Winning

A 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition on the estimation of the chances of winning, F(1, 67) , p , partial η² The experimental group reported more chances of winning than the control group did. There was no main effect of time, F(1, 67) , p , partial η² , but there was a significant Condition × Time interaction effect on the estimation of the chances of winning, F(1, 67) , p , partial η² (see Figure&#x;1). The increase in the experimental group&#x;s estimations of winning after having played on the software just failed to reach statistical significance, t(34) , p , d , and the control group&#x;s estimation remained the same, t(33) , p , d There was a statistically significant difference between both groups at T2, t() , p , d

Estimation of the Chances of Winning the Jackpot

A 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition on the estimation of the chances of winning the jackpot, F(1, 68) , p , partial η² The participants in the experimental group thought they had more chances of winning the jackpot than the control group did. There was no main effect of time, F(1, 68) , p , partial η² , and no Condition × Time interaction effect on the estimation of the chances of winning the jackpot, F(1,68) , p , partial η² Participants in both groups kept the same estimation of winning the jackpot after gambling on the software (ps  ).

Estimation of the Chances of Neither Winning nor Losing

A 2 × 2 mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition on the estimation of the chances of neither winning nor losing, F(1,68) , p , partial η² The experimental group estimated having more chances of neither winning nor losing than the control group did. There was no main effect of time, F(1, 68) , p , partial η² There was, however, a significant Condition × Time interaction effect on the estimation of chances of neither winning nor losing, F(1, 68) , p , partial η² , as shown in Figure&#x;2. Only the participants in the experimental group significantly increased this error of estimation after playing their version of the software, t(34) , p , d The participants in the control group maintained the same level of this type of estimation error after playing their version, t(34) , p , d There was a significant difference between groups at T2, t(61,55) , p , d

Estimation of the Chances of Losing

There was no main effect of condition regarding the estimations of the chances of losing, F(1, 68) , p , partial η² , nor was there a main effect of time, F(1, 68) , p , partial η² However, there was a significant Condition × Time interaction effect on the estimation of the chances of losing F(1, 68) , p , partial η² , as shown in Figure&#x;3. Only the experimental group&#x;s estimations of their chances of losing significantly decreased from T1 to T2, t(34) , p , d The participants in the control group estimated having approximately the same chances of losing after having played, t(34) , p , d The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant at T2, t(64,89) , p , d

Irrational Beliefs

Mixed ANOVAs showed no statistically significant main effects or Condition × Time interactions for each of the five irrational beliefs (ps  ).

Amount Willing to Bet and Desire to Play

On average, the players in the control group were ready to spend CAN&#x; (SD &#x;) and those in the experimental group were willing to spend CAN&#x; (SD &#x;) on a future episode of slot machine gambling. Regarding the desire to play, the results were identical for both groups: &#x; (n 33) of the participants did not want to continue playing and only &#x; (n 2) wanted to continue. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding either variable (ps  ).

Discussion

In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of an exaggerated return rate on players&#x; errors of estimation and irrational beliefs. We expected that the participants who were exposed to a return rate of &#x; (similar to that of online slot machines in demo mode) would show an increase in their errors of estimation and in their irrational beliefs compared with those in participants who were exposed to the conventional rate of 92&#x;, who we expected to maintain the same level of errors of estimation and irrational beliefs. The results partially confirm these hypotheses.

Our results show that the participants in the exaggerated return rate group (who finished with more credits than they started with) made more errors of estimation than the participants in the control group did. More specifically, participants in the experimental condition estimated that they had more chances of winning than did those who played the conventional return rate slot machine. Of particular interest are the pre-post changes in errors of estimation over the course of this brief experiment. The participants in the experimental condition estimated having less chances of losing after playing the &#x; return rate version of the slot machine. Our results differ from those reported by Monaghan et al. (), where participants maintained the same level of errors of estimation when they finished with more credits than they had to start off with. This difference may be explained by the return rates used in the two studies. Whereas we used a much higher return rate than that used in the casinos (&#x;), Monaghan et al. used one that was similar to that in the casinos. The gains in the present study were, therefore, much higher.

The estimation of the chances of winning the jackpot was not affected by exposure to the virtual slot machine. This finding may be explained by the fact that our simulator did not offer jackpots, unlike the machines in the casinos. The maximum amount a player could win at any given time was credits. Near misses could also have contributed to the results. They happen when all the symbols necessary for winning the jackpot except one are shown on the screen, giving players the impression that they almost won (or just missed) the jackpot (Dixon &#x; Schreiber, ). Many slot machines online and in casinos are programmed this way. In the present study, the strategy of near misses was not used.

Although we observed a decrease in the estimation of the chances of losing among those who played the exaggerated return rate, we did not observe any significant change in their irrational beliefs. The way the simulator was programmed may have minimized the effect on the irrational beliefs of the participants. In fact, it was programmed in such a way that it did not induce the illusion of control. The majority of slot machines offer the option of betting on multiple lines at once and also offer bonus games in which the player must make choices, such as choosing numbers. This set-up reinforces the player&#x;s illusion of control (Langer, ). In the present study, the only choice the participants could make was to bet one or three credits at a time. There were therefore not many occasions in which they could feel they were controlling the game in comparison to the situation with real slot machines.

We must also consider the fact that the participants were exposed to the simulation in a laboratory for a very short period (10 min). Tversky and Kahneman ()&#x;s theory informs us that irrational beliefs are developed by using heuristics to make a judgement about a situation. Individuals constantly use the same heuristics, which brings them to make the same errors of estimation. With time, the repeated used of the estimation errors creates an irrational belief (Tversky &#x; Kahneman, ). Irrational beliefs could also influence estimation errors, but longitudinal studies would be necessary to confirm this effect. Moreover, we measured only a few beliefs (the illusion of control, superstitious beliefs, independence of chance events, the gambler&#x;s fallacy, and misunderstanding of random outcomes). It is possible that the virtual slot machine influenced irrational beliefs that were different than those measured. Future studies would be necessary to test this hypothesis.

Our results highlight the importance of considering game characteristics when implementing responsible gaming strategies. According to Blaszczynski and collaborators (), gambling providers must not make misleading claims related to their products or develop products that favor excessive gambling. When given accurate information, consumers of gambling products may decide whether or not to use them. Given inaccurate information, individuals may not be able to make an informed decision about their behavior and the risks involved. Because the return rates of slot machines in trial mode are much higher than usual, we believe this constitutes a misleading claim by the game provider, as players are shown unrealistic scenarios while considering playing the machine. The return rate then changes without warning when they begin to wager real money. Our results show that even a brief exposure to exaggerated return rates leads to minimizing the chances of losing. From a responsible gambling perspective, game providers should be enticed to modify the gaming characteristics that might promote false beliefs and contribute to excessive gambling (Blaszczynski et al., ). Exaggerated return rates of slot machines in trial mode may be one of these characteristics.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

The principal strength of this study is that it used an experimental design with random assignment of the participants to the experimental and control groups. The controlled environment also allowed us to exclude many extraneous variables. For instance, participants in each group experienced gains and losses at the same moments, although the gains in the experimental group were greater. Generally, simulations use the same program as slot machines do in casinos. This approach causes participants to experience different outcomes one person may finish with a gain and another with a loss, even if their return rates are similar. Because it is known that winning or losing will have an impact on the person&#x;s beliefs (Monaghan et al., ), using the same sequence for each participant helped control this variable.

Certain limitations of the current study need to be acknowledged. It is important to remember that participants were undergraduate university students with little gambling experience, which limits the generalizability of the results to other populations. In the province of Quebec, Canada, gambling is more frequent in people between 35 and 74 years of age (Kairouz et al., ), older than the average undergraduate student. It thus seems relevant to continue to study the impacts of exaggerated return rates on younger populations because even minors can easily access online gambling and because problems related to gambling develop during adolescence or early adulthood (Blanco et al.,  Petry et al., ). It would also be pertinent to test the impact of exaggerated return rates on a population of experienced gamblers.

Although we observed a significant decrease in the estimation of the chances of losing after a short exposure to a virtual slot machine, the post-experimental data was collected right after the participants played on the gambling simulator. Therefore, the effect of this exaggerated return rate in the medium or long term is not known. Further research is necessary to measure the change in errors of estimation and erroneous beliefs over longer periods. It would also be interesting to determine the minimal return rates that influence players&#x; estimations.

Furthermore, the study did not allow players to keep playing beyond the allotted min period. Players were informed that the experiment lasted about 25 min. Knowing this, they may have planned other engagements afterwards. They may have been more tempted to keep playing if they had been in a real online gambling context.

Conclusion

A brief (10 min) exposure to the trial mode of a slot machine with an exaggerated return rate was enough to create a decrease in the estimation of the chances of losing. Because gamblers who believe they have more chances of winning on a slot machine will often play longer and bet more money (Bednarz et al., ), it is important to know whether the same is true for those who believe they have less chances of losing. Exposure to slot machines with return rates comparable to demo modes on gambling websites may potentially entice gamblers to spend more money than they can afford while gambling. Further research is necessary to better understand whether high return rates can be risk factors for problem gambling. Such research may inform policies that govern the online gambling industry in order to protect individuals from harm while participating in this kind of activity.

References

Submitted April 10, ; accepted May 26, This article was peer reviewed. All URLs were available at the time of submission.

For correspondence: Daniel Lalande, Ph.D., Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Boulevard de l&#x;Université, Room V, Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada G7H 2B1. E-mail: daniellalande@ingalex.de

Competing interests: None declared (all authors).

Ethics approval: The Université du Québec à Chicoutimi Research Ethics Committee approved on November 10, , the research project « Mesure de l&#x;impact du pourcentage de retour des machines à sous de démonstration sur les erreurs d&#x;estimation et les croyances irrationnelles des joueurs » Measuring the impact of demo mode slot machines on players&#x; errors of estimation and irrational beliefs ()

Acknowledgements: No acknowledgements or funding sources mentioned.