Causing a bit of a stir.

[thealteredemu]

@Cavey

Here you go fella

 

J

[thealteredemu]

I guess something to do with the attract mode coding.  As soon as it flashes 4 nudges you creditted up for a guaranteed feature hold.  I'm pretty sure you could do this all the time, whereever you are on the board etc.

I'd love to have those elusive roms.  I've contacted people over the years and you often get the same kind of response...  I'll ask my friend it's not my machine etc

I'd buy a copy absolutely no problem, historic preservation and all that

J

[Cavey]

Awesome J. Nice £2 free win in 1984 would've been just the ticket, given that a pint was about 70p

Looks like it only works on the earlier £2JP roms - and under quite rare circumstances, i.e. when you reach near the top of the trail and have numbers on the reels that would get you to the £2 square. It's a great trick for sure but would be surprised if it was enough to actually empty the machine.

 

[thealteredemu]

In reality it might have been just wait a good while, maybe the flashing 4 nudges was just a timing thing, that's the way the guy we saw doing it did it anyway .

There were 2 that worked in our little seaside town, though there was still one in a little cafe arcade on the seafront that worked in 1988!!!   Though the guy in the arcade knew of it and would watch you like a hawk

J

[thealteredemu]

2 minutes ago, Cavey said:

Awesome J. Nice £2 free win in 1984 would've been just the ticket, given that a pint was about 70p

Looks like it only works on the earlier £2JP roms - and under quite rare circumstances, i.e. when you reach near the top of the trail and have numbers on the reels that would get you to the £2 square. It's a great trick for sure but would be surprised if it was enough to actually empty the machine.

 

I'm pretty sure you could keep doing it when it was on the £2 square as well.  Though I might be mistaken.  If we had those roms we could find out!!

J

[thealteredemu]

Yes, £2 version, so not the Super Line up.  Was Super Line Up just the £3 jackpot amount reglass?

J

Edited August 6, 2025 by thealteredemu

[thealteredemu]

I do wonder if this base code was in other early similar games, was Line Up the first game of this type?

J

[Chopaholic]

1 hour ago, Cavey said:

Fascinating stuff.  Btw, I completely agree that emptiers/flawed code has always been a thing. As we've both said, though, it's probably just a case of far fewer "pro" players knowing the cheats back then for it to have been a problem, hence fruities were far more widely played by casuals, their having not been "done" all the time. (No internet, smart phones or even mobiles etc.)

There was a luck of the draw element to this side of things. Back on my old Degsy channel someone left a comment on one of the videos where I was talking about some of my old addict haunts in Bury/Radcliffe and the comment basically read along the lines of, 'Shit mate, me and a few playing partners had that area completely sewn up so any kickings you received had a high chance of being down to us, especially on Hidden Treasures machines and others that were really doable, sorry about that'.

He even named a few pubs and yes, they were pubs I used to frequent!

[Cavey]

22 minutes ago, thealteredemu said:

Yes, £2 version, so not the Super Line up.  Was Super Line Up just the £3 jackpot amount reglass?

J

Yeah I think so J, Super Line Up was the same except bars were £3JP (and hence could not be reached as a prize amount off the trial, only via nudges - or extremely rare roll in/off holds, the latter being very highly sought after as it could repeatedly hold).

[Cavey]

2 minutes ago, Chopaholic said:

There was a luck of the draw element to this side of things. Back on my old Degsy channel someone left a comment on one of the videos where I was talking about some of my old addict haunts in Bury/Radcliffe and the comment basically read along the lines of, 'Shit mate, me and a few playing partners had that area completely sewn up so any kickings you received had a high chance of being down to us, especially on Hidden Treasures machines and others that were really doable, sorry about that'.

He even named a few pubs and yes, they were pubs I used to frequent!

Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that, in the late 80s or early 90s, the chances of constantly encountering dead, "done" machines (and hence losing without a single sniff, ever) was likely much rarer than later on, with the widespread use of mobile/smart phones, the internet, forums and suchlike.

We can talk about price-per-play vs. JP size till the cows come home, and I don't doubt that £70JP "amusement" machines are daft, but IMO the death knell of the AWP was widespread "pro" playing (hence the proliferation of randoms). People just got wise to it and the reservoir of casual punters just dried up as a consequence, all as long predicted decades ago on Fruit Forums lol.

[Boulderdash]

17 minutes ago, Cavey said:

Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that, in the late 80s or early 90s, the chances of constantly encountering dead, "done" machines (and hence losing without a single sniff, ever) was likely much rarer than later on, with the widespread use of mobile/smart phones, the internet, forums and suchlike.

We can talk about price-per-play vs. JP size till the cows come home, and I don't doubt that £70JP "amusement" machines are daft, but IMO the death knell of the AWP was widespread "pro" playing (hence the proliferation of randoms). People just got wise to it and the reservoir of casual punters just dried up as a consequence, all as long predicted decades ago on Fruit Forums lol.

As with all these things, I'm sure it was both, and more besides. 

Jackpots too high

Too many players

Too many empties/manipulations

The internet 

Beer getting too expensive so even if people did go to the pub they didn't throw their change in the bandit

[Cavey]

Yep, sure those all all valid mate.

None of the pubs I go in have a fruity of any description and haven't done for years - and that's a fair cross section of posh Cheshire gastropubs and also much more straightforward village locals (that certainly did have them in the 90s and early 00s).

Shit, the smoking ban in pubs might even have something to do with it! I used to enjoy puffing away on my Marlboro red, pint in hand, whilst losing copiously or something or other  

[Chopaholic]

38 minutes ago, Cavey said:

Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is that, in the late 80s or early 90s, the chances of constantly encountering dead, "done" machines (and hence losing without a single sniff, ever) was likely much rarer than later on, with the widespread use of mobile/smart phones, the internet, forums and suchlike.

We can talk about price-per-play vs. JP size till the cows come home, and I don't doubt that £70JP "amusement" machines are daft, but IMO the death knell of the AWP was widespread "pro" playing (hence the proliferation of randoms). People just got wise to it and the reservoir of casual punters just dried up as a consequence, all as long predicted decades ago on Fruit Forums lol.

I'd agree with that, I was able to get lucky, just about often enough, for the addiction to keep its hooks in.

Streaks sometimes happened to me, or 'free nights out' at least where I'd win enough to cover all my other expenses and get a Chinese on the way home. Enough to make me want to do it again and again.

I appreciate anecdotes are not data, but looking back something seemed to change towards the end of the £4.80 era and into the £6 era, and the frequency of drubbings increased. As per my post the other day I honestly think a lot of the rot set in with the insane profile ACE went for on their Hidden Treasures machines, and they were fuckable too. (And also, absolutely everywhere.)

[Projectgilda]

The smoking ban had a huge effect on AWP's. Takings dropped massively. 

[thealteredemu]

@Chopaholic Doing the lines emptier didn’t affect the machine as they are completely unaccounted for.  What did knock the machine back was if you’d not taken enough value from the normal pot as it built up and threw in that dreaded ‘mini streak’ of sorts.  That killed the machine.  If we’d let it get too happy we’d take those wins and sack it off as it could take a fair bit to get it buzzed up again.  I’m inclined to think that mini streak roll in connected to the main base game pot.

This is likely the main reason for those dead Ace Coins that were emptiable.

Same with the clickable ones, those wins are completely free as the machine hasn’t accounted for at all.

I’ve had the natural streak on Open the Box when doing lines and it didn’t have any affect on the base game, so I assume that streak pot is a separate from the main base game pot.

J

[Boulderdash]

1 hour ago, thealteredemu said:

@Chopaholic Doing the lines emptier didn’t affect the machine as they are completely unaccounted for.  What did knock the machine back was if you’d not taken enough value from the normal pot as it built up and threw in that dreaded ‘mini streak’ of sorts.  That killed the machine.  If we’d let it get too happy we’d take those wins and sack it off as it could take a fair bit to get it buzzed up again.  I’m inclined to think that mini streak roll in connected to the main base game pot.

This is likely the main reason for those dead Ace Coins that were emptiable.

Same with the clickable ones, those wins are completely free as the machine hasn’t accounted for at all.

I’ve had the natural streak on Open the Box when doing lines and it didn’t have any affect on the base game, so I assume that streak pot is a separate from the main base game pot.

J

Anyone doing the lines, or spot the ball, would usually try and take all the actual value from the game as the tubes got low so the next punter filled it up, so that's probably why @Chopaholictook so many beatings. 

[thealteredemu]

For sure, we often took £50 cash, maybe even empty tokens and get a refill on those (seaside arcade) they don’t have any issues with refloating tokens. (Might be an issue in a pub as they’d likely need an engineer).  Then we’d just let that mini forced streak kill it.

J

[Boulderdash]

20 hours ago, thealteredemu said:

@Chopaholic Doing the lines emptier didn’t affect the machine as they are completely unaccounted for.  What did knock the machine back was if you’d not taken enough value from the normal pot as it built up and threw in that dreaded ‘mini streak’ of sorts.  That killed the machine.  If we’d let it get too happy we’d take those wins and sack it off as it could take a fair bit to get it buzzed up again.  I’m inclined to think that mini streak roll in connected to the main base game pot.

This is likely the main reason for those dead Ace Coins that were emptiable.

Same with the clickable ones, those wins are completely free as the machine hasn’t accounted for at all.

I’ve had the natural streak on Open the Box when doing lines and it didn’t have any affect on the base game, so I assume that streak pot is a separate from the main base game pot.

J

Here's a question that maybe @Projectgildacan answer. 

What determines the number reel stops? Is it random or linked to the compensator?

 

[Projectgilda]

Every aspect of an AWP is linked to the compensator. Reel stops, numbers, feature square positions. All linked to the compensator. There's tables for each mode of the compensator and the machine plays these tables depending on the state of the compensator.

[thealteredemu]

I guess this is why it is so easy for something to be overlooked, if the compensator isn’t in tight control, then there could well be something to exploit. 

I had a little side project that was gathering dust.  I used to play Project Coin Bullseye and could empty them even after the bullseye bug.  You just took wins from the base game via skillshot nudges.  This would keep it feature board ready.  Sadly the latest rom we have has this fixed and all wins are lumped into the same compensator so after so long the machine will go dead.

So anyway I finally located this compensator in the rom that controls the skillshot mechanism and as I though all wins take value from this and as soon as it reaches 1, then the machine goes into recovery mode.

I have a 10p rom that doesn’t work like this and I found that it has two compensators (likely from the original 20p base code).  So all reel wins via skill shot come from this separate compensator and the skill shot compensator is unaffected by any wins gained from the reels.

So now I will go through and compare some bits and make the changes to put this back to how the original would work.  I’d love to put the bullseye bug back in too but it’s a little beyond what I can do.

It won’t be of much interest to others but I love doing this kind of stuff.

Ive done it with Monte Carlo or Bust, we didn’t have an emptiable version but I persisted and put it back in, though that took me a couple months and way too much time, I think I went a bit mad in the head at the end of it.

I’m just fascinated with bugs and emptiers.

J

[Boulderdash]

1 hour ago, Projectgilda said:

Every aspect of an AWP is linked to the compensator. Reel stops, numbers, feature square positions. All linked to the compensator. There's tables for each mode of the compensator and the machine plays these tables depending on the state of the compensator.

This was my expectation.

Even if numbering weren't explicitly in the code, it could choose 1s and 12s because it can afford it, so it's an accidental tell. 

[Projectgilda]

I'd agree with that statement

[Boulderdash]

1 hour ago, Projectgilda said:

I'd agree with that statement

...although the numbers on Crystal games like Bags of Cash were apparently random, and certainly irrelevant in terms of odds. You win or lose, whether the number is 2 or 7. 

[stevedude2]

1 hour ago, Boulderdash said:

This was my expectation.

Even if numbering weren't explicitly in the code, it could choose 1s and 12s because it can afford it, so it's an accidental tell. 

My guess is that it was put in Indiana Jones to stop you getting JPMs in the base game on a 1 or 12 and being able to gamble past the £3 block when the compensator couldn't afford it.  And then it just got left in there and became an unintentional way of being able to tell what level the compensator was in.

And then when Big Bucks came out where you could step the number reel, it needed to guard against 3's and 8's as well when burnt, and that's a third of the number reel it couldn't spin to.  Big Bucks was the first game where I became aware of numbering and it made sense because it didn't want you getting Stop-a-Fruit and being able to gamble to Stop-and-Step.  Nor did the game want you to be able to get 2 or 3 nudges and be guaranteed the first gamble, which might give you a win it couldn't afford.  There was no 'looking ahead' to check what number was showing before deciding whether to let you onto the nudge or feature trail, so it was easier to just stop the game spinning those 'guaranteed' numbers, rather than rewrite the decision process on whether to allow certain scenarios or not.  A sort of crude, blanket-fix if you will.

I never thought that the same would apply to games like Roller Coaster and Monopoly 60 with a £4 block because those games didn't need to inhibit those numbers because there was no way of it trapping itself due to the game design being completely different to Big Bucks.  But as it turned out it was in everything.

[Chopaholic]

4 hours ago, stevedude2 said:

My guess is that it was put in Indiana Jones to stop you getting JPMs in the base game on a 1 or 12 and being able to gamble past the £3 block when the compensator couldn't afford it.  And then it just got left in there and became an unintentional way of being able to tell what level the compensator was in.

And then when Big Bucks came out where you could step the number reel, it needed to guard against 3's and 8's as well when burnt, and that's a third of the number reel it couldn't spin to.  Big Bucks was the first game where I became aware of numbering and it made sense because it didn't want you getting Stop-a-Fruit and being able to gamble to Stop-and-Step.  Nor did the game want you to be able to get 2 or 3 nudges and be guaranteed the first gamble, which might give you a win it couldn't afford.  There was no 'looking ahead' to check what number was showing before deciding whether to let you onto the nudge or feature trail, so it was easier to just stop the game spinning those 'guaranteed' numbers, rather than rewrite the decision process on whether to allow certain scenarios or not.  A sort of crude, blanket-fix if you will.

I never thought that the same would apply to games like Roller Coaster and Monopoly 60 with a £4 block because those games didn't need to inhibit those numbers because there was no way of it trapping itself due to the game design being completely different to Big Bucks.  But as it turned out it was in everything.

That kinda makes sense, to a point. Using your three examples there Big Bucks I can understand, Indy far less so (I can't see that occasional unwanted gamble from £3 to £4 ushering in the end of the world) and Roller Coaster not at all.

Therefore the notion that this was basically a shotgun at a barn door approach to compensator control across JPM's entire codebase is the only explanation that fits.

AW has already confirmed numbering was put in after the fact and was not part of his original design/control brief, and timeline wise that means it all gets a bit screwed up too, since a £6 jackpot Indy will do numbering but is largely immune to the problems 'rogue' 1/12s would cause, and Big Bucks (which I can accept far more) didn't show up until the £8 jackpot.

Either way the end result was the same, numbering was a full on 'compensator tell' for those who knew (which could be activated by just watching others play from a safe distance, or playing through £3-£4 of credits through themselves), and a guarantee to everyone else that they'd very often be playing in 'sucker mode'.