??????
You are not logged in.
One small bug I noticed is that right after you get an amulet and click okay on the "you received an amulet" screen, and then click on the deposit button, when you exit the deposit screen it will display the "you received an amulet" screen again. Probably not a big deal or anything, but I thought you might want to know about it.
Offline
Drop amulet button and auto-tickdown score have been added in v17, just released.
Any chance we could get the auto tickdown score displayed on the waiting for opponent screen when queuing up an amulet game? Or a timer of how long we've held it?
I've been setting up a timer and an auto-refresh tab of the leaderboard in my browser while waiting, but I just figured I'd ask.
Offline
Some way to tell how long until you drop the amulet does feel lacking, even if it only shows on the amulet score page. It's something I do lose track of.
EDIT: BTW, what was the reason that I could receive a time penalty of more than 120 points before timing out? I had a look at the source and it seems the amulet timeout timer is only updated when you either receive an amulet, or enter or win an amulet game. Has it been changed?
Last edited by .. (2015-03-22 10:01:43)
Offline
Congrats to the other amulet winners - Claspa, Jere, Cobblestone, Context Fabric and Ano!
Offline
Congratulations to you too, Josh!
Offline
dot-dot:
You're penalized for however many minutes you held it when you finally drop it. So, if you hold it for more than two hours (because you actually play games during that time, extending your hold time), you will be penalized for more than 120 points.
Ano:
Thanks, will check that.
I'll add a "minutes left" to the web-based leaderboard for the person currently holding it.
I think it will be pretty easy to mirror the live amulet score on the WAITING FOR OPPONENT screen.
Offline
Those who won:
Any feedback on how you won? Did it feel broken? Was there an obvious "method" that was a shortcut to winning that I've missed?
Offline
As many people have pointed out, the contest encourages non-amulet holders to play very recklessly and amulet holders to play very conservatively. Amulet holders are risking their amulet AND up to $3. Non-amulet holders are risking a single penny. I don't know if this is a problem, but it was very clearly there. And this also meant that the number of games you played seemed far more important than your skill.
There's the obvious strategy of securing a win 2 hours before the comp ends and just holding it. Nothing wrong with that, but it's probably going to happen with many amulets.
One person who shall remain nameless intentionally drew out games with the stated goal of encouraging non-amulet holders to bail out. This is the first time I've experienced this and it was incredibly frustrating. I could see someone drawing out a handful of rounds to 2 hours (and only losing a couple dozen coins).
One interesting thing in this contest was targeting specific amulets. Most of the time, the top amulets weren't held so it wouldn't make sense to play for an amulet if you thought you had little shot of out competing everyone else for the top spot. Josh had 3799 points at the end, so he must have won at least 20 games with that amulet. If it's the last few hours of that contest, that seems pretty hopeless.
So at one point I knew I had a decent chance at the 3rd amulet and what I had to do is wait for the other two to get picked up before going after mine. In the real contest, that probably won't be a viable strategy. The way I see it working is that if you get your hands on an amulet, you will have to treat it like the only time you will ever see that amulet and make the best of it.
Last edited by jere (2015-03-23 15:05:12)
Canto Delirium: a Twitter bot for CM. Also check out my strategy guide!
Offline
I think the asymmetrical risk part will be better when the amulet-holder is informed of their randomly-chosen stake.
The drawing out issue is an obvious problem. That's what the minutes-held penalty is supposed to be for. If you draw the game out, the number of points you'll win on the amulet will be mostly eaten up by the penalty. Maybe the penalty is too low? It could be 2 points per minute or even higher. Well, to make it cleaner, the number of points won by winning could be adjusted instead. Maybe 100 instead of 200.
Drawing-out is a consequence of how we define "win" here (being the last player standing). Is there some better way to define a win for the purpose of the amulet?
I do really like the mechanic of "taking" the amulet from someone, so I wouldn't want to change it to "how many coins can you win in 2 hours, with a forced drop at the 2-hour mark" or something like that. The problem here is that a "win" in this game is ill-defined, so any way we chose to artificially define it will encourage distorted behavior of some kind.
Offline
The drawing out issue is an obvious problem. That's what the minutes-held penalty is supposed to be for. If you draw the game out, the number of points you'll win on the amulet will be mostly eaten up by the penalty. Maybe the penalty is too low? It could be 2 points per minute or even higher. Well, to make it cleaner, the number of points won by winning could be adjusted instead. Maybe 100 instead of 200.
Flip that around. I was the amulet holder in this situation and my opponent was a non-amulet holder. They were hoping to pick up an amulet by boring a non-amulet holder, but they also kill my points by drawing the game out forever (and they could even come back and win the game after having drawn it out for so long).
Canto Delirium: a Twitter bot for CM. Also check out my strategy guide!
Offline
Okay, all payouts have been made.
These were made directly into the winner's accounts. Keep in mind that this does not affect the profit or profit ratio leaderboards (those show profit made through the main game only).
Offline
I didn't win. But I had the $100 amulet for a period of time. I had one long grueling match where I earned every one of my 200 points, but by the time I'd earned it, I had already drained 150 of the original points. I later won two matches where my opponent left within the first 5 or so rounds. Ultimately I spent a full five hours or so around these three matches waiting in queue.
Some have mentioned that careful play is encouraged with amulets, but reckless play seemed to make my later opponent believe that he was playing non-amulet games and he left. Which I thought was funny. And I was particularly rewarded for my reckless play. 2-200 point payouts in ~10 minutes. It adds to the metagame in an interesting way.
Just some observations. I think we just need some more players and the whole thing will level out.
Try Linux, get free. #!++ (CrunchbangPlusPlus) is a stable distribution based on Debian 8. Keep it fast, keep it pretty.
Offline
Those who won:
Any feedback on how you won? Did it feel broken? Was there an obvious "method" that was a shortcut to winning that I've missed?
First of all, I want to thank Jason for this contest.
These were interesting times and I was even lucky to win something.
I think that most of the problems at present will be solved by a larger player pool.
A shortcut to winning? As Jere stated the system is more about the quantity of games and sometimes due to our time zones Josh and I were pretty much the only two active players. We played numerous games against each other with wins/losses on both sides, so this helped to get points on the top amulet.
Due to the reckless play of many players some were inclined to call an all in on the first round (but after the revealing of a number) when it was clear that I had the highest score. (I am not talking about bullying people with an all in on every round)
It's interesting that usually some are fighting fiercely over one penny and in the contest they are almost throwing it away.
I am looking forward to the launch and I really hope a lot of players will show up.
Thanks again, Jason!
Offline
I'll +1 the reckless play observation. I've never had so many games end within the first 5 rounds as I did during this contest! All of my games yesterday were like that. I even had a game that ended the first round. Also, I had one match were my opponent all-in'd every single first betting stage. It's annoying as an amulet holder because you just have to sit there and take it over and over until you feel like trying your luck. Then again, I had a few reckless players that would call my ridiculous all-ins when I had the better numbers, so it worked in my favor sometimes.
Granted the opposite was also true. I had some games last longer and be more thoughtful than usual with a lot of back and forth. Me and Economy Maker had an especially epic and grueling showdown were the ante was nearly 30 coins when it ended. So maybe it balances out.
I think you'll be fixing my real major gripe by showing the amulet holder the game stakes.
Anyway, ya! Thanks for the contest!
Offline
Any feedback on how you won? Did it feel broken? Was there an obvious "method" that was a shortcut to winning that I've missed?
It seems everyone has already brought up my thoughts, mostly the problem was the ratio between number of amulets and active players. Depending on ones time zone (and sleep schedule) it was difficult to find a game when holding and not holding an amulet, forcing me to adopt the drop-and-catch method and limiting the total games I could play.
This essentially put me out of the running for the high value amulets so when I received a low value (the $20 amulet) I held on to it as long as possible, while playing conservatively, and ensuring me the win.
One thing I believe will still be relevant in the official contest is the advantage given by playing a large number of games. The obvious reason is more possible exposure to games involving an amulet, the ability to pick up a high value amulet quickly after its dropped, and a higher points earned / points burned (the holding penalty).
EDIT: This could be solved by raising the minimum wager to be pulled into an amulet game (so $1-3 = amulet game), however this would give the more "financially sound" players an advantage because really what's losing $3 every 5 minutes when you make $40+ an hour?
I did find a certain amount of collusion was possible between two communicating players with the current active players ~5, albeit was time consuming and obvious what was happening if you looked at canto delirium.
All-in-all I had fun and was glad to be able to participate, so as everyone has said, thank you Jason.
Last edited by context fabric (2015-03-23 21:05:38)
Offline
Yeah, with the minor tweaks that I finished today and will release tomorrow (along with one final amulet test contest, why not?), I think this is as close as it's ever going to get to being right.
I do wonder about the pressure toward throw-away penny games, though... hmm... but I also don't want to push amulet acquisition out of the reach of new players but putting a $1 floor in place...
Here, with so few players, pretty much every game was an amulet game, so everyone was fighting for an amulet in pretty much every game. Thus, penny stakes made sense. But if 1/100 of your games are amulet games, then are you going to want to waste time with so many penny games, or would you be more inclined to "just play for real" and hope for a chance at an amulet whenever? You know, if penny games are meaningless to you, playing 99 of them for ever 1 amulet game would be a waste of time (you're not making money).
Yes, playing more games is advantageous for sure. I think this is okay.
Offline
How I got the top place for the two top amulets:
Played lots of games during low activity dropping an amulet as soon as I picked it up. Sometimes against other players doing the same, sometimes against new players that I didn't lose against and so the amulets tended to stay in circulation ready to be picked up again. During popular times I'd hold onto any amulet I got a hold of (well, at least the top two) and play amulet games.
Of course this strategy won't work at all if there are always lots of active games. But with low activity this kind of behavior is what will win it, if not full blown collusion with players or alt accounts intentionally leaving in order to very quickly boost another players amulet points. This would have been extremely easy in this competition - I'm personally glad no one decided to do it. If you have another test comp I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries this though.
So, overall what will make or break the comp is whether you can get consistently have lots of active players. If at anytime during the day the number of active players drops below or close to the number of amulets then it will be very open to collusion. Basically you want all the amulets to be held most of the time.
I'm personally not too worried about this happening at the very start of the competition, but I do worry about it towards the end - especially if it goes on for more than 2-3 days. Also, I wonder how many people you'll get playing from my part of the world - living in Australia definitely gave me an advantage in this comp.
Perhaps one preemptive solution is to have the number of active amulets restricted to some ratio of active players. So if there are 36 or less active players then maybe only one gold will be able to be picked up which will mean that winning a game won't guarantee a pickup and 200 points.
Another possibility is to have players lose points when they lose the amulet - so you get 200 points when you receive it but lose those 200 when it is dropped or lost. This will mean that picking up the amulet and dropping it has no net gain - you need to actively play amulet games to get points. This combined with restricting multiple amulet games with the same players should severely restrict collusion opportunities even with a low active number of players. Or even simpler you could just revert to there being no points gained when you pick one up from the pool - there should be no need of this when there are lots of players and games.
Last edited by joshwithguitar (2015-03-23 22:52:18)
Offline
The biggest problem with penny games, is that it puts an uneven amount of pressure on the amulet holder. The amulet holder is under a lot of pressure to play conservatively and not lose, and putting against someone who doesn't think they have anything significant at stake makes for a very unbalanced game. You could just tell the other player they were in an amulet match, but this could create other problems, such as the other player stalling for time to spite the amulet holder when they were losing (or even in cases where they weren't, just to be a troll). I think that if you want to play for an amulet, you need to be willing to risk an amount you actually care about losing. It doesn't have to be $1.00, even $0.10 would be better than nothing. But if a player doesn't have an amount they care about at stake, it may encourage them to try to exploit the contest even if profiting from doing so is unlikely (because why not if the contest only lasts a short time and they have no other chance of winning). You need to have some sort of deterrent against that, or players attempting to exploit the contest structure may end up taking over the game and ruining it for people trying to play seriously. That is definitely not what you want the first impression of your game to be.
I have some other reservations about how the tournament went as well. While I think most of them did stem from the fact that there were just not enough players for the contest structure to really work the way it was supposed to, I still think it's possible they could present themselves in the real launch tournament. Keep in mind, if there is any downtime, and I mean any at all, where the player count drops below the total number of amulets times two, collusion and other strategies designed to exploit the system become viable. There are two changes that I think you should consider making to prevent this. One is to ensure that amulets are only dropped in proportion to the number of non-amulet games currently being played. So if all games are currently amulet games, or there are no other games being played, no amulets may be dropped. The higher the number of non-amulet games that are required, the more protection it will provide against collusion, but I'm not sure what the best amount would be. The other is to ensure that amulets are dropped randomly, and not in order of value. Dropping the amulets in order of value means that it is possible to quickly play a game, drop an amulet to bypass the amulet game system, and quickly win it back before anyone else gets a chance to pick it up. Random amulet drops would help to prevent this.
Edit: Or maybe there should just be an invisible timer put in place after you drop an amulet, that doesn't allow you to pick up another amulet for a period of time? That might be a more elegant solution. I think the key is just to make sure people don't exploit the ability to drop amulets...
Last edited by AnoHito (2015-03-24 01:19:20)
Offline
The biggest problem with penny games, is that it puts an uneven amount of pressure on the amulet holder. The amulet holder is under a lot of pressure to play conservatively and not lose, and putting against someone who doesn't think they have anything significant at stake makes for a very unbalanced game. You could just tell the other player they were in an amulet match, but this could create other problems, such as the other player stalling for time to spite the amulet holder when they were losing (or even in cases where they weren't, just to be a troll). I think that if you want to play for an amulet, you need to be willing to risk an amount you actually care about losing. It doesn't have to be $1.00, even $0.10 would be better than nothing. But if a player doesn't have an amount they care about at stake, it may encourage them to try to exploit the contest even if profiting from doing so is unlikely (because why not if the contest only lasts a short time and they have no other chance of winning). You need to have some sort of deterrent against that, or players attempting to exploit the contest structure may end up taking over the game and ruining it for people trying to play seriously. That is definitely not what you want the first impression of your game to be.
I agree that some mechanism to balance the pressure between amulet holders and non holders is somewhat needed. I don't think that creating a flat minimum wager is a solution because we still have people that consider low amounts of money dispensable.
A possible solution may be a rising minimum wager (to be in the amulet queue) for each consecutive game played, proportional to your balance. This minimum wager would always be visible to you and could burn down at a determined rate. You may also need a global deposit limit in place for the duration of the contest for this to work. Say limit 3 deposits?
I have some other reservations about how the tournament went as well. While I think most of them did stem from the fact that there were just not enough players for the contest structure to really work the way it was supposed to, I still think it's possible they could present themselves in the real launch tournament as well. Keep in mind, if there is any downtime, and I mean any at all, where the player count drops below the total number of amulets times two, collusion and other strategies designed to exploit the system become viable. There are two changes that I think you should consider making to prevent this. One is to ensure that amulets are only dropped in proportion to the number of non-amulet games currently being played. So if all games are currently amulet games, or there are no other games being played, no amulets may be dropped. The higher the number of non-amulet games that are required, the more protection it will provide against collusion, but I'm not sure what the best amount would be. The other is to ensure that amulets are dropped randomly, and not in order of value. Dropping the amulets in order of value means that it is possible to quickly play a game, drop an amulet to bypass the amulet game system, and quickly win it back before anyone else gets a chance to pick it up. Random amulet drops would help to prevent this.
Edit: Or maybe there should just be an invisible timer put in place after you drop an amulet, that doesn't allow you to pick up another amulet for a period of time? That might be a more elegant solution. I think the key is just to make sure people don't exploit the ability to drop amulets...
I think amulets in the pool should always be distributed from highest to lowest in value. I also would amend what Ano said to "Or maybe there should just be an invisible timer put in place after you drop an amulet, that doesn't allow you to pick up that dropped amulet for a period of time?"
Other amulets would still be available to be picked up, or you could be matched against an amulet holder.
Offline
What if the amount of points gained from a win were on a sliding scale in opposite directions for the non-amulet holder and the amulet holder over time?
What I mean is, if the non-amulet holder is playing recklessly and wins from bullying in the first few turns (a quick win) they get a very low amount of points. If instead they play a long thoughtful game, they get the full 200.
The opposite would be true for the amulet holder. If they beat the non-amulet holder quickly, they get a bigger windfall, maybe even 300 points, but if the game goes on too long it drops back down the the normal 200.
Then again, the amulet holder is burning points just by spending time playing in a game anyway, so this is somewhat already in place. It just needs to be mirrored over to the non-amulet holder. It doesn't fix the uneven pressure entirely, but it might help balance it out a little bit.
Offline
Except the non-amulet holder wouldn't even know if they were playing an amulet game, so it probably wouldn't be much of a deterrent. For the non-amulet holder, even if they don't win as many points to start with, getting the amulet in the first place is the most important thing.
Offline
One thing I'd be interested in: For the duration of the contest, were there any games played for stakes above $3? Is this a problem, or is the increased volume of games enough to make up for that?
<Asking both Jason and the folks who usually play $5+ stakes>
Also, JWG, you played a lot of games, what stakes were you typically playing? Since the stakes aren't revealed to the amulet player, I'd imagine $3 games wouldn't be as efficient as penny games.
Offline
Someone kept putting up $10 or $12 stakes, but I don't know if they were ever matched.
Canto Delirium: a Twitter bot for CM. Also check out my strategy guide!
Offline
Yeah, I've already implemented a limit on amulet drops when the player population is low. Josh, I think this solves the dropping strategy you're talking about, because during low pop times (only 2 players), no dropped amulets would be picked up at all. You'd need at least 3 active players for there to be 1 amulet dropped. The formula is 2 * N + 3, where N is the number of current held amulets. You need that many active players before dropping another one.
Regarding buy-in behavior, here's the full history of the game:
+------------+----------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+----------+
| 1 | 555.5500 |
| 4 | 400.0000 |
| 1 | 350.0000 |
| 1 | 333.3300 |
| 5 | 300.0000 |
| 1 | 200.8200 |
| 32 | 200.0000 |
| 4 | 150.0000 |
| 1 | 125.1700 |
| 1 | 125.0000 |
| 1 | 111.4400 |
| 1 | 102.0000 |
| 1 | 100.0100 |
| 72 | 100.0000 |
| 1 | 96.9400 |
| 1 | 90.7200 |
| 2 | 90.0000 |
| 2 | 80.0000 |
| 2 | 75.0000 |
| 1 | 70.0000 |
| 6 | 60.0000 |
| 27 | 50.0000 |
| 1 | 45.0000 |
| 14 | 40.0000 |
| 1 | 35.0000 |
| 1 | 30.5300 |
| 8 | 30.0000 |
| 1 | 25.0000 |
| 1 | 24.0000 |
| 1 | 21.0000 |
| 1 | 20.0100 |
| 17 | 20.0000 |
| 1 | 17.3300 |
| 1 | 16.6600 |
| 1 | 15.1300 |
| 6 | 15.0000 |
| 2 | 14.0000 |
| 1 | 13.1300 |
| 4 | 12.0000 |
| 1 | 10.6300 |
| 1 | 10.1700 |
| 5 | 10.0100 |
| 67 | 10.0000 |
| 3 | 9.0000 |
| 1 | 8.7600 |
| 1 | 8.7000 |
| 1 | 8.5000 |
| 1 | 8.0100 |
| 7 | 8.0000 |
| 4 | 7.5000 |
| 9 | 7.0000 |
| 1 | 6.6700 |
| 18 | 6.6600 |
| 1 | 6.4200 |
| 1 | 6.3600 |
| 1 | 6.1000 |
| 1 | 6.0100 |
| 12 | 6.0000 |
| 1 | 5.8400 |
| 1 | 5.7500 |
| 1 | 5.7100 |
| 1 | 5.5100 |
| 2 | 5.5000 |
| 1 | 5.0600 |
| 1 | 5.0500 |
| 1 | 5.0300 |
| 7 | 5.0100 |
| 115 | 5.0000 |
| 1 | 4.9500 |
| 1 | 4.8100 |
| 1 | 4.5500 |
| 1 | 4.5400 |
| 1 | 4.5000 |
| 1 | 4.4800 |
| 3 | 4.4400 |
| 1 | 4.4100 |
| 5 | 4.2000 |
| 3 | 4.0100 |
| 57 | 4.0000 |
| 1 | 3.9800 |
| 1 | 3.9000 |
| 1 | 3.7500 |
| 1 | 3.5800 |
| 1 | 3.5700 |
| 20 | 3.5000 |
| 2 | 3.4300 |
| 1 | 3.4100 |
| 12 | 3.3300 |
| 1 | 3.2100 |
| 1 | 3.1100 |
| 1 | 3.0400 |
| 4 | 3.0100 |
| 99 | 3.0000 |
| 1 | 2.9900 |
| 1 | 2.9500 |
| 1 | 2.9000 |
| 2 | 2.8800 |
| 1 | 2.7900 |
| 1 | 2.7500 |
| 1 | 2.6700 |
| 2 | 2.6100 |
| 3 | 2.5500 |
| 1 | 2.5100 |
| 48 | 2.5000 |
| 2 | 2.4500 |
| 1 | 2.3900 |
| 3 | 2.3000 |
| 1 | 2.2800 |
| 1 | 2.2700 |
| 3 | 2.2500 |
| 15 | 2.2200 |
| 1 | 2.2000 |
| 1 | 2.1400 |
| 4 | 2.1100 |
| 1 | 2.0600 |
| 1 | 2.0200 |
| 2 | 2.0100 |
| 332 | 2.0000 |
| 5 | 1.9900 |
| 1 | 1.9500 |
| 1 | 1.8000 |
| 1 | 1.7700 |
| 1 | 1.7000 |
| 1 | 1.6800 |
| 1 | 1.6700 |
| 8 | 1.6600 |
| 2 | 1.6500 |
| 1 | 1.6100 |
| 1 | 1.5900 |
| 1 | 1.5500 |
| 1 | 1.5300 |
| 1 | 1.5200 |
| 7 | 1.5100 |
| 38 | 1.5000 |
| 1 | 1.4900 |
| 3 | 1.4100 |
| 9 | 1.4000 |
| 8 | 1.3100 |
| 9 | 1.2500 |
| 3 | 1.2400 |
| 2 | 1.2200 |
| 9 | 1.2000 |
| 2 | 1.1500 |
| 1 | 1.1300 |
| 1 | 1.1200 |
| 17 | 1.1100 |
| 5 | 1.1000 |
| 7 | 1.0800 |
| 1 | 1.0700 |
| 1 | 1.0600 |
| 2 | 1.0500 |
| 1 | 1.0400 |
| 1 | 1.0300 |
| 2 | 1.0200 |
| 28 | 1.0100 |
| 667 | 1.0000 |
| 5 | 0.9900 |
| 2 | 0.9400 |
| 2 | 0.9300 |
| 1 | 0.9200 |
| 2 | 0.9100 |
| 4 | 0.9000 |
| 2 | 0.8900 |
| 1 | 0.8700 |
| 9 | 0.8500 |
| 1 | 0.8300 |
| 4 | 0.8100 |
| 18 | 0.8000 |
| 1 | 0.7800 |
| 1 | 0.7700 |
| 22 | 0.7500 |
| 1 | 0.7300 |
| 3 | 0.7100 |
| 18 | 0.7000 |
| 6 | 0.6900 |
| 5 | 0.6600 |
| 2 | 0.6500 |
| 1 | 0.6300 |
| 1 | 0.6100 |
| 24 | 0.6000 |
| 1 | 0.5900 |
| 1 | 0.5800 |
| 1 | 0.5700 |
| 36 | 0.5500 |
| 1 | 0.5400 |
| 4 | 0.5300 |
| 12 | 0.5200 |
| 31 | 0.5100 |
| 531 | 0.5000 |
| 3 | 0.4900 |
| 8 | 0.4800 |
| 4 | 0.4700 |
| 1 | 0.4600 |
| 4 | 0.4500 |
| 2 | 0.4400 |
| 1 | 0.4300 |
| 11 | 0.4200 |
| 6 | 0.4100 |
| 38 | 0.4000 |
| 8 | 0.3900 |
| 1 | 0.3800 |
| 7 | 0.3500 |
| 3 | 0.3400 |
| 12 | 0.3300 |
| 6 | 0.3200 |
| 25 | 0.3100 |
| 92 | 0.3000 |
| 2 | 0.2900 |
| 5 | 0.2800 |
| 4 | 0.2700 |
| 10 | 0.2600 |
| 421 | 0.2500 |
| 5 | 0.2400 |
| 17 | 0.2300 |
| 16 | 0.2200 |
| 63 | 0.2100 |
| 259 | 0.2000 |
| 8 | 0.1900 |
| 4 | 0.1800 |
| 11 | 0.1700 |
| 22 | 0.1600 |
| 138 | 0.1500 |
| 13 | 0.1400 |
| 115 | 0.1300 |
| 113 | 0.1200 |
| 191 | 0.1100 |
| 1142 | 0.1000 |
| 97 | 0.0900 |
| 104 | 0.0800 |
| 93 | 0.0700 |
| 111 | 0.0600 |
| 506 | 0.0500 |
| 154 | 0.0400 |
| 227 | 0.0300 |
| 264 | 0.0200 |
| 1654 | 0.0100 |
+------------+----------+
236 rows in set (0.03 sec)Binning these by whole dollar amounts:
+------------+--------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+--------+
| 6755 | 0 |
| 851 | 1 |
| 430 | 2 |
| 146 | 3 |
| 75 | 4 |
| 131 | 5 |
| 35 | 6 |
| 13 | 7 |
| 11 | 8 |
| 3 | 9 |
| 74 | 10 |
| 4 | 12 |
| 1 | 13 |
| 2 | 14 |
| 7 | 15 |
| 1 | 16 |
| 1 | 17 |
| 18 | 20 |
| 1 | 21 |
| 1 | 24 |
| 1 | 25 |
| 9 | 30 |
| 1 | 35 |
| 14 | 40 |
| 1 | 45 |
| 27 | 50 |
| 6 | 60 |
| 1 | 70 |
| 2 | 75 |
| 2 | 80 |
| 3 | 90 |
| 1 | 96 |
| 73 | 100 |
| 1 | 102 |
| 1 | 111 |
| 2 | 125 |
| 4 | 150 |
| 33 | 200 |
| 5 | 300 |
| 1 | 333 |
| 1 | 350 |
| 4 | 400 |
| 1 | 555 |
+------------+--------+Okay, here are the bins during a 4-day period before the amulet contest:
+------------+--------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+--------+
| 68 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 1 | 9 |
| 3 | 10 |
| 3 | 12 |
+------------+--------+Here are the bins from the 4 days of the contest:
+------------+--------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+--------+
| 326 | 0 |
| 10 | 1 |
| 12 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
+------------+--------+Yep, there were ZERO games over $3 during the contest. While sub-dollar games dominated, there were more games overall, and more 1 and 2 during the contest than before.
Here's the full break-down during the contest:
+------------+--------+
| game_count | buy_in |
+------------+--------+
| 119 | 0.0100 |
| 23 | 0.0200 |
| 13 | 0.0300 |
| 5 | 0.0400 |
| 28 | 0.0500 |
| 3 | 0.0600 |
| 5 | 0.0700 |
| 4 | 0.0800 |
| 2 | 0.0900 |
| 56 | 0.1000 |
| 10 | 0.1100 |
| 4 | 0.1200 |
| 1 | 0.1300 |
| 10 | 0.1500 |
| 4 | 0.2000 |
| 5 | 0.2100 |
| 15 | 0.2500 |
| 1 | 0.2800 |
| 2 | 0.3000 |
| 1 | 0.3100 |
| 14 | 0.5000 |
| 1 | 0.7000 |
| 4 | 1.0000 |
| 1 | 1.0100 |
| 1 | 1.1100 |
| 1 | 1.4000 |
| 1 | 1.4100 |
| 2 | 1.6500 |
| 7 | 2.0000 |
| 1 | 2.1400 |
| 1 | 2.2200 |
| 2 | 2.2500 |
| 1 | 2.7500 |
| 1 | 3.4100 |
+------------+--------+Only a single game was played out of amulet range. But within the range, there's a pretty good spread.
Offline
Also, JWG, you played a lot of games, what stakes were you typically playing? Since the stakes aren't revealed to the amulet player, I'd imagine $3 games wouldn't be as efficient as penny games.
I played mostly <= 10c because that was what was on offer. In the real comp though I will be trying to play as many $3 games as possible. This is for two reasons:
- Now that game stakes will be revealed to the amulet holder $3 games will increase my chance of the amulet holder leaving in amulet games giving me a free amulet.
- With a large influx of players I imagine that the majority of games played, even in the $3 range will be against new easy to beat players and so the larger the stakes I play each game the more profit I will make overall.
Offline