??????
You are not logged in.
Ohhhhh, perhaps then an in-game timer for future tourneys?
Try Linux, get free. #!++ (CrunchbangPlusPlus) is a stable distribution based on Debian 8. Keep it fast, keep it pretty.
Offline
But I don't see why money that you are currently playing with should be deducted from that. To say that judge doorman had a negative profit even though he/she hadn't actually lost any money and had actually made some is a bit silly.
Offline
That is a good point. I'll fix that.
Offline
I've realized that the prizes jumping down when just one more player joins at the threshold for one more player receiving a prize is hard to fix.
Say there's a number of players such that 4 should win a prize. As you add more players, you eventually cross the point where 5 should win a prize. Before you cross that point, the prize pool is growing linearly, so those 4 winners prizes are growing linearly. Then one more person is added (one more entry fee), but the whole prize pool is now divided among 5 players instead of 4.
If P is the number of players who each pay E, and V players receive a prize, we have the average prize equal to:
EP / V
Now we add one more player, crossing the threshold where V+1 people should get a prize. The average prize is now:
E*(P+1) / (V+1)
This is smaller than (EP / V) whenever V < P.
I've noticed that Poker tournament prize structures suffer from this same problem:
http://www.fulltilt.com/poker/tournaments/payouts
One way to fix it might be to let V = P. A distribution where everyone got some kind of prize, with a ramp up toward first place.
Offline
Managed to fix this by reducing the minimum prize down below the entry fee. So, when we cross a threshold where a new player being added means one more prize, the prize that we're giving that player (what we're taking away from everyone) is less than that player's contribution to the prize pool.
Offline