Processing Day 1 results now 
4 Likes
So if my calculations are correct, that’s 0 + 600 + 0 + 200 + 300 + 100 = 1200 shiny, shiny 
.
I’d like to have won more, but a net gain definitely seems to be good, so hopefully this will help me in the next rounds.
Congratulations to the big winners, and my condolences to the unlucky.
3 Likes
Day 1 Scoreboard
| @ | Wins | Score |
|---|---|---|
| @Vindace | 800 + 2,400 + 0 + 0 + 0 = | 3,200
|
| GDBringer | 2,000 = | 2,000
|
| lordcaldera | 800 + 900 + 0 = | 1,700
|
| PeteMcc | 1,500 + 0 = | 1,500
|
| rakada | 1,500 + 0 = | 1,500
|
| DrFlamingo | 0 + 600 + 0 + 200 + 300 + 100 = | 1,200
|
| Pylinaer | 0 + 0 + 0 + 1,000 = | 1,000
|
| ohko | 800 + 0 + 0 + 0 = | 800
|
| AHMEDJXZ | 400 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 300 + 0 = | 700
|
| scar1 | 0 + 600 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = | 600
|
| coralinecastell | 0 + 0 + 0 + 450 + 100 = | 550
|
| Fraggles | 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 500 + 0 = | 500
|
| RosetteoXChrno | 0 + 400 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 50 = | 450
|
| YQMaoski | 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 200 = | 200
|
| M00 | 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = | 0
|
| anyamtikja | 0 + 0 = | 0
|
| kovec | 0 = | 0
|
| Danacscott | 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = | 0
|
| Lifedeather | 0 = | 0
|
| CreatureFeet | 0 = | 0
|
The next roll will be the same time tomorrow.
Simba, Remember: Your wagered gems for Day 2 cannot exceed your updated gem count in the scoreboard above 
Everyone can begin placing their Day 2 bets below 
7 Likes
100 on (25, 26, 29, 28)
300 on (Black)
200 on (3rd)
200 on (High)
200 on (Middle)
200 unwagered.
My last roll seemed to work well enough, so I figure I’ll just do the same thing but shifted to a different area. Hopefully it works out. 
2 Likes
Mhm, and who thinks there’s a shark in these waters? 
| Vindace’s Bet | Score |
|---|---|
| 400 on even | 800
|
| 200 on D | 2,400
|
| 200 on (24 27 23 26) | 0
|
| 150 on bottom | 0
|
| 50 on 5 | 0
|
| Total |
3,200
|
An extremely lucky bet, if I say so myself 
Everyone, a round of applause for @Vindace 
8 Likes
8 Likes
Never Too Late To Enter
If you didn’t enter yesterday, don’t worry!
Every new contestant starts with 1,000
You can still get your bets in any time before Spin 2, tomorrow at 9:00 (PDT)
2 Likes
Oof. The hard part with being in the lead is now deciding how much to wager again. gotta make sure not too wager too much so as to keep the lead and reserve for the 3rd spin while also considering how to widen the gap I have… hmmmm
3 Likes
So here’s where we should be able to see the problem with allowing people to enter late. As we all should know all gambling is in the favour of the house and this score board shows us that clearly, in fact I’m surprised to see so many people winning anything. Anyone joining day 2 is going to be in a better position than 65% of participants who joined at the start.
And what about anyone who’s now at 0? Are they allowed to re-enter with a new shiny 1000:gem: in the pocket? I wouldn’t think you’d allow that but technically they’re out of the game so if we’re accepting new players why wouldn’t rejoining be a possibility? In fact I’d be better off just throwing my 500 away and rejoining for a top up.
The odds are after all in favour of NOT playing and that’s why I think that you should limit participation to require everyone to join from the start.
2 Likes
1000 on 1st 500 on 2nd
2 Likes
No actually, this spin wasn’t a (0) so you’re not witnessing “house advantage”. Anyway I removed the negative effects of (0) in this note. The risk/payout is now in perfect balance. Still, some people will be lucky and win and others will lose.
This might be true for this round, but that’s not guaranteed every round. A good amount of the people with low Day 1 scores are ones that took rather risky bets. If you think joining on Day 3 has a strategic advantage, go for it! I promise you will change your mind as soon as you’re stacking your 1,000 up against someone who has 5,000 to wager.
Sure, it’s possible for you to win, but the probability favours the player with 5,000 gems. And the only way to start Day 3 with 5,000 gems is to play in one of the previous days…
No. Re-entry is not allowed. They wouldn’t be joining as a new player. They already played and lost.
But that’s not true. By not playing, you are guaranteed to end at 1,000 gems. Every day you bet is another chance to compound your money. There’s no more “house advantage” and the payouts are a pure calculation based on the precise odds to win the bet.
1 Like
I mean your table just shows me that it is. There’s a 6.5:10 odds of losing compared to not playing, well not exactly of course we don’t have the necessary runs to pull a proper average from yet.
While the nature of the final game here is different from normal gambling, being a point scoring competition rather than coming out with earnings, does change things in regards to benefits of entering late. The early winners have the obvious advantage and now enters the 2nd stage where in they have to be tactical and figure out what to do with their pot. It still remains true that not playing in round 1 sets you up to be in a better spot entering round 2 than 65% of participants.
1 Like
200 on Even
200 on Black
200 on [6,3]
200 on [High]
200 on 1st
I left out the mumbo jumble unless people want to see it.
Edit: if I went with my ballsy bet I would have 4800 gems lol.
I’ve got another ballsy bet set for the ballsy one. I’m playing that one illegitimately on the side. Real is what will be used for anything.
2 Likes
How are you doing the math? I could bet 50% of my gems on (Red), and the other 50% on (Black), and have a 100% chance of winning. And a 0% chance to lose.
I could bet 33% of my gems on (1st), another 33% on (2nd), and the last 33% on (3rd). Again 100% chance to win and 0% chance to lose.
Of course I won’t earn any gems with this strategy, but I won’t lose any either. And that’s where our Chrono implementation differs. In “real” roulette, the house does not give you 50:50 odds on a 1:1 bet. It’s actually 18:37 (48.7%) when the (0) is factored in. So if I were to bet 50% of my gems on (Red) and the other 50% on (Black), I am statistically going to “win” 36 out of 37, still with no increase in gems. However, 1 out of 37 I will lose all of my gems. So even though this strategy is perfectly balanced, it is a losing strategy overall and exhibits the “house advantage” in real roulette.
Our roulette does not have “house advantage”, and so you could bet right down the middle and guarantee that your gem count will not change – win or loss. The winners of this game will simply be the ones that take chances and get lucky. There’s no way to win if you don’t play.
Sure, they have an advantage because luck favoured them in a previous round, but the question is:
Can they keep a lucky streak and retain a high score? Or will they make safe bets and try not to fall behind the next lucky duck?
Based on what? The data from this round alone cannot be used to make that kind of statement. And if everyone followed this rule, no one would play the first round and you’d all be starting at the same amount for Day 2 – so no one would be in a “better spot”.
The winners of this game will be decided by luck and that’s about it. It’s roulette after all 
1 Like
13 out of 20 participants have less than 1000 gems left.
But what would be the point of that? You’re just passing the turn then, same as entering late. Please don’t think I’m complaining about having lost, as the short quotes you’ve pulled out might seem to suggest.
I see these 3 rolls as a multi stage game here. First stage weeds out the ‘unlucky’ 2nd stage is more of a tactical game for those who are still in it. I am going to be interested in seeing what the state of the score is going into 3rd.
The truth that someone who enters in the 2nd stage is now better off than most of the participating players just indicates, in my opinion, that late entry should not be a feature of the game.
1 Like
Based on this specific set of bets against one specific spin – that doesn’t tell you anything about the overall win/loss probability of the game…
If the players made different bets, the results could be completely different. If the spin was different, the results could be completely different.
Ie, if most people bet (red) or (even) this round, we would’ve had way more winners and then your statement doesn’t hold. We had some people bet 1000 on (Black) and 1000 on a single number. I think a strategist would say those are “risky” plays but it doesn’t mean they can’t win. Seeing some low scores or zeroes on the board just means people took big risks, they got unlucky, or a combination of the both. But it definitely doesn’t tell you anything about the odds of playing the game.
Add to that a lot of people here haven’t played roulette before so they’re just throwing bets out there just for fun. So consider the “inexperience” factor as well.
To debunk the myth that it’s somehow advantageous to sit rounds out. Of course you cannot guarantee a win, but the only way to go up in gem count is to take a risk and get lucky on it.
It comes down to how much chance do you want to take and how much luck will you have? You could enter Day 3 with 100 gems, put it all down on one number, and finish with 3,600 gems. Could that be enough to take first prize? Maybe!
I’m worried you’re eager to assert this as “truth” when there isn’t data to support this. Sitting at 1,000 gems could be enough to take first prize if everyone else’s bets are wild or they happen to get unlucky. Is it likely? I don’t think so, but the strategy is left up to y’all.
1 Like
There isn’t data that suggest that it will be the truth every time. But it IS unquestionably the truth of the matter here, which is all I have said. Of course I am basing my opinion on late entry to a degree on that, admittedly, limited data. But primarily it’s merely an opinion that participation should be for the entirety of a game.
As you say the point is that in order to win you need to play. In order to win anything more than you started with you have to take a risky bet of some sort. Be that a 33%, 25% or 2% chance to win. Any bet that lifts you above the starting 1000 carries a larger risk of not winning. Which is why everyone who participated went for a non-safe bet. Which resulted in the current situation where someone who did not play round 1 is in a better position than most of the participating players. That really is just the state of things, not on averages of 1000 games with 1000 players throwing random bets, but for this game, right now, right here.
The game we’re playing isn’t roulette per se. It’s a betting risk mitigating game with roulette as the mechanic. That’s why I think entering at the start and riding the game out should be the point, not because mathematically the game is even and everyone will just even out over enough games. Because we’re not just randomly generating numbers, we’re trying to make decisions on how and what to bet.
2 Likes
lol, no, u didnt win anything, status quo is not winning
and the bet does favor the house in most cases in general, if u take odd or even it’s 50/50, but if u take 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, for example, that becomes 33.3/66.6, etc.
the only case where u can actually get the advantage is by betting on both 1st and 2nd (or any other 2/3 combination), which i thought of doing at first, but the winnings would barely make that worth it, if u win, that is, cuz u still have a 33.3% of losing everything at every round, and in all other possibilities besides the 50/50 the house has the clear advantage, which is why i just said yolo and went for a 20% of big winnings and went bust, lol.
3 Likes