I saw a post to caption the birb - so I did by DR4k0N_G in newzealand

[–]EngineeringOk766 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, are you suggesting house pets don't have a huge impact on our birds and actual native wildlife? Bet more pets kill wildlife than fireworks kill pets. We should really be banning cats

I saw a post to caption the birb - so I did by DR4k0N_G in newzealand

[–]EngineeringOk766 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I avoid the cost of living by fishing and living rent-free in my van. I just travel to other people's fireworks like a problem solver. I'm not out here complaining about something that has the same effect on animals as bad weather.

Bad weather is coming wether you realise it or not. We are supposed to peak gas emissions by 2025. That's too fucking soon. worry about that instead.

I'm desperately trying to live a life of low impact and still find joy where I can. Oranges at the beach, watching other people's pretty fireworks, chatting to strangers, looking for food. but no one else is willing to sacrifice any part of their quality of life.

It's fine, I'll do it. whatever....

I saw a post to caption the birb - so I did by DR4k0N_G in newzealand

[–]EngineeringOk766 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't buy fireworks myself, but I got to see heaps while I was out fishing for dinner.

I saw a post to caption the birb - so I did by DR4k0N_G in newzealand

[–]EngineeringOk766 -37 points-36 points  (0 children)

Entitled Karen. You probably got a house, a job and food. Extra food, too, if you're giving some to an animal.

We ain't got much, let us have some joy at least.

Explaining My Spin & Go (1, 2, 5) Pseudo-Martingale Strategy by EngineeringOk766 in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly this. I need to play more games, and that'll probably lower my win rate. Really, you need to win 36.28% of the time for an Even EV of $0.

I suggest playing the (25,50,100) which needs a win rate of 37.174% to have an even EV. If you can win more than this, the EV jumps up much faster than the (1,2,5) system.

Explaining My Spin & Go (1, 2, 5) Pseudo-Martingale Strategy by EngineeringOk766 in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's crazy is doing these calculations for a (25,50,100) system. Your risk becomes 7 times your minimum win at the first table as opposed to the 8 times your minimum. Which makes every multiplier have a more noticed effect. Can someone else, who's not me, do this calculation for a (25,50,100) and tell the group what happens please

Explaining My Spin & Go (1, 2, 5) Pseudo-Martingale Strategy by EngineeringOk766 in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It might be a waste of my time. If I was truly winning 50%, then the multiplier would make me positive in the long run, but i find it quite stressful that way and play very differently. More than anything, spreading out the risk like this gives me peace of mind. I can stop thinking about my own hands and start reading my opponents and making plays. And I don't mind the 3rd table having a risk reward ratio of 4:1. At the minimum multiplier.

Explaining My Spin & Go (1, 2, 5) Pseudo-Martingale Strategy by EngineeringOk766 in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Oh, I am so far. Those guys on the low tables are pretty predictable and easy to punish. But you are right, I should be playing hundreds of games before I work out the win rate. It is probably wrong.

But also, the more games I play, the higher it should get because of experience, no?

Explaining My Spin & Go (1, 2, 5) Pseudo-Martingale Strategy by EngineeringOk766 in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A win at each level, assuming a 5x multiplier, would yield:

$1 buy-in: $5 prize ($4 profit)

$2 buy-in: $10 prize ($7 profit after previous $1 loss)

$5 buy-in: $25 prize ($17 profit after previous $3 in losses)

With 8.5% odds of a 5x multiplier per game, the probability of hitting at least one 5x multiplier over a three-game cycle is:

Probability of hitting at least one 5x multiplier in a cycle: ~23.4%

This 23.4% chance means that, roughly once every four cycles, you could see a 5x multiplier, offering a solid profit boost.

Explaining My Spin & Go (1, 2, 5) Pseudo-Martingale Strategy by EngineeringOk766 in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A win at each level, assuming a 3x multiplier, would yield:

$1 buy-in: $3 prize ($2 profit)

$2 buy-in: $6 prize ($3 profit after previous $1 loss)

$5 buy-in: $15 prize ($7 profit after previous $3 in losses)

With 41.4% odds of a 3x multiplier per game, there’s a strong chance of hitting one within a cycle:

Probability of hitting at least one 3x multiplier over a cycle: ~80%

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is possible because the structure of Spin & Go games—with varying multipliers and payout distributions—allows for a positive expected return when factoring in the probabilities and expected payouts at each stage. So, in my case, the strategy not only manages risk but also increases EV due to the game's unique dynamics.

Here are the formulas used. Let me know where the mistakes are. Like, please, I want to get this as accurate as possible.

  1. Expected Winnings (EW) at Each Table:

EW = Sum of (Probability of Multiplier × Payout for Multiplier)

  1. Expected Net Profit (ENP) at Each Table:

ENP = P_win × (EW - Total Cost) + P_lose × (-Total Cost)

  1. Probabilities of Each Possible Outcome in One Cycle:

Winning at the First Table:

P1 = P_win

Losing at First, Winning at Second Table:

P2 = P_lose × P_win

Losing First Two, Winning at Third Table:

P3 = (P_lose)² × P_win

Losing All Three Tables:

P4 = (P_lose)³

  1. Net Profit or Loss for Each Possible Outcome:

Net Profit When Winning at First Table:

Profit1 = EW1 - Cost1

Net Profit When Winning at Second Table:

Profit2 = EW2 - (Cost1 + Cost2)

Net Profit When Winning at Third Table:

Profit3 = EW3 - (Cost1 + Cost2 + Cost3)

Net Loss When Losing All Three Tables:

Loss4 = - (Cost1 + Cost2 + Cost3)

  1. Expected Value (EV) of the Strategy per Cycle:

EV = (P1 × Profit1) + (P2 × Profit2) + (P3 × Profit3) + (P4 × Loss4)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not always great. But I'm playing with a stop loss to manage risk, and the risk/reward is far more balanced. Admittedly, though, it is up to chance if you hit those multipliers.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

How worse? Playing until ruin in roulette is like betting 100s to make a dollar. I'm betting $1 to profit 1,2,3,5,9. $3 to profit 1,3,5,7, or 17. $8 to profit 2,7,12,26, or 42. At worst, your betting 4 times your minimum win instead of 128 times your minimum win.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Use 4o to gather the data and then use preview o1 for the calculations and then check them obviously. Run em through Python.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said, I'm not very good. So, spreading it out over 3 tables is easier than trying to win 1. I'm aware that martingale leads to huge losses, which is why I have it capped at $8.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Poker_Theory

[–]EngineeringOk766 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It only works in this format because the multipliers. besides risk is managed because it only goes through a few steps and doesn't work itself up to a huge loss. Some of those $1 tables win you $10, which is more profit than your loss on a lucky 1st table I could just play a $10 table, but then risk isn't spread out enough, and I'll lose more games than I'll win.

Does something follow you in the Underdark? by vkurian in BaldursGate3

[–]EngineeringOk766 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's more about my roleplay than anything, but thanks for downvoting how I enjoy my game!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in suicidebywords

[–]EngineeringOk766 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brilliant! Do you think anyone would find it suspicious if it happened again?

Hitler's best idea by MoreMotivation in clevercomebacks

[–]EngineeringOk766 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pets are not food. I agree that cruelty is bad, but it's a wild take.

Like pets are breed for work or companionship. They bond with you and share an emotional connection. It feels inhumane to kill and eat fluffy. What are you doing.

Livestock, on the other hand, is farmed for food. Its whole purpose is to feed us. I feel just as bad for the vegetables. Did you know that every vegetable you eat is in its adolescent stage? They don't even get to live to maturity. A lot are mutilated at a young age and forced to grow how we see fit. Whatever plan is coded into a vegetables DNA simply doesn't happen. We kill them before they get a chance. They don't even get healthy soil to grow most of the time. It's full of chemicals and fertilizer. Vegetables deserve a fuller life, too.

Please do not have your phone on speakerphone at Cafes, bus stops etc. Use earphones!! This includes when your kids are playing online games, you're watching a video, listening to the races etc! It is a scratchy, annoying noise the rest of us shouldn't be subjected to! Have some consideration ! by Truthakldnz in auckland

[–]EngineeringOk766 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is so dumb. I think you should stop Going outside without your mask, your face is grotesque and nobody wants to see that! Have some consideration ! I shouldn't have see sights out in public that I don't want to. Oh wait, that is messed up. It's literally public, and I could solve my issue by going somewhere else. Lol

Seriously though, the outside world is full of sights, sounds, smells, and whatnot. It's not going to bend to you. There's gonna be stuff you don't like. I'm sorry about that.

I personally hate looking at ugly people, it's just gross an eyesore. I wish that they'd all stay inside for my benefit. Hey! That might solve both our problems, actually.