vp_wiz wrote: "I'm always open to further education. But the idea that addition of a constant game kickback would impact the determination of MCR strategy goes against every gut feeling I have. Most importantly, it simply offends my common sense -- how the hell could a fixed kickback alter the MCR math."
OK, let me take another approach here. First off, the "kickback amount" isn't constant correct? The kickback amount is the kickback percentage times the royal cycle, so obviously if the royal cycle is longer, you get more kickback? Does that make sense? Another way is to simply do the math, which gives me a chance to make a correction in one of my statements, ok, ready?, math:
Put 0 as the royal value, the return (per wizard's calculator) is 97.94%. So, if the kickback percentage is 2.06%, the net return is 100%, and this is the correct MCR strategy. The cost of the royal is zero, zip, nada. It's a freeroll, how sweet is that?
Now, let's say instead you play 800-9-6 strategy in this same situation. The return of the game is 99.54%, plus you're getting 2.06% kickback for a net return of 101.6%. What's the cost of the royal now? It's 800 minus 1.6% of the royal cycle which is 40,391, I get 154. Not bad, but that's a long way from zero my friend.
OK, let's say instead you play 976-9-6 strategy in this same situation. The cost of the royal is 976, minus 2.06% of the royal cycle which is now 35,939, I get 236. That's worse, not surprising, to me at least, because this is not the MCR strategy for this situation.
How you like dem apples?
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (32) |
