Poll
3 votes (75%) | |||
No votes (0%) | |||
1 vote (25%) |
4 members have voted
March 7th, 2013 at 6:08:35 PM
permalink
In order to compare different games, given that some have low minimum bets, but high decisions per hour (e.g., BJ), while others require larger and/or mulitple wagers, but may be slower or often push (e.g., PGP); how about adding a "$100" number?
Think of the "$100" number as, "Assuming you buy in for $100, flat bet the minimum, and play the suggested Wizard of Odds strategy, how many minutes of action (the "$100" number) will this game provide?" You'd have to make some assumptions regarding the average decisions per hour, (e.g., the player is wagering at an average pace, not stalling to collect drinks on the cheap,) but I think the number is meaningful when evaluating the potential entertainment value of a game.
What say you?
Think of the "$100" number as, "Assuming you buy in for $100, flat bet the minimum, and play the suggested Wizard of Odds strategy, how many minutes of action (the "$100" number) will this game provide?" You'd have to make some assumptions regarding the average decisions per hour, (e.g., the player is wagering at an average pace, not stalling to collect drinks on the cheap,) but I think the number is meaningful when evaluating the potential entertainment value of a game.
What say you?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
March 7th, 2013 at 6:10:38 PM
permalink
A "Buy-in Longevity factor."
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
March 7th, 2013 at 7:53:19 PM
permalink
Min bet dollar amount shouldn't be a factor. It should be written in betting units or compare all games to a $10 betting unit (most games can be found with this).
I really like the general idea though.
I really like the general idea though.