Quote from: dooglus on February 03, 2016, 05:53:21 PM

Quote from: dooglus on February 03, 2016, 07:35:59 AM

I ran a simulation

I modified the simulation to it's running the 121x "red" plinkopot line:

Quote

   r = random.random() * 65536
   if r >= 26333 and r < 39203: p = 0.3
   elif r >= 14893 and r < 50643: p = 0.5
   elif r >= 6885 and r < 58651: p = 1
   elif r >= 2517 and r < 63019: p = 1.4
   elif r >= 697 and r < 64839: p = 3
   elif r >= 137 and r < 65399: p = 5
   elif r >= 17 and r < 65519: p = 13
   elif r >= 1 and r < 65535: p = 47
   else: p = 121

and generated some plots of the average log bankroll growth against percentage of bankroll risked.

It takes a lot of rolls to get a good smooth curve, presumably because of the high variance of the 121x payout.

First attempt:

Second attempt:

Both show that risking somewhere around 40% of the bankroll per game is optimal, but that risking half that isn't anywhere near half as bad.

very admirable your efforts to explain, to prove or to find the best KC %age for the plinko game. I would expect this effort from the ex owner or new owner of MP

you are saying that risking 40% of the BR would be optimal but half = 20% would also be acceptable? did I get this right?

what about those 83% or 99% KC risk for the plinko game?