JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I could probably do 16/16/x and 20/20/x with the same code. A lot of refactoring would be involved to switch this analysis to T100 base. And there probably isn't a good way to quantify the liability with having too many small chips in play, but I know we both observe that issue when counting stacks.Excellent, simply excellent!
I would like to see the corresponding numbers for 16/16/x and 20/20/x (T25-base), along with a similar analysis of 10/10/x vs 15/9/x (or 15/13/x) stacks of T5-base and 10/6/x vs 15/5/x stacks for T100-base (and even 6/12/x vs 8/11/x vs 10/10/x for T500-base might be enlightening, too).
I suspect that 20/20/x stacks is where diminishing returns really kicks in. Will be interesting to see the differences in 10/x vs 15/x sizing compared to your 8/x vs 12/x numbers.
My starting stack composition recommendations have long been a "minimum 8/8/x to maximum 20/20/x, with optimum 12/12/x to 16/16/x per stack", with the reasoning that 8/8/x slows the game play (excessive change-making) as does 20/20/x (excessive counting/re-stacking).
Would love to see your analysis produce hard numbers that "prove" it all.
If I get some downtime I will probably run the others.
Last edited: