Is this going to result in someone making their bet some grotestquely huge theoretical number, making any bet that can be expressed in just rational numbers strategically unfeasible?

Actually, wouldn’t this make the whole betting system redundant, as the strategically correct move is always to put all segments X whatever the largest possible number is?

Hmm, would it be? Imagining a wheel without Ditzy, if I wager “Numbness, Rimless, Upturned, Laziness, Manatee” then I pay 5 per spin and win 5. If I wager “Numbness x 10, Rimless x 10, Upturned x 10, Laziness x 10, Manatee x 10” then I pay 50 per spin and win 50.

Without a cap on wagers or debts, a strong strategy would be Martingale, of wagering “Numbness x 1,000,000” (or whatever huge number would put you in the lead if your segment came up) and if you lose, betting even more to recover your losses next time.

That would be a strong strategy but it falls apart in the face of what I think of as the Cuddlebeam strategy - go straight for the largest theoretical number imaginable (‘a googelplex raised to a googelplex’ is his go-to), which forces a response on a similar magnetude, and so on…

In any case, I think that this also veers too close to recreating Versailles, so

I guess there’d ultimately be a cap on the number of spins that happened before the dynasty ended, so you could be out of luck. But yes, watching players write unnecessarily big numbers and use increasingly unparseable mathematical notation isn’t much fun.

“It can’t be greater of the number of Segments in the list.” might prevent this large number arms race if it’s made clearer that it’s referring to the list of Segments in the Wheel and not the list being measured

I’d support if we were to fix the numbers.

Scammable, just pick the largest number you can. If you’re unlucky, just pick an even larger one next time.

Well, yes, I think Pokes already discovered the cap already exists ^^ You can’t bet more than the number of Segments.

I can’t see that a cap exists.

A Wager of “Laziness Laziness Laziness Laziness Laziness Laziness Laziness” either has a Size of 1, or a Size of 7, depending on how you count it. But even counting it as Size 7, I can’t see that the Ruleset makes that list invalid.

You’re proposing “The Size of a Wager is the number of Segments in the list. It can’t be greater of the number of Segments in the list.”, but this will always be true - “the number of Segments can’t be greater than the number of Segments”.

@Kevan you correctly explained that there’s the Martingale system. You can’t use the Martingale system in this case, since there’s a maxium bet, and it’s the number of Segments :)

@Kevan you say “this will always be true”. I don’t think so. You can write now for example “Laziness” 100 times, and it’s perfectly valid. But simply it does make sense.

With my proposal, you can write the same Segment multiple times, but the total number of Segments in your Wager can’t exceed the Wheel size, to avoid what you, Josh and Ais pointed out: the Martingale tactic.

It does NOT make sense :P

Capping it it to Wheel size would be a good idea, but the way you’ve written this (repeating the wording of the previous sentence’s “the number of Segments in the list”, which is referring to the Wager list) it reads as if you’re talking about the Wager, not the Wheel.

The Wheel rule doesn’t describe the Wheel as being a list.

.....Ufff you’re right, I had to write “the number of Segments in the WHEEL”.