perhaps you should increase the number of points gained to the number of segments, so we can increase the number of segments without upsetting the math.

Good idea, edited

No, the original was correct. If we create a segment that doesn’t award points, betting on every segment will now give you a consistent profit.

Well, either way is wrong in the sense that a careless new segment can unbalance it in some way. This way we can add a new segment with the same text and it’s fine, the original way we can add a blank segment and it’s fine.

No, it gives you zero. You still have to pay for the winning segment. So if you bet on six segments, and there are six segments, then you win six points but pay for six points.

What I really wanted to do was give each segment a positive effect, which triggers when that segment is rolled (and adds points to people with the segment in their wager), and a negative effect, which triggers on each segment that’s not rolled (and deducts from everyone with the segment in their wager). But that’s a lot of work for the spinner.

I like pokes’s idea of having positive and negative effects. Separately, I don’t like that we are going to integrate the size of the wager into the behavior of segments without any universal restriction. What about tying the size of the wager to the number of points one has and also tying segments’ behaviors to that?

Having everyone get a free wager was quite intentional. Allows players to still “play” the game passively, though if they aren’t moving their wager around they might miss some optimal plays. So I think a multiple wager system is worth pursuing, not sure this is the right way to do it. Think it would result in everyone just wagering on the spots that have expected net benefit and not wagering on the spots that have expected net loss. Whereas if you only get one wager (or need to go through some extra steps to get multiple wagers) then different effects might have different enough benefits you have to choose which one you want to go after even if both are good.

Not really sure, but let’s see how it goes.

There’s a typo, by the way: “Amensiac”. It can be fixed here, or upon enactment.