I still think you are missing the point. I gave the initial values as $1 and $10000. You cannot change the $10000 to $9999 as that's tweaking the problem to suit your calculation.

Here's a better example: suppose there are 1000000 boxes, and 1 of them contains a million dollars, the other 999999 contain $1. We are both in agreement that you would take out the box of $1000000 as in Kelly Criterion. However, mathematically the remaining boxes will all contain $1, not $0.999999 as your method would indicate. Furthermore, if all the boxes are $1 and you got rid of half the boxes the EV would obviously not become half (an exaggerated example, I know).

Kelly Criterion says you should take out the top prize, not the percentage chance of that prize. Law of probability states that all probabilities should add up to 1 (100%), so whilst you can remove "boxes" for a better indication of EV, you can't simply remove the percentages that accompany them.

It's a dumb argument and top prize is 1 in 10000, we can get 4 chests a day? Not sure, so 10000/4 = 2500 days which is 6 and a half years, hardly lottery winning odds. The return is awful but at least get the maths right.

Stars made me believe they were for the recs with all there talk of makeing games better and give more to recs.

This shows all the talk is bs and they don't care for recs or regs

Just want cash cow, hope recs read this thread and see stars for what they are

Maybe you should follow your own advice? Four 1 in 10 0000 isn't the same as 1 in 2500, the same way two 1 in 2 chances isn't equal to a 1 in 1 shot. 2500 days are also closer to 7 years than 6.5 years (about 6.84 years)

It's funny you should say that i was thinking of doing the same thing (removing the top tier).
I also felt intuitively that we can remove the top tier, because it's just so unlikely (and also we may not be given the chance to open enough chests).

Player bnoise from Italy (goldstar) was on his 6th chest in one day, when he wrote his post. So it seems we can open more than 4 chests per day, and if your roughly Goldstar ability you could open approx 6 chests.

10,000 chests / 365 days = 27.4 chests per day.
Can anyone be consistently able to open >20 chests every day? I guess that means going from red chest to gold chest on day one, and then opening >20 platinum chests every day for a year. Seems unlikely that many people will be doing that.
>20 plantinum chests per day = $21.52x20 = $430.40 (EV) rakeback per day. To maybe win $1K rakeback once a year, or not. And then they change the rakeback system every year

So yeah anyway, I think it might be helpful to ignore the top tier. We know 99.99% of the time nobody wins it.

I think we aren't working from the same problem definition. I am calling the $1 prize the baseline component, or Component A which the player is always awarded. I'm calling the remainder of the big prize Component B. Component B is so rare that it makes sense for the player to compare his average wagering to to the overall value of Component B, to see if, given his current bankroll, it would make sense to play in a game where all of his EV were coming from Component B alone. As I said above, there should probably be some kind of adjustment, because that's not what the Kelly Criterion is supposed to be used for. Again, I'm not claiming this to be perfectly rigorous, I'm just trying to rationally establish some kind of bound beyond which it doesn't make sense to count the EV of the prize as being worth more than a tiny fraction of its nominal value.

Actually, it would be better to come up with a risk-adjustment formula to discount the value of the top prize gradually, as the variance and the percentage of the total effective RB% grew relative to the player's bankroll. I guess you can come up with any arbitrary risk-adjustment scheme you want, based on utility or whatever. But imo, the concepts of optimal bankroll growth determined by the Kelly Criterion would be the best place to start.

My method would divide the box with $1,000,000 into two components, as stated above. Thinking about this more, there should be a formula developed to continuously discount the prize from its nominal value as the risk presented to the player of not actually getting it before their bankroll is depleted increases. Beyond some point of risk, the adjusted prize value would be 0% of the nominal value. This would certainly be true past the point where the expected bankroll growth was -100%, but may be true sooner - these things will naturally be somewhat arbitrary but can be rationally approached. The rough sketch of a method I was suggesting would establish when the prize would be worth 0% to the player of its nominal value, due to risk.


No, actually this is an extremely important argument to anyone who is going to attempt to make a living playing on Stars going forward. Certainty has value, risk has cost. When the edges are small, those costs can be painful. Beyond a certain point, they will ruin you.

Even at the odds you described above of hitting the top chest, you're talking about 6 and a half years to have a roughly 66% chance of getting top prize. If that is any appreciable amount of your EV, you're in bad, bad shape under that scenario. We aren't even talking about the time value of money, which is an absolute ***** when you're a professional gambler with a universe of positive EV plays around you that you can't make because your money's tied up in Powerball rakeback. Having to go an average of 4 years before you have a 50% chance of getting, say, half the money owed to you has direct and severe consequences to your bankroll. Is Stars even going to be here in 4 years? Will you still be playing poker then?

There should be a risk-adjustment formula for this (maybe there is?). If I were going to try to come up with one, the Kelly Criteria is where I would start.


Tl;dr How many $1 Mega Millions tickets would you accept as payment for a $10,000 car you were selling? If the minimum is anything more than about 18,000 (@55% return to player), you might want to take another look at why you're effectively accepting the same kind of arrangement from Stars.

If I was selling a car I would want what I'm selling it for.

If I get a rebate then I guess I'm stuck with whatever rebate I get, I am not losing anything I am just gaining less than previously.

If my winrate comes from rakeback solely then I need to look at improving or moving my volume. Unless I play very specific formats at high levels then rakeback being lowered should not hinder my ability to win.

How could a winrate come from rakeback? The rake was money taken away from the player in the first place, and he's just getting some back. You probably look at tax refunds as income.

"Thank you pokerstars for my winrate. Thank you government for my income."

This is horrible. I will switch sites as long as I can find a site with decent software.

lold hard, you pretty much described 100z in a nutshell^^

from what my student played at 100z, very little overbetting happening there, I guess it would be the case if they only do it with the nuts though

I'm an italian player. I want to add few informations. Pokerstars Faq say that are some special randomize priezes not included in the list( regular prize). Also the progress bar of chests expire in 3 months. In rakeback calculation there are factors such as boost speed give every 8 ours and boost point of last chest we opened that we should consider. Finally the rewards points for each chest are principally based on the chest "class" but the frequency of time you play and deposit influences the points needed.

Inviato dal mio HUAWEI LUA-L21 utilizzando Tapatalk

Is the type of chest you receive based on how much you rake or is it random?
For example would a 100nl player receive better quality chests than someone playing 2nl?

neither

I think everyone moves up the chest lvls, getting 4 of each chest so everyone starts at getting 4x red chests and so on , so more rake = you move up the chest ladder.

So if you play a ton you will get red, red ,red ,red , blue, blue ,blue , blue bronze, bronze , bronze, bronze and so on eventually maxing out at 4x platinum chests I believe, so if you rake enough to get 24 chests in a month I presume you are capped at rakeback? Or maybe you can keep getting plat chests - unsure if that is anounced yet

except the amounts of points (rake paid) you need for a chest is personalized, based on your depositing and playing history

Could you tell us how many points you need to open a red chest?

I have one example from one player, if I can get a couple more, we can work out the base price/value of a chest.
Stars seem to want to conceal or obscure the system. I want to make it as clear as possible

for **** sake, I wrote it like 6 times in this thread already, last time literally one post above yours: THERE IS NO CONSTANT POINT REQUIRAMENT FOR A CHEST, IT'S PERSONLIZED

Based on the information given so far (as incomplete and confusing as it is) this is almost completely wrong. First there is no 4 chest limit. Second it is a daily program not monthly.

Your promotion and demotion of chest levels is based on your recent play. If you can consistently earn 4 chests a day at your current level you will be promoted up to the next level. If you repeatedly fail to earn one chest a day then you will be demoted to a lower level to try and ensure you are consistently earning chest within a normal session. That is my understanding anyway, I could be wrong.

Your type of chest will be determined by your normal daily volume. In general the more you rake the better your chests. However the amount of rake one person has to generate to achieve a certain level will not be the same as the rake required by someone else for the same chest. How that will be determined has not and probably never will be revealed. But making recent and regular deposits will give you a huge advantage over someone that withdraws money.

It's 280 RP.( 2 times today) But i'm not sure that this amount will be the same for the next red chest.
I'll keep you up-to-date.

Inviato dal mio HUAWEI LUA-L21 utilizzando Tapatalk

Thanks man

This is the same value as bnoise had for all his red chests.
The more samples the better (please either ignore boosts or keep boost values as a seperate number thanks )

I'm sure we'll find the formula eventually by sharing our experiences

Also i doubt it's overly complicated. There's probably at most 5 tier of clearing speed I strongly doubt it's some kind of overly fluent formula that give a different result for everybody.
I'm also confident that the worst tier will be easy to obtain. the minute youre in the small stakes or higher and a marginal winner or a solid micro winner you should expect the worst tier coming your way, imo

Did they announce by now, when this chest madness will be reality for the rest of the world?

in 10 days

what will happen to my starscoins? will I be able to convert them to cash in future or will they expire/change value at some point once the new rewards program is introduced?