drneau.com

MaxPower · Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject:

I guess I'll post this here...

(Doc, anyway to have a Beta3 Forum for testers comments?)

Anyway, so far I must be dumb as a box of rox. I'm having a really hard time getting payouts to even come close to making sense. Is it set up that much differently than the current version? Can someone walk me through it?

Also, without fail, my version of the beta hangs - blank screen. But if I play around with the window, parts of the window refresh, but not the whole window... And forget about closing out the window via the "X" button in the upper right.

-Max
Just my two cents...
_________________
Oh, Yeah! Check out the all new TheMiddleClassBlog.com for all of us that aren't exactly "High Rollers"!

rumackay · Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject:

drneau · Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:14 am Post subject:

Ranman · "A Set of Mop Squeezers" Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Posts: 59

MaxPower · Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject:

drneau · Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject:

Well, you are setting up the tiers right. The "No gaps" and "No overlaps" messages are making sure that you have uniform coverage from 1 all the way up to MAXINT (which would be a really big tournament).

The "Tiers not complete" message is an indicator of whether or not each tier has distributed the prizes completely.

So, that's what those mean.

The issue is this...try to follow my thinking, however silly it is.

If you create a tier for 1-12 players, what you are saying is that anywhere from 1-12 players will participate. No problem. No, what if you have a tournament where you pay the top 50%? Fine. You want to pay 6 players. What if only 5 show??? Now you have a tier that says you should pay 6 players if only 5 show! Eeek!

So, what I did was make it so that you can only specify explicit payouts up to the minimum number for that tier.

This is kinda related to what's going on behind the scenes in code. When you specify a tier that handles 20-100 players, what happens is it automatically creates 20 "payout lines" in memory to hold payout information.

The problem here is that if the tier is 1-12, it only creates 1 payout line...which looking at it now is kinds stupid.

So, you might say, "Just create enough payout lines to cover the tier!". Well, what if the tier is 11-MAX? Do I create 2,147,483,647 payout lines?? That would bring your system to its knees!

So what's the answer?

Option 1: Leave it as it is. # of payout lines = minimum.
Pros: Simple.
Cons: Confusing.

Option 2: # of available payout lines = maximum.
Pros: Simple.
Cons: Crashes your machine for the MAX tier.

Option 3: Let the user specify manually how many payout lines to pay.
Pros: More flexible.
Cons: Another widget taking up screen space.

Option 4: # of payout lines = maximum for all tiers, except the max tier where it equals minimum
Pros: Simple
Cons: Flexible and potentially wastes memory.

What to do?

I'm thinking option 3 is the way to go. It's more like v2. Just need to worry about:
a) Screen space for the widget
b) What to do if there are less players playing than specified in the tier?

Thoughts?
_________________
--
Dr. Neau (not a real doctor)
http://drneau.com
http://home.comcast.net/~jneau

Ranman · "A Set of Mop Squeezers" Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Posts: 59

OK, I think I got it.

I went back and played with the exponential method. I made 1 tier (1 to MAX), Dist 31% of buy-ins, spread=45%, decay 18%.

Using this formula the payout %'s are close enough for me to live with and the # of payouts changes from 3 @ 12 players to 4 @ 13 players. It goes to 5 @ 17 players but thats OK too. I think I can live with this method but if you intend to change it I think #3 is the way to go (my .02)

Ranman

rumackay · Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:02 am Post subject:

I did mention that I'm in the dumb-ass group didn't I... Wink

Anyway, for our tournaments we need the ability to manually award a high hand jackpot to any of the players at the end so all the player position lines (from min to max...except the top tier) need to be selectable/active to allow us to do so. We can do this in v2 and would dearly like to be able to in v3.

ERicJ · Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:34 am Post subject:

drneau · Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:56 am Post subject:

i8dbear · Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject:

i'm completely up to date on everything softwarewise. JRE is 1.4.2 which is current for mac, with J2SE 5.0 istalled. never had problems with v2. can't believe i'm as stupid as the poll guy. I'm going to try again.

a little later....

arrrggggg. no luck. this is what the console is telling me:

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: jneau/poker/tournamentManager/TournamentManager

... a little later stlll....
Jeff, are you developing for J2SE 5.0 or 1.4.2? should this matter? I played around with Java preferences to try to run it under one or the other, and no luck.

....even more later....

arrrggg again, and grrrrr, too. cannot get the dang thing to launch on G4 iMac or g4 iBook. feel like the skinny girl with zits who never got asked to dance. you guys are having all the fun! I want in.

boschie

Version V3b2 buildtime: August 17 2006 - 23:05 will not startup.

Error is:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: jneau/poker/tournamentManager/TournamentManager

Anyone got an answer?

GRTZ,
boschie

edit: Hmmmm, seems to be a Linux-problem... Under Windows is works fine.

i8dbear · Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:40 am Post subject:

and suddenly...IT WORKS.

go figure. Rolling Eyes

looks very cool prima facia. I like how intuitive it is. V2 took some training. This seems more direct. applause and kudos for all the good work.

I haven't really banged on it yet, but at first glance, the console designer still seems clunky and linear. lots of steps to get things done. should be easy to change all fonts, colors, type sizes, etc. without having to pick through a list and multiple select each module. same for transparency and other universals. just a thought..

I'm sure its moved forward from this version. good on ya. can't wait for the next iteration.

see ya.