A sort of thread and place of discussion of other player's logic and breakdown of their own personal strategies or perspective and approach on playing Mines.
One of the Intriguing Thing About Mines
I'd say for any "double-up" strategy, mines has a vast selection of combinations to achieve this and in however someone preferences to set the number of mines and squares they aim for each round, it all boils down to tradeoffs of risk and reward. But, how accurately are we factoring in that risk?
Although, depending on how you look at it, any of the available choices of combinations available that offer a winning multiplier starting with at least two times your bet amount, all more or less merely give slightly better or worse odds statistically speaking. And, in a sort of over-analytical, semi-psychological, and part philosophical way, it would be interesting to wonder how we might distinguish the difference in people's risk tolerance and how we might have different perceived values when internally measuring our preferred taking on of those risks, especially in comparison to the statistical probability. Perhaps in some way, it's reflective of what we believe we have more control over or stand a better chance in if having to play the odds.
That is to say, for every game setting configuration whose outcome pays between 2x to 2.99x, the statistical probability of success for each variation can vary among the different multipliers and I've never stopped to think about how different they actually are as it might reveal one's affinity to how one might mitigate what feels is the best/easiest/or lucrative to play and gives us maybe an internal feeling of having a better chance even if mathematically, it may or may not.
The 2.xx's Multipliers, So Many Choices
Take for example all the possible outcomes that result in a multiplier of anywhere between 2.0x to 2.99x and notice the differences between the number of turns needed to achieve a multiplier for any of the 2.**x increments:
*(Please note that these multipliers may not be up-to-date and/or may be inaccurate from the time of this posting as BC.Game may change the payout at any time without notice, some values were rounded to the nearest second decimal place)
[Mines Setting] : {[Number of gems revealed] - [Multiplier]}, {repeat for other 2.0x-2.99x multis}
If we take 2.47x and 2.48x, this multiplier can be achieved with the following game modes and outcome, shown with their calculated probability of success:
We can see that each of the 4 games mentioned have just slightly different variations in their multipliers but have exactly the same probabilities of success. So, if you were someone who was aiming to get around 2.47x any option from the four above, you would have the same statistical probability of success while likely having a preference of playing one game setting over another and, to be exact, finding 15 gems when there is 1 mine is just slightly higher than the rest (a whopping 0.0002-0.0003x higher).
Comparing 2 Ends of the Spectrum
Now if we compare the two ends of the spectrum for a more distinct contrast, then we'd have the following:
Interestingly you might notice that for each inversely paired game setting, the multiplier is insignificantly higher in the game with a lower amount of mines even though both games offer the same exact probability of success. But more interesting is why maybe some would rather do 5 gems at 3 mines (like the one mentioned in this post) as opposed to 3 gems at 5 mines (such as myself--if playing for 2.00x).
For me, although for a double-up strategy, I don't play 5 mines too often, in my personal opinion there's more opportunities to fail when electing to set the game to 3 mines and having to choose 5 squares successfully to achieve a 2.00x multiplier, even though each square selection has a lower probability of failure per se. In a way, you could say that I'd prefer "being luckier" in fewer turns per game even though mathematically it works out to be the same exact odds. This of course, assumes that we're not going to consider a 0.0001x higher multiplier a big deal. It's kind of weird if you stop and really think about it, as in, what we're more comfortable with or prefer, how we perceive our own ability to win such that maybe the we feel more capable or luckier by selecting 5 gems among 3 mines while some may feel more comfortable selecting 3 gems among 5 mines. So while we know statistically speaking they measure out to be the same, what motivates us to prefer one over another? Is it our own delusion to think we might be more capable of selecting 3 squares correctly rather than 5? Or, what sort of logical structure in our thinking leads us to even have a preference? Kind of going off tangent here but just some food for thought I guess.
The Standards We Set & What We Prefer
When deciding between 2.00x or 2.79x in the above example, we’d be looking at a difference in probability of success by 15 less percentage points while gaining a 39.5% higher multiplier applied to our potential winnings.
While clearly this is simply a trade-off between risk and reward, what adds some intrigue to ponder is if you took the 2 games available that require the same amount of gems be found to succeed. Then, you would have to decide on playing a game requiring finding 3 gems among 5 mines for 2.00x or finding 3 gems but among 7 mines for 2.79x, what would you do or what do you take into consideration?
More risk, more reward, of course, but how or what we factor into our decision making may reveal some elements we take into consideration when perceiving probability and risk that is perhaps not subject to our own logic, but our own understanding and interpretation of the world. Such that we may be considering how:
These add subjective and personal values in the risk assessment of each game mode that can’t always be necessarily justified or communicated to someone else.
Needless to say, these particular 2.xx multiplier game strategies are just one of the many available style game plays Mines can be enjoyed as and when we broaden the topic to something more general such as, “How do you like to play mines?” we’ll be opening the door to completely different approaches and perspectives on the game that will alter how we might see the game as it is now.
With it’s auto-play feature and insanely high potential multipliers, I bet there are lots of considerations I've yet to think of to take into account: for instance, those who play for the challenge and recognition of achievement, where risk isn't so much a factor as much as guessing a prediction somehow and what sort of ideas stem from that.
With Mines, there’s likely to be plenty of unspoken self-quantified theories or understandings of how the game is best played and if you find the conversation intriguing, feel free to jump in and share how you like to play the game of Mines!
]]>After finally receiving a response in the contest threat and finding in hindsight that the contest was over, I also discovered a much more well-made 3rd party verifier for all the BC.Game BC Original games which can be found here:
It's so much better too:
Umm yea, GG. If only I had known that BC.Game Admin wasn't going to update the contest information page instead of simply expecting users to skip to page 5 and randomly find the post that says there were already winners selected, I have no one to blame but myself.
GDoctor did an amazing job, just wish I knew about this sooner and wonder why it's not already a known thing.
[END EDIT]
______________________
Previous content has been hidden for aesthetics while kept for posterity, to remember never to trust the 1st page of an on-going forum event.
Hey Mines fans,
After feeling a bit confused of how to understand or use the provably fair checker for mines on the BC.Game's site (https://bc.game/help/provably-fair) and learning that there was a contest to reward making a 3rd party provably fair checker, I took on the task and tried to make one myself, submitting the entry here:
However if you were interested in simply using the checker, see the instructions below!
Using the Mines game verifier:
The checker itself is open source (as required by the contest) and can be found here: https://codepen.io/nucleare/pen/ZEjWVmr
It currently allows you to input your server seed, client seed, nonce, and the number of mines. After you hit the submit button, it will display the numbered result you'd normally get from the checker used on the BC.Game site but placed in a 5x5 grid to make it easier to understand. So if a number appears in a square, that's where a mine is meant to be.
Example:
Example showing results for:
Server seed: 8ef1fc556b8d3d9eb91f6a01aa70e75c30a3186e777b3b15214115a7e6f310f0
Client Seed: e8Xdp24pzRJ3bhM7ekhFH0wHrSWdk
Nonce: 25
Number of mines: 3
With the example input, the resulting output of the provably fair checker will generate an array such as this:
[10,1,6,24,13,2,11,15,18,16,8,4,25,23,5,21,7,3,22,14,20,19,17,9,12]
And based on the number of mines, it will show you that many numbers from left to right. So in the example, when I select 3, it will show that mines should appear at 10, 1, and 6.
Using the same seed and nonce input, if I change the number to 10, it will display the first 10 numbers from the list, which would be 10, 1, 6, 24, 13, 2, 11, 15, and 16 as shown below:
There's obviously still a little bit of quirks in how it's displaying as squares disappear unintentionally but you get the idea, it makes it easier to visualize what spaces should be mines based on the results of the provably fair algorithm and lets you check the game results from a third party where all the code is clear for you to see for yourself!
So if you can't figure out how to use the one they provide over at https://bc.game/help/provably-fair you can use the one I put together here: https://codepen.io/nucleare/pen/ZEjWVmr
Also, if you don't care to see how all the coding stuff and just want to use the checker by itself, you can go here instead: https://codepen.io/nucleare/full/ZEjWVmr
While I hope to improve the visual appearance, learning to code this has been a huge time consumption and wasn't as easy as I had thought. Though I've learned a lot, simply troubleshooting with making the grid show empty boxes (Gems placement) is still a challenge and will be updated eventually, but if you find it helpful, please visit my submission and give it a like to help it get some attention. It would be greatly appreciated!
Hope it helps!
]]>
While I'm playing mines game, I found that their is no proven way to verify betting result.
Because other games like crash, I can verify betting result via this url.
But in mines game, we can only verify in bc.game modal.
Is there any way to verify mines betting result myself?
]]>
Ask me anything.
]]>1.Click Here for Mine!
2.Click Here for Mine BTCs New
Click below for Claim No work
https://r.honeygain.me/ARIES6C857
2.https://iproyal.com/pawns?r=421975