Origins of poker proven by a unique geometric phenomenon
I was struggling when creating the title for this thread, but one thing is for sure - something important has just happened here:
- illustration 8
- illustration 9
Speaking briefly - everything seems like the perfectly balanced results in both graphics can serve as a proof or confirmation of a statement that poker hands are strictly connected with time measurement. Time measurement units were first, so we can conclude that poker originated from these divisions.
I'm aware that this geometric discovery may be separated from the game and live on its own. But it connects with the game so well, that the connection becomes natural.
These calculations are quite complicated and it's not easy to fully understand them and see the whole picture. But it's definitely worth it !! It's pretty much impossible to explain how such complex calculations can give balanced results TWICE. It's simply fascinating.
RED WATER = time slowdown
10 SPHERE PYRAMID = perfect balance that protects the game's difficulty level from time slowdown effects
Illustration 8 symbolizes the THEORY
Illustration 9 symbolizes REAL LIFE where the red water touches the pyramid
I'm putting the graphics as a spoiler so you won't need to scroll down the whole thing every time and also I don't want people to think that I'm flooding the forum with graphics 😀 These are probably the best I can do using Paint. 100% complete version. And remember, it's not a software, these are just illustrations.
Spoiler
14 Replies
Check out credits in the main menu 😀
(No content changes in all graphics, only better and more vivid colors added than those in post #1)
Work completed:
This Omegatron BEV giving me major Grotbags vibes :
Seems untrustworthy. Be careful folks
Ah phew - that's a relief. #totallyreassurednow
Here comes the NEXT LEVEL. It confirms my hypothesis even more. Just like poker has online and live version, same thing with my trilogy. It's not a joke, read the whole thing and try playing if you don't believe. The game is currently in the play-testing phase:
I never lie in this forum, so trying to sniff out a bluff just won't work 😀
I'm play-testing the real cards version by myself, I'm trying to explore every single detail of it, including the fun factor. So far, everything works fine.
And maybe other readers will join the testing, since a deck of 54 cards is all you need to play the game.
A playtest is the process by which a game designer tests a new game for bugs and design flaws before releasing it to market. Playtests can be run "open", "closed", "beta", or otherwise, and are very common with board games, collectible card games, puzzle hunts, role-playing games, and video games, for which they have become an established part of the quality control process. An individual involved in testing a game is referred to as a playtester.
An open playtest could be considered open to anyone who wishes to join, or it may refer to game designers recruiting testers from outside the design group. Prospective testers usually must complete a survey or provide their contact information in order to be considered for participation. A closed playtest is an internal testing process not available to the public. Beta testing normally refers to the final stages of testing just before going to market with a product, and is often run semi-open with a limited form of the game in order to find any last-minute problems. With all forms of playtesting it is not unusual for participants to be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, in order to protect the game designer's copyrights.
Source: Wikipedia
According to this definition, it started as a closed play-test and became an open play-test.
I'm not doing computer simulations because it's a real cards game which requires manual skills and it would make no sense trying to simulate it.
How do you call then a process in which a diverse player with +35 years of experience in playing different games (including board games), sits down and plays the game which he designed with many repetitions looking for flaws, problems, advantages and checks the game's rules consistency and difficulty level ?
Tell me please, how do you call this then ?
Ah, I think I know what you mean. You think that my opinion about the game will be biased and not objective because it's my game ?
It won't. Even if it's biased at the beginning because of my excitement, after some time passes, it will be 100% fair.
It's like playing checkers against yourself. You always win.
You're testing the mechanics of the game. That is not only fine, it is needed. But you haven't tested the playability of the game.
Play-testing the game brings the latest hypothesis.
Einstein will be back from the grave if this is true (it might be ...):
