After hearing that the Torn Blackjack rules give a 0.38% edge to the player, I wanted to see how that plays out over time.
I built a simulation to test it:
SETTINGS:
50K hands per run, 10K runs
Fixed bet size of 1m
Every run played to the end, no bankruptcy (because we can fly to support our gambling addiction)
Used Numbers: 49% loss, 8.5% push, 42.5 win.
I didn't take into account surrenders, natural BJs or double downs, but I did play with those numbers to make sure it ends with 0.38% profit to the player. Each win added to the bank the bet * 1.16188 (because 42.5 * 1.16188 = 49.3799).
HO NO YOU USED ONLY 50K HANDS ITS TOO SMALL SAMPLE SIZE!!!!!111
Shut up
50K is almost two years of 75 casino tokens per day, you will die before you can play 10m hands, its not relevant.
RESULTS:
Average profit of all runs: 187,466,977 Matches the theoretical edge (0.38% of 1m per hand*50k hands = 190m), this includes both wins and losses
Winning runs: 79.32% of simulations ended in profit
Losing runs: 20.68% finished in the red
Average loss in losing runs: 128.7m, that's 128 times the bet size
Most Winning run: 1,022,636,720. that's 1022 times bet size
Most losing run: 650,553,960. that's 650 times bet size
conclusions:
Even though the math is in your favor, this is still gambling.
You have an edge, but variance is real.
1 in 5 players may still be in lose even after 50,000 hands.
If you play smart, it’s a +EV game, so it's a good idea to play, butthe risk is real!
it’s not a guaranteed income stream, so don’t bet what you can’t afford to lose.
So to all the players yelling “rigged!” - Congrats, you're in the unlucky 20% of losers.
If the price of points keeps dropping, it means people, especially new players, don’t find it worth paying 6K per 1 energy. Happy jumps or filling the bank is much better investment for us.
Let’s look at the current CE of energy sources:
A Xan costs 840k for 250E → 3,360 per 1E
A Donator Pack is ~800k for ~200E daily (if you’re active) → 4,000 per 1E
A point refill is 936k for 150E → 6,240 per 1E
The cheaper they get, the better their CE becomes. The better the CE, the more new players will start using them. Eventually, the market will stabilize on its own.
I created a script to simulate 100000s of BJ hands, Do you want a log of 50K hands 10K times?
What it showed was, that even with Torn BJ Rules that favors the player, 1 out of 5 times, the player will lose, lots of money, even in long runs of 50k hands.
That means that ppl will have bad runs that seems rigged, or very bad luck, but its not, it's how mathematics works.
When doing bets based on % of bankroll, the results are way lower then they should be, im talking 34% of runs ending at a loss, 30% ending with almost no profit, and it seems off.
I think the reason is that in BJ you double down and win with natural to get big gains to offset the higher amount of losing hands, but in my module i give all the values same bet * 1.161, and in BJ there are more wins then loses, so after you lose and your bet is decreasing, you can't get it up fast enough without the double downs and naturals to rebuild your bank.
If ill know the rates of surrenders, double downs and splits, and natural BJ ill be able to do so.
Flat bets allow me to bypass this issue, that's why i used them.
I’ve been experimenting with writing some lightweight userscripts to explore Torn’s frontend behavior, purely for personal learning and UI enhancements (no automation or botting, of course).
I ran into an issue where certain pages seem to block userscripts entirely due to Content-Security-Policy (CSP) restrictions. Even when using Tampermonkey (Firefox) or wieldmonkey (Chrome), the browser blocks the script and throws errors like:
Content-Security-Policy: The page’s settings blocked an inline script (script-src-elem) from being executed because it violates the following directive: “script-src '*****-a2fc347df1ad1c6523a5285878bbdb72' '*****-
If I manually paste the exact same code into the DevTools console, it works just fine — so the problem isn’t the logic, just how the script is injected.
I created a script to simulate 100000s of BJ hands, Do you want a log of 50K hands 10K times?
What it showed was, that even with Torn BJ Rules that favors the player, 1 out of 5 times, the player will lose, lots of money, even in long runs of 50k hands.
That means that ppl will have bad runs that seems rigged, or very bad luck, but its not, it's how mathematics works.
When doing bets based on % of bankroll, the results are way lower then they should be, im talking 34% of runs ending at a loss, 30% ending with almost no profit, and it seems off.
I think the reason is that in BJ you double down and win with natural to get big gains to offset the higher amount of losing hands, but in my module i give all the values same bet * 1.161, and in BJ there are more wins then loses, so after you lose and your bet is decreasing, you can't get it up fast enough without the double downs and naturals to rebuild your bank.
If ill know the rates of surrenders, double downs and splits, and natural BJ ill be able to do so.
Flat bets allow me to bypass this issue, that's why i used them.
After hearing that the Torn Blackjack rules give a 0.38% edge to the player, I wanted to see how that plays out over time.
I built a simulation to test it:
SETTINGS:
50K hands per run, 10K runs
Fixed bet size of 1m
Every run played to the end, no bankruptcy (because we can fly to support our gambling addiction)
Used Numbers: 49% loss, 8.5% push, 42.5 win.
I didn't take into account surrenders, natural BJs or double downs, but I did play with those numbers to make sure it ends with 0.38% profit to the player. Each win added to the bank the bet * 1.16188 (because 42.5 * 1.16188 = 49.3799).
HO NO YOU USED ONLY 50K HANDS ITS TOO SMALL SAMPLE SIZE!!!!!111
Shut up
50K is almost two years of 75 casino tokens per day, you will die before you can play 10m hands, its not relevant.
RESULTS:
Average profit of all runs: 187,466,977 Matches the theoretical edge (0.38% of 1m per hand*50k hands = 190m), this includes both wins and losses
Winning runs: 79.32% of simulations ended in profit
Losing runs: 20.68% finished in the red
Average loss in losing runs: 128.7m, that's 128 times the bet size
Most Winning run: 1,022,636,720. that's 1022 times bet size
Most losing run: 650,553,960. that's 650 times bet size
conclusions:
Even though the math is in your favor, this is still gambling.
You have an edge, but variance is real.
1 in 5 players may still be in lose even after 50,000 hands.
If you play smart, it’s a +EV game, so it's a good idea to play, butthe risk is real!
it’s not a guaranteed income stream, so don’t bet what you can’t afford to lose.
So to all the players yelling “rigged!” - Congrats, you're in the unlucky 20% of losers.
If you refill to sell loses its worth it, but lots of faction (at least what i saw) forbid it due to loss of respect.
I agree that it's always worth it, but as i said in my first post, only after 2-3 xan, DP, PI rent+upkeep, that is alone 3m-4m per day, and new players want to do happy jumps and fill their bank as well, so they skip the refill.
Fact is lots of new players fly but don't use points themself, that is the reason of the price going down. when point will cost 21k, every single player that buy himself DP with torn cash, will also use point to refill his energy.
Im not talking end game, not even mid game, they do daily refills anyway.
Im talking early game, all the new players that joined recently that don't stop flying but not doing refills themself.
I don't think that any new player should waste his money now on refills instead of xan just because he want to have cheaper rehab bills after 6 years of playing. You should plan ahead in torn, but this is ridiculous.
I’ve been experimenting with writing some lightweight userscripts to explore Torn’s frontend behavior, purely for personal learning and UI enhancements (no automation or botting, of course).
I ran into an issue where certain pages seem to block userscripts entirely due to Content-Security-Policy (CSP) restrictions. Even when using Tampermonkey (Firefox) or wieldmonkey (Chrome), the browser blocks the script and throws errors like:
Content-Security-Policy: The page’s settings blocked an inline script (script-src-elem) from being executed because it violates the following directive: “script-src '*****-a2fc347df1ad1c6523a5285878bbdb72' '*****-
If I manually paste the exact same code into the DevTools console, it works just fine — so the problem isn’t the logic, just how the script is injected.
If the price of points keeps dropping, it means people, especially new players, don’t find it worth paying 6K per 1 energy. Happy jumps or filling the bank is much better investment for us.
Let’s look at the current CE of energy sources:
A Xan costs 840k for 250E → 3,360 per 1E
A Donator Pack is ~800k for ~200E daily (if you’re active) → 4,000 per 1E
A point refill is 936k for 150E → 6,240 per 1E
The cheaper they get, the better their CE becomes. The better the CE, the more new players will start using them. Eventually, the market will stabilize on its own.
Or, we can just wait for points to reach their real value.
The cheaper they get, the better their CE becomes. The better the CE, the more new players will start using them. Eventually, the market will stabilize on its own.
Let’s look at the current CE of energy sources:
A Xan costs 840k for 250E → 3,360 per 1E
A Donator Pack is ~800k for ~200E daily (if you’re active) → 4,000 per 1E
A point refill is 936k for 150E → 6,240 per 1E
If the price of points keeps dropping, it means people, especially new players, don’t find it worth paying 6K per 1 energy. Happy jumps or filling the bank is much better investment for us.
I think it’s safe to assume that once point refills hit 4K per 1energy, anyone who can afford a DP will also start doing refills, so if the price drops to ~21K per point (which is when refills match DP in CE) and still keeps falling, that’s when Ched should intervene, because that would be a game design flaw.
Before that, trying to force the price of points in an open economy game is just stupid and unnatural.
Raising the cost of refills was a classic communist move, and it was bound to fail like every other failed communist country, trying stupid communist moves to save their failed communist economy.
What’s next?Gulags for players with more than 1,000 points? "Comrade, you’ve been too efficient. Time to share."
Re-education camps for point hoarders?
TL;DR
Points will continue to lose value as long as demand stays low. But the lower the price goes, the better the CE becomes, and eventually more players will start using them and price will stabilize with the true value, don't rush it.
hey look, 8 out of 10 of then are in the positive, 2 in negative, that's 20% JUST AS I FU**ING CALCULATED.