> Given your formula is a little above my math abilities
> and I still don't think it is really feasible to
> come up with an accurate e.v. and s.d. given the many
> variables in play.

Then how do you expect to come up with a fair pay scale when you can't even evaluate the win rate of the game(s) you are playing. First things first, no?

> From MathProf:

> Compensation for a player based on NO, the shorter the
> time horizon the less the pay.

> NO %--- % to player
> 10----- 3
> 20----- 12
> 30----- 18
> 40----- 24
> 50----- 28
> 60----- 32
> 70----- 36
> 80----- 40
> 90----- 43
> 100---- 46

> Could this table be adapted?

Don't know how he got his numbers. Don't have the time to check them with the formula, but, of course, I made a starting assumption of 50% pay for 100% of N0.

> If you look at the 100% level the pay is 46% which is
> 92% of the full 50% pay. So could one just multiply
> each value by 1.08% to get the actual money won
> equivalent?

Sure. Of course, it's theoretical money won. You may not win anything, and you seem unwilling to address that point. MathProf's numbers are based on hours played, as is my formula. You want to base everything on money won, but I think that's a bad idea.

> I think you will say that the table is very game
> dependent and cannot be used for one size fits all?

Naturally. That's a given. How can you know N0 when you don't know e.v. and s.d.?? You're just going around in circles.

> If it can be mathematically adapted then if a player
> wants to leave the team or needs to be fired he can
> be paid fairly for his time.

That's exactly what the formula does. So, use MP's numbers if you like, but understand that they refer to TIME and not MONEY!

> Perhaps this is an alternate route.
> How would you determine an hourly wage?

I wouldn't. I don't believe in them. But, clearly, if you go that route, it's a small percentage of the actual win rate or CE. In my opinion, in matters such as these, there is no one right answer. If the investor is willing to pay an hourly wage to the player, even if no money is won, that's his business. So, the two agree on a number that is satisfactory to both, but, from my viewpoint, the investor surely always gets the shaft with such an arrangement.

> I guess the
> answer would once again involve your formula but at
> least one could determine their win rate and SD. Could
> CE be used?

See above.

> Thanks again for even more of your time

If I were one investor and one player, I'd devise the scheme exactly as I wrote it in the book, at the end of the Team Play chapter. It isn't complicated at all; it's simple. To me, you're looking to to make it more complicated, not less.

Don