How to Play Calico Spin MASSIVE SPOILERS here

[sxl2]

This whole damn post is a GIANT SPOILER. STOP NOW IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT ON YOUR OWN.






Ok

Calico Spin is not very random. In fact it's very structured.

There have been threads on reddit and the "official" Stardew forums where people have figured out pieces of what I've assembled below, so I'm not the first to discover some of these pieces, but I haven't seen anyone put this whole picture together yet. So I'm giving it a try.

I found the following patterns playing calico spin on "star-luck days" (day on which the fortune teller says "The spirits are very happy today! They will do their best to shower everyone with good fortune." and you see a star above her head.) I haven't yet tried to see if or how this changes or whether it's valid on days with other kinds of luck. I don't know if luck even figures in. But in case it does, that's when I gambled.

I've found this pattern to be consistent from 4 different plays on a star-luck day where I ran through about 1000-1100 spins. I never hit 1000x or 2500x so I am not sure where they fit in. There may also be longer meta-patterns which would take longer continuous data gathering (say, 2000 consecutive pulls) to figure out.

So:

There are standard repeatable chains of wins which occur spaced every other spin, and between them are gaps of 14 spins

These are the 3 chain types I've found so far:

A: 3x - 5x - 2x - 2x - 2x
B: 5x - 5x - 2x - 2x
C: 5x - 2x - 2x - 2x

Between each of these chains is a gap of 14 consecutive losses. On the 15th spin several different things can occur. You can predict to a degree what will occur based on the sequence of the chains listed here. I will explain how.

There are classes of higher-tier wins

30x, 80x and 120x are in the first tier.
200x and 500x are in the second tier (there may be higher wins in this tier too, but so far I have not encountered them).

I will explain how to track this starting immediately after a tiered win (at least 30x) because it's easier to explain that way. Once you get the pattern you can start to pick up where you are in it by checking what kind of win you get after a 14-loss gap and picking up from there.

After each tiered win, chain C will follow after one loss, and then a gap of 14....

So, if you just hit 30x for example, the next spin will be a loss, then every other spin will be win in the pattern 5x - 2x - 2x - 2x

The run-up to a first tier win, following any tiered win, goes like this:

After the tiered win, chain C. then, with dashes representing the gaps of 14:

- A - B - 1st-tier win (30x, 80x, or 120x)

The run-up to a second tier win is much more involved, and goes like this:

After the tiered win, chain C (again, it's always after a tiered win) then, with dashes indicating the gaps:

- A - C - A - A - C - A - A - 2nd-tier Win (200x, 500x, maybe others?)

So far I have also found a meta-pattern where every 2nd-tier win is followed by 3 1st-tier wins, and then another 2nd tier win.

EDIT: Since the 1.07 update I'm getting somewhat different patterns. There are still patterns, but there's more variation (the ones I describe are not the only ones). Not sure whether that's due to 1.07 or just that I got weirdly lucky getting the exact same pattern 4 times on 4 different days - but anyway, these are not the only possible patterns - and yet, for any given day at the casino, they seem to be consistent within that day....I haven't had time to pursue this much since the OP...It still seems the case that there are tier-1 and tier-2 wins and tier-1 wins have 2 chains and then the win....where tier-2 winds have much longer chains...

It seems like the game drops you into the middle of things, not necessarily at the start of any of these patterns - you have to track for a bit to see where you are. If you bet 10 until you encounter and run through your first chain, then you can reliably choose when to bet 100. Since the longest gap is 15 (and 15 x 10 = 150) and the cheapset win is 2x (and 2 x 100 = 200) you can reliably make money in any session with no net loss. You just need about 260 Qi coins to start, to weather the worst-case scenario.

I would be interested to know whether this holds exactly true for other players, or whether there are variations (I don't know what's universal and what's per-instance, and whether the luck rating of the day factors in anywhere) Let me know what you find....

[Sishiya]

I think you should credit those who have found the info you've incorporated; I see three "I found" statements but not one instance of crediting others. That aside, very informative post.

[The Mighty Mulletman]

I got the x1000 relatively early one. I was down to 100 coins after losing 1000 coins at the table and figured that I might as well polish off what I had left. The diamonds win brought me up to 10000. I didn't keep track of which roll that was though.

[sxl2]

Originally posted by Sishiya:

I think you should credit those who have found the info you've incorporated; I see three "I found" statements but not one instance of crediting others. That aside, very informative post.

Are you just trolling me? You sure don't read carefully.

I didn't incorporate anyone's work, everything I state here I found on my own. In spite of that, I thought I should acknowledge that I'm not the only one who's discovered patterns in the slots and been experimenting with this. And I haven't found any post anywhere as detailed as this, so if you know of it maybe you could provide the link...

[Sishiya]

Originally posted by sxl2:

Originally posted by Sishiya:

I think you should credit those who have found the info you've incorporated; I see three "I found" statements but not one instance of crediting others. That aside, very informative post.

Are you just trolling me? You sure don't read carefully.

I didn't incorporate anyone's work, everything I state here I found on my own. In spite of that, I thought I should acknowledge that I'm not the only one who's discovered patterns in the slots and been experimenting with this. And I haven't found any post anywhere as detailed as this, so if you know of it maybe you could provide the link...

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse anyone of not reading carefully:

There have been threads on reddit and the "official" Stardew forums where people have figured out pieces of what I've assembled below, so I'm not the first to discover some of these pieces, but I haven't seen anyone put this whole picture together yet.

You clearly stated that you weren't the first one to discover some of the info that you incorporated into your OP. So, sure, you verified what others found first, but you should still give credit to those others.

I'm honestly confused about how suggesting that you properly give credit where due constitutes trolling.

[All talk and no fight]

Originally posted by Sishiya:

Originally posted by sxl2:

Are you just trolling me? You sure don't read carefully.

I didn't incorporate anyone's work, everything I state here I found on my own. In spite of that, I thought I should acknowledge that I'm not the only one who's discovered patterns in the slots and been experimenting with this. And I haven't found any post anywhere as detailed as this, so if you know of it maybe you could provide the link...

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse anyone of not reading carefully:

There have been threads on reddit and the "official" Stardew forums where people have figured out pieces of what I've assembled below, so I'm not the first to discover some of these pieces, but I haven't seen anyone put this whole picture together yet.

You clearly stated that you weren't the first one to discover some of the info that you incorporated into your OP. So, sure, you verified what others found first, but you should still give credit to those others.

I'm honestly confused about how suggesting that you properly give credit where due constitutes trolling.

He didn't incorporate anybody's work, he was aware that other people have theories and have attempted to explain the chains on their own, but everything in this post he wrote himself, HOWEVER he acknowledges that there are already posts about how Calico spin works. "You clearly stated that you weren't the first one to discover some of the info that you incorporated into your OP" What he said was he didn't incorporate anybodys work, not that he didn't discover it first.

[sxl2]

Originally posted by stormsand9:

"You clearly stated that you weren't the first one to discover some of the info that you incorporated into your OP" What he said was he didn't incorporate anybodys work, not that he didn't discover it first.

Thanks, yes, this exactly. I appreciate this.

Saying "I've found other posts talking about this stuff" does not imply "I looked at their posts first and took their stuff"....I saw other posts only after I put this together...I was looking to see if anyone could verify this. As I also said, I haven't seen anything as comprehensive as this...and that doesn't mean it's not out there. Have you seen anyone share this detail? Could you point me to it?

Saying "hey I found this" is not the same as saying "I'm the only one who found this" nor is it the same as saying "I found this first".

If you WERE reading carefully, you would see that I said BOTH "I see other work" and "I don't see other work that does this", and, again, that I don't claim no-one else has found this before me, only that I don't see this detail anywhere.

You sound to me defensive and ready to accuse me of something I haven't done or said, and no I don't think you read what I said carefully, you read a lot into it.

Having said all that, I didn't post this to argue about attribution or claim I'm king of the hill, but to share what I found and ask what else people know. So can we get back to the main point?

I'm going to experiment with a "neutral" day to see what changes....

[All talk and no fight]

Originally posted by sxl2:

Originally posted by stormsand9:

"You clearly stated that you weren't the first one to discover some of the info that you incorporated into your OP" What he said was he didn't incorporate anybodys work, not that he didn't discover it first.

Thanks, yes, this exactly. I appreciate this.

no problemo. the original post is something i'll have to read later when im not so tired and since theres a ton of writing, but if there's a pattern to winning big in calico jack, it will definately help me atain that final rarecrow without spending hundreds of thousands!

[sxl2]

What I found out so far on "neutral-luck" days:

-The chains are different
-There are two types of gaps, not just 14 losses
-There are still tier 1 and tier 2 wins, and they seem to be grouped the same

Chains:

(again, in these chains every other spin is a win as indicated by the multiplier value)

A: 3x - 5x - 2x - 2x
B: 5x - 2x - 2x - 2x
C: 5x - 2x - 2x

After every tiered win, there is still a chain that follows immediately after an intervening loss. I have labeled it "C" here as well. So, on hitting (for instance) 30x you would get
30x - 5x - 2x - 2x, then a long gap

Between chains there can be gaps of 14 or 16 consecutive losses. Below I will use '-' to mean 14, and '=' to mean 16.

Pattern leading to 1st tier win (remember these patterns start AFTER the "C" chain following a tiered win)

= A = B - 1st tier win

Pattern leading to 2nd tier win (again, starting after a tiered win and "C" chain)

= A = B - A = A = B - A = B = C = A = B - 2nd tier win

(that's a lot harder to follow, and longer, than on "star-luck" days!)

As I said, I am also seeing the same meta-pattern of 3 tier-1 wins between each tier-2 win.

So far I see no other luck effects. And I still get wins as high as 500x. I've never gotten a win bigger than that anyway, so don't know if luck enables or limits those....

tl;dr - even on a neutral day you can play Calico Spin in a way where you consistently gain Qi coins, it works similarly enough to luckier days.

[Sishiya]

Look, I'll make one more attempt to explain where I'm coming from and then I'm done since my intent has never been to derail this thread to this extent:

1) Nowhere have I said that anyone has posted as much info and detail as you have. In my first response I even said your post was very informative.

2) You have literally stated:

I'm not the first to discover some of these pieces

When you say that, that means that you are aware that some people made some of those discoveries before you did. Which pieces were discovered by who first?

I'm making a leap and assuming that you discovered some things on your own but realized that others posted about them before you did, degree of detail notwithstanding. That's fine, but when you discover info independantly then learn that others published it first (again, detail notwithstanding here) then the usual practice is that you credit those who published their stuff first; even if you go into more detail and add more info than they did. The reason for this is otherwise you come across as trying to claim others work as your own (plagiarism) even if you don't explicitly say so.

I get that this isn't exactly a doctoral thesis you're putting together here, but it bugs me when I don't see proper acknowledgment of the work others have done. You've been awfully quick to wonder if I was trolling you, call my reading comprehension into question then call me "being defensive", so I don't know; maybe academic honesty just isn't your thing.

[Chiiil]

I found a chain that was 1000x - 5x - 2x - 2x - 2x

it appeared to have occured after the 12th loss, on the 13th. I may have miscounted, but this is what I ran into while playing

[All talk and no fight]

Originally posted by Sishiya:

Look, I'll make one more attempt to explain where I'm coming from and then I'm done since my intent has never been to derail this thread to this extent:

1) Nowhere have I said that anyone has posted as much info and detail as you have. In my first response I even said your post was very informative.

2) You have literally stated:

I'm not the first to discover some of these pieces

When you say that, that means that you are aware that some people made some of those discoveries before you did. Which pieces were discovered by who first?

I'm making a leap and assuming that you discovered some things on your own but realized that others posted about them before you did, degree of detail notwithstanding. That's fine, but when you discover info independantly then learn that others published it first (again, detail notwithstanding here) then the usual practice is that you credit those who published their stuff first; even if you go into more detail and add more info than they did. The reason for this is otherwise you come across as trying to claim others work as your own (plagiarism) even if you don't explicitly say so.

I get that this isn't exactly a doctoral thesis you're putting together here, but it bugs me when I don't see proper acknowledgment of the work others have done. You've been awfully quick to wonder if I was trolling you, call my reading comprehension into question then call me "being defensive", so I don't know; maybe academic honesty just isn't your thing.

You must not understand english very well. Reread my comment.

He didn't incorporate anybody's work, he was aware that other people have theories and have attempted to explain the chains on their own, but everything in this post he wrote himself, HOWEVER he acknowledges that there are already posts about how Calico spin works. "You clearly stated that you weren't the first one to discover some of the info that you incorporated into your OP" What he said was he didn't incorporate anybodys work, not that he didn't discover it first.

If you don't want to derail the thread, either reply back with "oh sorry yeah my mistake" or get out, because you are dead wrong. he knows other people have discovered the chain, but the original post in this thread incorporates research only done by sxl2.

[MG ♪]

Originally posted by Sishiya:

Look, I'll make one more attempt to explain where I'm coming from and then I'm done since my intent has never been to derail this thread to this extent:

1) Nowhere have I said that anyone has posted as much info and detail as you have. In my first response I even said your post was very informative.

2) You have literally stated:

I'm not the first to discover some of these pieces

When you say that, that means that you are aware that some people made some of those discoveries before you did. Which pieces were discovered by who first?

I'm making a leap and assuming that you discovered some things on your own but realized that others posted about them before you did, degree of detail notwithstanding. That's fine, but when you discover info independantly then learn that others published it first (again, detail notwithstanding here) then the usual practice is that you credit those who published their stuff first; even if you go into more detail and add more info than they did. The reason for this is otherwise you come across as trying to claim others work as your own (plagiarism) even if you don't explicitly say so.

I get that this isn't exactly a doctoral thesis you're putting together here, but it bugs me when I don't see proper acknowledgment of the work others have done. You've been awfully quick to wonder if I was trolling you, call my reading comprehension into question then call me "being defensive", so I don't know; maybe academic honesty just isn't your thing.

Seriously, man. You're throwing dirt at OP for not using a citation, but technically he didn't need to because he wasn't citing any published information anywhere. Honestly if he had omit the part about others discussing calico spin (which I think led him to performing this research) you wouldn't have said anything negative. He's right to call you a troll, because you are. You intentionally looked for something negative in his post to try and point your smelly finger at and cause controversy. That's the definition of a troll. Get rekt.

[CBT Yoda]

I think possibly that x2500 could be 2nd tier, because I started on a x2 win, then got 2 A chains, then got x2500. Possibly different, not sure. More testing to be done.

Edit: I'm no longer sure about what has happened, having gotten: x2 - A - A - x2500, 1 loss, C - A - B - x120

The most likely conclusion from this: it randomly changes between tiers.

More testing is required.

Edit 2: The pattern has extended to this: x2 - A - A - x2500, 1 loss, C - A - B - x120, 1 loss, C - A - B - x80, 1 loss, C - A - B - x30, 1 loss, C - A - B - x30, 1 loss, C

I think that my previous conclusion was correct. But I'm too tired to do more testing, so it shall end here. Hope I helped shed some light on the patterns of Calico Spin.

[sxl2]

Originally posted by Slurpaslurp:

I think possibly that x2500 could be 2nd tier, because I started on a x2 win, then got 2 A chains, then got x2500. Possibly different, not sure. More testing to be done.

Edit: I'm no longer sure about what has happened, having gotten: x2 - A - A - x2500, 1 loss, C - A - B - x120

The most likely conclusion from this: it randomly changes between tiers.

More testing is required.

Edit 2: The pattern has extended to this: x2 - A - A - x2500, 1 loss, C - A - B - x120, 1 loss, C - A - B - x80, 1 loss, C - A - B - x30, 1 loss, C - A - B - x30, 1 loss, C

I think that my previous conclusion was correct. But I'm too tired to do more testing, so it shall end here. Hope I helped shed some light on the patterns of Calico Spin.

Since the 1.07 update I'm getting somewhat different patterns. There are still patterns, but there's more variation (the ones I describe are not the only ones). Not sure whether that's due to 1.07 or jsut that I got weirdly lucky getting the exact same pattern 4 times on 4 different days - but anyway, the one in my OP is not the only one - and yet, for any given day at the casino, they seem to be consistent within that day....I haven't had time to pursue this much since the OP...

[Anachronism]

I could tell there was a pattern but was too tired and lazy to figure it out. Thanks for putting the work in. You can probably afford an army of alien Rarecrows by now.