which pool has the best income for nft plots?
Just my 2 cents with my 1000+ plots.
I have way more success solo farming than with a pool. I have been waiting for pools for sooooo long. But when I started getting solo rewards, statistically it doesn’t make sens for me to replot (I replot only ~200).
I’m more happy with my 10 solo-farmed chia than with 0.2 pool-farmed ones 
Interesting, but you must have been farming from very early on in the start.
With 1000 plots, you get 1 block in average 2.5 month. (or are you missing a 0 there?)
10 XCH would now take you more than a year to get
To answer the OP question
Any decent pool, has near as can be same payout. Don’t think anyone has yet discovers a real difference expect with some dodgy pools who didn’t have their shit in order
I think you should select pool based on trust, dev ability, user friendliness, support, etc.
1 Like
thanks for your reply
Well. Statistic and luck are a different thing
wich pool did you join?
i joined space pool for now,
The problem is that past luck doesnt influence future luck. So a pool that has been unlucky could get very lucky when you join or stay unlucky and a lucky pool can get very unlucky immediately after you join or move to neutral or get even luckier.
You cannot use past performance to dictate future performance as long as the pool is honest. I have written about the various teams of the pools in my All about Pools series available here:
all about pools - The Chia Plot
TLDR; The most you know about a pool the better you are. Honesty is the most important thing, and having a known identity can be a pretty good indicator of honesty.
Past luck does influence future luck, in the sense that with enough datapoints it will in the long run converge to the value (1.75 * 4608 * SIZE_OF_FARMER_PLOTS / TOTAL_NETWORK_SIZE) Chia per day. This for example enables a farmer quite accurately to predict the rewards that the farming machine should obtain per day - and if the received rewards are lower than this value then the pool either contains programming bugs or is cheating (or both: bugs and cheating).
If a farmer receives 3 consecutive rewards in a shorter time than expected, then it can be predicted that the next couple of rewards will arrive late.
See also: Law of large numbers - Wikipedia
2 Likes
This is wildly untrue. LOL.
3 Likes
How else are you suggesting to explain that I was on average receiving the expected XCH per day from the pool despite variations?
People have all sorts of wild, mathematically false, beliefs.
A second option is that you are using a shady/unreliable Chia pool.
1 Like
It’s wildly mathematically false to believe that the outcome of previous independent events has an impact on future independent events, it even has a name:
2 Likes
You didn’t answer my question.
I’m not sure what the question is, why are you being paid out as expected in a pool that is big enough to win frequently?
I don’t understand why you aren’t sure what the question is.
Missed signage points are causing most farmers and pools to be unlucky on average based on their reported space.
Let me rephrase the question based on real data: In the last 1 hour one of my farmers didn’t find any proof, which is below the expected average. And then it found 4 proofs within 2 minutes and 15 seconds, which is above the expected average. Why? What is your theory fitting this data?
Chia farming, which is clearly/obviously related to conditional probability over time - is not like Gambler’s Fallacy which is clearly (by definition) about non-conditional probability. In other words, in Chia farming there isn’t a reset to the initial state like in the Gambler’s Fallacy.
I’m a bit partial since I’m on the operators team of TruePool.io. The biggest thing IMHO is honesty and stability. There are ways for pool operators to cheat, I.E. inflating pool size, injecting fake farmers / partials, etc. Assuming you’re only looking at pools that meet that criteria, then the rewards should be mostly the same given enough time.
Your statement ‘with enough datapoints it will in the long run converge to the value etc…’ is correct.
Your statement ‘If a farmer receives 3 consecutive rewards in a shorter time than expected, then it can be predicted that the next couple of rewards will arrive late.’ is not.
Your sequence of wins is just a single anecdote - it would be similarly notable if you were then ‘late’ with another proof, and then another, and then another before finding x proofs within y minutes, i.e. not particularly notable at all, because it’s a tiny, finite, sample.
1 Like