BerniceC: LOL - I understand the prize is "right up Pedro's street"...

Can we not restrict entry to a Pond by BKR? i.e Min or Max BKR to sign up like normal tournaments?

Scooter: i think it bets everything they have then.

grenv: but even so, 250-odd players.

it just seems such a waste of time over the last year or so really trying hard to stay as long as possible, especially when my first bet was over 1000.

Pond: The very first run

The pond is finished. Your final position is 13 out of 249 players.

Your BKR change: old BKR = 2441, new BKR = 2499 (+58)


58+ BKR for finishing above 250+ players, and only below 12 is Garbage.

Hrqls: Walter is talking rubbish. He only has the hump about the "Scooter" pond because he is upset he didn't spot Scooter's post and/or gamble by betting low.

I had nothing to lose, I was nowhere near pole position and gambled big time. I cant speak for Pedro as I have never discussed it with him. As it happens, Walter is in pole position at the moment in the same pond with a great chance of winning it, but still wont let the matter drop because he has a "bee in his bonnett" about it.

I do agree that the bets made by the 2 Portugese in the pond that has been discussed must have been "contrived" personally, away from the Pond. That is the difference, Scooter publically announced his intention (rightly or wrongly) and everyone in that pond had the option to gamble or not.

That "Scooter" matter is closed in my opinion, unless anyone else wants to waste their time posting about it.

BIG BAD WOLF: yeah, thought so, but with an absolute safe bet just 200 point higher, i'm surprised he didnt play safe as he was in a good position anyway. I thought he may have spotted someojne who hadn't logged on since last move or something that i missed?

Vikings: howcome you bid like you did? Did you see something i missed?

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?g=1

Cheers, Bry.

ClayNashvilleTn: That's interesting - seems very similar to Scooter's post...

"Just for fun (since its only a game anyway), I will bet one (1), and I'm sure to fall into the pond! Now lets see who believes me and tries to take advantage of my generosity! Of course I could be bluffing and then go ahead and bet something like 5 and hope that someone bets 2 thinking I'll bet 1! But no, I am not that clever or devious, so I am betting just 1. So go ahead and bet 2 and I promise you'll stay dry! This should be interesting to say the least!!".

BIG BAD WOLF: I agree, this discussion has nothing to with Moderation.

I agree, players shouldnt be allowed to state their next bet. It was wrong. Currently there is no "resign" option. The pond it relates to is a 5-day pond that has been going on for months. Perhaps Scooter got sick of keep waiting for it? - but couldnt resign, so thought it would be amusing to see if anyone gambled on his proposed bet....

Either way, what's done is done. I'm glad I saw it and gambled on it.

BIG BAD WOLF: How about then, if a player bids "0", then they fall into the pond, and all other bets are "refunded" and the next round starts with everyone on the same amount as points as the previous round but with the "resigned" player in the pond??

Walter Montego: You can call it a collusion all you want, it sounds like sour grapes to me.

If there really was a collusion, wouldn't it have made sense to "pull it" towards the end of the pond where it could have made a real difference??

It's a game of Pond. Why on earth would I want to, or anyone else for that matter, cheat? There's no prize on offer.

Clay - are you serious? after what happened last round and the discussion in here you go and post that on discussion?

Clay has just posted this....

ClayNashvilleTn: (13. June 2005, 17:44:12) OK, I am very upset at what happened in this last round! I will be with drawing on this next round by bidding 1

Walter Montego: I said ages ago that if a player bid's "0" then that should be a "resign", with the lowest player still falling in addition to the "resigned" player. That way, it does not affect the game.

It works on Round 1, so why not extend it to all rounds and advertise the new rule??

Seems the logical and easy fix to such problems.

Czuch Chuckers: Quite right. I saw Scooter's post (and no - I dont even know him or her - which answers the question on discussion) and decided to gamble and bet 2. Pedro obviously did the same but bet 10. It could have so easily gone wrong and I would have been out early but it didnt.

I agree, if you dont want to play, just bet "0" or "1" and dont tell anyone, but I can assure you there is or was no conspiracy before any "accusations" are banded about.

Seems to me that the 2 players who had the guts to chance it that round were rewarded for their gamble.

Pedro Martínez: true - but not whilst the BKR works like it does......

Pedro Martínez: 9888 - and guarantee 2nd place....

Pedro Martínez: me too, but everytime i dont bet like that at such a stage i fall in !!!

Pedro Martínez: 5-6000 i say.

There is no formula. I have recently got to 5 or so "ponds" where there were only 4 or 5 players left. I have bid considerably less than the other players, who have "ALL" bid similar amounts. The majority of these Ponds, Pedro was in.

I lost because of a lack of experience at that stage - not because Pedro (or anyone else) was using some make-believe formula.

I have shared a number of discussions with Pedro, and not once has he ever mentioned any formula, even offered advice (relating to a "formula") or done anything that could harm his good name.

I would have no hesitation in laying my reputaion down that Pedro (as well as BBW, Vikings, Czuch, etc etc etc) are simply good pond players who know what sort of amounts to bet at the right time.

I've seen ponds where Pedro has fallen at position 10 (or so) out of 16 !!.

The whole talk of secret formula's is garbage in my opinion, and it's about time this whole nonsense discussion was dropped.

On the page linked below, could you add a column for "Number of Ponds Won" next to "online status" (or replacing online status?

Ponds Rating List

I know this is available on another page, but it would make better reading to be on that page too.

Fencer: can you give a quick explanation as to how the ratings work? i.e. How to maximise BKR.

Pedro Martínez: hook, line and sinker....

furbster:

Fencer: On the Ponds winners list, can you add an option to view % of ponds won against number entered as well as the number won?

Czuch Chuckers: I agree. The more skillful players are those that have a chance of winning when it comes down to 4 or 5 players - rather than getting to the top 5 but having a third less points than the leader. Everyone plays differently, and the suggested rating system (BKR) for ponds which was mentioned by Fencer some time ago, has changed a few players strategy I believe.

Stevie:

Universal Eyes:

Stevie: the question is..... is it worth trying again??

Thad: I'm with you. I knew 11 had a chance of falling this time. I had been betting 13 and wouldn't have gone near 11 ( as per my post on discussion board).

http://brainking.com/game/Pond?p=0&g=145

This tournament's description has been edited.

However, this was originally described as a "Prize" pond, and has been changed since it started. There no longer looks like it's a prize pond.

Is this/should this be allowed??

Czuch Chuckers: Yes, but wouldn't it solve all the problems, if it was the same for every round, with players who suicide with a "0" bet when they dont want to play anymore.

The quick and easy solution, would be, and I know it's been mentioed before, is for anyone who wants out to bet "0". However, a bet of "0" is not classed as the lowest bet possible. So if 3 people bet "0" and 5 bet "1" - all 8 go out.

EdTrice: so no-one argues with me.... LOL

BIG BAD WOLF: you probably cheated..... LOL

Vikings: yes. Exactly.

BIG BAD WOLF: I agree.

Another example.... The (English) football followers will understand this.

Tranmere Rovers get to the semi final of the FA Cup. They were never going to win it. No Chance. They got to the semi final (with 1000 points to spare) and "ran out of points". Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea had 17,000 points each. Tranmere had done well to get to the semi final but had not played better than Newcastle united who went out the round before but had 16,000 points before they went out the previous round. Tranmere are not better than Newcastle United...

Anyway. That's me done.....

Thad: so why not just rate Ponds on % wins to Ponds entered?

Right!!!! If BBW disagree's i'm doomed LOL. Forget I ever mentioned it. I'm off sulking now.

Pedro Martínez: but playing how I call "bad" will NEVER get a win. Yet this player would be highly rated as a Pond player because they have completed more rounds.

i'm obviously outvoted here so i'll drop it.

Another example could be - I play Pente with Thad. My rating is 1300, Thads is 2200. This is so because Thad is a better player. I play 2 games against Thad. One I last 10 moves, the other I last 30 moves. The game I lasted 30 moves in before losing does not make me a better player. I would have lost (in reality) anyway. I just delayed the inevitable. I see it similar to Ponds. If you fall in with a high number of points, you had a better chance of winning than if you bow out with nothing left and other players have 17000+. Why should your BKR be good because you played but never had a chance of winning.

If this is the case, then there is no point going for the win, just bid much more than you need to stay in keep going until your points run out. No skill there then.

Pedro Martínez: no, one player has nothing left in the bag - played badly and had no chance of winning it. The other player still had thousands to play with but fell. They had a chance of winning and had surely played a more skillful game?

Thad: Good point.

My point is, for example, on the very first run with the 250+ players, you are currently in first place with the most points, and have played it excellently (IMO). However, Eihn is still in it, with 700 points left to your "thousands". Say you go out next round due to the lowest bid, and Eihn goes out the next round after thru losing all their points - Eihn would be higher rated than you?

It sesm to me like you would be penilised for playing so well but being unlucky, but others get rated higher for playing poorly just because they stayed in a round longer.

Does that make sense? It seems to me that the highest rated Pond players will be those who stayed in the longest (due to high bets, but fell after 10+ rounds, rather than the players who skillfully tried to bet just enough to stay in for the win but were just unlucky in one round.

ok, so expand then !!! LOL. Why?

mmmmmm... so there is no point you wasting your time creating a rating list for Ponds then.

<Fencer - Pond Ratings.

When you do the Pond Ratings, will they take into account your position throughout the game? For example, a player may bid >1000 every round and get to round 13 out of 16 players, then run out of points, which is bad play. A different player may get to round 13 and fall in because of lowest bid but might have been skillfully placing bets for 13 rounds and been leading the board in most of the 13 rounds. How will you differentiate between the two?

Fencer - How will the Ponds ratings work?? will they be based on wins, or number of rounds survived?

BIG BAD WOLF: yes, i didnt want to win that one anyway... didnt want to upset you.. LOL

Maxinna has won this one easily now I think.

sticky back plastic... cant fault it..... guaranteed sucess.....

Ed - where's this spreadsheet????