Czuch Chuckers: It has helped a lot with being able to go back and see how people bid. I agree it's all about out thinking the other players. I got started late but will improve, I hope.

ClayNashvilleTn: I dont think the object of a multi player game like ponds is about winning. It seems to be more about doing better than more people than do better than you do. But like I stated earlier, this is not a static game, it is very dynamic, so eventually what will happen is that because people do bid high trying to stay in the game, but without any real chance to win, other people will start doing the same and soon the game dynamics will change and the bids will go higher and higher and the whole game will change. I think the higher rated players will eventually be the ones who are able to adapt and change when the game play changes. Just be patient and be ready to adapt and you will be just fine.

Did I miss it or has someone pointed out the feature where the last msg in each pond is showing in all ponds games now?

Czuch Chuckers: I was using that example as if in one partcular round. Everyone bids in this particular round in the 200 range and one player bids 1500 in that same round. This person follows that procedure in practically every round and has a rating of 2100. They probably never have fallen early because of the constant high bid.

hehehehehe I guess what I was fussing about is I am only at 1800 because I play close to the edge hoping to win.

ClayNashvilleTn: ***Yes, but when someone bids 1500pts in order to receive the 500 bonus points ever round and everyone else bids in the 200 range which are reasonable bids, then it removes from the strategy the chance to get the high bid from players that are playing to be competitive.***

You said that 200 points is a "reasonable" bid...
This game is not static, it is in constant evolution. Someday it may be reasonable to fall in the first round with a 3000 bid! There is nothing that says that the bhids have to be as low as they are currently.

Pedro Martínez: OMG!!! I cannot keep up with that! LOL

how can I see the ponds that I already fell in the pond, but that they aren´t completed yet?

ScarletRose: 122 at the moment...:)

I just LQQKed at that one list.. OMG!! I guess I need to join in some ponds to even get up there like you enz!! Dang how many of them do you keep going at once?? LOL

Pedro Martínez: You´re right. The other win was in a dark pond...

ScarletRose: There's nothing secret about it...just trying to guess what others are going to bet...

Andre Faria: 7, Andre...:)

hum, I have 8 winnings, not 7.

But this rating is very interesting...

take away 1 and 2 since they are not established and it looks pretty good

Rank…..Played ..........Won ........…….......... Rating
..4 ..........336 ..............64 ..........19.0%.......... 2554 ............ Pedro Martinez

How the heck does he do it?? Come on Pedro.. let us in on your secret?? LOL

It's becoming fairly obvious that, with half of the established players having ratings of over 2000 or so, a rating ceiling of 2700 and individual players' ratings often varying 500 or more in the course of a week, the current ratings are far too volatile to be of much real use in ranking players.

As we get more established players either the top players list will change dramatically on a more or less daily basis or one or more players will establish a rating of 2700 or thereabouts and stop playing. Neither situation is very satisfactory. The percentage win stats are not an ideal alternative but they are easily calculated and are a lot more stable than the ratings so I intend to post them here on a regular basis. Hopefully this may encourage some players to go for a win and not just a place. I'll do the same for dark ponds when we have a bit more data.

The top 25 is currently as follows. Remember you need 2 wins to be eligible for this list.


Rank…..Played ..........Won ........…….......... Rating

..1 ..............9 ................5 ..........55.6%.......... 2113P .......... Mike UK
..2 ............20 ................6 ..........30.0%.......... 2576P .......... basplund
..3 ............80 ..............16 ..........20.0%.......... 2384 ............ furbster
..4 ..........336 ..............64 ..........19.0%.......... 2554 ............ Pedro Martinez
..5 ..........331 ..............62 ..........18.7%.......... 2683 ............ Vikings
..6 ..........261 ..............34 ..........13.0%.......... 2252 ............ Maxxina
..7 ............16 ................2 ..........12.5%.......... 2107P .......... NOT a floosie
..8 ..........259 ..............30 ..........11.6%.......... 2662 ............ BIG BAD WOLF
..9 ............18 ................2 ..........11.1%.......... 2250P .......... TIGER0005
10 ..........122 ..............13 ..........10.7%.......... 2183 ............ rabbitoid
11 ............96 ..............10 ..........10.4%.......... 2168 ............ Flake
12 ..........107 ..............11 ..........10.3%.......... 2193 ............ Czuch Chuckers
13 ............39 ................4 ..........10.3%.......... 2533 ............ zockerdotcom
14 ............61 ................6 ............9.8%.......... 2301 ............ Erinity
15 ............31 ................3 ............9.7%.......... 1970 ............ Sinay
16 ............52 ................5 ............9.6%.......... 2346 ............ aissi
17 ............33 ................3 ............9.1%.......... 2228 ............ jitkasafa
18 ............78 ................7 ............9.0%.......... 2261 ............ Andre Faria
19 ............24 ................2 ............8.3%.......... 1961P .......... drgnrdr
20 ............36 ................3 ............8.3%.......... 2544 ............ Mely
21 ............25 ................2 ............8.0%.......... 2144 ............ Luisifer
22 ............25 ................2 ............8.0%.......... 2066 ............ pgt
23 ............65 ................5 ............7.7%.......... 2014 ............ Labbeda
24 ............26 ................2 ............7.7%.......... 2700 ............ Matarilevich
25 ............27 ................2 ............7.4%.......... 2202 ............ lukulus

Actually that doesn't work quite right, the numPlayers needs a different treatment, but I'm too busy to fix it. Maybe later.

Andre Faria: I think the ratings should be based on a curve, so that the difference between 1st and 2nd is greater than between 2nd and 3rd etc.

This would obviously be modified by the opps ratings.

For example a simple hyperbolic formula 1/position could be multiplied by the opps average rating and used to calculate your new rating.

new = (old * n + (2/pos * oppRating * numPlayers))/n+1

where n = a modifier that increases with games played to a point.

I wish I had the data to try it.

I shall insist: what about giving some extra BKR points for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of the pond. This wiil prevent quite a bit this situation, as players will bet taking some more risks...

ClayNashvilleTn: let them play that way, they are simply pawns to be used in the later rounds, and actually boost your ratings.You will find that the top winners never go for the bonus in the early rounds and for the most part have the highest ratings

ClayNashvilleTn: I'm missing something here. These people lose playing that way, don't they? It almost sounds like you're complaining about them playing stupidly in the face of logic. If they're not going to change their ways, they're not going to win. Maybe they just like hanging around in the game without winning. If staying in the game is a criteria for winning, their strategy would work, but it doesn't. The rating system is flawed, so do as I do when it comes to Ponds and the BKR for it. Just ignore the rating and try to win the game. This game was fine without the rating, and you can still play it without thinking about it.

BIG BAD WOLF:Yes, but when someone bids 1500pts in order to receive the 500 bonus points ever round and everyone else bids in the 200 range which are reasonable bids, then it removes from the strategy the chance to get the high bid from players that are playing to be competitive.

I have been in games with particular people that bid 1000 points higher EVERY bid so that they can just be around in the top 5. The final 4 would have figures like 12,000 points and the 5th place finisher have 300 points left.

It doesn't happen in every game but seems that tactic is growing.

Once you spot and learn the people that do that, it's not a big deal, but it removes the 500pts factor for everyone else in that particular game.

ClayNashvilleTn: But isn't that part of the game - try to stay in as long as you can.... and if possible, get 1st place?

Could there be installed some way into the scoring system, if you make the top five and your over say maybe 2000 or 3000 points behind the next guy you get no points?

Would this stop the HIGH bidders from riding the game out, just to make the top five?

is there a way to find out how many ponds you have completed in so far? i have no clue how many more dark ponds i need to enter before i get a rating.

I was looking at a completed Pond.
http://brainking.com/game/Pond?bms=33&g=10
I noticed that the person in last place bid more points in the next round than he had. I'm guessing that the amount of points left shown is incorrect, since nobody bet the obvious amount of 476 points in the next round. Anyone know what's up?

take away the top 2 who are not established and look at the next 4 names, pretty accurate as far as top players, you will find our ratings fluxuate as we go for winsbut overall usually near the top, or in this case all four have been rated number one, as a matter of fact if you took the total time these four players have been rated number one compared to all others on the list, you would find that they have been number one about 95% of the time

Mike UK: Not odd. Is a direct result of the actual BKR for ponds. People take less risks, having less chances of winning ponds, in order to get in the last 5/6 to win more BKR points.

IMO, the winner of the pon, the 2nd and the 3rd would get some extra BKR points to reward their risky options...

All 45 players with 2 or more wins on the winners list are included. There are only 7 unestablished players on the list. So their removal doesn't change the overall picture. My point is that many of the players with well below average win rates have high ratings, which I find odd.

actually it's using a different criteria, and if you took out everyone that isn't established, you would have the top players at the top. by the way basplund is #2 on the provisional rating list,but you are missing a name

Now that we have Pond ratings I thought it would be interesting to compare them to the BBW percentage win method. The following table is for regular ponds only and includes all players with at least 2 wins. Surprizingly I think, there doesn't seem to be any correlation with ratings at all.


Played ..........Won .......... %.......... Rating
....7 ................4 .......... 57.1.......... 2410 .......... Mike UK
..19 ................5 .......... 26.3.......... 2451 .......... basplund
..77 ..............16 .......... 20.8.......... 2415 .......... furbster
301 ..............58 .......... 19.3.......... 2682 .......... Vikings
306 ..............57 .......... 18.6.......... 2255 .......... Pedro Martinez
252 ..............34 .......... 13.5.......... 2409 .......... Maxxina
..15 ................2 .......... 13.3.......... 2208 .......... NOT a floosie
..91 ..............10 .......... 11.0.......... 2147 .......... Flake
121 ..............13 .......... 10.7.......... 2211 .......... rabbitoid
104 ..............11 .......... 10.6.......... 2110 .......... Czuch Chuckers
..39 ................4 .......... 10.3.......... 2533 .......... zockerdotcom
246 ..............25 .......... 10.2.......... 2230 .......... BIG BAD WOLF
..31 ................3 ............ 9.7.......... 1970 .......... Sinay
..52 ................5 ............ 9.6.......... 2346 .......... aissi
..76 ................7 ............ 9.2.......... 2213 .......... Andre Faria
..33 ................3 ............ 9.1.......... 2228 .......... jitkasafa
..23 ................2 ............ 8.7.......... 1789 .......... pgt
..58 ................5 ............ 8.6.......... 2210 .......... Erinity
..36 ................3 ............ 8.3.......... 2544 .......... Mely
..24 ................2 ............ 8.3.......... 2355 .......... lukulus
..24 ................2 ............ 8.3.......... 1961 .......... drgnrdr
..24 ................2 ............ 8.3.......... 1953 .......... Luisifer
..65 ................5 ............ 7.7.......... 2014 .......... Labbeda
..44 ................3 ............ 6.8.......... 2334 .......... Jason
..59 ................4 ............ 6.8.......... 1870 .......... Jofaserimon
122 ................8 ............ 6.6.......... 2204 .......... Monica
..80 ................5 ............ 6.3.......... 2289 .......... kitti
..32 ................2 ............ 6.3.......... 2069 .......... hyncaba
253 ..............15 ............ 5.9.......... 2369 .......... tonyh
110 ................6 ............ 5.5.......... 2163 .......... Hannelore
..42 ................2 ............ 4.8.......... 2088 .......... alexlee
128 ................6 ............ 4.7.......... 2460 .......... Pbarb2
..43 ................2 ............ 4.7.......... 2102 .......... ScarletRose
..47 ................2 ............ 4.3.......... 1851 .......... Tina Maurencova
142 ................6 ............ 4.2.......... 2093 .......... Mach Machovic
..77 ................3 ............ 3.9.......... 1418 .......... macik
..52 ................2 ............ 3.8.......... 2278 .......... Backoff
..79 ................3 ............ 3.8.......... 2240 .......... grenv
..86 ................3 ............ 3.5.......... 2247 .......... Bry
..66 ................2 ............ 3.0.......... 2033 .......... Daniel Snyder
113 ................3 ............ 2.7.......... 2169 .......... Nothingness
..78 ................2 ............ 2.6.......... 2261 .......... dexter
123 ................3 ............ 2.4.......... 2370 .......... fra
157 ................3 ............ 1.9.......... 2518 .......... BerniceC
322 ................3 ............ 0.9.......... 2017 .......... Arctic Warrior

Thad: I think I understand, It's oops, not opps

Vikings: Oops. That's a confusing one. ;-)

Thad: I think you read #7 wrong, I said 3 or 4 games, not 3 or 4 players

Vikings:

1. I agree
2. ditto
3. ditto again
4. Too funny!!! LOL ;-)
5. ok
6. agreed, but replace 'are random' with 'are somewhat random'
7. How do I get to be one of those 3 or 4? ;-)

thoughts on the recent discussion
1. Pedro does not get his bids from Mr.Trice! for sure
2. Mr. Trice did claim to be able to win any pond.
3. Mr Trice also left himself an out stating that the only reason that he wouldn't win is if people "collaberated" against him.
4. Mr. Trices deffinition of collaberation, " anytime he doesn't win".

5. I have at times, successfully, used 5 different formulas.
6. no formula will be fullproof because, a. the dynamics of the game always change. b. most people don't use formulas but strategies and therefore bids are random.
7. Playing to win vs. playing for ratings, you might as well play for ratings because there are a few players here that put togather 3 or 4 wins and knock everyones butt down. and those are the players that always end up on top

I use formulas, but I'd never claim to be able to win them all, and I change the formula occasionally

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.

rabbitoid: Yes, Ed definitely claimed he could guarantee victory.

Obviously advantages can be gained by applying good game theory, that isn't in serious dispute.

rabbitoid:
Ed Trice claims that your success in pond games and the fact that he gave you his secret formula is not a coincidence.

This bothers me.
I wonder why every single Trice's PM to me concerning that pond ended with "What would you normally bet?"????

rabbitoid: That's exactly what he claimed! Which we all know is bunk.

Any such method used in this game is a strategy, not a formula.
As anything in game theory, it is statistical in nature, not deterministic.
In plain language, the claim is not that a player who uses a fixed strategy could win any pond he enters, such a claim is obviously nonsense, and Ed never made such a claim. The claim is that entering a sufficient number of ponds he'd win more than he would if he plays only by guesses, regular instict, tea leaves or whatever.
And I agree with Andre, why bother? it's only a game. But VERY addictive!

Pedro Martínez: As bigger the sample, greater the reliable degree...

Andre Faria: So you can take bets out of 10 ponds and create such formula based on them? Based on bets of about 30 people? Bets from the prehistory of pond betting at BK? And this formula will give you "optimized" bet for ALL the upcoming ponds where the bets are so much different from how they used to be when this respective pond was played? Where such a huge number of new players are playing??? Sorry but you must be kidding...

Pedro Martínez: yes I am. It is possible to get some optimized bets...

Andre Faria: You're not answering the question.

Pedro Martínez: yep, it´s possible to create a formula that gives you optimized bets, under some circunstances...

One more fact I want to pinpoint about me being a Trice's shill. It was this pond:

>http://brainking.com/cz/Pond?g=10&trnst=3


Notice its number is 10 and it was started January 20.

Can anyone please answer this question? Is it possible to create such formula you guys are talking about when so few ponds had been finished before the start of this pond? And can it be successfully used for all the upcoming ponds, which are not rigid as for the bets, as we all know?

Thad: Sure, it is not 100% reliable. I agree with you on that...

Thad: There is no formula that can guarantee a win. But there is a formula to optimize whatever you want (e.g. number of wins, or high BKR) over a large number of games.
Any such formula will not work if other players know about it and collaborate against it.