Vikings: And since the ratings change it will happen more often.

WhisperzQ: lol. Very clear indeed.

It's still cheating. Getting an advantage over the rest of the competition because of advanced notice of another player's move is clearly cheating. Proving it is quite another matter.

I suggest an independent panel. If someone thinks there has been cheating then the panel will adjudicate and eliminate the offending player(s). Proof isn't needed, just a fair hearing. :)

Vikings: I've seen others do it. It has to be considered cheating. I don't care too much since I'm playing my last 2 ponds now (lost it's interest) but on principal it is wrong.

does this look suspicious to anyone else? Must we put up with this type of thing?

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=20&g=601

WhisperzQ: That's not the way to win!!

I could run out of time before capturing the king in chess as well, even though I checkmated him last turn.

BIG BAD WOLF: Actually the system really should end the game with 2 players left. Highest score wins. Forcing another round is a little like forcing a king capture in chess instead of stopping at checkmate.

Walter Montego: Actually that's a great idea. In fact why not be able to set all the rounds, with the option of changing them any time.

Bry: But most of the players you beat are unrated or rated a long way below you.

I guess my username needed to be closer to the end of the alphabet to have a chance in that one.

I'm betting 101

rod03801: I bet someone left the game just after it started but before it kicked off (whatever the distinction is in the back end).

Goonerg: Not unless they also bid 0. This is true even on the first round.

The only time others fall is if a player fails to move on the first round. I don't quite see why the first round is different but it is.

Goonerg: You get to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on. Unless you have 0 points left, then you don't have a choice.

Pedro Martínez: Let's go Mets!

Pedro Martínez: Excellent detective work, you should use that sleuthing to figure out what baseball team you're playing for this year.

furbster: I'm trying to figure out the algorithm that put Fencer at the top of the list.

Hrqls: So

y=xn
x=(20000 - S)/n

therefore
y=n(20000 - S)/n
y=20000 - S

?

Did you mean to lower the total to something that makes the points matter? What would that total be? 1000? Interesting thought.

Rose: Bonus is meaningless in rain ponds anyway. In fact points are pretty much meaningless, may as well give everyone an infinite number of points (which never changes)

Nothingness: But you don't have days to study, you have to make a move before the time runs out. Time is always a factor in game play.

i assume you mean you became the board, which probably means you could see all the opponents pieces?

pauloaguia: i think 77.1 would be a good bet in this situation.

Silly game of luck.

Andre Faria: I was subtracting the 10% of ponds where they tied!

Pedro Martínez: So if 2 people apply the same tactic, you're saying that they won't win 180% of the ponds?

BIG BAD WOLF: I agree, the early rounds are pretty meaningless. More can be gained in those middle rounds when you can either get a good lead, or drop to the bottom and struggle at the end.

Nothingness: Unless you used a computer to analyze it, then there's just the initial programming time. I wonder if anyone actually did that.

BerniceC: But in this case the player that bid 1 would have "moved up the ladder" had the bid been higher.

Czuch Chuckers: Neither of which explains the bid of 1.

Czuch Chuckers: Once again, a match of 10 games is not analogous, unless we are to play a match of 10 ponds.

I tend not to ramble, hence my short posts

Czuch Chuckers: "Each game here is not an individual game unto itself."

I disagree with this statement, which your entire argument hinges on.

The squash argument is the same. A point is not an end to itself.

Here is my analogy: Would you lose a game of chess deliberately in order to confuse your opponent in the next game? I think not.

Czuch Chuckers: Poker is one game with many hands. The winner is the player with the most money at the end. Each move within a pond may be analogous to a hand in poker.

What game would you deliberately lose in order to achieve victory in another game? That is silly in my book.

Nothingness: How could I have guaranteed a win???? If I bid less then I risk Matarilevich bidding more than me and getting the bonus.

Pedro: I agree that Mata's bid was correct, risking 2nd place to possibly win is fine. I had to GUESS, since he could just as easily bid high thinking I'd go lower to protect the play he made etc etc.

The only thing I'm questioning is bidding 1. Bidding 300, or 350, or 400 etc is fine, but 1 makes no sense.

You guys are missing the point. Of course if you watch other peoples play you can gain some advantage. My question is why would you help certain people (those that play often) over others deliberately by making a bid GUARANTEED to lose.

In this case a higher bid would have lifted him to second place. It's possible he could even have won if I screwed up my bid, why bid 1 and guarantee falling in the pond? I don't get it.

Nothingness: I wouldn't mind if he bid 300 or something, but 1 makes no sense at all. Why should you reward other players for watching your tendencies? Ridiculous.

... Would Arctic Warrior bet 1 here?????

The other bid made sense just in case, and I wouldn't mind if he'd bet something vaguely sensible.

Seems like I was ganged up on a little.

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=22&g=545

BIG BAD WOLF: Yes, it's an improvement for sure.

Czuch Chuckers: HEAR HEAR. I believe I complained about this very early on and was ignored. I think it detracts markedly from the game. of course I now try to do it as well, just to keep up.

Simple solution would be to eliminate players who don't make a move (as in the first move of the game).

Vikings: Agreed. Banned from the site seems appropriate. Could it be the same user?

Czuch Chuckers: Of course when those players are in the game I wouldn't go for the bonus. However I think the bonus adds something to the game, and when it is taken away by idiotic bids it lessens the game.

If everyone tried their best to win, or even tried their best to improve their rating, such bids wouldn't happen.

Czuch Chuckers: And if everyone in china jumps up and down at the same time the earth will change it's orbit?

It is practically impossible since it's never happened. Why do you continue to argue for stupid moronic bids???

Czuch Chuckers: That is clearly incorrect. In move 1 you cann guarantee staying in the game by bidding 500, you may even get the bonus for a net zero.

1000+ is a bad bet. Period. You are guaranteed to be worse off than if you bet 500 with no more chance of staying in.

Czuch Chuckers: Ok, apparently you have an irony deficiency.

Looks like 9719 is the ideal bid here.

Pedro Martínez: Points each round would be a good variation though. The winner wouldn't be the last standing, but the player with the most "points" at the end. Of course the last round counts so being in at the end would be an advantage.

Czuch Chuckers: Don't be silly, when these players aren't involved the bonus comes into play, generally at around 400-600 above the lower bets.

In the first round 400 is a risky bet. 550 is more likely to get the bonus, but you might as well bet 50. Of course you deny the bonus to someone else. 1000+ is stupid, there's no way around it.

Pedro Martínez: Hear hear. I'm tired of ponds where the bonus is effectively taken out of the game by players who clearly have no interest in winning the pond. And there are more than one of them.

I think the run in the rain somewhat addresses it. :)

I really think that the ratings should take into account how far from the lead you are each round. Of course final position should count more, but it should be a hyperbolic function so that the difference between 1st and 5th is much more than the difference between 5th and 9th for example.

Universal Eyes: I suggest you play first, chat second. I can't imagine why you'd time out because you were writing a message on a board.... oops gotta rush before I time out...

Czuch Chuckers: Quite right. I was away for 5 days and fell in about 15 ponds. Since I've only played about 80 that's significant.

Nothingness: Nonsense, contractual agreements between the owner of a site and the paid members are not covered by civil rights! We're not intending to put those people in prison, only kcik them off the site. Please!

On the other hand the point about a friend logging in is a good one, for the purpose stated below i think it's ok in moderation.

ScarletRose: I believe (s)he should time out of the tournament games. (S)he can always join more tournaments later.

If it's ponds I don't have a strong objection though. in a non-tournament game you should at least ask the opponent.

How's that?