BIG BAD WOLF: Oh, I guess you must have just recently done this? Thanks!

There is a game waiting to start that is -2 1/2 hours ready to start. It is for a minimum of 16 players and a maximum of 20, and there are 18 already signed up.


My question is, why doesnt this game start already? Since the minimum limit has already been met, this game should have started. Is it a bug in the system? It shouldnt have to wait for the maximum limit to be reached to start, should it?

ScarletRose: Hmmmmmm.... I agree with Pedro.... very suspicious bets on that last round!

Are you certain just us girlz didnt put on the fix?

Very suspicious indeedie.....

Do we really need to be sent a message when we get the 500 point bonus for a round?

Arctic Warrior: LOL

Okay, Im gonna give Jason and Arctic warrior until tomorrow night to sign up then I will start it either way.... Good Luck

It looks like there will be 4 new pond winners in the next 24 hours..... Vikings, Jason, Aissi, and Arctic Warrior. So that none of them gets left out, am expanding my game to allow all of them a chance to participate. Please, if you have won a game or do win one in the next 24 hours, please sign up for this championship pond as soon as possible, and I will start it tomorrow night sometime, hopefully!

Good luck all!

Very soon I will begin sign ups for anyone with multiple wins (2 or more :)

Also another game for anyone with one win who does not make it in time for this first game.... stay tuned!

ohhhhhh.... ok
thanks!

Stevie: I understand the old dear, and alesh parts, but I dont see how rod fits in...

Stevie... you wanna elaborate on the Rod comment? I didnt get your point. Thanks :)

Only 5 spots left for the pond run of champions to begin. (hurry up and win one BBW!)


BTW, I just realized that in my 15,000 minimum bid run, in the description it says please make your first bid OVER 15,000!

So there to anyone who said it should be made more clear :)~

Oh yeah....one more thought.

With the rankings coming soon and incorporating games from the begining, I now think it is wrong to use a shill to play your moves for you.

One concern I have with the Pond rankings is that it may change the game startegy some. Right now it is played with one purpose, which is to win. Second place isnt any better than last place. Some people right now take big risk/reward ratios, its kinda like Im either gonna win big or lose big. But when ratings come into play, there will be more insentive to play more conservativly and stay in the game as long as possible even if it means reducing your actual chances of winning.

I also recently had a game where I went out third from last but it ranked me as swecond, then the person who got second was ranked third....

I also want to know what happens to an auto bid when you dont have enough points left to cover it?

Walter Montego: Yes, I agree I will have to be more clear next time. But, like Grenv stated, in a normal game the minimum bet is 0 and you will always be out of the game with a zero bet. I just thought it was self evident that a bet of 19,000 was the same as betting 0 in a normal game, and you should be in the pond.


And Stevie... yes a minimum bet is okay, just as a bet of 0 in a normal game is okay, it just means you do not continue in the game.

If someone bids the minimum bet ( o ) in a normal game, they are gone, it should be the same in every game... If you bet the minimum bet you should be out of the game.

BIG BAD WOLF: The only problem with that is if I set up a game where the minimum bid is 19,000 in a game where the person with the lowest bid gets booted from the game, then technically anyone who bids the minimum should be gone! I think bidding the minimum (lowest possible) and staying in the game just isnt right or in the spirit of the intended game.

I think this problem could be solved if I just made the rules a minimum 19000 bid and anyone who bids below 19001 will be asked to bid 0 the next round, then it would be clear from the beggining that anyone who bids below 19001 will be gone.

grenv: I also agree woith you too. I think anyone who bid below or at the minimum should be required to bet 0 the next turn, but that is just one of the problems with not being able to set up our own parameters and those of us that like to experiment with those types of games have to put up with.

Walter Montego: Although I agree with your assesment and strategy in these games, I do think that the intent is to play a game where everyone starts with 1000 points, for example, it just never seems to work this way, although I would like to see people play the way the game should be not the way they can. But like you said, one day we will either be able to start a game with 1000 points or someone will get burned hoping for an "idiot" play.

I think it must be too difficult to have the option to remove players once the game has begun, since even Fencer himself has not removed players who have been already removed from the whole web site, yet are still in the pond games.

Stevie: Just my opinion.... nothing wrong with the word effing is there?

I mean how many rounds and the average bet is still in the low 20s?????

EdTrice: I am not saying that Nashs' theory cannot assist you in playing a pond game, and probably give you statistical odds of playing very well. I also think it would work much better against "good" players as oppossed to "rookies", since "poor" players tend to behave less rational than good players. Although a really good player would tend to purposly act less rational on occassion, as part of their strategy.

Stevie: First, not sure what you are talking about.... second, why would I needlessly subject myself to your censorship?

EdTrice: Nash got the honor because it is a good theory. The problem is that there is no practical use for it in a pond game, since you yourself admit it wont work if anyone knows it is being employed.

What good is Eds system anyway, if even he claims it doesnt work if anyone knows it is being employed? Seems like it is a moot point if it is a valid system or not if there is no practical use for it.

If there is no advantage gained or lost, how is it cheating?

I would agree, in the Trice example, maybe he is gaining an advantage because he is using a formula but nobody knows who he is, but this is an experiment for him, and I dont see any disadvantage for the rest of the players. I agree he should have just done his experiment quietly and talked about it aftetr the win, but who would have believed him then? (not that he will win anywho)

I thought anyone whos membership lapsed during games could continue to finish all the games they were in before their membership had lapsed?

If anyone has been banned from the site and is not allowed to play, I think that info should be posted on the discussion board for that game.


One of the inherent problems in a long game like the first pond is that it is too long :) seriously... who is goinfg to go a whole year with 2 day moves and not miss any turns? Then the game becomes who can be better about obtaining inside knowledge about who is a pawn or who is banned or who is on vacation and using auto moves or who just wants to commit suicide. Those are not what we are supposed to be doing to find an advantage in this game.

Thad: I think the spirit of part of the cheating rule is for the integrity of the rankings and BKR. If you gain no advantage from the help is it really cheating? In the golf example, yes it is against the rules to not count every swing etc.. but when it the score is not counted in a tournament or to compute a handicap then it does not matter and is actually an accepted form of play for many amatuers.

Thad: I think it is cheating for you to be advising someone else how to play if it is a rated game. This changes if the game in question is not a counted game though.

Vikings: Yes, the golfer is cheating.
But that is another analogy that does not work in this instance.

These two players are not colaberating with each other.... it is Ed Trice playing a game under a different name so nobody will know which player he is. There is no way this is "cheating"!

Back to the golfer...he is cheating because he is technically breaking the rules, there is no rule in multi player games that have no rankings, that a player cannot make moves at the suggestion of someone else who is not themselves in the game.

k

Stardust: I still dont agree that it is cheating. I did not say that it isnt cheating only because there are no ratings. Just that it is not cheating, and the only other reason to be against it is if there were ratings involved, which there isnt.

I would like to be able to write an explaination to someone when I remove them from one of my games.

Pedro Martínez: I know what youy mean about these games. You get people betting 1, just knowing that some fool will mess it all up by betting below the minimum....what the ****

Pedro Martínez: I want to know how you have access to that discussion, since you are not in the game???????

Yeah, really funny! :(

Bad Bishop: LOL, I think it was both 'ignorant' and 'stupid'.

I guess its ok to call someone 'lame', to me its all just degrees of the same meaning, and at least I never mentioned any one person by name.


For the record... Anyone who bet 1 in that first round is lame!! :)

How is this any better than me calling someone who bet 1 in the first round 'ignorant'?

Please, whats good for the goose, is good for the gander, right?

It is hardly cheating in this instance, it is no different than if he changed his name and then played, there are no ratings to be affected, so whats the dfference?

Stevie: I just look at it as if Ed IS playing, just under a different name. After all, if he is going to test his formula, it wont work (according to him) if anyone knows what he is doing and tries to purposly sabotage him.

I wouldnt worry, his shill will lose, no formula in the world can gaurantee victory, it just is not possible. Although I think it would have a better success rate against "good" players than agains "bad" players...

Stevie: There is a difference here. here is no "program" to help someone win this game, it is not possible....

You dont even know if anyone is using a formula, or even if everybody is...

They are not really a "secret" person,you just dont know which player is using Eds formula....

Stevie: Why is it cheating?
As long as there are not 2 or more people colluding in the same game, I dont see any problem with it.

Pedro Martínez: How amny people in that run? It could be a long wait!

BBW et al.

It does not matter if we can see the actual moves, if his shill wins, then we will know his theory works, if not, then who cares?


On a side note.... (not to bring back any bad blood) but I was hiden on this board for calling anyone who bid 1 in the first round "ignorant", now I have to put up with all these "negative" posts, some of them from board moderators. Please get it back on topic and no more "negative" and hurtfull comments please :)

Yeah, maybe I should do one by invite only...

Stevie: I know, I hate it when people dont do it right, but sometimes its a simple mistake like the one you just made... its not 1500, but 15000!!!! good luck!

Congrats to Pedro as the first winner of a pond game! Also the first entrant into my tournament of champions game for previous winners only! There will be many games finishing soon, and I will take the first 16 winners then start it.


I also need 4 more people to begin a 15000 first move pond game, sign up and I will start it tonight!

Pedro Martínez: That is correct. But any game where there is only one person using a strategy is going to favor that person.

Look, people, this is crazy.
Obviously there has to be some sort of mathematical formula that can help a player do statistically better than average.

But there is no system that can gaurantee a win. Lets face it, 20 monkeys could play and 1 of them will always win. But for every game everybody but one will lose.

My point is that if it is a 20 person game, and all 20 people use this 'formula' 19 of them will always lose!