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

Now, using Bernice as an example.... lets say people start to play 2 when she is in last place because she is known to play 1 in that situation. Now maybe she can play 10 or 200 for example and sucker someone else into the pond instead of herself. Thats how playing a 1 in this game may end up helping you in another game down the road! Also it will mess up how the person in first place will play the end game as well. If they can no longer predict that everyone else will play 501 or higher, it obviously makes their job that much harder.

grenv: The bid of one just allows for someone else to bid low and improve their lot in that game. So everyone does not fall like dominos from 5th place on down....

grenv: well i regularly bid 1. especially if Im in last place and have no chance of getting anyfurther up the ladder. say I have 600 left...it is logical that people will bet 601. If I bet 1 instead of say 599...what difference is there ...I still cant bet 601...so any bet between 1 and 600 is my choice. I like to see who wastes their well earned points and bets just 601 LOL

Nothingness: Does not all Ponds end up with 5-10 players eventually.

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

grenv: Thats my point.... I think it depends on if you are playing for a win or for BKR. If you play for a win you may want to risk giving up a gauranteed second place for a chance at first, or a possibility to fall to third, but if you play for BKR you might just be happy with your second place, not risking anything so not to end up in third.

perhaps a league type format where the same people play in say 5-10 ponds. The same people MUST play in all of them. Whether its 20 people or 30. then you can see jsut about how good they are and what peoples tendencies are in a 5/10 pond format.

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

grenv: I think it is a good arguement.... something that is evolving every day here. I predicted an evolution in this game on this site, especially in opening bids. It is different than a live game face to face with everyone.
I dont play chess, but I think if it wre a match game with 10 games or so, I might be willing to play a few moves "poorly" on purpose to maybe mislead my opponent into making a stupid move later thinking I will not catch on.

It also depends on if you are playing for wins or for BKR, because thare are different strategies for both. (unless you can win alot and then the BKR will take care of itself) Playing like a rock on your end game will not always give you the best possible position in the end, but it will gaurantee that you do no worse then the position yopu start in. Also if you are playing for wins only, then each game may simply be a game unto itself, but if you are playing for BKR, then it is more like a poker game and you have to look at your results over the long term instead of from game to game. Is two 2nd place games better than a 3rd and a 1st????? Dont get me wrong... if I am in first place with 5 to go, I hope everyone plays like you and others, to just hope not to get worse than you are already are, and I will win more than lose, but if you were to mix it up some, I wouldnt know what to do, and you might make a big comeback and go from 3rd to 1st instead of staying safely ion 3rd.

Anywho, plent of ramblings for now

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.

grenv: Like HRQLS said.... it is not stupid, as you contend, to sometimes lose on purpose to help you win more later.

In my poker example, I may stay in a hand with a low pair of 9s, knowing it is not the best hand, but the winner will see that I played with only 9s and might see a tendancy for me to play low hands. Now when I have a pair of aces, and my opponent has a pair of queens or kings, I might get him to play thinking that he may have me beat because I am known to play with a low hand sometimes.

Part of ponds games has evolved on this site to be about reading tendancies from opponents whom you play against regularly etc. Each game here is not an individual game unto itself. What I do in this game will have a bearing on how others may play in another game against me.

You may play the logical way everytime. This is a tendancy people know about you, and wil dictate how someone will play in an end game against you. If you were playing poker, you would be called a "rock". Rocks only play solid hands all the time. That is a good stategy to not ever lose too much money, but when people know you only play good hands they will fold everytime you play and your strategy will rarely win you very much money either. (like you said, in poker, its not about how many hands you win, rather how much money you win) You can win 10 of 11 hands for a net profit of 10$ each hand, and I can win the 11th hand for a net profit of 500$ because when I stayed in so did everyone else because they thought I will play with a poor hand, and when you played everyone folded, so you won very little money.

Its obviously not quite the same for ponds, but the idea is stil there. We play against the same people over and over, and learn tendancies that help us determine how to play. Sopme of us think it is a good long term strategy to play "inconsitant with logic" sometimes, to have a better chance in a tough situation later on.

there is one reason why a player would bet 1 when he would be in the last place ...

he is convinced he has lost anyway ... he bets 1 ... he does this in all his pond games .. he thereby shows a tendecy .. which the regular players might pick up ... and at some time when he thinks he changes his bet to 12 instead of 1 .. and might win the pond from the 3rd position which he would have fallen in otherwise

(i do this a lot while playing squash ... i hit a ball almost exactly the same for quite some time ... and then when i really need the point .. i suddenly switch tactics .. it will often give me more than 1 point as my opponent is a bit confused from that point and might be thinking too much .... i am not playing squash on a very high level though ;))

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.

This game isnt all about whats logical. I agree with nothingness, it is a long term strategy to make some illogical moves sometimes. Like in poker, you sometimes have to lose on purpose to make peopol wonder if you are playing logical or not and then you can get them later when they think you are bluffing again. One of these times a leader will begin to wonder if both people will go low and undercut him... he ma y then go low to counter this possiblity, and then both players bid "logical" and he is screwed. It makes the end game more fun for anyone not in the lead, if the leader thinks someone "might" act ilogically.

890-887+500=503;
887-504=383

The 383 bid was logical because Mat. was going to either 1st or 3rd place. I can see him taking a chance. 383 was logical because you could guess that grenv would bet the 888.

But Arctic's bet of 1 does no good for him. There is almost no way that a bet of 1 will help him at all. I might be able to understand a lower bet of 100, or 200, or 300 or something - but 1 does nothing except make sure he ends up in 3rd place. Pointless and i think a stupid bid.

Nothingness: 1) The Matarilevich's bet was very logical.

2) I assure you that if grenv bet 503, he would finish 2nd in an overwhelming majority of cases cases (in the same situation). This was just a bad luck.

Again this comes down to guess,Grenv couldve bet 503 to assure himself of the win(in that situation only). which is what i wouldve bet (Unless i noticed very poor competition). I wouldve gone for 2nd and bet just over what 3rd had. That is a no brainer. BUT again this is all "IF" i think that a person will bet illogically. If i had followed arctics tendencies i might have picked up on it. He was doomed for 3rd but b/c Matar.. made the actual illogical bet with 383 this caused grenv to take the loss. this strategy actually paid off even though grenv played "book" he still lost. Im actually still trying to figure out the 383 bid. that makes less sense to me than the 1 bid. What if arctic had bet everything.

Nothingness: If I were in grenv's position, I would have also bet what he bet (888 I think...?)

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.

Nothingness: What bid could have Grenv had made to assure himself a win? There was nothing when the other 2 players bid below what should have been the "min" bid amount for the players.

grenv: You have finished almost 100 ponds. Is this the first time you noticed that the last person bet 1, or generally less than the maximum? I saw it so many times before...these guys just see there's no way to win the ponds and try to make the game more interesting or for whatever other reason they just bet low, having, from their point of view, no chance to move on to th enext round. I have done it myself several times. Check this:

http://brainking.com/cz/Pond?bms=10&g=602

I could secure myself a third position but I tried to win the pond by bidding lower than what Rose had left, hoping that Rose would go even lower.

Maybe Artic thought he didn´t have any chance so he decided bet anything. He didn´t think i could do an "illogical" bid. If i´d have bet 501 instead of 383 then i´d have done the second place. This was my strategy.

but most time he would've finished 3rd its called playing the odds. aka gambling! Grenv could've played a different bet as well to assure himself of the win but he was out thought! and that is why he lost. would've could've should've are no excuses. Was "1" an illogical bid? absolutely! but not Stupid!

Walter Montego: Every game is "flawed" in some way. You cannot find a perfect one. Btw, I don't think there is a significant flaw. Every aspect can be considered as a part of the strategy.

Nothingness: But in this case he would have ended up in 2nd, not 3rd. Again, no point in bidding 1.

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.

grenv: The game is flawed. One solution is to stop playing it. If you're going to continue to play it, you'll just have to deal with the unfairness of the game and the sometime idiotic or arbitrary play of your opponents. Complaining about it or pointing fingers about collusion doesn't solve much and gets everyone defensive and mad.

Fencer said he liked the team idea. If he gets it going, perhaps it will play in a way that won't have these other problems. As for me, I won't play the original version any more. Nor am I going to play the dark version. I'll hold out for the team version and will give it a try if I'm not forced to join fellowships.

no he would still get 3rd b/c other could still be more than 500. it comes down to an educated GUESS!

And since I haven't even won a pond yet, I could very easilly have misunderstood.. LOL

It's stupid to me. I mean if Arctic Warrior would have just bid what he had (500), he would be end up in 2nd place instead of 3rd place. There is absolutly nothing good that will help him by just bidding 1.

Nothingness, I don't think it is looked at as a tie of 2 people. I think it is looked at as though no one won, since both fell in the pond.
Unless I'm misunderstanding.

grenv:


Why should you reward other players for watching your tendencies? Ridiculous.

Are you serious? I believe that's what this game's about.

hmm well thats what you do in any game, finding weakness in an opponent is what ALL sports atheltes do! its a common practice. batters watch pitchers tendencies, to see if he is tipping pithces, in Soceer if a goalie tends to go to the right you can use that knowledge to your advantage in a shootout. In boxing you look at tendencies to find WEAKNESS in your opponent. "If you dont learn from your mistakes your doomed to repeat them." Most ponds are over when it gets down to 5 people left. now with this strategy there almost NEVER over even with 3 poeple left. unless the points are separated by a big gap.

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.

i do this often i liek to change up the bids so that it keeps the leader on his toes and he cant get a BRAINLESS win! if there over 500 points and the bonus can make a difference i will sometimes bet 1 or even all my points. heres an example.
1. Vikings 513 (-512=1+500= 501)
2. Pedro 511 (-2=509)
3. Nothingness 500

Now vikings thinks he can just bet 512 and win for free, but not if i bet 1 and pedro bets 2. this makes the #1 over analyze this situation and could change his bets in future ponds. So Pedro is rewarded for watching my tendencies. i only do this every so many ponds, as to not be too predictable.

... 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

i tied for 1st with 2 others in a rain pond the other day and it still dont show me as winning a rain pond as of yet. How long does it take to show the victory?

tonyh: Thanks Tony..I thought thats what you meant..But with all this cheating talk I didn't know. LOL I still say great minds think alike..except this one is getting to old for it anymore.

tonyh: or simple logoff and view that information as a guest.

tonyh: But we could still see this info on the Enemies page anyway...:)

Pedro Martínez: Aha!!! So if I don't want you guys to see when I have NOT made a move, all I have to do is make you all enemies?!

tonyh: If you don't see it on his profile, he's got you on his enemies list.

Pbarb2: My comment on you and Pedro making the same bid was definitely not a 'cheating' barb!! I was just totally amazed at two guys getting the same high (and effective) bid. threw me right off course.
Re players taking advantage of guys who haven't made a move; do we have to have data re the time we last visited the site? What good does that do anyone?SKYking, for example, does not have it on his profile. Fencer????

Czuch Chuckers: I'm sorry I wasn't meaning you in anything. I just happened to click on your nic when I wrote that..Again sorry. I was just remarking over all in what I had read.
BARB

Pedro Martínez: Oh yeah....it wasnt Furbster anyway. Duh! LOL

My last bet in that pond was a simple one-more-than-the-second bet. I didn't even checked whether furbster had logged in during the last 18 hours or not. dmk is a different story though. That was actually a great risk from me because I placed that bid 7 hours before the deadline.

possibly as i have been rather busy these last few days. I never really notice the time of the pond limits when i sign up for them

furbster: I'm pretty sure Pedro would not have made that bid had he not seen that you were not online in time to make a play....

The problem with so many people using autobid in that pond was, I think, because I made the time limit 18 hours... so anyone who only comes online once a day at the same time would not be able to keep up with that pond. Maybe some didnt notice the time limit when they signed on?