Pedro Martinez: Perhaps now you can see my point about Run around the Pond?

How can this example be seen as any different from what you did in the other game? Sure, you had your reasons and justifications for your play, but maybe these guys in this example do too. Argue all you want, but this is a big flaw in the play of this game and I can't handle it when it is or could be directed towards me. There's really no way to prove it. Not only that, it isn't cheating. Nowhere in the rules of Run Around the Pond does it say you can't plot with another player in the game. Even this game 506 isn't an example of losing on purpose. If it is, then you are a hypocrit for backing Scooter when he bid 1 point in the other game. I see no difference in the appearance of these actions even if I feel that there was a difference. Yes, I can spell duplicity. You can't have it both ways.

For those unfamiliar with the earlier game that I'm refering to, here's the link:
http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=20&g=145
Check out the score of round 21 and then see how the bets were made and the scores afterwards. Can anyone that just stumbles across this game see any difference in how this game was played than how this current game has been played?

So, Pedro, if you are so willing to ban someone for something that looks for all the world exactly what it is that you have done, can you not understand why I am no longer going to play this game? I am very appreciative of the kind words in your post about wanting me to continue to play and learn this game. I find it rather ironic that the very post in which you acknowledge my alledged intelligence is also the post that you say you've never seen any signs of cheating or conspiracies in Run Around the Pond! Perhaps you've just missed subtle signs of it or it really has to be blatant for it be apparent as to how easy it is to rig this game? Maybe the people that form the conspiracies have learned more effective ways in which to help their comrades? I'd certainly pick my time to do it if I was so inclined to form a conspiracy. Of course one would try to stay in until the last moment before doing it. One high, one low, then blam, both or more bid low. Seems like an effective strategy to me. Next time someone bids 10 and is third lowest against 1 and 2 while everyone else is bidding over 1000, we should all think about how the other players might react.

As they say, "The shoe is on the other foot."