BIG BAD WOLF: And don't forget all the ideas for changing the starting points or the bonus.

WhisperzQ: That's the thing about having it as just two teams. Almost all games that involve more than two people or teams have this conspiracy problem. Poker is notorious for this problem when played with strangers. The game Risk is too. It just seems to me that those games that have the players work towards a positive goal are prone to conspiracy if all the players don't play for themselves. Two handed games are fair as far if I make a bad move, you win. In three or more handed games, this isn't always true. I make a bad move and you might lose because of it and the other guy wins. Just try and devise a game that gets around this. If you know of one, please post it on this site, maybe we can get Fencer to add it.

Any deviousness in a Team Pond game will be more than acceptable and fair. If it doesn't work, your team loses. If it works, your team wins, the other teams loses and no one is cheated or hurt. Say we started with two teams of eight players each. All sixteen players bid. Before the game starts, the eight players of each team might want to talk about playing certain bids or something else but they don't have to. As the game gets down to say 5 players, it would either be 3 against 2 or 4 against 1. I really don't know how it would go. I'm thinking the the remaining team members would be sending ideas back and forth. Could 1 person make the next round against 4? I'm sure it could be won 8 to 0 too.

If this way of playing Ponds has is flawed too, then there's not much more I can suggest. You have me thinking about conspiracies. I suppose one big problem would be team members that don't follow the team's plans, or worse reveal them to the other team. Traitors! It'd still be fair. The team loses and that's how it goes. Nothing like your example when two or more people purposely bid crazy to gain advantage and hurt uninvolved players.

Ponds is still on the site because people like to play it no matter how flawed and conspiracy prone that it is. You can do as I have done and stop playing the game, or just bite the bullet and play knowing that can happen. Your view of fairness in this game is different than other people. Some of whom veiw what bothers you as part of their fun in playing the game, though from what was written earlier I'd say most people don't like conspiracies. Besides your veiw of the fairness of it, others might not like it because they aren't in on it. I doubt much if your list idea would work as sooner or later something of this nature will come about. Just typing the wrong button can happen too. That happened to me in that Very First Pond. It wasn't until a few rounds into the game that Fencer made it possible to change your bid.

What do you think Fencer, Team Ponds? I'm sure some of the fellowships would have fun challenging each other, plus you could have round robin tournaments like we have for the other games too. There could be independent teams too. Just sign up at the tournament page. And of course invitationals. I get a number of people to join my team and we challenge someone else to get a team together.

WhisperzQ: You've decided to do what I have already done and that is stop playing Ponds. We had plenty of this kind of thing way before your little mishap, which after looking at the link to your game isn't nearly as bad as a Pond I was involved in where three people out of the blue bid 1, 2, and 10 while everyone else is bidding in the thousands. The problem with Ponds, and your game is good example of it, is that those bids might actually have not involved any conspiracy at all.

As for quoting the user agreement, I have to assume you just started playing Ponds because this very behavior is allowed by Fencer.

I requested a version of Ponds that would have two teams to play against each other with the game ending when only the players of one team are left in the game. Purposely bidding low to help your teammate would then be part of the accepted strategy. Team Run Around the Pond should be a workable and fun game.

grenv: It appears that my prediction about this happening again has come true. As I said then, the game is flawed if you view these types of conspiracies as cheating. There's no way to fix it, so it's either put up with it or quit playing the game.

What ever happened to the Team Pond game a lot of us were posting about? If Ponds can be played as a two team game, this would eliminate this problem and should be a very fun game to play. Your teammates could try to bid low and set up a similiar situation but it wouldn't be viewed as cheating since you're all in it together and it is known from the start. In fact, knowing when to do it or not would determine the winning team in a lot of games.

Vikings: OK, I posted it on the Feature Request board and directed Fencer here for any additional imput. The more I think about it, the better I like the idea.

grenv: Works for me. It'd be a nice easy set up on one's game page too. It should certainly make things fair for everyone and lessen the burden on the person that has a true emergency or unexpected absense come up. Though I doubt if it help someone to play 10 moves in advance, it could at least save them a few points in a game and they could still have a chance after missing a move or two for some unforeseen reason.

BIG BAD WOLF: You know, it'd be nice if one could bid more than one round in advance. This would certainly give you a sporting chance when you have to be on vacation or when an emergency happens. Say eight days or four rounds which ever takes the most days on the calendar?

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.

Shall we talk about other multiplayer games in which everyone playing is supposed to be playing for themselves to win?

That's right: Poker!
Casinos will not let known married couples play at the same table. That doesn't stop any other type of conspiracy from happening, nor would it stop a married couple from pretending to not be married while playing. So, my buddy with two pair whom I've signalled that I have a full house decides to bet. Everyone but me and one other player folds. This other player calls my buddy or raises, it doesn't matter. If he raises, I raise. If he calls, I raise. No matter what happens, my buddy raises on his turn even though he knows I have him beat because of my earlier signal. Now the hapless third guy is stuck again and can call or raise but we'll do the same thing again. Depending on the rules of the game there'll be a limit on the number of raises or eventually one of us three will have all of our money in and the betting will be over. If my full house is the winning hand (Almost a certainty if you know Poker, though I have lost with it before), my buddy will lose and the other guy does too. Had my buddy folded his bad hand at the beginning, the pot would have a lot less money in it and the betting round would've stopped the moment my opponent called me.

Another type of Poker conspiracy is called, "Playing soft". In this ploy, you bet light against your buddy and play hard against the rest. Almost the same thing.

In both these ruses, the players will divide up their winnings away from the table and of course if it's just the two of them against each other for the pot they can bet in whatever way they think appropriate to cover for what they're doing to everyone else at the table.

And then there's cheating, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Also, there's the game that got me to stop playing games of this nature, though I still play Poker. I play Poker with people I know and we have the rule that married couples can only have one of them at the table at a time. Generally though, the wives stay out of the game and let us knucklehead men play our Poker. Brothers seem to make good opponents in Poker. :) Perhaps it's the money and the brotherly competitiveness. Who can say, but there's nothing like telling your brother to put all his chips in if he wants to see your hand. Playing Poker with strangers is always fraught with conspiracies and the danger of cheats, but it's a fun game just like Run Around the Pond is a fun game.

Anyways, that other game is: Risk!
For those unfamiliar with this game, it's easy to understand. You win the game by conquering the world! At the start of the game the world is divided up amongst all the players and everyone gets an army. From the very start the politics of the game happen. Conspiracies aren't even concealed. One player might tell another that if he attacks me he'll leave him alone. At any time time in this game any one person can be ganged up on and forced out even if it causes those attacking that person to lose the game on a later turn. (That sounds familiar, doesn't it). Arguments happen even if everyone plays for themselves trying to win because the strategy of winning the game itself is complicated. (Dang, this sure sounds like Run Around the Pond). So you have people pointing fingers and name calling each other because of a perceived idiotic play or lack there of. How I missed the simularities of Risk and Run Around the Pond is beyond me, but perhaps it is because I haven't played Risk! in over twenty years and it's hard to imagine ducks quaking in the water as having anything remotely simular to armies, conquest, and world domination.

After coming to blows with a friend of mine while playing a game of Risk! over twenty years ago, I decided to never play it again if there were more than two people involved. Soon afterward I thought of playing four handed but with two players on a team. If you have to attack your partner to achieve a goal, that's just how it is. Playing this way eliminates the conspiracy problem and still retains all the other things about Risk that make it a fun game. I think this would also work for Run Around the Ponds and that was why I requested it in the previous post. Teams would be a lot of fun and the strategy seems like it'd be just as tough as it is now. Maybe not, but I suppose the game would have to played as teams first to see if it would be a good one to play it or not.

I would like a version of Run around the Pond that has just two teams of 8 or more players. The winning team would be the team with only its members left in the game. Team members would be free to plan amongst themselves or not as they see fit. I'm thinkng this would be a fun, fair, and challenging version and would lend itself to Fellowship challenges and matches very well. A round robin tournament set up just as a regular game tournament is currently held would work quite easily. Four or more teams could play each other as individuals now play in tournaments. Set it up as team tournament are now held, with each team playing one another one team at a time. It would also be fun just challenge a team head on and play a game.

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."

Pedro Martínez: There's no need for me to. Whether or not there have been any conspiracies is besides the point. The fact that there's nothing that can be done about them is why I'm no longer going to play this game. It's a flaw. Maybe not for you, but for me it is.

As for specific examples, I have yet to buy into the Scooter episode that you were a part of. Let me state clearly that I'm not accusing you of doing anything in that game in concert with him or others, it is my perception of it that I have a problem with. I can do something about me and am doing it. I said as much when it first happened. I'm not the only one that had a problem with how that turn went down in that game. It is a problem with Run around the Pond itself. A person's play can be honorable and without any type of collusion with his fellow players and yet people will be suspicious. I do not want to find myself in that position. Imagine that I take the chance, make a good play, and all it causes me is grief and suspicion. That's how it appeared to me for you when that turn was over. I believe how you played that turn was not a part of a conspiracy and that you truly read through all the noise and took the chance that you'd come out ahead. You also have lots of games under your belt and have many going at once, which will mitigate a loss if you are wrong in a decision of this nature. I also said that if you are that good at this game, I'm out of my league and no longer want to play with such players in a mulitplayer game such as Ponds.

As for other examples, I have only played a few games of Run around the Pond. It would be very easy for two or more people to conceal a conspiracy with the proper placing of when they act on it from me or anyone else. I'm sure you can see that. Especially if your bid in that particular game was on the up and up. Just imagine if that very same scenario happened the very next turn and three of us had bid as you, Scooter, and Bry did. How would you feel?

Let me say it again, it is me that has a problem with it. I am doing what I can about me. I will no longer play the game. I will try to win the last three games that I'm in. Having my computer break almost cost me all of them, but I am somehow hanging on.

As plenty of people have discussed, a way to quit or resign a game of Ponds that minimizes its effect upon a game in progress needs to be developed. Yeah, yeah, we can silently bid one and be done with it, but if there's way to do it and have it announced then this will eliminate one type of concern people have when a few other people suddenly bid very low amounts on the same turn. It will keep this type of trouble from causing grief. This will cut down on some shenanigans, but will not eliminate conspiracies. The game is fine as is if only for the reason that people are used to playing it with these rules.

I see no difference in the play of Dark Ponds. Why should there be? Right, because knowing your opponents can make a difference on occasion. If one ignores who their opponents are and just plays the game by trying to make the best bid each turn, the game plays the same.

Lest all forget, at the start of the very first Pond you were not allowed to change your bid after it was submitted. Typos or people running out of membership after you had bid were things you just couldn't do anything about. I know I lost a few points at the beginning because of this. Editing one's points really helps on occasion.
Look at how it goes now.

As for people making nonsensical bids, or ones that most people would deem as a good way to lose the game, there's not much that can be done about it. Just play accordingly. Conspiracies are a problem that has no way of being fixed. Stupid people can be dealt with or used to one's advantage. A conspiracy when found out is something to run from as fast as one can and hope you're not amongst the victims when the dust settles. It is because of this flaw that I am not going to play Ponds any more. The grief caused to me because of it outweighs the fun of the game given to me from playing it.

Fellowships and Ponds-- Dark Ponds especially. So why can't we have a pool of acceptable players to be allowed to join? Or just invitees? Let the creator list the people or fellowship or both. For Dark Ponds, the list would stay nonviewable until the game was over. From what I've seen of the one game of Dark Ponds that I've played so far, it doesn't change my strategy at all. I do like the fact that it makes conspirators work harder to do their work, but it doesn't eliminate them from doing it all the same. A truly Dark version wouldn't even show the points remaining except for yourself and the swimmers! Now that'd be a dark version.

Scooter: As I said earlier, this points out a flaw to the play of "Run around the Pond". A major flaw from my point of view. As is also the case in a game called Risk when played with three or more people. I'll do what I did for playing Risk, and that is that I am no longer going to play this game either. You can have all your fun without me. As for me being bitter, I'm not. It is the game, not you that is flawed. Lots of people still like the game, flawed or not by how I define it. They and you can still play it and have fun. I can't. I didn't realize this game was one of those types that I avoid. I should've seen it before it came down to this example, but the game has a lot of enteresting points to it. The politics of playing it are the thing I don't like, and that is why I'm not going to play it any more. I won't do as you did though. I will continue in the games that I have remaining fully trying to win each game if I'm able. It's the least I can do for my opponent's opponents.

Scooter: Yeah, right. Had I known I was playing a game with someone that doesn't care if they win or not, I would not have played with you in it. This is true for me in two handed games as it is in multi-player games. As I say, "The object of a game is to win, but the reason to play a game is to have fun." If your idea of having fun is to ruin a game for other people, then you've certainly had your fun here. Bidding 1 made sure you'd lose, no matter what anybody else bid. If you didn't want to play in that particular Pond any more, you should've just kept quiet and bid your 1. Skewing the results as you've done gives those guys with nothing to lose a chance at getting back in a game one of them was losing badly in. Had you bid 10 as Hrqls suggested or 117 as I did, then it would've served them right for taking the chance. But one of them was going to profit by doing it in any case. Perhaps the rest of us in the Pond should have all bid 23. I think the next time someone makes an announcement of this nature in a Pond that I'm playing in, I will write a few players and see what they want to do about it. One of us could bid 2 and the rest of us 3. That should eliminate the problem. And if you change your mind and bid high, only one of the rest us will drop out and the others will just lose 3 points.

Just a game. Yeah, that's all it is. Any time I hear someone say that, I hope I'm not playing a game with them and feel sorry for the person that is playing them. If I win the game it doesn't matter or if I lose the game it doesn't matter against a person with this attitude. So what's the point in playing the game in the first place? Of course it's just a game, so what is meant when this is said? You played the game to lose, I don't like playing with losers. I want to play games with winners. Whether or not I win the game is besides the point. If I wanted to lose, I can certainly do it without causing the grief you have. In a two player game, you can resign or move to lose and it's over. In this multi-player game it's just that easy to lose also, but how you lose directly affects the remaining players. What do you think the long running discussion about resigning in "Run around the Pond" has been about? Simple, fairness to the remaining players. Lots of ideas have been proposed to allow someone to resign without affecting the game or to minimize the affect of their resigning. Had you really wanted to quit, you could have done something of that nature, but no, you did what you did and then you bid 1. You acted unilaterally without concern for the remaining players and then you wonder why people aren't happy? Saying sorry to me is all well and good, but I'm not the only one affected by how you handled this including the two players that bid 2 and 10. Whether or not they communicated with each other or with you about your plan is a moot point, but it will leave a taint on them that won't be easily washed off and forgotten. Your writing now in light of how things went down smacks of making the present fit the past. One thing that is good about the whole affair, you're out of the game now, loser. Considering how high your win percentage is in the many games that you play here, I'm really having a tough time believing that you'd purposely play a game to lose. Something just isn't adding up, but in fairness and to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just say to myself that you made a mistake and didn't consider the ramifications of such a simple act and I won't go as a far as some here that have openly accused you of cheating or throwing the game. It may or may not be a conspiracy, but it has all the markings of one and this is why a few of us have gotten upset about it.

Hrqls: Had the scenario you just laid out happened, I would've been very impressed with the play. And though I might've had some concerns, I would've kept them to myself and tipped my hat to some fine play by the opponents.

Scooter: There's just one big problem with this explanation, you bid 1! There's no way you can win a game if you make this play. Rationalize all you want to, but that's the truth. If you were really bluffing, you certainly could have bid 3 or 117 on that turn, but you bid 1. This gives you no chance to win the game. You want to resign, fine, but announcing it and then giving it away like that more or less allowed the two players that knew you to bid in confidence that they'd be fairly safe. Since they've played umpteen number of games, they also had little to lose but the experience of being tricked by you if they didn't know you. Whereas me, who has played just a few games of Run around the Pond was completely without a clue as to what to make of your pronouncement. I figured there's nothing I could do but hope the other players would ignore you and I played on this assumption. Now you come back and say it was me that inspired you? Just what are you saying? You take advice from someone that's never made it to the final five (me)? You make a play that guarantees that you'll lose, plus others will either believe you and not realize the trouble coming their way for being right? OK, if you're that naive then perhaps I can excuse this whole chain of events, but from how I see that things went down this is a hard thing to swallow.

As for anyone just announcing how much they going to bid on their next turn, yeah sure, it's just a bluff. I see no problem with doing that and that's what makes this particular case the trouble that it is. Since we all know it's just a bunch of hot air, what's the deal with two people going for believing him? If he's using my question as a reason to bid 1 as the excuse for actually doing it, why'd Pedro and Bry buy into it? Are they that good that they can see he was actually going to make such a game losing play? Had he bid 117 Bry would've drop into the Pond. I would still not like this going on, but at least it would have been believable and collusion would be a lot harder to come to my mind. But no, Bry bids 2 and Pedro bids 10. Now I ask you, in a game where everyone else bids over 1000, what would you think? If you guys are really this good at the game, then I have another reason for not playing it any more. I'm out of my league.

Bry: This is exactly what I said to do though worded differently:

Walter Montego Re: 13. June 2005, 09:46:24
Czuch Chuckers: If someone resigns, a notice could be sent to all people in the Pond and the time moved to the next day's time. Since we now have one less player it wouldn't add to the length of the Pond doing that. Everyone involved would get plenty of time to change their bid or leave it alone.

Your refunding of the points would be the same as putting the resigning person into the pond and adding a move's time to the game so that everyone could again figure on what to bid. I like this idea and it seems the fairest way to allow someone to resign without screwing the game up.

grenv: I've changed my mind. I will try to win the Ponds that I'm currently in, but will no longer play this game when those games are finished. The game Risk has this same problem to it and there is no way to eliminate it.

Bry: I'm thinking of doing the same. You can say all you want, but it looks like collusion to me and I ain't going to play under these circumstances.

Bry: That sounds like a good way to do it too.

Czuch Chuckers: If someone resigns, a notice could be sent to all people in the Pond and the time moved to the next day's time. Since we now have one less player it wouldn't add to the length of the Pond doing that. Everyone one involved would get plenty of time to change their bid or leave it alone.

Czuch Chuckers: Resigning is a loss, so I'd think you'd stay on the fell in list.

For all that discussion that was had about making it possible to resign, I don't recall anyone mentioning just taking yourself out of the Pond. That seems like the least disruptive way to have someone resign.

Yes, simply eliminating yourself from the Pond would seem like a fair way to leave the game too. Then it wouldn't matter at all what you bid. You'd just cease to be in the game.

BIG BAD WOLF: That's fair if they keep it quiet too. Thing is they can message their buddies and do it that way. Simple phone is all it'd take.

I think my idea for being able to resign on the turn after would be fair. It wouldn't stop conspiracies, but it would enable the honest person to get out of the game without giving anyone and undo advantage.

Universal Eyes: This idea of not allowing you to bid lower than a previous doesn't sound like a workable thing to do to me. There's times when it's best to bid low. Not being allowed to bid lower in later rounds would make the game silly at the end when everyone has less points than their previous bid.

Andre Faria: Just what assurance were they given that this Scooter would uphold his plan? I think it unfair to the rest of us that didn't know this guy that he would do this.

I think if someone wants to resign, they should be able to bid 1 and on the turn following it that will be their bid. An anouncement in the Pond will let everyone know this is going to happen and the remaining runners may bid whatever they think appropriate when the time comes.

ClayNashvilleTn: Me too.

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.

Thad: I believe the answer is about six weeks depending on your vacation days left.

BIG BAD WOLF: My option would not in anyway shorten the time available to someone if they did not want the round started early for some reason or couldn't make it online that day. They'd be no reason to change the deadline's time for each day either.

grenv's faster proposal wouldn't necessarily require the deadline's time to be change either, but it would shorten the time available for the next move to be made if the deadline's time was kept static instead adjusting it for another full day or days.

I would like having the various things as an option too. I like playing it the way it is timed now just fine. I would like trying it the two ways we've suggested.

grenv: What I have in mind wouldn't matter when people log in. Say there's five people left in a Pond. After the fifth one has made their bet, I'd have the game send each of them a message saying that everyone has bet. This message would also prompt them to answer the question about starting the next round early since all have made their bet. Only if every person answers yes would the game start the next round early. It might happen in a few minutes, or over the span or a day or so, but once all of them have answered yes to starting the round early, it would start. If one or more of the players didn't answer the prompt or didn't log on, the deadline would be what it is and things would go as they already do. No where do I say anything about it having a negative affect on the person that logs on at the same time each day. In fact, this would benefit such a person since they'd have a choice or opportunity to play fast or not miss out if they were late one day. Also, in the case of someone not making their bet, no prompt would be sent and their bet would be the same as the previous one.

As for fast, like you guys seem to leaning to, where the game would start the round the moment the last person to bet bets. This is different and would most certainly be faster than what I'm proposing. Why not have both of these options added? Without any change to the game itself, these two ways of playing the game would make it interesting for other reasons. Speeding up play would make it more fun for some people. It'd certainly have a feel more like some of the games I play when my opponent and I are on at the same time and we move in our game the moment the other moves. Ponds would be a trip to play like that.
I vote for fast and faster Ponds too.

tonyh: I find your attitude about the ratings and your enjoyment of a game most distressing and inconsistant. If you truly think the ratings aren't worth anything, then why worry about them? Just play the game and have fun. You're the same person that won't let me play in Dark Chess tournaments that you organize. Unfortunately for me, my rating was so much higher than anyone else's all you had to do was set the limit at 2100 and I was more or less the only one that couldn't play. Ratings, smatings, the truth of the matter is you don't like losing and you're being a poor sport. Ponds is a hard game to win, but it's an easy game to play and understand. I haven't even come close to winning a game of it, but you don't hear me complaining about other people's ratings. Who cares how high they're rated. You either win the game, or you don't. Win or lose, I'll be playing on occasion because it's a different kind of game and it's fun to play.

Czuch Chuckers Clay: Seems like my proposal would allow a game to move fairly fast if all the remaining players were online and replied to the prompt that they want the next round to start. It'd certainly be a fair way to do it. Anyone not online, or that didn't want the round to start would just not answer the prompt and the deadline for the next round would be what it would be without any changes being made.

pauloaguia: That's the thing though. You wouldn't know when you would have to make your next move. The time limit would change. I suppose what you would have to do if you like moving once a day would be to join a two day Pond with automatic next round starts. Then you'd always get a day to make your move. The way it's set up now is easy to understand andwe all know how it goes.

I think sending everyone a notice that they can respond to about starting the next round early would be a good solution. Everyone affected would get a chance to move and would know the new deadline if all people opted to start the next round early. It'd really be helpful towards the end of a game when there's just a few people left. They could make their bets and submit them. After everyone has done so, a message would be sent to them asking if they'd like to start the round if all agree to. If they did, the round would start. If one or more people have logged off then the round wouldn't start early unless those people logged on before the deadline and then responded to the message about starting the round early.

RadRx: You're not the first one to suggest that, and it looks like a good idea on the surface of it. The problem is, what about the person that comes online once a day at the same time everyday knowing they have 24 hours or more to move? If the Pond game is down to five people and this person was to move right after the start of the next round thinking they'd have almost two days before they'd need to make a move they'd be in for an unpleasant surprise if the remaining players were to all move right after the player had logged off and the round started right away.

I like the idea though. Perhaps a seperate category or as an option created at the start of the Pond or something each remaining player could answer when prompted on the Main Page?

A Main Page prompt could work. Assume everyone has made their bet. A notice could be sent out to the remaining players if they would like to start the next round. If all of them said yes, then the next round would start and no one would miss the turn and there'd be no surprises. If one person didn't log on or didn't want the next round to start, the usual deadline would still be happening and all would be right with the world still.

grenv: I remember a few of those ideas being discussed too. This game has so many possibilities to make changes to it. Lots of variants. A dark version would be a trip. How much darkness? A little, or a lot? Would the game be skillful, or mostly luck?

How about this version we're playing now? I've only played a few games, but it seems to have a lot of skill to it. The luck is more prevelant when there's a certain critical amount of people. At the start and the end, it seems to be almost completely skill and prisoner's dilemma type of problems.

Why do you assert that it doesn't change the game? Playing without a bonus would almost make it a completely different game strategywise. As for lower the starting point and having the same number of people, that would change how the game goes too. Starting a game with 500 points and 50 people entered would be a lot different than 20000. Your 10% comparision needs to be rethought when it comes to scaling this game. The units of betting will still be 1. The amount of 1's would be 90% less in your example. No factional bets, right? With more people entered, it'd easy to use up a lot of points just hanging in as the field narrows. Check out the "Very First Run" and see how the spread of people is compared to a smaller pool of people at the start. Seems to me if we had started with 2000 points instead of 20000, this First Game would have gone a lot differently than it has. Then there's psychology of what people like to bet when it comes to the actual numbers themselves. Changing the starting values will affect some people's play in unpredictable ways. Maybe not you, but I'd be willing to bet some. Lowering the starting point to 2000 but leaving the bonus at 500, would certainly expose the fallacy of those people that bet 1000 or more in the early rounds too. I'd be willing to try such a game and see how it goes.

As for priorities, I agree with you there and it's been demonstrated often enough. Perhaps with the recent changes having been made to the game, the others ideas will get more attention and are being looked into now. (Previous turns shown and the winners list)

grenv: I recall there being a good discussion of this when this game was first added to the site. One proposal was a table of various starting amounts and bonuses for the creator to pick from. Such as 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 15000, 20000, for starting amounts and 0 to 2000 for the bonus. Whatever became of this and other ideas?

ClayNashvilleTn: Even a game like this "Run Around the Pond" game can get you hooked in a hurry. This game's play format is especially addicting in how it forces you to turn on the computer and check it out. If you're in more than one Pond and they have different time controls, it more or less forces you to play every day. Perhaps you should avoid this game in the interest of keeping your marriage intact? :)

ClayNashvilleTn: Your wife is right. You start playing at home and she'll never see you again. :) Just like a football widow except football has an off season and there isn't one here!

ClayNashvilleTn: Stop by the library. Every one that I've been to has free internet access for a half hour. That's what I do when I travel. Most are open Saturdays, but Sunday might be harder to find except in a big city. IF you just want to make a quick move and don't mind paying for access, try an internet cafe. They usually charge around $10 an hour, but if you only use it 10 minutes you can get out with the minimum. Still cheaper than buying a computer and getting access at your home, but having it at the house is very convenient. To convenient, I think! :)
I trip on how some people use it at work only and then there's people like me where work is the one place I could never use a computer.

Did you know Eriisa that England (Stevie lives there) reports news differently than our media does in the United States? I think he is just curious why some name out of the blue would elicit so many responses. As grenv makes reference to by trying to put it in perspective, it not as big of a problem as a lot of other things going on in the world. It just has our media's attention right now. Kind of like the Michael Jackson trial here in Southern California.

Stevie! You've really not heard of her until now? The way it's portrayed in the media and then with Congress getting involved with it, you'd think it was the most important thing in the world. I don't mean to trivialize it, as it a subject that concerns everyone, but it does seem rather blown out of proportion. Perhaps it is so riveting because we can all imagine being in the position of any of the three parties to it.

BIG BAD WOLF: Nah, you bid 2. Maybe 3 :)

redsales: I didn't say I agree with someone not allowing me into their club because of some quality about myself I have little choice in or don't want to change. I said a person should have the right to set up those things for their tournament and exclude me. It's their tournament, it should be their choice. So they purposely make it so I can't play, that might not be fair to me, but thems the breaks. In a world of plenty I can go somewhere else. As rod says, there's lots of Ponds here. In a world of scarcity such discrimination can hurt and I may or may not take action against it. Aren't those the major causes of peace, war, strife, and famine? Almost seems like these games sites/ discussion boards are a little microcosm of the world as it is. When California launches its attack against Czech Republic because of the ongoing pattern of the discriminatory use of prize funded tournaments here, then I might worry about it. In the meantime, let them have their club. It's one of the good features of the site. I'm surprised it bothers you as it's the very same thing as if all the members of a fellowship that you are a member of that doesn't have open enrollment decides to have a prize tournament. I wouldn't be able to play in it, nor would anyone that wanted to that the Big Boss of the fellowship wouldn't let join his fellowship.

redsales: Why have a problem with it? You're in a Dark Chess tournament right now that excluded me from playing just because I had too high of a rating. Ponds doesn't have a rating system, so that's one type of segregation that doesn't apply to it. All the others are still available. I like how Thad summed it up, though I don't see why Fencer couldn't have a tournament just for his friends or other invitees too. If it's my tournament, I should be able to have in it who I want to and will have an invitational. If I don't care, or if I want anybody that's interested in playing, I have an open. Simple enough, so where's the problem?

Pedro Martínez: A wild finish. Just looking at how the numbers add and subtract must have made for a lot of thinking about what to bet on that turn. Had you gone with 510, you would've won assuming lukulus stayed with betting your amount. He must've figured you'd bet 1225 and was going to watch you fall into the Pond when you guys tied for high bet and no one got the bonus. Lots of bluff here. If he thought you'd bet 511 or less he could've taken it all with 600.

It'd be nice if there was a previous move button for Run around the Pond games like there is for every other game on this site.

I'd like to check out how that game you just posted about ended with both players bidding 714 and falling in at the same time. The rounds just before it must've been unusual.

Hrqls: Perhaps such a set up could be made an option for the Pond creator? Sooner or later there's going to be option for the starting points and bonus. Seems like having an option to start the round when all have bid would be another one. I recommend having it so that it goes the whole time limit unless every person enters a bid. That way someone that misses getting to the computer that day will have the most time to log in and will still get their last bid to play if they don't make it on time.

redsales: Dude, basing it on 16 is the same thing as using percentages except that percentages are based on 100. That's why they're easy to compare. 4 of 16 is 25%, so is 24 of 96. ratios can quite easily be added too. Using your numbers 36 of 96 and 4 of 16 gives 40 of 112. Then you can make a percentage of that and it is easy to compare other people's percentages. Whether or not the number has much value for comparing is a whole different thing. That is why I and others devised a way to weight the numbers to try and make them more relavent for judging someone's ability ahead of actually playing them or using it as a rating so a game might be created with equally rated or narrow range of players like for other games instead of having it open to all comers. I doubt if any of the numbers will matter much in a game that has as high a factor of luck and unknowns in it as Run Around the Pond. Imagine if we tried to develope statistics like this for Backgammon? Number of pieces on the board when the game ends, total points, and all sorts of other things one can come up with, like number of doubles thrown you lucky people. All's that really matters is if one wins regularly or not, but someone might want the stats for some other reason. Seems like the same thing here except for the fact that there's usually only one or just a few losers. Everyone else beats someone during the course of the game. Ed proposed a system for keeping track of that too. Every person that you last longer than gives you more points is how he had it.

I don't have a knickname, but I'm stubborn too. I think I've said enough on the subject and will give it a rest for a week or so and let others have the floor. Thank you for your time all. And I hope Fencer has listened to all or comes up with something workable if he isn't going to leave the Pond game as it is.

Walter