The only way to cheat in this game is through collusion. Using charts, computers, and graphs isn't cheating at this game, not like it might be in another game such as Gothic Chess. I have a chart that shows every possible roll of two dice. Would I be cheating if I used it to play Backgammon? Same thing, so you have a chart showing every possible bet. You still have to make a bet. In gothic Chess such a chart, though theoritically impossible since there's more moves possible than there are atoms in the known universe, would be cheating, since you'd know the outcome of the game in advance. Even though all moves can't be charted in Gothic Chess, using a computer to find them and chart the moves is a type of cheating to some, since the moves are known in advance. Whatever formula you come up with for Pond, isn't going to be foolproof since you don't have perfect information. Namely, you don't know the opponent's bet until after the round is done. Our identities should nave no bearing on the play. Since our identities are known though, it becomes possible to learn an opponent's style of play and adjust one's tactics accordingly. Nothing wrong with that. I play Dark Chess differently against certain players than others. As long as Ed or his shill play alone without messages between other players, it can't be cheating. It might seem rather chicken of him, but it's not cheating. In certain ways he has a legitmate fear. I've seen enough people that have a genuine animosity towards him. What better way to pay him back someone might think than to purposely sabotage his game even if it ruins one's own chance of winning. Obviously two or more people could conspire to cheat by playing safe, staying in the game as long as they can, and then purposely have one of them make a bet that the other knows about that none of the other players would think of making and then it might be possible to win in this manner. Same thing is true in another game where everybody is suppose to play as individuals: Poker. That's why casinos will not let married couples play together at Poker at the same table. It sure doesn't stop two or more friends from doing it though. One keeps the pot open by raising with a bad hand, the other keeps raising with a good hand. Finally the hapless wretch in the middle with a decent hand is all in and it's showdown time. After the game, away from the table, the team divides up the winnings. The game Risk is another game with this problem. The only fair way to play with four people is to play with teams. I no longer play Risk because there always seems to be bad feelings during and after the game that have led to blows being thrown. Half the skill to that game is playing politics, standing back letting the others duke it out, and then swooping in and getting all the spoils for yourself. Teams with seperate armies forces compromise with your partner and eliminates the third and fourth party crazy suicide guy that's tired of playing.

Pedro's chart tracking the game won't show much at the end of it, I bet. And even if it did, it won't be repeatable even in the unlikely event you were to get exactly the same people to play another game with the same rules. A system for this game might increase your chances of winning, but the very nature of the game guarantees that there's no guarantee to winning.
A solution to the "knowing who your opponent is and going after him" problem would be an anonymous game. After the game is closed all the players entered would be shown a list with scores just like they are now. The only difference would be that none of the other player's names would appear on the list. Just their own name. You might know who you are playing against, but you wouldn't know who had which score on the list. That should eliminate all bias towards any particular indivdual and yet the game would play exactly as it does now. No need for a Dark version if this is done. So here's a request for the game creator to have a choice for making the game anonymous or not. Along with choices for the starting amount and bonus award.