Good, this is a practice I disapprove of.

For instance you could do that because you started at a particular time. But that may be 3am for some other players - so you are getting an advantage others don't have available to them, which is kind of cheating in my opinion.

This is also a reason to eliminate the auto move rule and just auto resign instead.

Maybe I'm missing something. Oh well.

But you can play your turn any time in the 24 hour period surely.

I can tell you from experience that vacations are irrelevant to ponds.

Has anyone else noticed the ponds aren't going to the next round when they should?

There is no need to move the last piece off, the other player should resign. I consider it a little inconsiderate to continue playing. What is the point?

If the rule said that a player has to get such an advantage to win, then he couldn't lose.

It is possible for a player with K-Q against K to lose the Queen, or even time out and lose! In reality the lone king always resigns.

There are many cases where the winner is determined many rounds before the end. there are mathematical formulas that can easily work out when this is the case.

I would suggest that the winner be crowned as soon as the victory is inevitable.

i believe it was meant to be ironic, perhaps funny. I think Thad has an irony deficiency though, hence the reaction.

Vikings: This is the way every game on this site works, why is ponds different?

Vikings: Ok, i read that 3 times and still don't understand the chain of events you describe so let me try:

6am Tuesday: Turn starts, you move.
9am Tuesday: Everyone finishes, new turn starte.
9am Wednesday: you time out.

So you still get 24 hours on turn 2, just as you would for any other 1 day/move game. If you can't keep up then play the 3 day/move instead.

Here's what I think would be good: Once everyone has entered a move, the move happens and it is the next move. That way we could have multiple turns a day (as in other games) provided everyone was quick.

I could see this speeding up the last few rounds in particular.

Thad: Once again. If ALL people who want to drop out this time bet 10 then next turn 11 won't be safe and we will be playing properly. Until then it's bet 11 bet 11 bet 11 bet 11 .......

If you want to drop out bet 10. That way a bunch of people would all drop together and we'd finally be ready to play properly without just betting 11 each day.

I have a math degree, i'm not arguing that an ELO rating can be assigned in a multiplayer game, I am arguing that the word rating has a broader definition than that, and by considering the rating, or p.a.s.s or fryglesturger, or whatever of your opponents is valid in this context.

I disagree that it isn't a multiplayer concept. The word "rating" in english only means how is that player rated compared to others. What on earth do you mean it is only a two player concept? That makes no sense at all.

I would add one thing, and that is to take into account the ratings of the opponents in that pond. I the average rating of your opps = Av, then:

Sum of (Pos x Num x Av) / Sum of (Num)

or something like that.

redsales: Apparently you didn't give up.

i give up

having 1 winner and 15 or more losers wouldn't work with the current rating system. It relies on the sum of the games equalling 1 (draw = 0.5 each). I do agree that winning should be considerably more than 2nd, but 2nd should be more than 3rd etc.

On the list you should see wins/games played as the statistic that is tracked however.

Can't be -ive, 1.0 is the lowest and best score.

I think 1300 is the starting rating in other games.

I think the stats should be collected on other positions, not just wins. I am at least interested in the number of top 3 finishes for instance.

on the other hand i also like ratings.

Sounds ok, but I don't know why you need to break it down into binary sets, you're thinking is constrained for some reason.

Tennis has a rating system based on performance in a tournament, why not emulate something like that?

I would say a bigger pond is worth more, probably a linear relationship.

So the current system solves for wins (1.0), draws (0.5) and losses (0.0).

In Ponds for 16 players you could have:

1st 4.000
2nd 1.850
3rd 0.950
4th 0.500
5th 0.270
6th 0.150
7th 0.100
8th 0.060
9th 0.038
10th 0.028
11th 0.020
12th 0.015
13th 0.011
14th 0.009
15th 0.007
16th 0.006

Then you calculate the average rating of all your opponents, and calculate the rating the same way as other games.

Or something like that.

Here is what I think:

There should be a greater difference between rating points of 1st and 2nd than between 2nd and 3rd and so on down. So 1st and 5th in 2 poinds is better than 2 3rds etc.

This way there is some factoring in of playing to win rather than just playing to finish high up.

<I have a comment about the max 10 rule implemented in at least one pond.

there is no incentive to bid less than 10 since you have enough points to bid 10 every turn!! Since everyone knows this the game will be over after one turn as everyone bids 10.

If you want to limit the maximum for 16 players you would need it to be > 1333. For example max 2000 might create a good game.

just my 2c

ummm.... the first thing you should always do is check the lowest score I would think. But I haven't won one yet so what do I know?

showoff

I played by the rules as well, just not according to the description.

Pedro: If you are staying, are you bidding between 0 and 10 in the next round?

and i feel fine by the way

done.

Discussion? I never bother with the discussion on the ponds. Also I think making up your own rules is silly and deliberately avoided thoes with such rules in the title.

And I might add well over half the entrants didn't follow the rule. So..

MAKE IT MORE OBVIOUS NEXT TIME!!

hmmm...... well, unlike other ponds the silly rule was not in the title. I will drop out with zero this round. I wouldn't have entered if I had known.

Then there is a bug, because Alesh got the bonus for betting 671. 350 would not have got the bonus.

I'm just surprised the other 2 players didn't bet 1 as well!

The 5th player had 0 points. It was my best play since I clearly couldn't get the bonus.

ScarletRose: Despite my cunning bid of 1 in the last round. I guess I'm playing for second now!

Walter Montego: Walter, I think you missed the point. Let ME try to be simpler. In a normal game 0 is the minimum bet. As such, any bet of 0 is perfectly legal. Also it will guarantee you falling into the poind. I am saying that in our game 19000 is the same: perfectly legal, but guarantees your exit.

Czuch Chuckers: Precisely. Minimum bet, by definition, drops into the pond. I don't understand eny other interpretation.

My fault for entering a game with those silly parameters. Never again.

it's actually quite simple. Normally the minimum bid is 0. If you bid 0 you will drop out.

In this game the minimum bid was supposed to be 19000. therefore if you bid 19,000 you should drop out. The fact that someone else screwed up their bet is irrelevant.

This post is

Stardust: I agree, by the way, just couldn't resist the quip

Stardust: I didn't get the analogy. Is it cheating or not? Why would you even sit for a test that doesn't count? I'd be at the local bar instead.

Mely: This is where each of your bids needs to be less than the previous? Sounds interesting, though I'm confused as to why it's called Antiponds since it has the same basic rules. Anti would imply that jumping in the pond is desirable.

Let's call it diminishing Pond or something. And perhaps post to the feature request board?

Actually in one I'm in a player bid ZERO and stayed in because someone messed up. This is Lame++

Stevie: Perhaps on this board we should refer to it as "Having your head held under the pond's surface for 24 hours"

he sent a message to amirh/babareza, but he's still on the rating list.

amirh is doing that to me in Atomic Chess right now, and it isn't the only cheap tactic he and his alter ego have used.