Stevie: Nowhere does it say that I cannot put numbers into an Excel spreadsheet.

BUZZZ! Sorry dude, you lose.

ScarletRose: It doesn't work the way he says.

EdTrice: I challenge you to show that you are correct. Pick any pond, enter it and win. If course, if you win, it won't prove that you and your spreadsheet are correct, but if you lose, it will prove that you are not.

EdTrice: Okay.. you explained how it works. And the examples you showed me prove there is a way to win every round. But chalk me up to being blonde.. I still don't fully understand it..

Thats using external programme help though....The user agreement says you are not allowed to do that

P.S. You don't have to win every round, you have to just win one round by a wide enough margin to grind out everyone else in the long run.

I have an Excel spreadsheet simulation that incorporates the bonus factor, as well as every $1 incremental bet from $1 up to the sum of a person's money.

In short, I generated every betting scenario, did a run of a tournament round by round, and had the solver determine a bet placement ordering for me.

Thad: Correct. Even the clever strategy of betting exactly one more than the lowest bet each round, doesn't guarantee victory, because of the bonus.

EdTrice: There is no such strategy.

I wonder if anyone worked through the mathematical rigor to discover the fullproof strategy as a function of the number of pond players per round that guarantees a win, provided nobody else has derived the same winning strategy?

Poor me, 3 dunks in one day... sighs

lol .. i will multiply by 2

That is what I was thinking was happening - so now I'll add 2, to make it 1 above the 1 added by other players! HA!

even numbers are more likely to be guessed .. when i am making a new bet i simply let my mind pick a number .. which is often even ... and then add one .. so my mind thinks it will be bet less often .. although everyones mind works like this

What I like is how the majority of all guesses are odd numbers - that is end with 3, or 5, or 7, or 9

Just one of the trends I have seen from almost everyone. :-)

Stevie: you first ??? lol

heh ... thats the number of the round ... not my bid ;)

but of course you can think its my bid

Hrqls: (18. January 2005, 11:07:00) 18


The amount of times I have nearly done that myself and put my bid in discussion for all to see. Usually I realise before hitting submit

true ... in the future people wont resign .. or at least it would be very rare :)

1) I don't like the idea of if you do not bet, it is the same as resigning - since this game has no vacations or weekends (like normal games), then the 1 or 2 day ponds would be very hard for some players. Since now, if they are on a weekend, at least a move is made for them and they don't have to worry about getting on and betting.

I really do not see the resign issue being a problem as time goes on. A lot of people signed up without really knowing how a pond would work, which has lead to some wanting out. I just don't see this as being a major issue down the road.

just by curiosity... could the next person who wants to resign enter -1 as bet, just to see if the system accepts, screams, gets a fit of laughter or suffers a nervous breakdown?

I think the issue is that 0 is not really a legitimate bet unless you are out of points, therefore putting the integrity of the bets at risk.

if you want to resign, you should bet "0". The game should ignore any bet of "0". Then all "0"'s fall into the pond and then the next lowest bet.

If anyone has run out of points, then everyone else plays as normal instead of the majority betting "1".

the only fair way would be to redo the round when someone resigns in that round ...

everyone places their bets as normal, 1 player resigns, everyone has the same points again as at the start of that round, and can bet anew

this would increase the time though

I suggest this:
If anyone doesn't move they drop out. No bets count and the round is replayed. Therefore not betting is the same thing as resigning.

Czuch Chuckers: Maybe someone can think up something. It just might be possible that there is no fair way when there's more than two players involved to have resignation and any fix might uncover some unforseen scenario. The cake dividing problem comes to mind and there's a solution to it. Delaying a turn to let a player resign solves the problem of spoiling the next round, but doesn't help in current round. Perhaps when someone decides to resign the points can all bet without them being able to win the bonus and then they're gone on the next round. If they only have 1 point left, you'd still be able to bet 2 and be safe from that trouble. If they have the most points left, there woudn't be a bonus that round and it wouldn't matter. Anything in the middle and they'd just be someone that skated by and would be gone the next round.

(my bet is on Pedro)
So I have started a Pond run for champions. This game will be for people who have already won a pond run. The first 16 winners will start this game. Good luck getting into it, and may the best runner win!

Walter Montego: I am not sure if that adresses this problem.... I have 1 or 0 points left, many people will bet 2 or 1 just enough to beat me, but then I resign, and my bid doesnt count, therefore your low bid could get you kicked out of the game.

There has to be some simple way to allow a resignation without adversly affecting the game...

If a person wants to quit a game in progress, why not have the resign button like you already have for the other games? To keep it from affecting the game, it could be set up so it wouldn't go into effect until the next round after the current is started. The resigning player would not have their bet count at all in the current round and all players still on the shore could be notified of the player's intention to resign effective the following round knowing that that person couldn't bet in the current round and their score doesn't count either. There is a difference in "No bet, not playing" than betting 0 or 1 to get pushed into the pond.
This won't stop someone from purposely ruining a game, but it will give someone a way out of a game without messing it up too much. Do you think this would work?

http://brainking.com/game/Pond?g=26

Very few players left now, should be a very intersting next few rounds.

Thad: Yes,
I was just asking

Stevie: Does that not make sense?

I take it that you can not see the discussion on a pond you are not in?

LOL, I changed my bet about three minutes after the deadline...

Pedro Martínez: I seen that Cerise was in first place, so I was worried that they might only be betting 1 in losing games - so i decided not to take the chance in that game! Actually what is funny is if it wasn't for your low bet, I would have still fell into the pond with my bet of 42..... well i guess funny for me at least.

BBW - where were you with your 3 points in this pond?

http://brainking.com/game/Pond?g=31&trnst=2

yes, pm-ing people the amount they are going to bet is indeed very unfair and i also would hope this is not happening.

yup... taking a chance does not always work.... Looking back, probable not work saving 30-40 points, but O'well...

Plus I agree that if someone tells another person that they are going to bet 1, that would be "cheating" and not in the spirit of the game. Actually even if it was posted here and such would not be fair to the other people who may not read these boards.

Czuch Chuckers: I agree completely.

And I changed the word whining, a few minutes ago. I didn't like the sound of it, and I appologize.

rod03801: Yes, I can deny that I was whinning about people taking advantage of available trends to play this game. I have stated many times that I think what BBW did was fine. ( although, truely inside information, like if I pm'd you that I was going to bet 1, that is not in the spirit of the game)

All I want is a solution so someone can resign a game without affecting the play for the rest of the players. To me it is not a strategic game strategy trend that someone is trying to resign all of their games and bidding one. That is totally different from if you find out that someone always bets 20% higher than the average of the previous round, for example.

It just doesnt seem right to me that someone resigning a game can become an advantage for a couple of players.... there has to be some solution to avoid this.

Fine Czuch. I may have misunderstood THAT particular post. But you can't really deny that you were complaining about people with "inside information" taking advantage of that information. THAT is the only part of what you have said that I disagree with! Everything else, I concur with completely! Being in a Lot of ponds, and noticing a trend, and taking advantage of what you know that a person MIGHT do, is only SMART in my opinion.

rod03801: If you read my post carefully you will notice that I did not call what BBW did as 'lame', but what Cerise is doing is what I think is 'lame'.

Eriisa:
Bry means over safe high bets.

BBW: LOL

Bry: I do that so I am safe. I've fallen in the pool with bets in the 80s that I thought was a very safe bet.

BBW: oops. Didn't work in Quack, did it?
ROFL!!

and as you can see in this pond:
http://brainking.com/game/Pond?g=45
it's not always working to bet 2 assuming Cerise would bet 1, LOL.

czuch chuckers, it as somebody else said earlier is not lame to of bet 2, it was a decent bet noticing the fact that someone was maybe going to bet 1. It shows that we're playing the game, to the best of our ability and using as little points as we can, which is the idea isn't it? yes it was risky but it worked this time.

Bry:
This is an easy strategy:
1. you beat with the tricky 590 the normal high bets
2. in the next round, it seems not usefull again, to overbet 590
so you can hope, that all get low
3. the tricky player gives in the next move 150 and get the next bonus.
(590-500+150-500= -260)

and two rounds no risk, to fall in the pond...

sometime this works.

If the current bets are low in a Pond game - for example 70% are betting between 15 and say 40, what sense does it make to bet say 590? to get the 500 points. I'm just wondering what the strategy is behind this?

Excuse me, Czuch, but I understand completely.
I was simply commenting on you calling people who notice a trend and use it to their advantage, "lame".

Czuch Chuckers: But when someone bets 1 and commits "pond suicide" in middle of a game, it effects everyone, not just one of a few - if effects the people who use stategy, and others you love to play turn by turn - both which are good ways to play. Yes, I was lucky this time because I found a short-term stategy to use in this situation to help me - it was a chance that could have cost me falling into the pond, and a chance I decided to take.

I would agree with a rule change of if a player has 0 points left, then they are out and not have the next round bet of 0 - as long as the rule change is properly announced so everyone knows it before someone bids 1 and then finds out about the rule change when they fall into the pond. ---- which would be hard to do since most will not re-read the rules, and many do not read any of the discussion boards.

I like the rule that if you do not bet, you use the last bet that was used rule - I would not want to see that changed. Ponds are good and quick now with no vacations or weekends, so this rule is a good one in my opinion.