alexlee: interresting game... the last 3 moves were automatic, but not even a coalition of the other players could have prevented the win.

rabbitoid:
Yes, but if a pawn can't submit bids then isn't submitting them automaticaly about the same thing as bidding? Seems like a zero should be the bid not the last bid they made?

no.
it starts at round 12, which is the last where pyssso could bid. he bid 922, which is 1 more than the 2nd best, giving him 500. he's left with 882.
round 13, the system trys to bids for him again 922, which is more than he's got, so it bids the 882 left. it's the best bid, so he gets 500.
round 14 and 15 same story, the system bids 500 which is the best bid. he can't get under 500.

alexlee: Automatically placing the same bid as last round (or all your points if you don't have that many left) is better than auto-biding zero.

It's been a while, and things may change, with all those bishops rearing for action. So here are a couple of one day ponds, they'll fire off as soon as 16 brave soles muster up :)

Well that didn't take long!  LOL 

Will we be able to set bkr parameters for pond runs anytime soon, please?

Czuch Czuckers: I signed up, but the way I keep losing them I may not qualify by the time it starts :)

rabbitoid: okay, i wont kick you out then :)

does this look suspicious to anyone other than I...LOL
Rybník Brčálník #3

BerniceC: at first appearance it does, but, however if you look at her message above the game she has an Icon waving, he has done this in at least one other game that I noticed yesterday, so I think that she is showing constistancy in his actions and therefore cannot be considered colusion but rather a good pickup by those that have caught it

I say she told Rady she was bowing out.. why else would Rady only bid 7?
Clearly cheating

Rose: First of all please refrain from accusations on this board, 2nd Rady is not the first to catch this, 3rd, the waving signal is on many other games about to go to the next round.
MY SUGGESTION IS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT!!, I WILL

lol what ever you say.. it is still a form of cheating

Rose: According to fencer it is not

Rose: well Im sorry but I also see it as colusion and cheating....that wave has been on that game since round 1....How did Rady know WHEN to vote low unless he was in colusion with her....just my 2 bobs worth....and if Fencer dont think it is cheating that is only his opinion, even if he does own the site...

BerniceC: That's easy because Evásek announced that she is leaving BK, so he could deduct she won't play ponds anymore.

Fencer: yes but how would or did he know EXACTLY when to vote low....all other votes are normal....anyway it is too late now, but it does make ya wonder....

BerniceC: first of all the wave is dated jan 29, FOR THIS ROUND ONLY, 2nd, all other votes were not normal, As I stated earlier, she has already voted zero in at least one other game.

In a rainy pond, I think it makes sense, when more than one person falls out in the same round, for example when there ends up being a 4 way tie for first place, that the true order of finish should be determined by the player with the most points left? That way there would be no ties unless two or more people actually had the same amount of points when they fell in! It might add a bit more strategy to the bidding, and end the multitude of games that end with multiple winners. (or more precisely, no winners and a multitude of people tied for first place)

Czuch Czuckers: I like that idea.

Czuch Czuckers: yeah! That will be great...

Rose: Yes this play is not correct. So my suggestion is when a bid is way lower than the lowest bid in the last round (say 200 pts), if this is not almost all they have (say, max 2000 pts left), this bid doesn't count as the lowest (while falling in), the next player with the lowest bid falls also in, and so on till a player ''succeeds'' for these criteria.
This way stops that advantagous playing Viking told about, for me that is called CHEATING.

How different do you thing these Pond games would be with different starting values and bonus amounts? It seems to me that if the number of players is fairly small (under 20) that running out of points rarely becomes an issue. If we started with only 1000 instead of 20,000 then play would be different.

I'd like to see changes made to BK so that the creator of teh Pond can set the initial number of points and the value of the bonus.

joshi tm: under your criterea, AlanP's bid in this pond http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=21&g=2875 would be considered cheating when in fact it was a good and gutsy bid,there was a logic to the bid that only he followed, yet you would have him punnished by falling in? these bids happen in many games

Thad: Fencer seemed to like that idea while back, but never did turn into anything.

POST: Run around the Pond (Fencer, 2005-01-12 09:09:26)

The other suggestions I would like to add is to lower the limit from 16 player minimum to like 10 players minimum to play.

Vikings: No, because FANTAS had the lowest bid of 53 (after bidding everything he has), and in that round he has the lowest inside the criteria. so 200 under the last bid of FANTAS would be -147, and is all fair again.

I don't know how I did that

Vikings: Sorry for confusing you, but I meant the lowest bid of round 21 (enderme's 441). Backoff's lowest bid was 595, that's above the criterium of 200.

What is the ruling if a paying member signs up for a pond then becomes a pawn before the pond starts....are they able to play it??

WellyWales: No they can't and their first bid is 0.

WellyWales: nope, they will not be able to play.

What will happen if they do not remove themselves from the pond, and starts as they are a pawn - they will just not bid in the first turn and fall out of the game.

If they are already playing a pond then turn into a pawn, then their last bid will just be repeated until they fall out (or win - which I think has happened once)

joshi tm & BIG BAD WOLF: Thanks for that

joshi tm: I see what you mean, there are people that bid higher in the first round and then lower in later rounds., and there are people who will bid smaller toward the end but not nessecarrily with less than 2000 points left, pawns cause some of this bidding also. I guess that I don't see being observant the same as cheating.

WellyWales: It should be pointed out that if a pawn falls in with zero in the first round, there will also be someone else fall in with the next lowest bid, but thats the first round only

This game would be better of you were required to make your opening bid when you signed up. That way, there wouldn't be any confusion over how the first round bids differ from all the other rounds. Of course you could still change your opening bid once the game starts. Essentially, the game would start as soon as you sign up, but the timer would not start until the minimum number of players signed up or the starting deadline was reached.

What happens to the people who fall in the pond.
Are they out of the game?

Cougar727: yes, last man afloat wins

Joshi TM's treasure Chest! It isn't that difficult, just enter a number and look waht happens :). I need 4 more players to make 100.

joshi tm: just wondering are you going to be removing the pawns before it starts?

"Snoopy": they don't matter because they will all fall in with a bid of zero along with the next lowest bid

I'd like to see the way Ponds work changed. I think a player should make his (or her) first move when he signs up. Thta way, everyone's first move would be made and all the confusion about players falling with a zero bid and the lowest other bid also falling in round one could be eliminated. Not much else would change. The pond would still appear on your list of ponds once it has started and you could edit your first bid just like any other bid. I see no drawbacks to this change.

Vikings: Yup, I don´t have to.

Thad: personally, I think that may not be the best idea. This particular pond is a great example as to why. There are 5 pawns entered as of now, that would mean that there would be frozen bids for the first 5 rounds at least.Add to that that these huge ponds don't occur very often, those 5 pawns could easily affect bidding for 10-25 rounds.
I think the way it is now is best. the pawns bids don't matter, play the pond as if they aren't there

Vikings: Then just remove all the pawns when it starts. It stinks to have them floating around anyway.

Are pawns in the game? Or are they out? Seems to me they're half in/half out. Kinda stupid way to play a game if you ask me.

Sorting out the starting issue, sorting out the pawns issue, and allowing different starting point totals and bonus would make this good game a great game!

Fencer,

Could you please put a colored background (a nice light blue would look good) behind the bonus winner in the list of pond participants on any pond page just like you put a grey background around me in any pond I'm in? Please? ;-)

Thad: you may want to put that request on the feature request board, I'm not sure how much fencer would read this board