BIG BAD WOLF: Your gonna have a headache

BIG BAD WOLF:


I would be a "World Class" Ponds Pontificator!

BIG BAD WOLF: irish rose only had 500 left BBW so 4 bid 501, i bitd 509 to try adn sneak the bonus... you sure mucked that up lol

furbster: That is kind of what I guessed - and to make it worse, the last person bid like 3000 - so I did not even get the bonus! Yea.... Ugh.

Note to self: Always take an extra 10 seconds to look at everyones total, and make sure no one had turned into a pawn.

BIG BAD WOLF: Which game is this?

BIG BAD WOLF: I was wondering about those two high bids. Most important data is how many points opps have left isn't it?

Nice try on the 509 furbster, but I was pretty sure someone would bid a few thousand.

grenv: That is the thing that bothers me - if there is that few people left, that information is sitting right there for me to look at - don't know how I could miss it.

... I can understand if 10+ people are left, since the last person might not be on the same screen as I am and I might miss something.....

Ugh... i just can't believe i did something so stupid - which is why I REALLY want to look at past moves in pond games since I've seen similar in other games - just usually I don't mess up that bad. :-(

Thad:
That mean when the first 25 ponds are over,whoever entered them can join a prize tournament in the ponds for a (BRAINKING T SHIRT of there choice.Fencers already agreed to the idea.

BTW, as someone who got his first pond bonus yesterday, I say let the messages stay!! ;-)

Universal Eyes:
Acctually,it's open to all pond addicts.lol

BIG BAD WOLF: Is it better now?

You can see old rounds now!!! ;-)

WHATYEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAA*
103*

Who wanted the winners?

"NOT ME" I only have 1

I think something curious happened here; Irish Rose went from 2900 in round 9 to 5000 in round 10!!!! what happened, Fencer?

tonyh: Here's a link:
http://brainking.com/en/Pond?g=358&trnst=2

You are right. She had 2900 and bid them all, got the bonus (why didn't anyone bid 2901??) and should have 500, not 5,000.

Thad: Because 2901 is net 2401, and most bids were 2401. 2901 would have been a stupid bet.

grenv: Oh, right. Good point. ;-)

was suppose to read <2401. need to add >

Why????????

Irishrose had 7400 points and bet 2900 in the last round, that's why she has 5000 points now. It's more than probable that she's going to bet 3100 now.

I see that Irishrose had 2900 last round, and bet 2900 - which should have given her 500 bonus, but ended up with 5,000 bonus!

BIG BAD WOLF: there's something wrong with the points left history, I had one game that showed that I had 1 point last round, received the bonus and ended up with over 800 points

Fencer, thanks for the upgrades, will there be a link to the winners page somewhere besides in your previous message?

It's in the same place as the tournament winners list (just 2 options near top - tournaments & ponds)

Link for "Winners" on menu under "Team tournaments", and above "Ratings"

Now I see it, thanks

I will add it to Profiles as well.

ARGH! another list on which i am not .... *cry* :)

Hrqls: Me neither :-)

Fencer: *phew*

cant you make a list with people who played ponds but never won ??? ... hmm .. on the other hand .. maybe that would be a list you dont want to be on ;)

Fencer: On the Ponds winners list, can you add an option to view % of ponds won against number entered as well as the number won?

oo nifty new pic bry lol

furbster:

Does anyone remember the big discussion about guarenteed win using some mathematic formula? The game where that was to be demonstrated is finally decided: http://brainking.com/fi/Pond?g=10 And no i was not playing the moves for Trice. I wonder who was?

I was me, kitti, and Trice stopped sending me his bets after the 7th round.

Congrats on your win...

Pedro Martínez: you do better on your own

In games with 16, usually when there are 8 players left, we all have around 18,500 total points to bet with. So the next 3/4 rounds are something of a total lottery.
I wonder whether the Tournament setter could change the starting total to, say, 15,000?

tonyh: I don't actually think there is a material difference. For example even if you had 2,000 points, it just makes the amounts 10x smaller.

The main difference would be to award more for the bonus, or to be accurate a greater %age of the starting total.

So choosing the starting amount as well as the bonus amount would be good.

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?

Walter Montego: It doesn't really change the game though, so there appears to be higher priorities I would think.

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)

Walter Montego: Point taken. I believe I already said the biggest difference would be by adjusting the bonus as a percentage of the total.

A bigger change in my opinion would be a dark ponds variant, where you don't see your opponents score.

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.

Congratulations to the winners of the first 6 Winners.

The first was ulimited therefor it starts at #2.
Point updates will be listed shortly,thank you for your patients.

AWHAM BAMS


Pondside of points winner
#2fra
#3MachMachovic
#4MachMachovic
#5

grenv
#5baspland
#6baspland

Universal Eyes: If you wanted any more patients, just let me know...:)

Pedro Martínez:Sure Pedro thanks.
after all the starts and pond finishing should be interesting,we can even add like a pecentage statistics.ponds divided by wins=the percentage. :o)

Pedro Martínez: hook, line and sinker....

lol

hysterics here

Bry: