Vikings: howcome you bid like you did? Did you see something i missed?

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?g=1

Cheers, Bry.

Bry: I would guess since the bids from the round before were almost all in the 800's, we took a gamble that there would be some player who would still bid a little lower.

Paid off, saved him a couple of hundred points, and now leads..... just a little less then 1000 points ahead of me.....

BIG BAD WOLF: yeah, thought so, but with an absolute safe bet just 200 point higher, i'm surprised he didnt play safe as he was in a good position anyway. I thought he may have spotted someojne who hadn't logged on since last move or something that i missed?

Bry: just the formula that I am using on that pond, you will notice that 2 people bid lower than me, and the 1500 was way too high, now the end game can begin

now I will show you cheating, game #506

it's so obvious it's pathetic, they didn't even try to hide it

Vikings: Um.... well I have nothing to add to what you said.....


.... other then a clickable link so everyone can see more easly.

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=44&g=506

Ok, as punishment, he should be forced to make the same move this turn. (or be forced to bid 0)

Goonerg: ..... or banned from playing ponds again. Ruins the fun of everyone when people cheat.

I think they should be removed from the game and banned from the site, no refund

Vikings: Agreed. Banned from the site seems appropriate. Could it be the same user?

No, they are not the same user.

doubt it, they would have to pay for 2 memberships, but they obviously talked about their bids, knowing that ferjo was done, lets get real, same country, low BKR's, rediculous bids just 1 apart from each other. did they realy think that nobody would notice, I hope that people take notice and remove them from all ponds if nothing is done about this

game guidelines #1 in the user agreement, NO CHEATING .......You may be banned

I request banning from the site. For both of them!!!

i dont see anything in the rules which calls a joined effort cheating

i agree it ruins some part of the game ... it isnt against the rules .. (i think)

Hrqls:

Game Guidelines:

1. NO CHEATING. This includes using outside programs to help play and losing on purpose for the goal of boosting ratings. Your account may be banned, and ratings will be removed.

Pedro Martínez: hmm .. this can be seen as a goal to boost ratings indeed ...

Pedro Martinez: Perhaps now you can see my point about Run around the Pond?

How can this example be seen as any different from what you did in the other game? Sure, you had your reasons and justifications for your play, but maybe these guys in this example do too. Argue all you want, but this is a big flaw in the play of this game and I can't handle it when it is or could be directed towards me. There's really no way to prove it. Not only that, it isn't cheating. Nowhere in the rules of Run Around the Pond does it say you can't plot with another player in the game. Even this game 506 isn't an example of losing on purpose. If it is, then you are a hypocrit for backing Scooter when he bid 1 point in the other game. I see no difference in the appearance of these actions even if I feel that there was a difference. Yes, I can spell duplicity. You can't have it both ways.

For those unfamiliar with the earlier game that I'm refering to, here's the link:
http://brainking.com/en/Pond?bms=20&g=145
Check out the score of round 21 and then see how the bets were made and the scores afterwards. Can anyone that just stumbles across this game see any difference in how this game was played than how this current game has been played?

So, Pedro, if you are so willing to ban someone for something that looks for all the world exactly what it is that you have done, can you not understand why I am no longer going to play this game? I am very appreciative of the kind words in your post about wanting me to continue to play and learn this game. I find it rather ironic that the very post in which you acknowledge my alledged intelligence is also the post that you say you've never seen any signs of cheating or conspiracies in Run Around the Pond! Perhaps you've just missed subtle signs of it or it really has to be blatant for it be apparent as to how easy it is to rig this game? Maybe the people that form the conspiracies have learned more effective ways in which to help their comrades? I'd certainly pick my time to do it if I was so inclined to form a conspiracy. Of course one would try to stay in until the last moment before doing it. One high, one low, then blam, both or more bid low. Seems like an effective strategy to me. Next time someone bids 10 and is third lowest against 1 and 2 while everyone else is bidding over 1000, we should all think about how the other players might react.

As they say, "The shoe is on the other foot."

I would like a version of Run around the Pond that has just two teams of 8 or more players. The winning team would be the team with only its members left in the game. Team members would be free to plan amongst themselves or not as they see fit. I'm thinkng this would be a fun, fair, and challenging version and would lend itself to Fellowship challenges and matches very well. A round robin tournament set up just as a regular game tournament is currently held would work quite easily. Four or more teams could play each other as individuals now play in tournaments. Set it up as team tournament are now held, with each team playing one another one team at a time. It would also be fun just challenge a team head on and play a game.

Walter Montego: ouch! was almost finished typing and now i lost it :( anyway what i typed was :

there is a difference as scooter posted a message he would bet 0, ferjo didnt

in scooters pond (lets call it that way) it was up to the other players to decide wether they believed him or not .. wether they would take the chance or not

its just like when a player uses autobid for a round ... its up to the other players to decide if he will use it again or not .. it might be a preparation for a holiday (as i have done in the past) or just to fool everyone .. or because he really doesnt have time and so he will use it again

its just like someone getting the bonus 2 rounds in a row ... the other players might decide they wont go for the bonus as it makes no sense if this player will grab the bonus anyway .. then in the 3rd round he can get the bonus with a relatively low bet .. and maybe have a net gain over the last 3 rounds ?

in scooters pond he didnt tell anyone if he would really bet 0 (neither to bry nor pedro i assume) .. as it was a 'weird' bet as discussed below most chose not to take the chance

ferjo though seems to have told microbepine exactly that he will bet 0 .. (maybe due to some personal circumstances which were discussed in portugese ? maybe on a portugese board or fellowship ?) .. and thereby boosting microbepines ratings

scooter didnt aim for anyones ratings to be boosted .. in case he did .. then either bry or pedro would have known for sure he would bet 0 (which again i assume they didnt know)

so there are some differences in the 2 cases

Walter Montego: nice idea!!!! i like team plays :)

when you cant fight against something .. force it happen and join it ;)

Hrqls: I can assure you that neither in the portuguese fellowship or portuguese board this pond has been discussed.

Shall we talk about other multiplayer games in which everyone playing is supposed to be playing for themselves to win?

That's right: Poker!
Casinos will not let known married couples play at the same table. That doesn't stop any other type of conspiracy from happening, nor would it stop a married couple from pretending to not be married while playing. So, my buddy with two pair whom I've signalled that I have a full house decides to bet. Everyone but me and one other player folds. This other player calls my buddy or raises, it doesn't matter. If he raises, I raise. If he calls, I raise. No matter what happens, my buddy raises on his turn even though he knows I have him beat because of my earlier signal. Now the hapless third guy is stuck again and can call or raise but we'll do the same thing again. Depending on the rules of the game there'll be a limit on the number of raises or eventually one of us three will have all of our money in and the betting will be over. If my full house is the winning hand (Almost a certainty if you know Poker, though I have lost with it before), my buddy will lose and the other guy does too. Had my buddy folded his bad hand at the beginning, the pot would have a lot less money in it and the betting round would've stopped the moment my opponent called me.

Another type of Poker conspiracy is called, "Playing soft". In this ploy, you bet light against your buddy and play hard against the rest. Almost the same thing.

In both these ruses, the players will divide up their winnings away from the table and of course if it's just the two of them against each other for the pot they can bet in whatever way they think appropriate to cover for what they're doing to everyone else at the table.

And then there's cheating, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Also, there's the game that got me to stop playing games of this nature, though I still play Poker. I play Poker with people I know and we have the rule that married couples can only have one of them at the table at a time. Generally though, the wives stay out of the game and let us knucklehead men play our Poker. Brothers seem to make good opponents in Poker. :) Perhaps it's the money and the brotherly competitiveness. Who can say, but there's nothing like telling your brother to put all his chips in if he wants to see your hand. Playing Poker with strangers is always fraught with conspiracies and the danger of cheats, but it's a fun game just like Run Around the Pond is a fun game.

Anyways, that other game is: Risk!
For those unfamiliar with this game, it's easy to understand. You win the game by conquering the world! At the start of the game the world is divided up amongst all the players and everyone gets an army. From the very start the politics of the game happen. Conspiracies aren't even concealed. One player might tell another that if he attacks me he'll leave him alone. At any time time in this game any one person can be ganged up on and forced out even if it causes those attacking that person to lose the game on a later turn. (That sounds familiar, doesn't it). Arguments happen even if everyone plays for themselves trying to win because the strategy of winning the game itself is complicated. (Dang, this sure sounds like Run Around the Pond). So you have people pointing fingers and name calling each other because of a perceived idiotic play or lack there of. How I missed the simularities of Risk and Run Around the Pond is beyond me, but perhaps it is because I haven't played Risk! in over twenty years and it's hard to imagine ducks quaking in the water as having anything remotely simular to armies, conquest, and world domination.

After coming to blows with a friend of mine while playing a game of Risk! over twenty years ago, I decided to never play it again if there were more than two people involved. Soon afterward I thought of playing four handed but with two players on a team. If you have to attack your partner to achieve a goal, that's just how it is. Playing this way eliminates the conspiracy problem and still retains all the other things about Risk that make it a fun game. I think this would also work for Run Around the Ponds and that was why I requested it in the previous post. Teams would be a lot of fun and the strategy seems like it'd be just as tough as it is now. Maybe not, but I suppose the game would have to played as teams first to see if it would be a good one to play it or not.

Andre Faria: ah thanks .... i also sent a message to pauloaguia as i saw he was online and he said the same ..

i am in the dark here ... they might be doing some dirty moves .. or it might have some other reason how microbic knew what was going to happen ... i would hope either ferjo or microbic would read this board and tell their side .. but i am not even sure if they write/read english well :)

Vikings: I still don't know exactly what has happened between those two (clearly something has) but just a short reminder that the game isn't finished yet. Either of you can still win depending on how you three play the game... focus on that first!

it is impossable to win unless 1. micropine is as stupid as he seems to be, or 2. we cheat

Im not a cheat but must admit to asking for help on the odd occaision (sp)...which I might add i couldnt understand the logic of the advice and "fell"

now I just play and hope for the best:( and it dont help me at all HAHAHAHA

Walter Montego: If you don't see the difference between the Scooter situation and what Ferjo and Microbic Pine did, I recall what I said about you being an intelligent person.

Hrqls: Walter is talking rubbish. He only has the hump about the "Scooter" pond because he is upset he didn't spot Scooter's post and/or gamble by betting low.

I had nothing to lose, I was nowhere near pole position and gambled big time. I cant speak for Pedro as I have never discussed it with him. As it happens, Walter is in pole position at the moment in the same pond with a great chance of winning it, but still wont let the matter drop because he has a "bee in his bonnett" about it.

I do agree that the bets made by the 2 Portugese in the pond that has been discussed must have been "contrived" personally, away from the Pond. That is the difference, Scooter publically announced his intention (rightly or wrongly) and everyone in that pond had the option to gamble or not.

That "Scooter" matter is closed in my opinion, unless anyone else wants to waste their time posting about it.

Bry: "I do agree that the bets made by the 2 Portugese in the pond that has been discussed must have been "contrived" personally, away from the Pond. That is the difference, Scooter publically announced his intention (rightly or wrongly) and everyone in that pond had the option to gamble or not."

Supposing everybody understands english, I say...

Andre Faria: Everybody who was in that pond game at that respective time understands English.

Pedro Martínez: how can you say that?

Andre Faria: There were Walter Montego, Arctic Warrior, Vikings, Backoff, Scooter, ClayNashvilleTn, tonyh, Bry. All these have English as their first language. Plus 5 Czechs - me, Egzot, Maxxina, Mach Machovic, Flake. I have seen all of these posting in English.

Pedro Martínez: Well I'm glad I was not in that pond. The cheat waited almost a day into the 5 day pond before telling some people what he was bidding, and I would have already made my bid and never would have seen the message until it was too late.

I want to apologize to Microbic Pine and Ferjo. I have been having a conversation with MP and he convinced me it had not been cheating. I'm sorry for what I had said on this board before, without any knowledge of what had actually happened.

Pedro Martínez: so what happened? (to make them bid like that?)

I was told that these two had never been PMing or in any other way letting the other know what would they bet. Ferjo decided to bet 0 as several times before when he had been in this situation (being the next one to fall in) and Microbic just risked the 1 and it worked.

Pedro Martínez: I don't know if I believe that, but it soesn't matter anyway because I received a message from fencer stating that it is their right to consult each other on their bids, he does not consider this cheating, so now the pond games will become suspect. pitty

Vikings: I'm a bit confused now. How do Fencer's words comply with the game guidelines in teh User Agreement?

You are prohibited to lose on purpose in order to boost you opponent's ratings, yet it's your right to cooperate in ponds. I ain't getting it.

i guess it is because it says nothing about conspiring, and loosing on purpose in this case boosted someone elses ratings, besides he doesn't think it can be proved

at any rate I wonder how many people will start to do this now that they know how, and that its ok

Vikings:
i guess it is because it says nothing about conspiring, and loosing on purpose in this case boosted someone elses ratings, besides he doesn't think it can be proved

nothing about conspiring - it doesn't have to be explicitly mentioned to know it's against the rules. The rules say no losing on purpose in order to boost your opponent's ratings is allowed. That unequvically includes conspiring.

loosing on purpose in this case boosted someone else's ratings - yes, that's what the user agreement prohibits

he doesn't think it can be proved - does it mean that if something can hardly be proved, it should be legallized?

you are preaching to the choir here.
I'm just repeating the message

Pedro Martínez: Not legalized. But you cannot banish people only because it "looks like" cheating.

Fencer: Definitely, no doubt about that. But in my opinion it's wrong to let people conspire (=cheat) only because it cannot be successfully proven in most cases. But whatever, I won't stop playing this game, maybe it will become more interesting if people start to collaborate. It will be more of a challenge.

i guess the problem is ponds are multiplayer games ....

maybe the user agreement could be slightly changed to exclude multi player games from this part ? just because the user agreement was before there were any multiplayer games

(of course the case of multiple nicks would still illegal in here)

Congrats to Matarilevich on his 10th pond win!!! :)

Fencer: How can one "prove" cheating in any circumstance?

Maybe if you cannot do anything about it, you can give us a tool to be able to keep certain people from joining our ponds? I know we can already remove people, but it is a pain monitoring this all the time, and would be nice to just have a banned list and know trhat these people would not sneak into your ponds...

Here is an example of why I like the dark pond variant better, and think it is actually a more accurate portrayal of how pond games were meant to be played....

http://brainking.com/game/Pond?g=757

Is it realy part of the game to be able to monitor who has been online and who hasnt been able to play a move? I dont think it is really part of a pond game. (not that I think there is anything wrong with taking advantage of all available info to make a turn) But it just isnt in the spirit of the game.

FENCER: maybe you could do something to eliminate the tag that tels us when a person has made an auto move from the previous round? hat would make it a bit more difficult for people to track who has not been online. hen at least they wouild have to look at every player in every game and would make it a bit more difficult.