Which one has skill, and which one has a guessing kind of skill?

furbster: Thanks Furbster :) that makes me feel so much better cause my ratings are falling sooooooo fast LOLOLOL

they are rated serperately Bernice

grenv: i like options :)

finished a game with only 2 players left .. ah well .. it only takes 1 more round

it would be the same as to count all steps in a backgammon game and finish it when both players cant capture each other and 1 player cant win even not when he would throw double six all the time and the other player only 1+2 .. sometimes its fun to play the game to the end .. just because of having a real result .. at least thats my feeling :)

are "run in the dark" games rated separately to "run around the pond"

if not....why not? 2 different games?

One has skill and the other has "skill" albeit the guessing kind :)

Ok thanks..I may do that..: )

when we sign up for a new pond can we please be transported to the main ponds page....it is annoying to arrive at a pond you have just signed up for when we could be easily transported to the MAIN ponds page? just a thought...not a necessity :)
**edit** to correct spelling

right below the winners link click on (remove from favorite boards) and then do not play it anymore.
But I'd suggest playing again and pay close attention to the bids of a couple of higher rated players, you could double their last bid each turn and stay in the game for quite some time and learn a lot

Ok I tried to play this one time and I was lost. I would like to remove this from my play list. How do I do it?

Bernice, Vikings: Hope so...;)

Pedro Martínez: ewwwwww, but then it shouldn't take too long to climb up again :)

Pedro Martínez: actually, I don't think that it will drop that much, you are finishing high enough in enough ponds that your scores should rebound quickly, unless those ponds all finish at the same time

BerniceC: I expect it to drop to somewhere around 2000. Definitely below Irishrose, maybe below lindaw4.

Pedro Martínez: what is going to happen to your score when all those games that you "missed" finish....still have your 50 odd wins but with a very low score?

2008

ok new pool. When will the 50 win pond start?

My guess is sept,17th

Maybe I should start a 50 Wins Pond...lol

Vikings: Damn, I'll be there in 36 hours...

Hey Pedro, you have 14 hours to win 2 more ponds if you want to beat me to 50 wins! woo hoo

Hrqls: Well, without trying to decipher your methods, that is why it was proposed as an option. Also I would think weekends would not be counted.

It would speed up the later rounds immensely.

Also, why not finish the pond with 2 players left? Whoever has the most points wins. Why wait another turn?

Thad & grenv: you are both right when you compare the ponds to other games ... but people who are playing ponds are used to be able to wait double the amount of the time

i often move within a few hours after in a pond .. and dont play pond with a time of 1 day per round ... so this leaves me with at least 2 days plus some extra time depending on how fast i moved .... that way i can almost always cover the weekend days

i most often play from work or sometimes a short period in the afternoon from home during working days

i know that when i make a move in a break at work .. i will have the time to move again the next day in the same break ... even when i would play ponds with 1 day per round

i cant always be online at the same minute during my break ... sometimes it starts 10 minutes later due to some important projects ... so when i would move at the first minute in my break at one day .. then i might not be able to be online the first minute in that same break the next day ... which could me to drop in the pond if i was the last person to make the move in the previous day

as said the problem is with people being used to double the amount of time they have on ponds and the ponds ignoring weekend days

if the fast ponds would come online i wouldnt be able to play 2 or 3 day ponds anymore ... this would limit my ponds to 4 days or more per round instead of the 2 days per round or more which i now pick ... which gives the problem that when there is a slow mover in the fast 4 day pond .. it might take twice as long to complete as if i would have picked a regular 2 day pond

i like walter montego's idea of the player to agree at the start of the next round .. but you can always have a player who will hold up everything ... which is his right according to the time limits ... most ponds would be finished faster though

Thad: I believe the answer is about six weeks depending on your vacation days left.

Thad: Well said, Thad; Walter is definitely making a huge mountain; no need for messages; just carry on playing!

Thad: QED

You people are making a mountain out of a molehill. You are worring about a problem that you now handle on a regular basis.

Let's say I am playing a game of chess with Walter with a one day time limit. If I move right now, what is the minimum time I would have before I would be required to make my next move? If ponds were changed (or an option added) they would work exactly the same way. No problem.

Walter Montego: I see some confusion still.

The deadline would be changed to be whatever the limit currently is. Last to move - start next turn, deadline = 1 day from now (or whatever the limit is). You would always have at least that amount of time between moves, so if I move now I would never have to move again until 1 day from now, if that is the limit.

SURELY this is the same as existing games, if you are a slow mover choose a pond with a longer limit.

An option would be fine of course, you could choose the pond that suits you best or create one.

I believe it is a good idea to leave it as an option for the pond creator.

I suspect a 2 day deadline with this option would generally play faster than the current setup using a 1 day deadline... and would give a minimum of a 48 hour cushion.

However, it seems that giving people the option to select/deselect this as an option every turn might be an unnecessarily complication.

Even "real-time" or some other fast version of the game could be played informally, if agreed by the players. That isn't possible with the current system.

I am currently in a game with a 5 day deadline. When play moves forward as soon as moves are made (which is typically daily, but a longer deadline allows a buffer), a 5 day deadline is practical. But in the current system for ponds, a 5 day deadline seems silly.

BIG BAD WOLF: My option would not in anyway shorten the time available to someone if they did not want the round started early for some reason or couldn't make it online that day. They'd be no reason to change the deadline's time for each day either.

grenv's faster proposal wouldn't necessarily require the deadline's time to be change either, but it would shorten the time available for the next move to be made if the deadline's time was kept static instead adjusting it for another full day or days.

I would like having the various things as an option too. I like playing it the way it is timed now just fine. I would like trying it the two ways we've suggested.

My vote would be to leave it how it is.

But I'm always up for something new, so if something like that does come along - I would suggest it be an option the pond creator can have instead of appling it to every pond.

Currently lets say a pond is a 1 day pond. That means I know I can be gone up to 47 hours and still make the pond (That is if you make a move right when the pond comes available, and then make your next move right before it gets ready to time out the next time.) The way it is set up now give a little cusion of extra time, where a new system would start giving you many different start/end times - which would be good for players on-line multiply times a day, but could hurt others.

So an option would be good, a change for all would not.

Walter Montego: I think it's too complicated.

Why not when the last person makes their move, the next move starts and the clock resets. You would still have a day (or 2 or 3 depending on the limit) to make your next move. I don't really get the problem. In this case I would perhaps not count weekends as with other games, so if the pond started on a friday the move wouldn't schedule to end until Monday (unless of course everyone moves!!)

grenv: What I have in mind wouldn't matter when people log in. Say there's five people left in a Pond. After the fifth one has made their bet, I'd have the game send each of them a message saying that everyone has bet. This message would also prompt them to answer the question about starting the next round early since all have made their bet. Only if every person answers yes would the game start the next round early. It might happen in a few minutes, or over the span or a day or so, but once all of them have answered yes to starting the round early, it would start. If one or more of the players didn't answer the prompt or didn't log on, the deadline would be what it is and things would go as they already do. No where do I say anything about it having a negative affect on the person that logs on at the same time each day. In fact, this would benefit such a person since they'd have a choice or opportunity to play fast or not miss out if they were late one day. Also, in the case of someone not making their bet, no prompt would be sent and their bet would be the same as the previous one.

As for fast, like you guys seem to leaning to, where the game would start the round the moment the last person to bet bets. This is different and would most certainly be faster than what I'm proposing. Why not have both of these options added? Without any change to the game itself, these two ways of playing the game would make it interesting for other reasons. Speeding up play would make it more fun for some people. It'd certainly have a feel more like some of the games I play when my opponent and I are on at the same time and we move in our game the moment the other moves. Ponds would be a trip to play like that.
I vote for fast and faster Ponds too.

I vote for fast ponds as well.
Walter, I think you're getting cause and effect confused:

The person who logs in the same time every day to move is only doing that because that is the way they work, not vice versa.

tonyh: I find your attitude about the ratings and your enjoyment of a game most distressing and inconsistant. If you truly think the ratings aren't worth anything, then why worry about them? Just play the game and have fun. You're the same person that won't let me play in Dark Chess tournaments that you organize. Unfortunately for me, my rating was so much higher than anyone else's all you had to do was set the limit at 2100 and I was more or less the only one that couldn't play. Ratings, smatings, the truth of the matter is you don't like losing and you're being a poor sport. Ponds is a hard game to win, but it's an easy game to play and understand. I haven't even come close to winning a game of it, but you don't hear me complaining about other people's ratings. Who cares how high they're rated. You either win the game, or you don't. Win or lose, I'll be playing on occasion because it's a different kind of game and it's fun to play.

Czuch Chuckers Clay: Seems like my proposal would allow a game to move fairly fast if all the remaining players were online and replied to the prompt that they want the next round to start. It'd certainly be a fair way to do it. Anyone not online, or that didn't want the round to start would just not answer the prompt and the deadline for the next round would be what it would be without any changes being made.

I am packing up Ponds, because I think that applyiong ratings is unsuitable for Ponds. A points system (say, 4 for a win, 2 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd) would be much better.
Because we all need to play mostly daily, ratings unfairly penalise guys who cannot always play their moves on time.
also, ratings reward players who are just staying in to get to the last 6 players (which is not difficult). There needs to be much more reward for winning outright.

Czuch Chuckers:I agree chuck. Give the option for FAST play. The last person to move automatically advances the round.

Walter Montego: I dont know about that either..... If I come on at noon every day, and I make my play at 12:01 and lets say I am last to move in that pond, and the next round starts at 12:02, well, I can come back at noon the next day and stil have 2 minutes to make my next turn without timing out.

But I dont think these types of games should be manditory either. It would be a nice option though. I envision playing a complete game in an hour or so with like minded peopkle who are all currently online together..... that would be fun!

pauloaguia: That's the thing though. You wouldn't know when you would have to make your next move. The time limit would change. I suppose what you would have to do if you like moving once a day would be to join a two day Pond with automatic next round starts. Then you'd always get a day to make your move. The way it's set up now is easy to understand andwe all know how it goes.

I think sending everyone a notice that they can respond to about starting the next round early would be a good solution. Everyone affected would get a chance to move and would know the new deadline if all people opted to start the next round early. It'd really be helpful towards the end of a game when there's just a few people left. They could make their bets and submit them. After everyone has done so, a message would be sent to them asking if they'd like to start the round if all agree to. If they did, the round would start. If one or more people have logged off then the round wouldn't start early unless those people logged on before the deadline and then responded to the message about starting the round early.

Walter Montego: If the Pond game is down to five people and this person was to move right after the start of the next round thinking they'd have almost two days before they'd need to make a move they'd be in for an unpleasant surprise if the remaining players were to all move right after the player had logged off and the round started right away.
But isn't this what happens on other games too? In a chess game with a one day limit, if my opponent moves immediatelly after my last move, I also only have 24h to move again...

There's a difference in ponds though: holidays and weekends don't count, so this may be a better explanation... but the "what if everybody moves right after you" kind of thing just won't be enough to convince me...

RadRx: You're not the first one to suggest that, and it looks like a good idea on the surface of it. The problem is, what about the person that comes online once a day at the same time everyday knowing they have 24 hours or more to move? If the Pond game is down to five people and this person was to move right after the start of the next round thinking they'd have almost two days before they'd need to make a move they'd be in for an unpleasant surprise if the remaining players were to all move right after the player had logged off and the round started right away.

I like the idea though. Perhaps a seperate category or as an option created at the start of the Pond or something each remaining player could answer when prompted on the Main Page?

A Main Page prompt could work. Assume everyone has made their bet. A notice could be sent out to the remaining players if they would like to start the next round. If all of them said yes, then the next round would start and no one would miss the turn and there'd be no surprises. If one person didn't log on or didn't want the next round to start, the usual deadline would still be happening and all would be right with the world still.

I'd suggest ponds advance to the next round as soon as everyone makes their bid, or upon reaching the deadline, whichever occurs first.

http://brainking.com/en/Pond?g=598&trnst=0

i was just going to suggest that viking.. I would actually visit the link of the pond I fell in.. then put it on a notepad.. you can update the notepad with each pond.. then you have a list of links to just click on.. you can also add a brief description with the link.. such as how many days.. when started.. estimated finishing time.. stuff like that..

why not save your "you fell in the pond" messages until the pond is finished

Czuch Chuckers: Established by who???????? Nobody else seemed to know apparently but you. And my proposed solution is as good as anything proposed by you in the last 5 minutes.

grenv: The problem was established long ago, and the solution? well.....

Czuch Chuckers: Not at all, we established a problem (of sorts) and asked Fencer for a solution.

grenv: So the last 8 posts have all been a waste of time?

BIG BAD WOLF: That is too time consuming to be worth it, therefore there effectively is no way.

Fencer, how about adding the unfinished ponds we've fallen in to the list of running ponds?

grenv: Hum... looks like you are correct. Running shows only what you are left in. Finished only shows the ponds that are completly complete.

So what you need to do is take the ponds in your finished, add those to the ponds in you running - then find out what is missing when you show the "all" and there - you can find out what ponds you have fallen into but the ponds are not complete!

.... and you did not think there was a way! :-)