Also, i don't understand how it's easy to miss a zero? If you do just go back and edit it.

it's a silly idea anyway, just use the 20000 points.

Also in one of those min first bet 19,000 tournies someone bet 19,000 and wasn't the lowest. I contend that that person should also drop out, for being stupid (if 19,000 is the minimum it must, by definition, cause the player to drop out).

see my edit (below)

Apparently i forgot to add the tags

<joke>

Assume the highest bet (other than yours) = H. The lowest bet = L.

Your bet (B) is determined by:
if (H>L+500) { B=L+1 } else { B=H+1 }

There is the mathematically certain way of winning!

</joke>

If everyone starts from the same number, there can be no strategy that guarantees victory unless ridiculous assumptions are made. Of course using psychology and studying playing trends etc could give you an advantage and enable a player to win more than the expected number of games, the simple fact is that no strategy can guarantee victory.

Similar claims were made by hedgefund owners for a while as well, until Russia defaulted on debts amongst other things. It is simply impossible to model human behaviour with no uncertainty.

it's nonsense. There cannot be such a strategy. Once again, produce the math, not just a vague reference to an old mathematician.

Walter Montego: His arguments are getting weaker. Next it will be tea leaves.

ditto

ScarletRose: I'm not saying that there are no strategies to employ that may or may not improve your chances, only that there is clearly no way to force a win from the outset.

This is OBVIOUS and frankly frustrating to listen to. Let anyone place the mathematics attempting to prove otherwise here and I'll show you why it's bunk.

EdTrice: No amount of obfuscation will change the fact that you cannot guarantee a win in a game like this. What number is your first?

e.g if you bet 100, it might be a losing bet (everyone else bets between 1 and 20, and one person bets 101), it might be a winning bet (by being the highest). How would you know? impossible! Stop the tomfoolery and play.

Czuch Chuckers: Exactly! Smells like a horse racing system to me!

EdTrice: I believe your claim to be in error due to the fact that no matter what bet you make, I can make a better one (or at least equally good). Certainly there are good and bad bets in certain situations, but it's more about understanding the opposition.

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.

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.

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.

I would have the following rules:

0 points and you're out. No bet next round.
If you don't bet then your bet is zero.

I would never dream of revealing clever strategies etc, but when the game can be won by simple application of basic mathematics then the it should end immediately. In fact it should be an additional win condition:

Player wins if his score is the highest and it is equal to or lower than the bonus.

For the same reason you resign if you are down to a king against a king and Queen! At least I hope you do.

so is it true that as soon as the player with the highest points has fewer than 501 points, the game is over? (assuming the bonus is 500)

what are we solving for here? I doubt the subtle difference in amounts will mean a significant change in approach. And firthermore how would you know until you've at least finished one game?

Betting low is understandable, even a small advantage near the end could be decisive. Of course it is risky as well.

I still don't understand people betting 1800 in the first pond. Clearly 11 would stay alive for instance in this case. The best you can hope for with a bet of 1800 is net 1300.

Oh well, as they say there are 3 types of people in the world, those that can count and those who can't

I think not moving should equal resigning. They should drop out. In addition the lowest number of those that actually moved drops out.

i have no idea what the best strategies are. Probably dependent on the competition. I do know that for the last few turns 1000 is a very obviously a very bad number, that's all. Just bet 11, you know there's someone forced to bet 10.

Of course when we are down to just a few players that will change considerably. :)

By the way a move of more than 510 or so is ridiculous. At best you would get the 500 back and you might as well have played 10.

What are people thinking when they put 1000+??????

If everyone was playing properly the top pick would be considerably less then 500.

Actually my vote would be to eliminate anyone who didn't move, rather than give them the same as last time. The game would be quicker and no issues like knowing what to play to guarantee staying in.

And if you go on vacation and can't move, too bad. It's not the end of the world, you can play next time.

excellent idea of multiple sections. In your example the sections would take 19 rounds at most, the final of only 13 people would take only 12 rounds.

I would suggest you keep your totals throughout the tournament as well.

In the hypothetical version where you get only 30 points, is there still a 500 point bonus? Or would it always be 1/40 of the starting total? Or would it depend on the number of players?