ScarletRose: Why can't we discuss possible ways to create rankings? This is a *discussion* board isn't it?

grenv: Hmm, sounds like a good idea. Does that solve your issue, Bry?

How do you score a win in a pond of ten vs a win in a pond of 100?

Bry: Because getting farther along should count for something, after all, you did beat some of the players, just not all of them. Essentailly, for scoring purposes, if there are N entrants in a pond game, it's N*(N-1)/2 smaller games, rather than one big game, so each 'game' needs to be scored. Plus winning or finishing high in a pond with 100 players is a bigger accomplishment than winning a pond with ten players.

Bry: I see your point, but the same arguement could be made in other games. If you take all my pieces in chess and win, or if I checkmate you without capturing any of yours, who played better? If I beat you in pente, but you cap four of my pairs along the way, does that make the win weaker than a win with no stones capped?

It's all about winning (which makes a sad statement about our society, but that's a whole different discussion). How you get the win (as long as you play fair), or the final score doesn't matter (except in college football). ;-)

Bry: It seems to me that the only two factors that should be used in calculating your score in a pond game should be the round in which you fall, and the number of players you beat, no? Taking in to account how well you played along the way doesn't generally figure in to a player's score in other games, so it makes sense that it wouldn't here either (imo).

This would all be moot if Fencer would just allow us to select our own starting value (& bonus)!

Yeah, no offense either. ;-)

Eriisa: That's the whole point of the game.

Alesh started the last round with 1320 points, bid 1149, leaving him with 171, but also got the bonus leaving him with 671. If someone bids more than 671 in the next round, he will fall in the round after that. But bidding 671+ is not the best bid because there are safe small bids that will result in spending fewer points than the minimum of 172 you will spend even with getting the bonus. Still, I expect someone to go over 671 next round. A wiser plan would be to wait one more round. Let Alesh bid his full 671. Let him get the bonus and end up with 500 for the next round, THEN overbid him.

I'm willing to bet all my remaining points that someone overbids him this round. ;-)

Stevie: Nice!

Do knights who become pawns still see the Ponds games on their pages? I ask because I notice that angelmouse is logging in and playing other games, but not the pond game(s) she is in.

Also, do ponds a player is participating in show up on their profile under current games? I looked at her profile, but did not see 'the very first pond' listed amongst her active games.

Stevie: Old Dear's autobet of 10 is not having any affect on the game. It will have an affect soon, but it will be minimal. For a few rounds, everyone will be guessing whether to go over or under his 10. It might even take away from the boredom everyone seems to be feeling. But don't stress over it, it won't affect the overall game significantly. Alesh's automoves will continue to have an affect for a few more rounds, but then (s)he will drop and it won't matter. The bonus has/will be lost for about 20 rounds due to Alesh, but in a run with almost 200 turns, again, it will have little impact on the overall game. Hope that hleps.

Czuch Chuckers: Is there anything in the rules of the user agreement (or elsewhere) that distinguishes the rules between a rated and a not counted game? I don't think there is, so what I am doing is either cheating or it's not, regardless of how the games are set up. Right? ;-)

Vikings: It depends on the rules his round was played under. As it stands now, certain things are cheating and certain things aren't. I think the real solution to the problem is to get Fencer to augment the rules to allow certain things. For example (and this is kinda ridiculous, but it makes my point). I am trying to teach some fellow players to improve their Pente game. I'm advising them on certain moves, which, technically, is cheating! Of course, we should be encouraged to help each other, not discouraged from it, so the cheating that I am doing should be allowed. The only way to make this so is to change the rules.

We are getting off topic. I would be happy to continue this...which board?

Anyone can now view messages of pond games that are in progress regardless of whether you are in the pond or not. That seems illogical to me. I think only the players involved in the game should be able to read those messages, just like only the players involved in any game on this site can read the game messages. I think they should be called messages too rather than disussions (those go on the boards, i.e. discussions are what we post on boards, messages are what we post in games. They're not really different, but it will make talking about the two different types of posts easier for moderatios and for Fencer in the User Agreement, etc.).

Ed has withdrawn from the run he was entered in. I'm convinced his system was legit. ;-)

EdTrice: If that happens (which is unlikely because you'd have to get ALL of the remaining players to do it), then it would be clear by the unusually high bets that it had been done, so I don't see you being 'marked' as a problem.

EdTrice: How would one go about intentionally eliminating another from a pond game?

I hate to say this, but..ugh..I agree with Stevie.

rabbitoid: With the group of players signed up, it will have little significant affect. Most participants don't read this board, they just play.

EdTrice: There are obviously systems that guarantee a win for certain combinations of players/points/rounds, but there is no system that guarantees a win from an even start with 100% certainty (barring collusion) as you claim.

EdTrice: It is always possible, although statistically unlikely that every other player will bet their entire amount of the first round. In that case, you will fall in regardless of your wager. Thus there is no way you can 100% guarantee that you will win.

EdTrice: Ok, so throw us a bone. I assume your bet for the first round is a function of the number of players in the pond. Pick a number of players close (or even not close) to the 50 currently entered in the pond you are going to play in, say 47 (or 447). What would your first bet be?

Do you have a link to a copy of Nash's paper?

EdTrice: Oh, and is the minimum number of players this will work with two or do you need more initially for it to work?

EdTrice: I am still unconvinced.

1) How do you distinguish a "kamakaze" from someone who has just made a few bets that work against your method?

2) How do you know what to bet in the first round? There is no mathematical way to know for certain that you will not fall into the pond on the first round.

EdTrice: Oh, ok. It seemed like you were talking about Ponds (here). In that case, let's play a game of Pente. ;-)

As far as your strategy goes, you're saying that it works as long as another player does not employ the same stragegy or intentionally make a "kamakaze" bet. Is that right?

EdTrice: What happened to your proposal for a wager? The post seems to have been edited or deleted. Does that mean you don't want to wager? If so, why not?

PS: My hand is up too.

EdTrice: Of course we both know it won't mathematically prove your claim, but I sure would like to see it! And, ok, I'm up for a small wager. What do you propose? Also, I suppose we would have to create a special pond (or ponds) with the rule stipulation that spreadsheets are allowed so Stevie won't complain. ;-)

ScarletRose: It doesn't work the way he says.

EdTrice: I challenge you to show that you are correct. Pick any pond, enter it and win. If course, if you win, it won't prove that you and your spreadsheet are correct, but if you lose, it will prove that you are not.

EdTrice: There is no such strategy.

Stevie: Does that not make sense?

Fencer: The bonus.

Fencer: There should be SOME variation allowed! Maybe minimum of zero (yes, this should be allowed!!) and max of x/number of players in pond.

Bad Bishop: Great joke, BB!

harley: But it's not implemented quite correctly. It's supposed to mean that the player made an automatic move in the last round, but what it's indicating now is that the player made an automatic move in SOME previous round. Fencer is aware of the bug.

Stevie: We'd need to think it thru, Stevie. How many passes do the other players have. What if one still has all five, etc.

I can already see that there might be a small problem toward the end of the game if one person still has a greater number of passes left than the others, but if that's the situation, then that player has probably outplayed everyone else anyway and deserves to win!

If you think it's a bad idea, please give me an example including how many players, how many points each has remaining, and how many passes each has left.

No, if you used a free pass, it would be as if you didn't play in that round of the game, but could come back in the next round with the same points. With free passes, a few players could stay out of the game for a limited number of turns, but the game would continue on.

What if everybody was given a number (say 5) free passes to the next round at the start of the game. These could be used instead of vacation days. This way, players can still participate, even if they know they will be away from BK for a couple of days without holding the game up for everyone else.

Looks like there is a bug. Two turns ago, I made an automatic move, but I entered a different amount on the last round. The main Pond page still shows that my last move was an auto-move.

Since you can now change your move, up until the deadline, it shouldn't automatically advance even if everyone has bid (IMO).

I am one of the players who DID bid 3 in the first round, and I am NOT an idiot. Would one of the moderators (Stevie or one of the Global mods) please remove Czuch Chuckers' posts.