I'm a backgammon addict. If anyone would like to play, please feel free to send an invite.

Andersp: You rolled 1-1, 5-5, 5-5 and 2-2 in a row and later 1-1 and 3-3. Anyone who knows the "Law" of Averages knows that to have such doubles can only mean that you're cheating. Either you're doing better sacrifices to the Dice Gods (which is unfair) or you've got Fencer in your pocket or you've got a hacker to make BrainKing roll whatever you like.

Oh hang on .... HE was the one with all those doubles .. and he still didn't win.

Vikings: I always accept a challenge...especially from 2250 players and higher LOL

Andersp: well then it's obvious,.... you accepted!

Vikings: I didnt challenge him, he challenged me

Andersp: maybe he felt cheated because of the way that stairs games can start without accepting the challenge before the timer starts since he timed out on the first one. just a thought

Andersp: Well I don't disagree with you - tougher stance on private chat would be nice, but that is not my call - so only thing I can do is give advise on what I would do - and the "Blocked users" lists will block everything that user will say to you again... if you choose to use it.

Andersp: No, BKR is not that important to me - but I would not let someone talk me into giving them a free win.

Andersp: I don't say I speak to Fencer often - but what I see is someone who talked his way into a win by getting you to resign. Did they cross the line? Well I'll let Fencer decide that - but if some people know they can get an easy win by just pushing a few buttons, they will.

Again, not saying that is the right thing to do - but if someone does that to me, I just simply put them on ignore and continue to play my game in piece.

coan.net: I won the first part/game...then i resigned the rest, dont play players who call me cheater and nazi...ive sent the game to Fencer

Andersp: You were probable playing better then they were, so for some - they consider that cheating.... but kind of looks like you resigned the game after that point - so apparently by calling you a cheater, it got him the game win.

... That is one strategy to win that some take - get into your opponents head.

7 Point Match with Cube - for 12 players 2100+

Thad: That's definitely bizarre.

Thad: "Unknown bug" is the best explanation I could think of.

Can anyone explain why I only got the move of one die here:
Backgammon (Thad vs. kie19)

There is a new tourney available for signing. Please join and have fun.
Good luck.

Hrqls: If you do all that, you should get rid of the 'Offer Draw' button too.

Of course I think that should be removed from all backgammon games (and some other games too).

Fencer: would it be possible to change triple gammon tournaments so that if a person times out that all his/her games in that tournament wont count for the tournament outcome ? (for example by setting all the scores of his/her games in that tournament to n/a ?)

would it be possible to also disable the resign button in triple gammon tournaments ? ;)

lovelysharon: Depends on the settings. If it were set for something like 7/0/30, you'd have up to two months to complete the game. Make it longer by adding to the bonus.

Pason69: shouldn't the discussion be more golbal, since the [timeout/resign] problem affects every game.

It's much more of a problem in a Triple than in ordinary round-robins because of the special scoring. In a standard round-robin a timeout in a match is a single match. That's not good but a single resignation or timeout in a Triple tourney is worth 5 ordinary matches. If you had experience of the real thing (ie. TTTs) then you'd know that that's major.

Only way would be to make one timeout spread and let the player lose all his/her games

.. which is what nabla said: "he or she automatically forfeits all games with maximal scores, even the already finished ones" .. which is what I posted in the first place as the official rule: "the TTT rules remove a player who ... they and all their games are no longer part of the tournament (whether that's total removal or just not contributing to the scoring)", except that the scored outcome is zero rather than maximum. But the player does get to play the remaining matches. They are not forfeited, only the score.

Stop woory, be happy!

Lol. There's no need for you to worry about my happiness. I play TTTs at DailyGammon and they work well for the "just for fun" players and also the "competitive for fun" players. I'll continue to enjoy those. My aim here was to report the problem and explain it in sufficient detail that people can begin to understand it. That's done as far as I'm concerned.

Thad: Fischer clock is more apt to cause more time outs... that is the reason I no longer join those tournaments..

Pason69: One thing that would hlep is to allow timed-out games to be restarted. Of course the opponent would have to agree to it. Other sites work similarly.

Another thing that might hlep is to use the Fischer clock.

playBunny:
People who time out against only some players is a problem in TTT. However, it's also a problem in all other games, even though the "award" for winning a game is less (ie always the same). So, shouldn't the discussion be more golbal, since the problem affects every game.

I think it's impossible to solve to everyones satisfaction. Only way would be to make one timeout spread and let the player lose all his/her games, and that's a bad, but maybe fair, solution.

I play to win, but most important is still the challenges and all the things I learn. I will keep playing TTT and other games, and enjoy it. Sometimes I will get "lucky" and get an easy win, sometimes unlucky and my "worst" competitor will. Both ways, I'll have a great time! Stop woory, be happy!

lovelysharon: No worries, me lovely. These things happen and it's not a question of blaming. And certainly I'd cut off my paws before even considering that you'd do something like this deliberately.

But it is a problem with the format that it's vulnerable to upsets of this nature. Your busyness has brought the matter to light, that's all. It's going to be a concern in future Triple until it's addressed.

And it's a definite problem. In a TTT or Triple, coming second, third, etc, does mean something (for all but the most competitive of players). Resignations and timeouts can thus change the outcome for many of the players in the tourney, not just who wins.

Ivaylo: lovelysharon's unfortunate timeouts have awarded several players with a backgammon. That 5 points is a considerable advantage to the subset of players who got it. In contrast, just_for_fun timed out in all his matches and everyone got 5 points - but no advantage.

General note: The fact that I and Alan are the only ones lost to lovelysharon is immaterial. (well done, Sharon, dammit! ) This isn't a personal complaint but a concern for the format. If could affect a prize tourney and that won't do any good.

look it guys .. I'm sorry I timed out.. it wasn't intentional... I just got busy with other aspects of life.... I was shocked when I finally logged on and found out i timed out in that many games... I don't use the auto vacation day function in order to use them when i really need them...

alanback: I am confused. What's wrong with her games? Can't see anything unusual.

AlliumCepa:  Well, not really, as a person wishing to resign could simply allow his match to time out.  The current situation actually involves timeouts (presumably unintentional) and not resignations.  See the link below (player #10)

Unrated Triple Gammon

alanback: What if we don't have the Resign option within a TTT games? It is simply disabled. That would solve the problem partially.

Thad: LOL, that's a good one!

nabla: What if a player is legitimately going to get backgammoned and resigns. The system would need to handle that. Or worse yet, what if a player is likely to get gammoned, but not guaranteed and resigns. How do you score that?

nabla:  That would work.

alanback: Moreover, the slower you play, the better equity you have to collect points due to timeouts / resigns. It could lead people to play as slow as possible.
It could be a general rule in all tournaments that when somebody timeouts or resigns a backgammon, he or she automatically forfeits all games with maximal scores, even the already finished ones.

playBunny:  Playing without this rule makes it pointless to have tournaments under this format, since it will almost always be the case that someone in such a large group will time out, resign too soon, etc.  Now that you've pointed it out, I'm going to cancel the triple gammon tournament I just created recently.

playBunny:  Now I understand, and I agree.

alanback: There are no TTTs here. A player who resigns matches or times out can change the whole outcome ... - is how it works in the Triple Gammon tournaments. The TTT rules that I described are how that problem is dealt with in a TTT.

playBunny:  Are you saying that's the way it works here, or that it should work that way?

Because it certainly does not seem to be working that way.

A player who resigns matches or times out can change the whole outcome of a Triple Gammon tournament.

It's okay if they do it for everyone but when they only do with a selection of players it adds 5 points to the lucky ones (or the friends in the case of manipulations), whereas those whose matches with them have finished will have gained nothing, a single point or maybe 3 or only rarely, the backgammon's full 5.

Timeouts cannot be prevented but resigning matches is not an option in TTTs unless the player withdraws completely.

To prevent a player from spoiling the tournament, the TTT rules remove a player who inadvertantly or deliberately adds dollops of points to people's scores in this way. They may continue to play out the remaining games if they wish, but they and all their games are no longer part of the tournament (whether that's total removal or just not contributing to the scoring).

playBunny: ah thanks!!!!
thats true .. i forgot about 0 and double or 1 and double which is also sufficient :)

thad and abigailll thanks as well! when i tought it over last night (in my head wihle lying in bed) the chance of 1/3 + 1/3 sounded very nice .. but i knew i was wrong .. in my head i also came to 17/162 by pure match .. but it had big numbers in it so i could easily have mistaken myself :)

btw i forgot about a double 6 being ok as well as tric trac will also make you move double 1 on that roll .. or 1+2 on a roll which also gives double 1 .. hmm the double 6 doesnt work as i would have to move the 6 first .. but 1+2 does work .. ok i am a bit confusing today .. i am suffering from it myself as well :)

thanks!!

Hrqls: It would be 10/36 * 10/36 if all you want is exactly one 1 on each of the two rolls. But if you want at least two ones in two rolls, the chance is 1/36 + 10/36 * 11/36 + 25/36 * 1/36 == 171/1296 == 0.132. After all, you should consider rolling two 1s on either the first or the second roll.

Hrqls:

A single 1 followed by single or double 1      10/36 * 11/36 = 110/1296
Or a double 1                                   1/36         =  36/1296
Or no ones followed by a double 1              25/36 *  1/36 =  25/1296
                                                               ========
                                                               171/1296 = 13%

Hrqls: You want to roll a 1 on two consecutive rolls? Assuming it's ok to roll a pair of 1s, then your calculation of 11/36 * 11/36 (about 0.0933) is correct. So you have about a nine and one third percent chance of rolling at least one 1 on two consecutive turns.

Remember, probability (or chance) is winners divided by total. In this case, a winner is a roll containing a 1, and you were correct that there are eleven of them. There are thirty six total ways of rolling a pair of dice.

Also, when dealing with two disjoint probabilities, simply multiply them together (as you did).

Hope that hleps.

what is the chance of rolling a 1 ?
i think its 11/36 ?

what is the chance of rolling a 1 in 2 moves after another ? (rolling 2 1s in total)
is that 11/36 * 11/36 ?

or can i determine it this way :
(lets assume the chance of rolling a 1 in 1 move is 1/3 to make the calculation a bit easier, and ignore the rule of big numbers)
so i roll a 1 in 3 rolls, for the next move i roll a 1 in 3 rolls as well giving me 2 1's in 6 rolls .. which would lead to a chance of 1/6 to roll a 1 in 2 moves directly after another ? .. hmm .. this doesnt feel right in a lot of aspects .. but i can put my finger on it exactly :)

i am asking this because i am playing tric trac on another site and want to know what my chance is to bear off 2 pieces on the 1 position .. i think its 10/36 * 10/36 + 1/36 = 17/162 ?

alanback: Thanks, I'll take a look.

fakar10:  There's some discussion here:  http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?19084  Don't know if it's helpful.

You can see examples on dailygammon. What I'm wondering is if someone has a script (I know there's some scripters among us), or another easy method of fixing it.