grenv: You have finished almost 100 ponds. Is this the first time you noticed that the last person bet 1, or generally less than the maximum? I saw it so many times before...these guys just see there's no way to win the ponds and try to make the game more interesting or for whatever other reason they just bet low, having, from their point of view, no chance to move on to th enext round. I have done it myself several times. Check this:

http://brainking.com/cz/Pond?bms=10&g=602

I could secure myself a third position but I tried to win the pond by bidding lower than what Rose had left, hoping that Rose would go even lower.

grenv:


Why should you reward other players for watching your tendencies? Ridiculous.

Are you serious? I believe that's what this game's about.

tonyh: But we could still see this info on the Enemies page anyway...:)

tonyh: If you don't see it on his profile, he's got you on his enemies list.

My last bet in that pond was a simple one-more-than-the-second bet. I didn't even checked whether furbster had logged in during the last 18 hours or not. dmk is a different story though. That was actually a great risk from me because I placed that bid 7 hours before the deadline.

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

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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

Yes, exactly. I'm sure she didn't follow any strategy with that 2294 bet but it turned out to be the winning move. If it was an "experienced" player in her position and bet regular 4586, this player would finish 3rd and Chuck would win the pond. Now you see that betting below what the last person has might win you a pond.

.
.
.
Round 15:
1. tonyh...10650..LRB:.3104
2. Czuch..10025..LRB:.4065
3. Pedro...9687...LRB:.3335
4. Scarl....8686...LRB:.3445
5. Hanne..8617...LRB:.3000


Round 16:
1. Czuch..6207...LRB:.4318
2. Pedro..5560...LRB:.4127
3. Hanne..4617...LRB:.4000
4. Scarl....4586...LRB:.4100
----------------------------------
5. tonyh..............LRB:.3500


Round 17
1. Scarl...2292...LRB:.2294
2. Czuch..1620...LRB:.4587
3. Pedro..1442...LRB:.4618
----------------------------------
4. Hanne.............LRB:.1200


Round 18:
1. Scarl..1342...LRB:.1450
2. Pedro.......1...LRB:.1441
----------------------------------
3. Czuch............LRB:.271

LRB=Last Round Bet

I'll try to re-count it...

ScarletRose won...

http://brainking.com/cz/Pond?bms=15&g=91

but it shows wrong numbers...:(

experienced players will not allow you to do that, of course.

Wham Bam 34 - imagine this situation some two months ago and it would not be tonyh but Pbarb2 at the 4th place. Maybe you remember that anytime she appeared at the last place, she bet REAL low. So, if I was Maxxina, I would bet 3739.

Yes, and I have already won a pond or two this way also....

I think it's illogical for the last person not to bet everything. But since we know that there are people who bet VERY low when they happen to find themselves at the last place, it might actually be a good move to bet lower also....

ScarletRose: Why don't you ask your buddy Trice to give you a copy? Maybe we could finally see his miraculous spreadsheet (or whatever it is) in practice....

Andre Faria: No, that is not the situation Andre. It was me, Czuch and two ladies involved there (don't remember who now). :)
In the situation you're speaking of, you were just damn lucky!!!

Walter Montego: OK, Walter, I respect your decision to quit playing the ponds. But I really think it's not necessary and would like you to think it over again, if you can. In my opinion, it's one of the best games played here and a lot of fun. As for conspiracies, I have participated in more than 400 pond games and I have NEVER seen any sign of conspiracy (once I had a suspicion but it revealed itself to be a clever play by one of the players instead). I know the Scooter situation may have hurt people who didn't notice what he wrote in the discussion panel but it was just one game and I'm pretty sure a situation like that will not be repeated. There were no conspirations, Bry and I just saw it and took the chance. We both could pay for the risk and end up in the pond if Scooter was not saying truth about betting 1.
I see ponds as a very fair game with no cheating which fact I value a lot. You can't successfully use any programs like in other games played here. Please reconsider your decision. Don't let one person and one situation ruin your view of this awesome game. I'm saying this because I want more people to start fighting for the top positions in ponds. So far, it's just a few. And I regard you as an intelligent person who can master the game soon if you're going to play enough ponds to gain some experience.

Walter Montego: I have one question. You're speaking about conspiracies. Would you please find one pond where you saw such a conspiracy for me? Just one. Thanks.

Foxy Lady: Chuck's request was:
Could we please be allowed to create a pond where fellowship members only are allowed to sign up?
You said There's been a few of those already., which is not true.

Foxy Lady: Take a look at this pond for instance:
>http://brainking.com/cz/Pond?g=741&trnst=3


Its title says it's a pond for members of the Ponds Plus fellowship. Now, how come that faith, Kata Liana, lindaw4, Tina Maurencova and Ige of Gala are not members there and were able to play in that pond?

Or here:
>http://brainking.com/cz/Pond?g=282&trnst=2

I have never been in the Cindy's Circle fellowship.

Foxy Lady: Really??? They must've absconded from my attention then...

Czuch Chuckers: I don't care about the bonuses, definitely not in the first rounds. All I want is an alteration of the BKR system so that people making "idiotic" bets weren't rated that high...

Czuch Chuckers: I don't understand why you're speaking about "someday". Speak about what is now, i.e. people who know how other people that have been kinda successful in this game bet and still they show no will to end up in the top positions, but despite that having very high ratings that do not correspond to their results. Don't speak about newbies, don't speak about what will be someday, don't speak about ifs. Speak about what we're seeing at present.

Vikings: I see what you mean and I sort of like it but instead of giving points to players for each round, I would rather advantage the top X (3?) finishers.

Andre Faria: That's just unbelievable. She's more probably going to lose BKR in that pond...*shaking head*

There is a person (Foxy Lady is the nick I think) whose pond rating is 2155. In any game here at BK, safe for ponds, 2155 means the holder of this high BKR is very good at the game. Now I want you to see this: there is a pond where Foxy Lady bet these amounts of points:

Round 1: 1116
Round 2: 2525
Round 3: 3000
Round 4: 3005
Round 5: 125 (here, I would like to point out that it was lindaw4 who fell in the pond in this round with a bet of 117)
Round 6: 1116
Round 7: 2225
Round 8: 2500
Round 9: 2510 (the second highest bet in this round was 992)

Based on this and based on the number of ponds she's finished (more than 70), I dare to say that Foxy Lady is the worst pond player I have seen playing at BK and that she doesn't deserve to be rated that high. Something must be done with the rating system in my opinion.
This is not meant to sound personal against Foxy Lady, I just want the ratings to be "just" and reflecting the players' skills

Universal Eyes: I can join any pond I want, as well as everyone else...

Czuch Chuckers: Yea, as far as I can remember, I have fallen in more than 50 ponds due to not being able to get on-line.

ScarletRose: Ignoratia iuris neminem excusat. Better go and read the User Agreement (I should say "again" but that wouldn't correspond to your situation, would it?)

Eriisa: Well, the Czech version says it is not allowed to let "third persons" use my account. So I can use second persons...:)
j/k

I would like to let everybody know that the name of this board is "Run around the Pond".

Universal Eyes: You just admited you noticed,i modified my post,is that not what you said when i was viewing a game?

What?

Universal Eyes: I've just noticed you edited your post with the info on the fact that I won three of your ponds in a row and twice...is that what you call "caught with proof"...can I ask you with proof of what? Dig as deep as you want....

Universal Eyes: No, I have no clue what you're talking about.

Let me take it step by step:
Once upon a time, I saw you viewing this game, which is a game where your father refuses to realize that there's no way he can win it and doesn't accept my draw offers. I sent you a PM, asking you what do you think about this game. That's it. Nothing else. No connection whatsoever to ponds. Why the heck are you bringing this up?

In another game, I told you I didn't like cloak mode because it disallows me to see what my opponents are doing when we play our games move after move. Period. Nothing else. Now can you please explain to me why are you talking about this on a board that is dedicated to ponds? And what does this mean?
1. that person has told me that they hate the cloak mode,which use to allow them to get moves from other players instantly

2. the've been caught with proof on more then 3 occasions

I want you to explain it.

Czuch Chuckers: Uhhh, that explains it...LOL

Hrqls: More than that...if I read it correctly, not only that "that person" uses the cloak mode to get other people's bets instantly, (s)he also hates that...

Universal Eyes: Can you please translate your previous post into English?

Clay: What exactly are you upset at? Scooter betting 1 and posting about it in the discussion panel or Bry and me taking advantage of it? Would it be OK for you if Bry and I didn't bet what we bet? I don't understand that....

And to Barb..:)