I would hate to think how many times people have been *ostracised* for swearing on public boards, but it appears to me to be OK seeing the top dog can say shit whenever he feels like, or is it a case of the GLOBS/MODS are too frightened to pull him up on his language for fear of a backlash in the future???.

I have to say that this 865 bet seems a bit odd - nauars played 865 in the previous round too, but there's no * next to the number like there usually is to indicate that a player was offline and his/her last bet was automatically repeated. I don't see how somebody would guess that it was safe to bet 866 in this case.

Pedro..... i stated that i know of at least one formula that can easily improve a players standing in Ponds (as i proved), i never said the players you mentioned were using it, and also Hrqls has given you a rough idea of one that works.

Is all you have done is slated 2 members and given no proof, just how you see it and that is definitely the wrong way to do it as you well know

One last post from my part.

MadMonkey, Hrqls, cd power: In this case in question, there is no way to speak about using a formula. Take a look at Rounds 22 and 21 in this pond. What kind of formula would you have to have to find out that nauars was going to bet 865? Those two simply cheat. Nauars tells tenuki what she is going to bet and tenuki gains an unfair advantage. It's as clear as anything can be.

I am not going to spend one more bit of my time on a site where cheating is not only allowed, but also supported and promoted, where the User Agreement is not enforced, and where the management seems not to give an excrement about the proper working of all kinds of games on this site.

pedestrian: This is a private joke between Pedro and me. Don't take me too seriously.

Fencer: "Fine.  The problem is solved."

Personally, formulas for ponds maybe slightly help, so I don't really care if someone uses a formula or is in collusion with others. I have only began playing ponds this year, without any formula, and have won 17 of them in a very short time, and even achieved a # 1 ranking for a little bit. So, this shows me I can beat others no matter what they do.

Pedro Martínez: Fine. The problem is solved.

Fencer: You don't give a shit. OK. I'm out of here.

pedestrian: i dont know if you can call it a formula .. but personally i look back to the last 3 rounds .. i look at how much the average increases between those rounds and continue from that .. or i simple do 1.5 times the last difference

its quite easy to copy that and add 1 ...
i think the 'formula' used by other players is a bit more complicated .. but as said .. the goal of this game is to guess the formula used by your fellow players and use it to your advantage

pedestrian: That is what i said....only your explanation is much clearer

Bwild: @ "it seems highly unlikely that these 2(?) players can be 1 apart for so many turns."

Bwild: Sounds like "Yes, I am a loser and I cannot stand anyone else being successful" sort of whining to me. Well, if it makes you happy, carry on.

Everybody else: I don't take ponds as serious games and, honestly, I really don't care if people make some agreements while playing. Actually, I was thinking of making some improvements of the pond system and even started to work on it. However, I don't give it a shit now. You can thank Bwild and his ability to be such a nice person.

MadMonkey: seems the posting of the ponds in question is ample proof to me. not like Pedro just pulled these names out of a hat.

Vikings: "I'm just stating what Fencers stand has been"
and that,unfortunately, is nothing.
too busy spending eternity with this supposed bk3, and trolling for black rook money,imo.
it seems highly unlikely that these 2(?) players can be 1 apart for so many turns.
whats to stop the multi-nic abusers from over running us with boosting and cheating in prize tournies and other games if this stuff is just continually over looked?

Vikings: I know anything is hard to prove, BUT for someone to announce on the brainking main board:

Quote:

I would like to draw attention to two cheats
and
I want them to be banned from the site, banned from ponds or stripped of their BKRs and removed from rankings !

is totally out of order. Get the proof first .....

Rod is correct, Fencer has said in the past that because it is a multi-player game, that collusion is not necessarily cheating, he also has said that is would be almost impossible to prove, for example, there are people defending the possibility that these examples are not cheating, I find it ironic that out of the many claims in the past of cheating, the person that tends to stand up for the accused the most is Pedro,
Mad Monkey, if a formula is being used here, there is not enough information to figure it out,

Don't get me wrong Pedro, I agree with you, I'm just stating what Fencers stand has been

MadMonkey: This is why i do not play in ponds & also poker to

& i enjoy playing poker to until this page loading stuff because i still can' t get into.
I still have 1000 chips & can't find a game to use them in

rod03801:

Just looking again, notice in both Tournament Ponds that Pedro pointed out, the FIRST play (which he neglected to mention) were nothing like each other

Again shows me they (like myself, and probably 90% of others) wait to the next round and work there next play out from the average of the previous round

Also, I believe I remember at some point that Fencer may have said that "team play" in Ponds was not necessarily cheating?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure I remember it at least being part of a conversation. LOL

rabbitoid: lol Ed Trice...now there is a name from the past

No i am not thank God..... the one i used is just pure maths as long as you get through the first round.....

MadMonkey: Hey, I hope you're not a reincarnation of Ed Trice, he was going on about a magic formula a couple of years ago. when challenged to prove it he didn't do so good.

And by the way, the rating system in ponds is rubbish.

pedestrian:

Like i said i was told A formula by someone in the top 10 about 3 years ago and look how my Rating shot up ( GRAPH ).

OK, it has dipped mainly through time-outs and i do not play them these days very often, but if i wanted i could climb easily again.

I would say that nearly all the good players work to some sort of formula in the head when they look at the numbers......

formulas can be simple, or hard depending who devised it. I know the one i use is simple as anything

MadMonkey:  It does look very suspicious, but I think MadMonkey has a point. It is possible that nauars has a formula, and that tenuki simply guessed his formula and played 1 higher every time.

I just looked at Ratings and i know 2 people in the top 10 who use this formula (could be more of course, just ones i know) BUT neither are ones you mention. They may use a different formula

Pedro Martínez: All i can say on this matter, is they may well use the same formula to get through to the next round

I used to fall in Ponds (normal ones) all the time (ok, now i never play them as i do not like them) BUT i know there is a simple formula to help you do well in Ponds.

When i was told this method and i used it, i used to get through to the next round much easier, not a guaranteed win, but when i used it i was getting to the last few all the time.

Pedro Martínez: it has happened before in ponds (i think by some players from scandinavia ?)

i dont know if its cheating to form teams in ponds .. does it say anything about it in the pond rules ?

Pedro Martínez: well..thats not right,and I agree that something should be done. same thing happened on the texas hold'em tables...but nothing happened on top managements part.
they over look this little thing...then the next..it just snowballs.
frustrating when your trying hard to win fairly.

Pedro Martínez: of course there should be, but will there be???

Bernice: Well, of course it is possible. But whether they are or not, the evidence shows that they collude… and there should be consequences…

Pedro Martínez: is it possible that it is one and the same person?

paully: LOL!

Pedro Martínez: I think the chance of that happening by accident would be akin to the chance of Arthur Ashe winning this years US Open

I would like to draw attention to two cheats, namely tenuki and nauars.

If they happen to be in the same pond, tenuki's bet is almost always higher by 1 than the one of nauars. See this:
12. 12. ve 12 na 12 dnů a 12 hod
Round 21: tenuki 1152, nauars 1151
Round 20: tenuki 1000, nauars 1000 (Igra4ka: *999)
Round 19: tenuki 939, nauars 938
Round 18: tenuki 828, nauars 827
Round 17: tenuki 728, nauars 727
Round 16: tenuki 635, nauars 634
Round 15: tenuki 526, nauars 525
Round 14: tenuki 492, nauars 491
Round 13: tenuki 428, nauars 427
Round 12: tenuki 334, nauars 334 (fishbrain: *333)
Round 11: tenuki 315, nauars 314
Round 9: tenuki 227, nauars 226
Round 8: tenuki 153, nauars 153 (purplehawke: *152)
Round 7: tenuki 153, nauars 153 (purplehawke: *152)
Round 6: tenuki 121, nauars 121 (James T. Kirk: *120)
Round 5: tenuki 122, nauars 121
Round 3: tenuki 103, nauars 102
Round 2: tenuki 97, nauars 96

5. 5. v 5 na 5 dnů a 5 hod
Round 22: tenuki 866, nauars 865
Round 21: tenuki 866, nauars 865
Round 20: tenuki 9, nauars 9 (last person had 8 pts)
Round 19: tenuki 2032, nauars 2031
Round 18: tenuki 1619, nauars 1618
Round 17: tenuki 1439, nauars 1438
Round 16: tenuki 1248, nauars 1247
Round 15: tenuki 1103, nauars 1102
Round 14: tenuki 953, nauars 952
Round 13: tenuki 793, nauars 792
Round 12: tenuki 733, nauars 732
Round 11: tenuki 628, nauars 627
Round 9: tenuki 464, nauars 463
Round 8: tenuki 397, nauars 396
Round 7: tenuki 338, nauars 337
Round 6: tenuki 265, nauars 264
Round 4: tenuki 176, nauars 175
Round 2: tenuki 106, nauars 105

etc. etc.

I want them to be banned from the site, banned from ponds or stripped of their BKRs and removed from rankings!

rod03801: thanks Rod ive just done that

rod03801: Thanks rod Fencer will have to look into it

Come on. This is not a chat board.

Snoopy: BOOT me then

Snoopy: Now i sighed back in we are both there again

Snoopy: But is back now you sighed back in

Snoopy: you removed your self & it was still there then i removed my self & now it is gone

Fencer: I justed looked & i can't now

Fencer: or better still at least have a delete button so i can just erase it

i always thought that ppl on ppl's blocked list could not see tournaments created by that person

Fencer: I can Fencer

Fencer: its not a problem i shall just delete the tournament
but it might be worth adding that button saves alot of time

Snoopy: I think one POTENTIAL problem with that might be that the brains are deducted from your account when you sign up. Then if you are kicked out, they have to be added back in. Maybe that option isn't there because this sort of situation isn't "set up".

I suppose one solution, until something like that IS an option, would be to set it up as invitation only, and have a note in the description to send you a PM if someone wants to participate?

Of course I haven't set up a brain tourney in a long time. Maybe there isn't the option to make it private?

Just some thoughts.

Snoopy: Yes.
But it can be improved.
Nobody ever complained about it, though.

when creating a tournament with a brain entry fee
there isnt a button to remove unwanted players
is this how it is suppose to be?

Thanks alot Fencer for your great offer you have givin us this morning from me because i don't drink & from those that do Thanks again Filip

Snoopy: Big thanks for Brf & tenuki.