Cooperation game
Poll
 | 17 votes (34%) | ||
| | 12 votes (24%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2%) | ||
| | 5 votes (10%) | ||
| | 5 votes (10%) | ||
| | 6 votes (12%) | ||
| | 3 votes (6%) | ||
| | 7 votes (14%) | ||
| | 3 votes (6%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2%) |
50 members have voted
Quote: DocRS, Blount2000 and MrSuit31 appended
Name Bid #7 HunterHill High OnceDear High RonC High Total High 3 AxelWolf Low BeachBumBabs Low Bigfoot66 Low Blount2000 Low MrSuit31 Low RaleighCraps Low RS Low SooPoo Low Total Low 8 DJTeddyBear Undisclosed Doc Undisclosed Total Undisclosed 2 Total Not Declared 24?
I'm voting $1 😁.Quote: OnceDearQuote: DocRS, Blount2000 and MrSuit31 appended
Name Bid #7 HunterHill High OnceDear High RonC High Total High 3 AxelWolf Low BeachBumBabs Low Bigfoot66 Low Blount2000 Low MrSuit31 Low RaleighCraps Low RS Low SooPoo Low Total Low 8 DJTeddyBear Undisclosed Doc Undisclosed Total Undisclosed 2 Total Not Declared 24?
I'm voting $2 😁Quote: OnceDearQuote: DocRS, Blount2000 and MrSuit31 appended
Name Bid #7 HunterHill High OnceDear High RonC High Total High 3 AxelWolf Low BeachBumBabs Low Bigfoot66 Low Blount2000 Low MrSuit31 Low RaleighCraps Low RS Low SooPoo Low Total Low 8 DJTeddyBear Undisclosed Doc Undisclosed Total Undisclosed 2 Total Not Declared 24?
Quote: onenickelmiracleI'm voting $1 😁.
I'm voting $2 😁
So
| Name | Bid #7 |
|---|---|
| HunterHill | High |
| OnceDear | High |
| RonC | High |
| Total High | 3 |
| AxelWolf | Low |
| BeachBumBabs | Low |
| Bigfoot66 | Low |
| Blount2000 | Low |
| MrSuit31 | Low |
| RaleighCraps | Low |
| RS | Low |
| SooPoo | Low |
| Total Low | 8 |
| DJTeddyBear | Undisclosed |
| Doc | Undisclosed |
| OneNicleMiracle | Undisclosed |
| Total Undisclosed | 3 |
| Total Not Declared | 23? |
| Name | Bid #7 |
|---|---|
| HunterHill | High |
| OnceDear | High |
| RonC | High |
| Total High | 3 |
| AxelWolf | Low |
| BeachBumBabs | Low |
| Bigfoot66 | Low |
| Blount2000 | Low |
| MrSuit31 | Low |
| RaleighCraps | Low |
| RS | Low |
| SooPoo | Low |
| Total Low | 8 |
| DJTeddyBear | Undisclosed |
| Doc | Undisclosed |
| OneNicleMiracle | Undisclosed |
| CharliePatrick | Undisclosed |
| Total Undisclosed | 4 |
| Total Not Declared | 22? |
Quote: AyecarumbaThink twice about reserving a "high" spot for the final. You may end up with nothing unless you are willing to split with the low bidders.
No problem at all! I feel bad for Mike and don't want to see him bankrupt. I don't see myself 'reserving' a high spot, as I could make my selection at any time. I see myself as 'announcing' it, giving information to others that can choose to use or not use.
As I stated earlier, if enough money was involved that the money mattered, the team concept would have made sense to me. For the dollar or two per round we are discussing, it just doesn't.
Since the money is meaningless that's all the more reason to play nice and bid accordingly. And since it is an insignificant amount you could've chose not to participate.Quote: SOOPOONo problem at all! I feel bad for Mike and don't want to see him bankrupt. I don't see myself 'reserving' a high spot, as I could make my selection at any time. I see myself as 'announcing' it, giving information to others that can choose to use or not use.
As I stated earlier, if enough money was involved that the money mattered, the team concept would have made sense to me. For the dollar or two per round we are discussing, it just doesn't.
The experiment was to see if people could cooperate why join knowing you weren't going to cooperate?
Getting close to Maximum ev and splitting everything should've been our goal. Since we had a few unknown players it was your (and other known members)responsibility to help give us a buffer so we could get close.
However, I am appreciative of the humble souls that pick $1 each round that allow me to get rich.
Big Thanks!
PM NOT sent. I may feel different once I've had my coffee.
What day is this?
Quote: AxelWolfSince the money is meaningless that's all the more reason to play nice and bid accordingly. And since it is an insignificant amount you could've chose not to participate.
The experiment was to see if people could cooperate why join knowing you weren't going to cooperate?
Getting close to Maximum ev and splitting everything should've been our goal. Since we had a few unknown players it was your (and other known members)responsibility to help give us a buffer so we could get close.
Ummmm.... really? If we all bid the minimum each time how BORING this would be! The same if we were a well oiled machine and had 19 high bids and 21 low bids each round. If that were the case would anyone even be reading this? To me, the goal of anything I do on WoV is to keep me interested. I can assure you me picking $1 each round with no discussion would not accomplish my goal.
I choose to look at it not so much as others getting more because of my decisions, but rather as me getting $1 that I did not previously have. Does it bother me? Not really, especially at these amounts.Quote: WizardI think this game has been truly saved by the 31.6% of players who have gone low every time. This was something I would have never predicted. If I were one of them, I might feel taken advantage of by the four players going high ever time. I might be tempted to go high to teach them a lesson as opposed to enabling them.
Let's hear it from you 12 "always low" players. Why do you keep doing it?
Now, if you were to raise the stakes for Round 8 to, say a choice of $1 or $1,000, I might reconsider...
I think Wiz just said that a pack (or more properly, a "troop" or "shrewdness" **) of apes could play the game better than us!Quote:When an ape in a pack of apes steps out of line, he gets ostracized by the rest. Same is true of lots of animals that form small societies. It could be argued you are doing a disservice to society by enabling those who consistently go high.
I'll be voting $1 for Round 7.
| Name | Bid #7 |
|---|---|
| HunterHill | High |
| OnceDear | High |
| RonC | High |
| 2F (pending caffeine) | High |
| Total High | 4 |
| AxelWolf | Low |
| BeachBumBabs | Low |
| Bigfoot66 | Low |
| Blount2000 | Low |
| MrSuit31 | Low |
| RaleighCraps | Low |
| RS | Low |
| SooPoo | Low |
| Joeman | Low |
| Total Low | 9 |
| DJTeddyBear | Undisclosed |
| Doc | Undisclosed |
| OneNicleMiracle | Undisclosed |
| CharliePatrick | Undisclosed |
| Total Undisclosed | 4 |
| Total Not Declared | 20? |
And Romes turns that into a small fortune,
We should give half to some good charity in Wizard's name (tax deduction),
And squander the other half on Hookers & Blow!
You know, since we are thoughtful and responsible upstanding citizens and all......
I think the table looks something like this:Quote: WizardofnothingI have not announced any picks but I will be picking the high one for the last round
(INCLUDING my LOW pick for this round)
| Name | Bid #7 |
|---|---|
| HunterHill | High |
| OnceDear | High |
| RonC | High |
| 2F (pending caffeine) | High |
| Wizardofnothing | High |
| Total High | 5 |
| AxelWolf | Low |
| BeachBumBabs | Low |
| Bigfoot66 | Low |
| Blount2000 | Low |
| MrSuit31 | Low |
| RaleighCraps | Low |
| RS | Low |
| SooPoo | Low |
| Joeman | Low |
| Romes | Low |
| Total Low | 10 |
| DJTeddyBear | Undisclosed |
| Doc | Undisclosed |
| OneNicleMiracle | Undisclosed |
| CharliePatrick | Undisclosed |
| Total Undisclosed | 4 |
| Total Not Declared | 20? |
I love how obviously Mike is attempting to get us to "teach the high betters a lesson" by screwing everyone over =P.
Keep up the low bids. HOOKERS AND BLOW FOR ALL, 2016!
Ya gotta fix that.Quote: RomesI think the table looks something like this:
DJTeddyBear Undisclosed
I previously declared that although I started by bidding low, I will bid high for the remainder of the game.
I'd like to remind everyone that this is a game. It's not life or death. The cooperation level goes down while the entertainment level goes up.
Just like you shouldn't gamble with your bill paying money, you should consider gambling ad part of your entertainment expenses.
This isn't a game like Survivor, where there's a million dollar prize. You've got to play this game as a game. We're only talking about a couple of bucks. Have fun with it.
I hope Mike has found this game, and discussion, as entertaining as I have.
Quote: DJTeddyBearYa gotta fix that.Quote: RomesI think the table looks something like this:
DJTeddyBear Undisclosed
I previously declared that although I started by bidding low, I will bid high for the remainder of the game.
I'll take the blame for that, since I edited the table to add your name under "undisclosed," along with my own. I had seen your recent post saying you had submitted a pick but did not say right there what it was.
I am posting from my phone and doubt I could edit the table properly on this, so I ask that someone else make the edit that DJTB requested.
| Name | Bid #7 |
|---|---|
| HunterHill | High |
| OnceDear | High |
| RonC | High |
| 2F (pending caffeine) | High |
| Wizardofnothing | High |
| Total High | 5 |
| AxelWolf | Low |
| BeachBumBabs | Low |
| Bigfoot66 | Low |
| Blount2000 | Low |
| MrSuit31 | Low |
| RaleighCraps | Low |
| RS | Low |
| SooPoo | Low |
| Joeman | Low |
| Romes | Low |
| Paradigm | Low |
| Total Low | 11 |
| DJTeddyBear | Undisclosed |
| Doc | Undisclosed |
| OneNicleMiracle | Undisclosed |
| CharliePatrick | Undisclosed |
| Total Undisclosed | 4 |
| Total Not Declared | 19? |
The entertainment value is in the group parlay after the Cooperation period ends...there will be lots to discuss as those details unfold.
Exactly. People are like "I'm hiding my vote because it's entertaining!" but really it's not a game where we compete with one another... so where's the entertainment? By going "against" the group you literally can only hurt the outcome... and if you find entertainment in that, well, then you're mean and we don't like you. =PQuote: Paradigm...The entertainment value is in the group parlay after the Cooperation period ends...there will be lots to discuss as those details unfold.
I also updated the table per DJ's open text stating he was going to bid high the remainder of the game:
| Name | Bid #7 |
|---|---|
| HunterHill | High |
| OnceDear | High |
| RonC | High |
| 2F (pending caffeine) | High |
| Wizardofnothing | High |
| DJTeddyBear | High |
| Total High | 6 |
| AxelWolf | Low |
| BeachBumBabs | Low |
| Bigfoot66 | Low |
| Blount2000 | Low |
| MrSuit31 | Low |
| RaleighCraps | Low |
| RS | Low |
| SooPoo | Low |
| Joeman | Low |
| Romes | Low |
| Paradigm | Low |
| Total Low | 11 |
| Doc | Undisclosed |
| OneNicleMiracle | Undisclosed |
| CharliePatrick | Undisclosed |
| Total Undisclosed | 3 |
| Total Not Declared | 19? |
Also, if we win this round, think of how much Mike will have to "juice" the last round up to try to get us to fail ;-).
I'm not disclosing any of my picks but for the last round
All the same. Non-disclosed picks should be treated as High anyways.Quote: WizardofnothingI said I would bid high in the last round - not this round
I'm not disclosing any of my picks but for the last round
The table should look like this (I took non-disclosed and added them to high with an *):
| Name | Bid #7 |
|---|---|
| HunterHill | High |
| OnceDear | High |
| RonC | High |
| 2F (pending caffeine) | High |
| DJTeddyBear | High |
| Wizardofnothing | High* |
| Doc | High* |
| OneNicleMiracle | High* |
| CharliePatrick | High* |
| Total High | 9 |
| AxelWolf | Low |
| BeachBumBabs | Low |
| Bigfoot66 | Low |
| Blount2000 | Low |
| MrSuit31 | Low |
| RaleighCraps | Low |
| RS | Low |
| SooPoo | Low |
| Joeman | Low |
| Romes | Low |
| Paradigm | Low |
| Total Low | 11 |
| Total Undisclosed | 0 |
| Total Not Declared | 19? |
I still don't get the "entertainment" value of not sharing your pick. If we lose, the group will blame you. If we win, the group could have gotten more money had you just properly disclosed. Either way you're hurting the group... but perhaps that's your entertainment? Good to know who they are then! lol
Quote: RomesAll the same. Non-disclosed picks should be treated as High anyways.
The table should look like this (I took non-disclosed and added them to high with an *):
Sorry, Romes. I strongly disagree. You have taken information out of the table.
If I can suggest a compromise presentation...
| Name | Bid #7 |
|---|---|
| HunterHill | High |
| OnceDear | High |
| RonC | High |
| 2F (pending caffeine) | High |
| DJTeddyBear | High |
| Total High | 5 |
| Doc | Undisclosed |
| OneNicleMiracle | Undisclosed |
| CharliePatrick | Undisclosed |
| Wizardofnothing | Undisclosed |
| Total Undisclosed | 4 |
| Total High or Undisclosed | 9 |
| AxelWolf | Low |
| BeachBumBabs | Low |
| Bigfoot66 | Low |
| Blount2000 | Low |
| MrSuit31 | Low |
| RaleighCraps | Low |
| RS | Low |
| SooPoo | Low |
| Joeman | Low |
| Romes | Low |
| Paradigm | Low |
| Total Low | 11 |
| Total Not Declared | 17? |
Of course, I don't.Quote: RomesThat's fine if you want to keep it separated... but personally any undisclosed pick I believe should be counted as High. Clearly you can't trust the undisclosed group to split high/low evenly, so to assume 50/50 would be silly.
Why? No seriously. Why? Your insistence of zero variance puzzles me.Quote:Plan for the worst, hope for the best. We need to do what gives the overall group the best shot at winning, which again is to assume all undisclosed pics are high.
Zero variance is pretty much an AP's best friend. Instead of squabbling over a few extra dollars, why not take the sure thing? In the end none of us are making any kind of actual money from this, so the entertaining thing to do would be to parlay it at a chance for real money, and to do something this forums is kind of founded on... gambling.Quote: OnceDearOf course, I don't.Why? No seriously. Why? Your insistence of zero variance puzzles me.
If this were a life or death situation, would you not assume the undisclosed votes were high then, to ensure your life is spared? I'm not treating this like life and death, only treating it like a sure win is the best win (since a loss means ZERO).
Example: You're trapped by a psychopath and forced to choose either High or Low. If more highs than lows, everyone dies. If more lows than highs, everybody lives. If everyone lives and you bid High, you get a million bucks too. Now CLEARLY the best strategy would be to talk it over and make sure everyone is saying High... you know, to LIVE. What would you do if 4-5 members of the group all said they weren't going to share their vote? Would you gamble on your life? Or would you take the sure thing and make sure you had 50%+ low votes?
I will also bid "high" in the next round.
Quote: RomesZero variance is pretty much an AP's best friend. Instead of squabbling over a few extra dollars, why not take the sure thing? In the end none of us are making any kind of actual money from this, so the entertaining thing to do would be to parlay it at a chance for real money, and to do something this forums is kind of founded on... gambling.
If this were a life or death situation, would you not assume the undisclosed votes were high then, to ensure your life is spared? I'm not treating this like life and death, only treating it like a sure win is the best win (since a loss means ZERO).
Example: You're trapped by a psychopath and forced to choose either High or Low. If more highs than lows, everyone dies. If more lows than highs, everybody lives. If everyone lives and you bid High, you get a million bucks too. Now CLEARLY the best strategy would be to talk it over and make sure everyone is saying High... you know, to LIVE. What would you do if 4-5 members of the group all said they weren't going to share their vote? Would you gamble on your life? Or would you take the sure thing and make sure you had 50%+ low votes?
Your logic escapes me. Aspire for the zero variance, then embrace the variance on one jh1t or bust parlay?
I choose where to place my bid with reference to my perception of the probabilities AND on the pay table. If my life or a million dollars was the stake, I MIGHT consider playing differently.
As I see it
Probability of losing =0
Probability of winning $1 is a bit more than 0
Probability of winning $HighAmount is a different number that's also a bit more than 0
The only certain requirement is to take part.
Quote: ParadigmUpdated with my Low vote for Round #7...I will keep voting Low unless the group fails another round.
Name Bid #7 HunterHill High OnceDear High RonC High 2F (pending caffeine) High Wizardofnothing High Total High 5 AxelWolf Low BeachBumBabs Low Bigfoot66 Low Blount2000 Low MrSuit31 Low RaleighCraps Low RS Low SooPoo Low Joeman Low Romes Low Paradigm Low Total Low 11 DJTeddyBear Undisclosed Doc Undisclosed OneNicleMiracle Undisclosed CharliePatrick Undisclosed Total Undisclosed 4 Total Not Declared 19?
The entertainment value is in the group parlay after the Cooperation period ends...there will be lots to discuss as those details unfold.
this parlay thread is going to cause a lot of arguments and approx 2 suspensions.
As I see it, the wheels on the Gravy Train fall off in Round 8 when the Wizard makes the choice, between $1 and $10 or $25 or $100. Look at all the folks who are pre-announcing they are going high in last round.
But we CAN be 100% certain of a win... each and every single round.Quote: OnceDearYour logic escapes me. Aspire for the zero variance, then embrace the variance on one jh1t or bust parlay?
I choose where to place my bid with reference to my perception of the probabilities AND on the pay table. If my life or a million dollars was the stake, I MIGHT consider playing differently.
As I see it
Probability of losing =0
Probability of winning $1 is a bit more than 0
Probability of winning $HighAmount is a different number that's also a bit more than 0
The only certain requirement is to take part.
The whole point of gathering funds for the parlay (high variance) is fun. It's a fun thing we can all do together in the likeness of the site itself, which is about gambling. I think of it like a meetup, where we all can gather for one like minded cause and have fun with something we clearly all participate in. The reason for the high variance there and not here is here no one is going to win any kind of big money anyways. The game itself isn't supposed to win big money for the players. It's a psychological test to see if the Wiz can get enough people to be greedy and betray the group. That said, since we're not going to win any big money off the game, why not take the 0 variance chance to pool together enough money that we COULD actually win some good money on a parlay, which would be a total FREEROLL to us, hence we want variance there.
Quote: DocBTW, has anyone done an analysis of the previous round's declared and undeclared picks vs. the outcome? Is it possible to determine whether there were liars? Is it possible to determine whether there was a net lie, as in too many low or too many high picks in the outcome? Is it possible to determine what the "undisclosed" picks were in total (not by individual)?
Quote: OnceDearQuote: Romes
Name Bid #6 AxelWolf High Ayecarumba High Bigfoot66 High Canyonero High DJTeddyBear High GamerFreak High GWAE High PlayYourCardsRight High RonC High Torghatten High TwoFeathersATL High BeachBumBabs Low Blount2000 Low Dalex64 Low DoughTaker Low Hunterhill Low IndyJeffrey Low Miplet Low MrSuit31 Low OnceDear Low Paradigm Low RaleighCraps Low SooPoo Low Joeman Low Romes Low RudeBoyoi Low Boz Not Yet Declared HeyMrDJ Not Yet Declared MrGoldenSun Not Yet Declared OdiousGambit Not Yet Declared RS Not Yet Declared TomG Not Yet Declared Wizardofnothing Not Yet Declared Wudged Not Yet Declared CharliePatrick Undisclosed Doc Undisclosed Joeshlabotnik Undisclosed Onenickelmiracle Undisclosed BeerSeason Eliminated Round #1 Gordon888 Eliminated JyBrd0403 Eliminated Jml24 Eliminated MathExtremist Eliminated Round #1 Mission146 Eliminated Paigowdan Eliminated PeeMcGee Eliminated TheorieMeister Eliminated
So Tally up at this point which falls after the deadline for PM to Wizard is...
11 High
15 Low
4 Declined to say
8 Others did not say
Quote: WizardSorry for the tardy posting of the round 6 results. Here they are.
Pick Count Percent $1 23 67.6% $2 11 32.4% Total 34 100.0%
A very unselfish round. I'm impressed by the lack of greed of most of the group. Still, as a group, you left a bit on money on the table this time.
Of the 38 players in the game, here are some details on their record:
Low every time: 12
Mixture: 22
High every time: 4
34 bids in the last round of 38 total players.
Assume: The 4 folks who did not bid also did not declare.
From the last tally:
11 High - Same as the "actual"... unless there were an equal number of liars/undisclosed switching.
15 Low - Since 12 have been low every time, there are three from the "mixed" bag in here.
4 Declined to say
4 Others did not say
- Did everyone who "declined" and "did not say" actually go low? The totals seem to indicate so, as there were 15 declared lows and 23 actual, so the 8 that were unknown probably all went low.
Can we assume that those who "Declined to say" or "did not say" will always go low?
Quote: Ayecarumba
34 bids in the last round of 38 total players.
Assume: The 4 folks who did not bid also did not declare.
From the last tally:
11 High - Same as the "actual"... unless there were an equal number of liars/undisclosed switching.
15 Low - Since 12 have been low every time, there are three from the "mixed" bag in here.
4 Declined to say
4 Others did not say
- Did everyone who "declined" and "did not say" actually go low? The totals seem to indicate so, as there were 15 declared lows and 23 actual, so the 8 that were unknown probably all went low.
Can we assume that those who "Declined to say" or "did not say" will always go low?
You assume too much.
I have it on good authority that at least one player declared but did not bid as declared.
Quote: RomesI love how obviously Mike is attempting to get us to "teach the high betters a lesson" by screwing everyone over =P.
But don't you think I'm right? This game has 12 people who have gone low every time. I would compare this to people who give able-bodied panhandlers money. You're just enabling them. It should be worth losing $1 for the lesson you'll teach to the greedy players who always or almost always go high.
As I said before, in a society sometimes you have to teach those who take more than their share a lesson.
Nope.Quote: WizardBut don't you think I'm right?
Nope.Quote:It should be worth losing $1 for the lesson you'll teach to the greedy players who always or almost always go high.
Quote:As I said before, in a society sometimes you have to teach those who take more than their share a lesson.
Nope. We Don't HAVE TO. We might choose to or we might choose not to. In the former case we all lose as you win, but in the latter case you might lose,
Do we choose to do what makes US sad, or what makes YOU sad? Obvious which you would prefer.
How much is 'more than their share'?
Surely their share is that which they are given, which is either the amount that they request or zero.
Those were the rules and ALL players have played by the rules.
Try your mind games Wizard: Methinks you will have to seriously widen the high-low range before we crack.
But of course, a Higher potential payout might ENCOURAGE us to play to beat you..
Quote: OnceDearThose were the rules and ALL players have played by the rules...
I don't argue that. I'm just stating an opinion, which I think I'm entitled to do.
Quote: WizardBut don't you think I'm right? This game has 12 people who have gone low every time. I would compare this to people who give able-bodied panhandlers money. You're just enabling them. It should be worth losing $1 for the lesson you'll teach to the greedy players who always or almost always go high.
So the next time you see an able-bodied panhandler, just take all of the cash in your wallet and set it on fire right in front of him. That'll show the lazy SOB not to try to take advantage of you!
Quote: Ayecarumba
34 bids in the last round of 38 total players.
Assume: The 4 folks who did not bid also did not declare.
From the last tally:
11 High - Same as the "actual"... unless there were an equal number of liars/undisclosed switching.
15 Low - Since 12 have been low every time, there are three from the "mixed" bag in here.
4 Declined to say
4 Others did not say
- Did everyone who "declined" and "did not say" actually go low? The totals seem to indicate so, as there were 15 declared lows and 23 actual, so the 8 that were unknown probably all went low.
Now that's the kind of analysis I wanted to see. Yes, of course, someone could have declared "low" but really picked "high" while someone else declared "high" while really picking "low", or some variation of that. But overall you can see the result that the probable tendency was for those who did not declare to really be picking "low." At least on that round.
That sure raises questions about Romes's assertion that you have to assume a "high" pick from anyone who doesn't announce their pick.
Quote: DocSo the next time you see an able-bodied panhandler, just take all of the cash in your wallet and set it on fire right in front of him. That'll show the lazy SOB not to try to take advantage of you.
I don't think that is an apt comparison. Here is a better one. Let's say a panhandler works eight hours and makes $200 from begging. It would be worth $1 to me for that $200 to catch on fire so that he might instead get a job can contribute something to society.
Quote: Doc<snip>That sure raises questions about Romes's assertion that you have to assume a "high" pick from anyone who doesn't announce their pick.<snip>
I see that point, but I think all bets are off on the next round IF the amount of money is significantly different.
Quote: DocSo the next time you see an able-bodied panhandler, just take all of the cash in your wallet and set it on fire right in front of him. That'll show the lazy SOB not to try to take advantage of you!
Lol. That'll sure teach him a lesson.
We can walk away with a little sum easily, thanks to The Wizard.
We can throw caution to the wind (or use Romes or even Team Axel) to go for the gold.
Real gold. Like coins. Do you know what gold coins sound like when you pick up a stack of them and drop them slowly on top of each other on the bed. I'm sure it is a magical sound, but I've never heard it. Not yet....
Pick with your conscience, join a team, or come hang out with me in the greedy bastards club ;-)
Yes, the coffee and Meth kicked in and I know what day it is, Thursday. Still feeling like a greedy bastard.
Also, once again dear, effed up the recycling truck p/u. 'Cause it's a holiday week they don't come till tomorrow. So the Princesses/walkers/joggers/soccer moms in our little enclave get another 24 hours to point at my tree fiddy pile of empty PBR cans and smugly comment to each other. Sparkles gonna be mad at me, again...
Quote: WizardHere is a better one. Let's say a panhandler works eight hours and makes $200 from begging. It would be worth $1 to me for that $200 to catch on fire so that he might instead get a job can contribute something to society.
Wizard, This is a maths orientated foreum :o) You are fudging the maths to make your case.
If we chuck in assorted bids, as we have been doing so successfully, then the value to us is more than $1. If the bid range is wide ( say $200 ), then the average value to us could be much more than $1. That's what we jeopardize, just to teach just 4 weasels a lesson which won't actually cost them anything more than a bit of lost opportunity.
The means by which we have beaten you 5 times out of 6 have been somewhat shambolic and even lucky, but our collective judgement has been pretty sound.
I'll have to do the maths to figure what percentage of optimum we have achieved, but I reckon it was pretty high. More than high enough to make us feel collectively smug and to make you feel threatened (in a small way).
You have to admit you are scratching your head as to how to persuade us to gang up on ourselves and lose the last round.
Roll on the mind games for round 8
Quote: TwoFeathersATL'Cause it's a holiday week they don't come till tomorrow. So the Princesses/walkers/joggers/soccer moms in our little enclave get another 24 hours to point at my tree fiddy pile of empty PBR cans and smugly comment to each other. Sparkles gonna be mad at me, again...
Damn, that explains why they have yet to pick up my trash.
I disagree. I've NEVER given a pan handler money, yet I'm one of the 12 that has bid "low" every single round. It would appear this conflicts with your data/analysis/conclusion.Quote: WizardBut don't you think I'm right? This game has 12 people who have gone low every time. I would compare this to people who give able-bodied panhandlers money. You're just enabling them. It should be worth losing $1 for the lesson you'll teach to the greedy players who always or almost always go high.
As I said before, in a society sometimes you have to teach those who take more than their share a lesson.
There will also be a way to not allow them to be greedy... At the end of this, "most" want to participate in a parlay pool. So either the "selfish people" get paid out their ~$5-$10 (woo hoo good for you) or they want to opt in to the pool. The only ways they can do that are:
1) Since this will greatly help Mike, we can get a public forum agreement to donate the money to our parlay pool and Mike could group all our money and send it to one person (or make the parlay bet himself if he'd be so kind to take the head on that).
2) Mike refuses to have any kind of public agreement/etc. In this case he will have to PayPal out (or whatever) to all 39 people their ~$5-$10. Then, anyone wishing to participate in the parlay pool will have to PayPal/etc their money to one person who can then CONFIRM who did/didn't send money.
This way no greedy bastards will collect their $5 then attempt to also collect on OUR parlay pool. They can be all smug and happy with their $5 and not be invited to play with us at the sleepover. #SoWorthIt
lol... just lol. I'm still laughing at the thought of doing this and the analogy to this thread. +1Quote: DocSo the next time you see an able-bodied panhandler, just take all of the cash in your wallet and set it on fire right in front of him. That'll show the lazy SOB not to try to take advantage of you!...
Round 8
Hypothesis: there is a value (spread?) where the majority will pick high even though it will cause all to lose
In the next round the Wizard will offer $1 and $X. If X=2, perhaps most will select low, thinking a win with someone else getting double is worth it; If $X=1000000 the thought that someone gets a million times when they are only getting one it too tough to swallow, even for the most die hard low players, which will cause most to pick high and all to get zero
The question, what is the value of X which will guarantee a loss?
Of course, with collusion, agreements to pool and share winnings, and a dash of trust, the group could make a whole lot of dough -- not only is X unknown, but so is our trust in each other.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLWhat day is this?
I see we are stricken with the same condition.
Today is Sthatumnday (pronounced THOUGHT-um-DAY). I made it myself. It consists of all the time that is not Shabbas. Shabbas you want to pay attention to, as it's the time that makes life worth living and must be kept sacred. All the rest of life's bullspit you wait to handle on Sthatumnday.
Today, unfortunately, is still Sthatumnday. Get back to work.
Quote: GWAE
this parlay thread is going to cause a lot of arguments and approx 2 suspensions.
ZERO suspensions. That's a lock with this roster.
Quote: IndyJeffrey... -- not only is X unknown, but so is our trust in each other.
There is a workaround for this problem brewing in the "Round 8" thread. It does require folks to agree and abide by an equal split for the finale.
I knew earlier, then I started drinking, and now I've forgotten, again ;-)
Put me down for $100 in round #8.
Depending on the situation if on the last round or whenever there is a big spread and people allready declaring high without a plan or team sharing. I will bid high and encourage others to do so I might even offer some incentive.
Yes I would rather we all get zero than let a few stubborn and non cooperative people pick up a bonus from the good guys.
So if you plan on bidding high then plan on getting absolutely nothing. On the big round that is.
Well then. It would appear we have a choice to make.Quote: AxelWolfRomes I don't mind the guaranteed money on small spreads. But not on something like 1-25...
IF the last round is a "high spread" and no one wants to participate. I say we make a "We are bidding high" team. You see, we would get 19 people, and GUARANTEE that we are all bidding high (openly). Then, it's up to you guys. Take a guaranteed loss, or bid low and split the winnings with us.
Looks like you're gonna have to become a fan of 0 variance if you want to win anything after all...
I like it! I'm declaring I will vote high for Round 8 and agree to split any winnings evenly with the group.Quote: RomesWell then. It would appear we have a choice to make.
IF the last round is a "high spread" and no one wants to participate. I say we make a "We are bidding high" team. You see, we would get 19 people, and GUARANTEE that we are all bidding high (openly). Then, it's up to you guys. Take a guaranteed loss, or bid low and split the winnings with us.
Looks like you're gonna have to become a fan of 0 variance if you want to win anything after all...
Quote: JoemanI like it! I'm declaring I will vote high for Round 8 and agree to split any winnings evenly with the group.
I will pick high.
I have picked high in all but one round.
I will participate in a parlay, split, or donation.
Quote: OnceDearI'll have to do the maths to figure what percentage of optimum we have achieved, but I reckon it was pretty high. . . .
| #1, High=$2 | #2, High=$2 | #3, High=$3 | #4, High=$3 | #5, High=$4 | #6, High=$2 | So Far | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pick | Count #1 | Count #2 | Count #3 | Count #4 | Count #5 | Count #6 | ||
| Low | 22 | 24 | 16 | 24 | 19 | 23 | ||
| High | 11 | 10 | 20 | 13 | 17 | 11 | ||
| Players | 33 | 34 | 36 | 37 | 36 | 34 | ||
| Potential Distributed Winnings | 17+16x2 =49 | 18+16x2 =50 | 19+17x3 =70 | 19+18x3 =73 | 19+17x4 =87 | 18+16x2 =50 | 49+50+70+73+87+50 =$379 | |
| Actual Distributed Winnings | 22x1+11x2 =44 | 24+10x2 =44 | 0 | 24+3x13 =63 | 19+17x4 =87 | 23+2x11 =45 | 44+44+0+63+87+45 =$283 | |
| Efficiency | 44/49 = 89.8% | 44/50 = 88.0% | 0.0% | 63/73 = 86.3% | 87*87 = 100.0% | 45/50 = 90.0% | 283/379 = 74.7% |
I'm still checking the above so E & OE
