Cooperation Game Round 8- The Finale
Poll
 | 9 votes (60%) | ||
| | 1 vote (6.66%) | ||
| | 2 votes (13.33%) | ||
| | 1 vote (6.66%) | ||
| | 2 votes (13.33%) |
15 members have voted
The Wizard has hinted that the final round of the Cooperation Game will include a larger prize than the previous rounds. With a "Major Award" in mind, I am sure players would like to guarantee a win... even if it is just for this one round. My question for the poll and discussion is, "Would you be willing to enter into an "Iron Clad" group agreement to bid a certain way in exchange for an even split of the group's win from Round #8?"
"Iron Clad" means providing "Proof of bid" to the other members of the group, and, if assigned a high bid, agreeing to send the appropriate proceeds to a group member or two who were assigned a low bid (once the funds become available).
It's a Major Award!
If we do win the Leg Lamp, who gets it? Does everyone on the team get 1 week with it? ;) Maybe the Major Award will be a Red Ryder BB gun instead!
If I don't appear, I'll estimate what is +EV and do that anonymously
So what's the point?
I'm sure there is a way. Anyone faking it would just be screwing themselves because then we probably wouldn't win anything. I assume there's only a few people that would be dickish enough to do something like that.Quote: DJTeddyBearIt has already been demonstrated that "proof" can be faked.
So what's the point?
I guess there are people who just want to mess everything up just for kicks.
That would be the goal, an exact maximum split, with the added caveat that all group participants would split the group win from round 8. Players who already committed to sharing the other rounds would be free to do so with their group share from Round 8, while those who did not make prior commitments would be free to do whatever they wanted to (with their group share). The bottom line is that every group member would get a share in exchange for a commitment to place a bid in the interest of maximizing the win for the entire group. The other option is a pretty good shot at zero.Quote: JoeshlabotnikIf we could achieve that level of mutual trust, we would have all simply agreed to replicate our bids from the near-perfect round 5.
Players are already staking claims to high positions in Round 8 in the main game thread. That doesn't stop them from locking in a win (albeit for a reduced amount) by joining the group. However, if everyone doesn't commit to the group, we may as well all take our chances and probably invoke the "Whammy".
Quote: AyecarumbaThat would be the goal, an exact maximum split, with the added caveat that all group participants would split the group win from round 8. Players who already committed to sharing the other rounds would be free to do so with their group share from Round 8, while those who did not make prior commitments would be free to do whatever they wanted to (with their group share). The bottom line is that every group member would get a share in exchange for a commitment to place a bid in the interest of maximizing the win for the entire group. The other option is a pretty good shot at zero.
Players are already staking claims to high positions in Round 8 in the main game thread. That doesn't stop them from locking in a win (albeit for a reduced amount) by joining the group. However, if everyone doesn't commit to the group, we may as well all take our chances and probably invoke the "Whammy".
Big win, no whammy, no whammy, no whammy....
Quote: beachbumbabsI would join the group, but I don't see how, without a large majority of the players, the group can afford to do anything other than bid low. Anyone who doesn't join the group has likely decided to bid high, as a pool would mean they would receive less.than the high amount. Maybe I'm missing something.
Please vote Yes then. It is non-binding for now. If can get everyone on board, then it would be worth the work. It would not be worth it to get a group together and have everyone go low anyway.
Perhaps round 8 will be time to punish the selfish. $1 Lives Matter....
Quote: SOOPOOMike.... are you allowed to change the ratio needed to win? For example..... can you say "In round 8, I am putting $535 at risk. Players will select either $100 or $1. If 5 or fewer players select $100 then everyone wins what they select. If 6 or more players select $100 then everyone gets zero." Or are you required to always have the pay/not pay point at 50%?
Good Lord, man; don't put ideas in his head! Lol...
Quote: beachbumbabsGood Lord, man; don't put ideas in his head! Lol...
I had mentioned this in a post in the other thread, I do feel that is what is coming.
However, You guys do realize that I tried to get this together for about three weeks at the beginning of this. We had 15 people, then people started going in and out every day. This thing is going to be very hard to manage. You know ill be bidding low and am happy to pool. I'm simply going to assume that ill be stuck with $1 or zero at the end of the final round regardless. But ill vote yes.
Quote: SOOPOOMike.... are you allowed to change the ratio needed to win?
I promise I won't do that.
Quote: mrsuit31I had mentioned this in a post in the other thread, I do feel that is what is coming.
However, You guys do realize that I tried to get this together for about three weeks at the beginning of this. We had 15 people, then people started going in and out every day. This thing is going to be very hard to manage. You know ill be bidding low and am happy to pool. I'm simply going to assume that ill be stuck with $1 or zero at the end of the final round regardless. But ill vote yes.
Yes, I remember, Sir Cat Herder. Thanks for the effort. No good deed goes unpunished.
Quote: doughtakerI'd certainly be in for the pooling. But I think the only chance that this plan actually works is the "Team Low goes High" method proposed in the main thread, which would provide a bloc of enforcers that leave little wiggle room for people who don't want be part of the pooling group.
Dammit!
That's playing right into Wizard's hands. Only Mike knows what he will set the bidding spread as for round 8 and he might decide some novel twist to it.
Wizard is on the ropes!!!
Wizard is trying to set us against ourselves. He's having too much success.
But his best chance of paying out ZERO is to actually put a lot of money at stake and depend heavily on dissent among the members. We've seen how keen he is to support 'social justice' and 'punishing the greedy' and some high profile members have taken the bait.
There's not a snowball's chance in hell that a committed coherent team can be formed. There's even less chance that the few who have bid consistently high are going to be particularly distressed or shamed into bidding low.
If the bid spread is high, there IS sufficient cooperation to beat Mike, The cooperative could even get in a decent number of high bids. but all this nonsense about 'punishing' the weasels is absurdly -EV.
Collective Objective #1 must be. BEAT THE WIZARD
Collective Objective #2 must be. PROFIT FROM THE ROUND BY BEATING THE WIZARD
If you wan't to punish the greedy, don't imagine that they care a rat's ass about the punishment but that they will get a laugh out of seeing 'the collective' throwing Mike's money back in his face.
We can beat Mike..
We MUST DO THAT.*
Ignore all Wizard's wise words about 'Punishing the greedy. See it for what it is as propaganda from a guy who want's to hold onto a significant amount of his money and to laugh all the way to the bank.
Controlling or reigning in the high bidding weasels by 'forcing their hand' is about as wrong minded as we could get. They could just as easily punish us back by not giving a 5h1t. On past form, that is exactly what will happen.
Besides: Do the analysis: Over all rounds, we have had many MANY altruistic consistent low bidders even among the non-disclosers.
If there is a problem at all, it is that we have members who can't even be bothered to get in their PM to request $1. They hurt us as much as the high bid weasels.*
That and the fact that we are pretty crap at working as one mind. We cannot even embrace the mind staggeringly obvious idea of just bidding like a previous knock out round.
*Incidently, i'm sure the Wizard is happy with the value he's got from his investment in this thread. but he's twitchy now.
** I use weasel as a term of endearment.
Anyone got any mind games ideas for exploiting Mike's twitchiness? Bring it on.
Mike's playing mind games. Don't give in to it. It's costing him money if we win. Make him pay up for sure.
Exackerly
$:o)
I also got a buddy that breeds and trains Large Fang Weasel Hounds.
Since I must be low man on the winnings with like $3 in the pot so far, I would be appreciative of being allowed the 'large pick' for the final round. I want a stake in the pool 'cause I love Hookers and Blow just as much as the next guy ;-)
so if Mike makes it $1 or $50 your willing to bid $1?Quote: OnceDearDammit!
That's playing right into Wizard's hands. Only Mike knows what he will set the bidding spread as for round 8 and he might decide some novel twist to it.
Wizard is on the ropes!!!
Wizard is trying to set us against ourselves. He's having too much success.
But his best chance of paying out ZERO is to actually put a lot of money at stake and depend heavily on dissent among the members. We've seen how keen he is to support 'social justice' and 'punishing the greedy' and some high profile members have taken the bait.
There's not a snowball's chance in hell that a committed coherent team can be formed. There's even less chance that the few who have bid consistently high are going to be particularly distressed or shamed into bidding low.
If the bid spread is high, there IS sufficient cooperation to beat Mike, The cooperative could even get in a decent number of high bids. but all this nonsense about 'punishing' the weasels is absurdly -EV.
Collective Objective #1 must be. BEAT THE WIZARD
Collective Objective #2 must be. PROFIT FROM THE ROUND BY BEATING THE WIZARD
If you wan't to punish the greedy, don't imagine that they care a rat's ass about the punishment but that they will get a laugh out of seeing 'the collective' throwing Mike's money back in his face.
We can beat Mike..
We MUST DO THAT.*
Ignore all Wizard's wise words about 'Punishing the greedy. See it for what it is as propaganda from a guy who want's to hold onto a significant amount of his money and to laugh all the way to the bank.
Controlling or reigning in the high bidding weasels by 'forcing their hand' is about as wrong minded as we could get. They could just as easily punish us back by not giving a 5h1t. On past form, that is exactly what will happen.
Besides: Do the analysis: Over all rounds, we have had many MANY altruistic consistent low bidders even among the non-disclosers.
If there is a problem at all, it is that we have members who can't even be bothered to get in their PM to request $1. They hurt us as much as the high bid weasels.*
That and the fact that we are pretty crap at working as one mind. We cannot even embrace the mind staggeringly obvious idea of just bidding like a previous knock out round.
*Incidently, i'm sure the Wizard is happy with the value he's got from his investment in this thread. but he's twitchy now.
** I use weasel as a term of endearment.
Anyone got any mind games ideas for exploiting Mike's twitchiness? Bring it on.
Quote: beachbumbabsIf our hive mind takes the high just to spite the undeclared and individual high bidders, does anyone here really think they'll GAF if they don't win ONE dollar more? I sure don't.
Mike's playing mind games. Don't give in to it. It's costing him money if we win. Make him pay up for sure.
I am curious, since the big block is not getting any traction, how many who are willing to join the group here would be willing to pursue a "Nuclear Option" strategy? We would threaten to all vote high to lose the round unless the pre-announced high voters commit to joining the big block and sharing? It would appear to only cost a dollar at this point to have a chance at a split share of the final spread. #$1LivesMatter
If we do not organize, it is very likely we will all lose anyway. A bloc of the 8 who voted above can make this work.
Quote: AxelWolfso if Mike makes it $1 or $50 your willing to bid $1?
I might. I want to see us collectively beat Mike. I may join any organised cooperative effort and will defer my vote a while, while waiting for consensus to form.
I have Jack Shit interest in bidding high JUST to punish the weasels. No interest in helping Mike win or playing into his hands.
And speaking of Weasels and Rats, have you yet declared your bid on this last round?
Who has committed to pooling this round?
Who has committed to bid high so as to punish the rest help Mike to win?
RonC Are you pooling?
Axel, what about you?
Romes? Are you committed to the bid high to force it option?
Two Feathers, I believe you wish to pool and bid high?
Others?
Quote: OnceDearSimple questions....
Who has committed to pooling this round?
Who has committed to bid high so as to punish the rest help Mike to win?
RonC Are you pooling?
Axel, what about you?
Romes? Are you committed to the bid high to force it option?
Two Feathers, I believe you wish to pool and bid high?
Others?
Can't reveal.
Quote: OnceDear<snip>RonC Are you pooling?<snip>
Yes.
Quote: RonCYes.
Since RonC is pooling, as am I, I will offset his bid and take $2. PM sent.
Also as mentioned I am bidding high this round.
I like RC's logic. I will gladly join 'Team Windfall' in a pooling effort, even for slightly less than a 'full share', since I bet low pick every round except one, but admitting I have the least, or about the least $ to add to that pool.Quote: RaleighCrapsI am donating all of my winnings to the team pool, trusting that my sacrifice to bid low every time, which helped us all win, will be rewarded with a full share of the team windfall..........
I think RC coined a new term, 'Team Windfall', it has a ring to it.
PM to Wizard not sent yet. Still would like to pick high, but willing to pick low..
Just 'cause I'm a nice guy and all ;-)
But first, take on board my earnest suggestion that you buy in on any team on the basis that you will bid low for a cut of the pool. If you do so and are accepted, then you get $0, or more than $2. That's better than going solo and getting $0 or $2 .
I seriously doubt bidding for $10 will work, in which case, by all means go solo and ask for $10 but get $0.
So, here are the round 7 results.
| Pick | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| $1 | 20 | 60.6% |
| $2 | 13 | 39.4% |
| Total | 33 | 100.0% |
and my analysis so far:-
Note the low turnout in round 7.
The relatively high 20 low bids looks massive and comfortable. It isn't!!!
With only 33 players, we would only have needed 17 low bids and 16 high. That means we could only afford for THREE to defect from bidding low to bidding high. JUST BLOODY FOUR would fsck it up and hand Mike a win!!!
Now look at this again to see who might switch...
| Round #8 | Round #7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Already, we have MrSuit31, Bigfoot66, Dalex53,SooPoo and Joeman having switched sides low to high. That's 5 of the 4 that it would have needed to wreck the game. More than enough to ruin it. So with turnout of 33, we have probably lost it already by a mile...
... unless we get a few moving from high to low.
But who is prepared or left to do that? I have, you might. Axel can't switch high to low, 'cos he bid low last time. There's a hardcore bunch of 'low each timers', but they can't switch high to low. Best we could hope is that they even bother to bid.
But what of the non-bidders from round 7. Why the hell so many? Will they return?
Well, they didn't see fit to turn out for $2 last time. Do you think they will turn out for $2 this time?
No. If they turn out at all, then they will do it for a highly speculative chance at $10. They won't give a rats ass about being beaten down to $2 because they were happy to not even ask for $2 last time.
Those non-bidders are incredibly unlikely to be team members on any team because a non-bid would have hurt ANY team far more than a low bid.
There is a smidgen of a chance that some of the greedy 'high each time' brigade of weasels will bid low this time. But why should they give a stuff? They've already seen how well their tactic has worked and have profited so much that they can afford to be a bit cocky, bankroll wise.
I'd have a guess that this round we will have 36 players 20 high, 16 low.
Might you be the guy to take it to 19 high and 17 low?
Might one other crawl out of the woodwork and one other stay there and make it 17 high and 18 low?
Quote: mrsuit31I saw a bunch doing high on the team and hoped on board with the win big or none idea bandwagon.
Wouldn't it be ironic if 'the team' were the ones who, by their incredible teamwork, made Wizard pay out Nil: Turn a +EV sure thing into a dead loss?
If they were fund managers, They wouldn't get control of my pension fund investments.
Indeed if members of such a team were to offer advice on, say, a gambling or maths orientated forum, then they might find themselves a laughing stock.
Quote: OnceDearWouldn't it be ironic if 'the team' were the ones who, by their incredible teamwork, made Wizard pay out Nil: Turn a +EV sure thing into a dead loss?
If they were fund managers, They wouldn't get control of my pension fund investments.
Indeed if members of such a team were to offer advice on, say, a gambling or maths orientated forum, then they might find themselves a laughing stock.
As far as I'm concerned the original team never formed. Therefore nothing you just said makes any rational
Sense. The poll attached to this post also has only 9 yeses. That's another failed attempt..
There is no team blame for anything.
Quote: mrsuit31As far as I'm concerned the original team never formed. Therefore nothing you just said makes any rational
Sense. The poll attached to this post also has only 9 yeses. That's another failed attempt..
I was one of those Yeses
I initially thought there was a team and a pool. I even thought I knew who was its treasurer/leader.
Now, like you, I see no evidence of a team. Just a few ideas bouncing about. Not impressed by our organisational skills unless there is a super secret society playing a fantastic double bluff.
Looking forward to the real thread that will follow the fallout. Where those who declared that they would pool their money, or whatever, try to reach out to the unidentified team treasurer and try to sort out the collection of their share of the pool.
Quote: AyecarumbaIt's not too late for the undecided to win the day. If everyone who hasn't submitted a bid yet goes low, we can pull this one out of the dirt.
As you said, its still possible. But I'm not very confident about the outcome. All that said, my $6 is going into the Romes pool to try and make some nice Moolah. I'm content with my $6 addition. If it turns out to be $16 then us pool members will be happy. If not, Oh well. I'd like to know how much the constant high bidders lives will be effected by winning $20 instead of 10 - $15 or so had they just cooperated. That additional $5 must make them feel like the big men on campus.
And why would you do that? It was never a GO BIG situation. Any "team" player who suddenly went big did so to say, FK you, you greedy bastards.Quote: mrsuit31I'm pooling my $6 or $16 dollar winnings. I bid high this round. I saw a bunch doing high on the team and hoped on board with the win big or none idea bandwagon.
I totally respect that.
people didn't want to sit around and hear people gloat about their triumphant greedy strategy.
There was no big cooperative teamwork at play it was all a facade. There wasn't enough value in wasting time on it. Beating Mike out of a few bucks will only supply a limited amount of motivation and entertainment. IMO most everyone fit for a team knew what to do without much effort or discussion. TBH I don't think I said one word to anyone I work with about this game, at least not, "hey lets all vote A or B." Hell, I didn't even notice if Djatc was playing or not?Quote: OnceDearWouldn't it be ironic if 'the team' were the ones who, by their incredible teamwork, made Wizard pay out Nil: Turn a +EV sure thing into a dead loss?
If they were fund managers, They wouldn't get control of my pension fund investments.
Indeed if members of such a team were to offer advice on, say, a gambling or maths orientated forum, then they might find themselves a laughing stock.
If I could pick all 40 people myself I think I could pick a group that could come dam close to maximum EV.
Quote: AxelWolfAnd why would you do that? It was never a GO BIG situation. Any "team" player who suddenly went big did so to say, FK you, you greedy bastards.
I totally respect that.
people didn't want to sit around and hear people gloat about their triumphant greedy strategy.
Well I wouldn't say that was my exact reasoning lol. That said, I had said in the other thread that I would likely go big in the last round of I was one of the first to see/declare the round bids. I believe I was number two or three to place my bid in this last round...
Ahh that makes sense, I thought you just put the pick in after seeing how the voting was trending. I didn't realize you were number 2 high bidder.Quote: mrsuit31Well I wouldn't say that was my exact reasoning lol. That said, I had said in the other thread that I would likely go big in the last round of I was one of the first to see/declare the round bids. I believe I was number two or three to place my bid in this last round...
