Monopoly

Quote: Wizard

For the most part, I view it like playing Monopoly -- sometimes you land in jail.

link to original post

Cool! As a kid, if we landed on Free Parking we got a bunch of money.

Quote: Wizard

Through the years, I know I have made a lot of people angry over suspensions. I wish to say that I'm trying to police this board as best I can and it should be expected that there will be disagreements about it. Such disagreements have become heated at times, to which I'm known to get snippy.

I just wish to say that, except for two people, I harbor no hard personal feelings about any member of the forum and wish everyone else well. It is not my intention to cause any stress or hard feelings. For the most part, I view it like playing Monopoly -- sometimes you land in jail.

link to original post

Can I have a get out of jail free card please?

Quote: rxwine

Cool! As a kid, if we landed on Free Parking we got a bunch of money.

link to original post

I hate that rule! It is not to be found in the original Parker Brothers rules. Monopoly is a carefully designed balance between skill and luck. The free parking rule only throws this off balance, by making it too much luck. Too often does a good competitive game get ruined by one player getting a windfall from free parking and building hotels on all over the board.

Quote: Wizard

Too often does a good competitive game get ruined by one player getting a windfall from free parking and building hotels on all over the board.

link to original post

yeah. it would be far better if there were limits on the number of houses/hotels one could accumulate.

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Wizard

Too often does a good competitive game get ruined by one player getting a windfall from free parking and building hotels on all over the board.

link to original post

yeah. it would be far better if there were limits on the number of houses/hotels one could accumulate.

link to original post

Not a fan of capitalism?

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Wizard

Too often does a good competitive game get ruined by one player getting a windfall from free parking and building hotels on all over the board.

link to original post

yeah. it would be far better if there were limits on the number of houses/hotels one could accumulate.

link to original post

What, did you add game pieces to the set?

Quote: TwelveOr21

Not a fan of capitalism?

link to original post

wasn't thinking about that. just that the game can end up being lop-sided too quickly. want a game that goes the distance

Quote: Dieter

What, did you add game pieces to the set?

link to original post

no, just that some players can gobble up too many properties that it makes a lopsided game too quickly

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Dieter

What, did you add game pieces to the set?

link to original post

no, just that some players can gobble up too many properties that it makes a lopsided game too quickly

link to original post

Why, it's almost as if they've monopolized the limited resources for exploitation.

Quote: Dieter

Why, it's almost as if they've monopolized the limited resources for exploitation.

link to original post

and?

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Dieter

Why, it's almost as if they've monopolized the limited resources for exploitation.

link to original post

and?

link to original post

.... that is the goal of the game.

Quote: Dieter

.... that is the goal of the game.

link to original post

personally, i think the game would do better if there was a restriction on property purchases. like make the game more closely fought. E.g. for two players, no player can buy up more than half of each side of the board. for three or more players, adjust the max. number of properties that can be bought accordingly. then there may be more wrangling for properties and more thought given to the value of the properties

Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Dieter

.... that is the goal of the game.

link to original post

personally, i think the game would do better if there was a restriction on property purchases. like make the game more closely fought. E.g. for two players, no player can buy up more than half of each side of the board. for three or more players, adjust the max. number of properties that can be bought accordingly. then there may be more wrangling for properties and more thought given to the value of the properties

link to original post

Fascinating observation about the nature of unbridled capitalism and possible remedies, but we're way off topic for the thread.

This thread is a split off from the Discussion of the Suspension List.

The only rule I don't like in Monopoly is "income tax," requiring a payment of 10% of all your assets. It is a pain to add them all up. When I play, I eyeball it and suggest that as the fee.

Here is a question -- do you think immunity deals should be allowed? For example, if you do this trade (that is in my favor), the first so-many times you land on my monopoly you won't have to pay. I think not.

Those of you who like games based on capitalism might like Settlers of Catan.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: rxwine

Cool! As a kid, if we landed on Free Parking we got a bunch of money.

I hate that rule! It is not to be found in the original Parker Brothers rules.

There are quite a few rules that "aren't in the original (or current, for that matter) rules":
Money for landing on Free Parking
$400 if you land on Go rather than just pass over it (I am assuming this started because Careers does have a "double the normal amount if you land on the start space" rule, and somebody got confused)
You have until the next roll of the dice to collect rent on your property (I think it's actually three rolls)
If you land on a property and don't buy it, no one else can during that turn (actually, the property goes up for auction)
You can arrange houses and hotels any way you want (on any particular color, they need to be "balanced").

The "balance rule" leads to an interesting situation: suppose you have hotels on the three green properties (Pacific, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania), but you have to sell one, and 29 of the 32 houses are already on the board. What happens?
Answer: you can't just sell one hotel, as that would mean there would be 33 houses on the board, so you have to keep selling - and in accordance with the balance rule, you have to sell all three hotels, then keep selling houses until you can place just three of them (one on each property).

We don't allow " future" deals such as trade me Marvin Gardens and I'll give you a one time free rent card you can use whenever you want. I personally like putting some money in free parking. It adds chaos to the game and an unpredictable game is more fun. I think a well-executed plan will defeat dumb luck most of the time, but free parking money can throw out a lifeline that adds volatility to the game.

Quote: Wizard

Too often does a good competitive game get ruined by one player getting a windfall from free parking and building hotels on all over the board.

link to original post

... that, I believe, is one of the lessons The Landlord's Game was intended to demonstrate.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: rxwine

Cool! As a kid, if we landed on Free Parking we got a bunch of money.

link to original post

I hate that rule! It is not to be found in the original Parker Brothers rules. Monopoly is a carefully designed balance between skill and luck. The free parking rule only throws this off balance, by making it too much luck. Too often does a good competitive game get ruined by one player getting a windfall from free parking and building hotels on all over the board.

link to original post

Not only that, but this flooding of more currency into a fixed-price economy is what makes the game last 6 hours (or indefinitely) rather than 1.

Quote: Wizard

The only rule I don't like in Monopoly is "income tax," requiring a payment of 10% of all your assets. It is a pain to add them all up. When I play, I eyeball it and suggest that as the fee.

I agree, but typically as the game goes on, I find my assets tend to either easily total over $2000 (so I pay the $200 max limit) or way under enough where counting them up does not take that much work!

Also, it stinks when you roll a 4 to start the game, but makes it really easy to figure your taxes!

Quote:

Here is a question -- do you think immunity deals should be allowed?

Maybe in a 2-person game, but generally no as it is unfair to the other players.

Quote:

Those of you who like games based on capitalism might like Settlers of Catan.

I tried my best to like that game. It has both cards and dice, so it should be extra fun, right? But I've always found it to be more frustrating than fun. I will still play it if everyone else wants to, but in my gaming circle, Settlers has earned the title of "The game that looks like it should be lots of fun, but isn't!"

MANY years ago some of my poker-playing buddies and I would get together and play Monopoly.

Monopoly has three big drawbacks. (Well, maybe more than three but at least three.)

One, there's not a lot of decision making. Not really. If you land on a property, you purchase it! (Yes, even the utilities.) This is because the value of each property is far less than its actual cost. (Furthermore, you can always turn around and mortgage any property and get 50% of your money back.) Simply by owning a single property, you make it impossible for any of your opponents to build houses or hotels on the other properties of that same color group, since ownership of all properties in each color group is required to do so.

When you DO acquire all properties of a single color-group, you quickly build as many houses/hotels on it as you can afford, even going so far as to mortgage all of the other properties you do own, if necessary, to raise the cash needed to purchase the houses/hotels. Not hard to figure any of this out either.

Two, the game can be overly long. (This is especially true if one plays with the common but silly "Free Parking Rule" that says anyone who lands on the Free Parking square gets all of the taxes and other payments that have been paid. This is NOT and never has been a real rule and the home rule is not ideal. It's not a good home rule. When one increases the potential revenue for each player, without also increasing the taxes, liabilities, payments, etc., the game will naturally last longer, as it's now harder to bankrupt someone. It can last a long time as it is. No reason to add a house rule that will make it last longer.)

And even without playing with this silly Free Parking rule, the game can take awhile to finish.

Three, and most importantly, going last or even second-to-last, in a five or six player game, is a huge, HUGE disadvantage! If you're last, for example, for the first several turns all of the other players have already rolled and purchased property ahead of you! For the next several turns you will almost always be landing on property that was un-owned a moment ago... but because a player ahead of you landed on it first and purchased it, you now not only can't purchase it yourself, but owe them a little rent!

All three of the above drawbacks of Monopoly can be remedied with a simple rule change, which is this:

All properties cost exactly double their printed value.

So, what is the result of this change?

For one, now every property that is landed on IS now a decision. Do I purchase it at double the price? New York Avenue is definitely worth $200... but is it really worth $400? If I purchase this at double the price, will that leave me with enough cash for other properties, potential fines, etc? If I pass on purchasing it, when it goes up for auction can I get it for a little less?

At times some properties will indeed still be worth double the price, but many (most) others will not. You will simply not have enough money to purchase everything you have an wish, hence the decision making.

And, if a player chooses not to purchase a property they land on, the rules state the bank immediately puts that property up for auction. The initial bid price would start at $1. And everyone, including the player who passed on it, can bid on it! You could now potentially get it for less, if no one else wants it.

Many, if not all properties will be put up for bid in this manner, so now there's almost no disadvantage for the player going last, or second-to-last. The players going last can bid for that property and have a chance to own it, right along with everyone else.

This rule will also reduce the amount of cash everyone has, since most all properties will indeed be purchased for more than their printed price. With a bit less cash available, it's now easier to become bankrupt! You have to manage the cash you have much more carefully.

The game is now much more a game of decisions on what properties to buy, how much to bid, etc.

There's also a bit of bluffing now too, by bidding on properties you really don't want, in an attempt to raise the bidding price a bit. Just be careful you're "bluff" isn't called!

Quote: Wizard

Here is a question -- do you think immunity deals should be allowed? For example, if you do this trade (that is in my favor), the first so-many times you land on my monopoly you won't have to pay. I think not.

Yes, That was part of the fun for us. We did, however, require that all FREE RENT deals, as we called them, be written down on a piece of paper.

We had two types. Those of which were transferable and those that were not transferable. If they WERE transferable, a player could sell his FREE RENT pass to another player if so desired. The player who initially offered and sold the FREE RENT pass would be honored to accept it whoever presented it to him. Obviously, a transferable FREE RENT pass was worth more than one that was initially sold as NOT transferable.

Quote: Wizard

The only rule I don't like in Monopoly is "income tax," requiring a payment of 10% of all your assets. It is a pain to add them all up. When I play, I eyeball it and suggest that as the fee.

Funny. I was having a discussion with someone about this rule just a few months ago. He informed me he believed this rule had been changed and that all versions now just had the fine as a flat rate.

I never did check to see if this was true or not.

Quote: Joeman

I tried my best to like that game. It has both cards and dice, so it should be extra fun, right? But I've always found it to be more frustrating than fun. I will still play it if everyone else wants to, but in my gaming circle, Settlers has earned the title of "The game that looks like it should be lots of fun, but isn't!"

link to original post

I found that to be a good family game. Something kids could and adults enjoy, which isn't easy. The game needs to be simple for the kids yet have a component of skill to be interesting for adults.

However, it is hard to catch up in that game once you're behind. Once somebody is ahead in the settlements, that lead only gets bigger as they get more resource cards. Of course, the others should gang up on the leader, but that gets you only so far. I've been in many games where I had no hope and had to just sit there killing time until the leader won.

Quote: EdCollins

Funny. I was having a discussion with someone about this rule just a few months ago. He informed me he believed this rule had been changed and that all versions now just had the fine as a flat rate.

I never did check to see if this was true or not.

link to original post

Acccording to the Monopoly Wiki, the 10% option was removed in 2008; this may have been at the same time that Baltic and Mediterranean changed colors to brown. Also apparently, there never was a 10% option in the British version.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Acccording to the Monopoly Wiki, the 10% option was removed in 2008; this may have been at the same time that Baltic and Mediterranean changed colors to brown. Also apparently, there never was a 10% option in the British version.

link to original post

Growing up, my brother and I never bothered to compute the 10% and always just paid $200. When I studied Monopoly in-depth as an adult, I learned that the 10% option is really only helpful in the first few rounds around the board, because afterward, 10% of your assets will always be more than $200.

Another rule change that I noticed on newer boards is that Luxury Tax is now $100 instead of $75.

I like Monopoly, but find it like many old-timey games in that it's basically a time-killer. When playing by strict rules, I believe that it's mostly luck with regard to who gets a Monopoly first and can drain off the others. That's why there shouldn't be a monetary reward for landing on Free Parking — it just prolongs the game.

Occasionally there's some strategy, especially when trading properties with others. There's the very rare situation in which all the houses are used, and a good strategy is to NOT build hotels, which prevents others from buying houses. And then there's the math-based strategy of building houses on properties that would be the next player's roll of 6 or 8.

I say the best version of Monopoly ever is the computer version for the early 1990s Macintosh by MacPlay. And, OMG, I just saw that you can play an emulated version online! It follows the strict rules, and play time is lighting fast because it doesn't have all those needless animations that slow the game. It even gives you charts and stats like length of game time! This is AWESOME!!!

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Acccording to the Monopoly Wiki, the 10% option was removed in 2008;

I wonder if this was to improve gameplay, or to dumb it down for the mathematically challenged!

It would certainly speed up the game.

How do you guys handle hotels? If there are no houses left, can you buy a hotel or do you need X amount of houses on the property first?

Quote: billryan

How do you guys handle hotels? If there are no houses left, can you buy a hotel or do you need X amount of houses on the property first?

link to original post

The houses have to be physically present in the bank for you to purchase them, and then trade up to a hotel. If someone has created a "housing shortage" (a viable strategy) by buying up all or most of the houses, the other players cannot build a hotel until the houses are sold back to the bank.

“BUILDING SHORTAGES… When the Bank has no houses to sell, players wishing to build must wait for some player to return or sell his/her houses to the Bank before building. If there are a limited number of houses and hotels available and two or more players wish to buy more than the Bank has, the houses or hotels must be sold at auction to the highest bidder.”

Quote: Wizard

Here is a question -- do you think immunity deals should be allowed? For example, if you do this trade (that is in my favor), the first so-many times you land on my monopoly you won't have to pay. I think not.

Oh boy, we can't ever play together if you start making rules like that. I say whatever deal you can get someone to agree to that's not an obvious tanking. That's how I always played. Oftentimes, I might give/sell cheap someone a deed(s) along with some cash to build for half the profits and a rent exemption for myself. Or cut them in on some profits for a deed I need.

Quote: AxelWolf

Oh boy, we can't ever play together if you start making rules like that. I say whatever deal you can get someone to agree to that's not an obvious tanking. That's how I always played. Oftentimes, I might give/sell cheap someone a deed(s) along with some cash to build for half the profits and a rent exemption for myself. Or cut them in on some profits for a deed I need.

link to original post

How about an alliance where you split revenue with another player and have rent immunity on each others properties for X amount of turns?

Quote: EdCollins

If there are a limited number of houses and hotels available and two or more players wish to buy more than the Bank has, the houses or hotels must be sold at auction to the highest bidder.”

link to original post

I thought one could only buy houses and hotels on his turn. Am I wrong?

Quote: billryan

How about an alliance where you split revenue with another player and have rent immunity on each others properties for X amount of turns?

link to original post

I've played with rent immunity deals lots of times (not counting on houses & hotels), to speed up the game. When playing with kids, who can't do math, it is especially recommended.

Quote: Wizard

I thought one could only buy houses and hotels on his turn. Am I wrong?

Yes. There is no rule that says you have to wait for your turn to purchase houses or hotels. In fact, I can proved a few online links and a few books ((see photo below), which clearly state all that you have to do is ask your opponent, who is about to roll, to "hold the dice" and when they do, you can then purchase houses or hotels from the bank, even though it is not your turn.

However, as it turns out, that was one of the rule changes that my friends and I agreed should be changed. And we did. We were doing all that we could to put more "decisions" into the game, and we thought it was much more skillful to have to wait for your turn to make any building purchases, initiate any trades, etc.

Quote: EdCollins

Yes. There is no rule that says you have to wait for your turn to purchase houses or hotels. In fact, I can proved a few online links and a few books ((see photo below), which clearly state all that you have to do is ask your opponent, who is about to roll, to "hold the dice" and when they do, you can then purchase houses or hotels from the bank, even though it is not your turn.

Thanks, I did not know this. I guess I've played incorrectly my whole life, but I do think it makes sense that you can conduct business on your turn only.

Believe it or not, I won a Monopoly tournament that was held in Las Vegas, soon after I moved there in 1986.

Alas, there were not enough other players entered to make me eligible to represent the state, for the upcoming next country-wide tourney. (As I recall, there were just four tables, and about five players per table.)

Also, it's been done many times by many different people, but many years ago I also wrote a simulator, to "play the game." (No human interaction... the program played against itself, with x number of players.)

It also kept track of which spaces were landed on most frequently, and my results matched up with those of other published results. Somewhere I should still have that simulator program, written in Excel VBA.

As you can guess by now, I used to love playing Monopoly. It's not as bad of a game as you might suspect, providing you play with other intelligent adults who are willing to modify some of the the rules to reduce the luck, add more decisions, etc.

It's all about controlling those 32 houses. Not the hotels, the houses. (Hotels are merely tools you occasionally use to manipulate supply and demand.)

Quote: EdCollins

link to original post

The book in the lower right, "1000 Ways to Win Monopoly Games", is the key. Read it and you will never think about or play Monopoly the same way again. It was published in 1975, and while first additions of that tiny paperback can now sell for as high as $600, you can PDF your way through it for free here.

Quote: Gialmere

The book in the lower right, "1000 Ways to Win Monopoly Games", is the key. Read it and you will never think about or play Monopoly the same way again.

I LOVE that book!!! It's my favorite of these six books!

Short story. In 1979, I believe, I gave it to a girl who I had a crush on. I later regretted giving it to her, since I missed owning it. For a long, long time I looked for it in used bookstores, since I wanted to own it again. (Couldn't look for online... the internet was still many years away.) I never had any success.

FINALLY I called a used bookstore, in Whittier, and they had a copy! I confirmed... "It's 1,000 Ways To Win, correct? Not the much more common but much less useful The Monopoly Book?" They confirmed it was indeed the book I had been searching for. I left immediately, for Whittier, to pick it up. Happy to pay the few dollars they wanted for it. Very entertaining book.

Quote: Gialmere

It's all about controlling those 32 houses. Not the hotels, the houses.

Yes. I almost never built up to a hotel. Much better to just build four houses on each property, and stop there, and help to create a housing shortage.

Quote: EdCollins

Believe it or not, I won a Monopoly tournament that was held in Las Vegas, soon after I moved there in 1986.

Since you're a disciple of "THE BOOK", I believe it.

Quote: EdCollins

Yes. I almost never built up to a hotel. Much better to just build four houses on each property, and stop there, and help to create a housing shortage.

link to original post

I like to build to three and stop there for a while. The marginal additional rent for four is not that much. However, I get the point about hogging houses. I usually don't play with enough people to make that an issue.

Quote: EdCollins

I LOVE that book!!!

I see it's on Ebay right now for $2.50

I gave up on Monopoly when my board came friends started trotting out a bunch of house rules. Among them:

- Nobody is allowed to build until ALL properties are sold.
- Houses must be built EQUALLY, not just evenly.
- The housing shortage issue never comes up, because pennies are used as houses once they run out.
- You have to sell back all your houses before you can mortgage any property, even if that property never had any houses on it.

I just joined the debate to say the only way to really play monopoly with skill is doing auctions only.

Quote: Deucekies

I gave up on Monopoly when my board came friends started trotting out a bunch of house rules. Among them:

- You have to sell back all your houses before you can mortgage any property, even if that property never had any houses on it.

Before you can mortgage ANY property? So if I wish to mortgage Boardwalk, for example, I have to first sell back all of the houses that I own on, say, on the Reds... Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois Avenue???

That makes no sense. The reason I might wish to mortgage Boardwalk in the first place is to raise money so that I can put another house or two on my Reds.

Note that normally, you DO have to sell all of your buildings on a color-group if you wish to mortgage any property on that SAME color-group. That IS a rule:

MORTGAGES... Unimproved properties can be mortgaged through
the Bank at any time. Before an improved property can be mortgaged,
all the buildings on ALL the properties of its color-group must be sold
back to the Bank at half price.

I see no gain or other advantage that improves game play with any of the house rules of your friends.

Quote: EdCollins

Before you can mortgage ANY property? So if I wish to mortgage Boardwalk, for example, I have to first sell back all of the houses that I own on, say, on the Reds... Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois Avenue???

Correct. That's how they play.

Quote:

I see no gain or other advantage that improves game play with any of the house rules of your friends.

IMO they are simply misinterpretations of the rules, but they're set in their ways because they've played that way for decades.