Oh, really? I thought it just kind of vanished.rOver wrote:I wonder what happened to Fishbulb's money. As I understand the rules, that should be distributed too in this round.
Cam
That's a misunderstanding. It's not a limit. You are free to ask for more and take it. It's just an agreement between the players which can be broken without consequences. How does it work? Well, if you expect everyone else to follow it, you have no reason not to.Why do you have to set a max bid?
Woohoo! I ripped a Theory of mathcam to pieces! Now I know my destiny in this world.mathcam wrote:I wonder what the day 1 trends are. I would have suspected that the top bid on day 1 had been slowly decreasing, but then kerplunk went and took that theory and shred it to pieces last game.
That's becouse 100,000 is a nice round number. Everyone knows that the highest bid will be around that. And people don't want to go much lower becouse the last few games were very short and if someone was more than $5000 behind after the first round they had no chance to win. It did make sense to take the risk of dropping out in round 1 becouse if you were too conservative you lost all chance for a win anyway.mathcam wrote:I mgiht do this later, but I'm leaving soon, so I'll defer to someone else who's bored and is looking for something to do:
I wonder what the day 1 trends are. I would have suspected that the top bid on day 1 had been slowly decreasing, but then kerplunk went and took that theory and shred it to pieces last game.
I was thinking along the lines of $1,000,000 and $999,999 but dropped the idea becouse I found no good way to enforce cooperation. I think 2 players will actually try this but one of them will cheat. More likely both of themmatchcam wrote:It's amazing how much a little collaboration could do...I wonder if it should be allowed. For example, if rOver and I agreed secretly to pick a random value in the range of 190,000 to 210,000 (accurately randomly), then as long as we actually do so, the one of us who picked the lowest is almost automatically going to win.
The highest bid would immediately jump to the pot/players range so there would be no way for the winner to return the favour. I won't even start playing Prisoner's Dilemma type games unless the other player can prove that the game will go on indefinitely. Or at least he, himself doesn't know when it will end.matchcam wrote:On the other hand, as long-term strategy, it doesn't work so well...because then people can safely pick 189,000 every time. So the new strategy for us would to be to randomly choose an relatively large value and then randomly choose wihin a 10,000 dollar interval around that value.