* After each round, the bid cap will be become the maximum of the cap from the previous round, and twice the second-highest bid from the previous round.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
Error1 385
Wheat Grinder 384
Aurora Illumina 383
Heart of Draco 380
Personman 379.9
kill-joy 377
etherialscorpions 372
Thundersnow 371
Draco9 370
Sir Mu 363
benbuzz790 257
fluffyn00b 84
The Bid Cap for Round 4 is 768.
Following this round, the bid cap increase rule will be changed to the following:
* After each round, the bid cap will be become the maximum of the cap from the previous round, and twice the second-highest bid from the previous round the sum of the second-highest bids from the previous two rounds.
For example:
Current Cap rule
100 / 194 / 386 / 768 /~1500 /~3000 etc.
New Cap rule
100 / 100 / ~190 / ~280 / ~500 / ~750 / ~1250 etc.
I think this makes the penalty for "losing" much more harsh. With the current system, you can lose every round, and win one and break even.
If you do not want this change, let me know in your PM. If a majority want to continue as it is, we will do that. If you have any other ideas, let me know.
I think we want an increasing cap, but the desirable factor seems to be about 1.3-1.5. I think a function of previous "winning" bids is more elegant.
Edit: I've rethought my idea. See the other post for reasoning.
The old system's ability to win even if you are very behind is the reason why I promote it! Otherwise players who get in the negative might as well give up!
The old system's ability to win even if you are very behind is the reason why I promote it! Otherwise players who get in the negative might as well give up!
That should encourage you to stay out of the highest range!
Otherwise, you'll lose!
That just makes the game more interesting for those remaining.
That's not at all a property of the system. It's an emergent property of us all being extremely irrational. As has been pointed out, the Nash equilibrium here is everybody submitting 0.
But regardless, I don't see how that addresses my concern that the rule change mid-game seems to target a particular player who has been executing a strategy that most likely depends on the assumption that the rules would stay the same for the duration of the game.
That's not at all a property of the system. It's an emergent property of us all being extremely irrational. As has been pointed out, the Nash equilibrium here is everybody submitting 0.
But regardless, I don't see how that addresses my concern that the rule change mid-game seems to target a particular player who has been executing a strategy that most likely depends on the assumption that the rules would stay the same for the duration of the game.
Strategy? Pfff. This is the High Number Death Game.
EDIT: I think it was never Error1's intention to win.
I'm only partially suggesting the change due to a particular strategy. It seems like even if the new cap system is in place, the last round would be contested for enough points such that a comeback is still possible. I suggest it now because it is early enough on to still be fair.
I think I've figured out the reason why the current cap system is fair. The first few rounds are irrelevant score wise, but they provide invaluable strategic information. I think I'm fine keeping the current system to see how this HNDG finishes.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
I got some ideas for the next High Number Death Game to spice things up, let me know what you think of them.
1.) If you submit a bid and the bid is the exact same number as another person's bid, the bids are invalidated and both players are not awarded any points for the round.
2.) Players may also increase by one point the bid of another player when they submit a bid. The recipient of the point gets a point added to his or her score for the round. If it puts that player above the upper limit, then he or she is penalized accordingly.
3.) Instead of the normal way of penalizing the highest bidder, the highest bidder gets penalized an amount of points equal to the bid of the lowest player.
Oh and the cap for this round should be 194+(193*2), which is 580.
MAX(194, 193*2) =/= 580
High Number Death Game
20 Questions (with Magic Cards)
After each round, the bid cap will become either the cap from the previous round, or twice the second highest bid, whichever is highest.
Official Quizmaster of The Crafters!
Follow Lasersharp on Facebook
YEEEEAAAHHHHHH!!!!
Anywho, the key is to not become greedy. One false move will take you out of the race.
Please tell me that was referencing the Who.
That would be CSI Miami. So in a way, yes.
Official Quizmaster of The Crafters!
Follow Lasersharp on Facebook
thanks for telling me, my bid was 10 points above the cap
I'll bid 296 is you will.
Wheat Grinder 384
Aurora Illumina 383
Heart of Draco 380
Personman 379.9
kill-joy 377
etherialscorpions 372
Thundersnow 371
Draco9 370
Sir Mu 363
benbuzz790 257
fluffyn00b 84
The Bid Cap for Round 4 is 768.
Following this round, the bid cap increase rule will be changed to the following:
* After each round, the bid cap will be become the maximum of the cap from the previous round, and
twice the second-highest bid from the previous roundthe sum of the second-highest bids from the previous two rounds.For example:
Current Cap rule
100 / 194 / 386 / 768 /~1500 /~3000 etc.
New Cap rule
100 / 100 / ~190 / ~280 / ~500 / ~750 / ~1250 etc.
I think this makes the penalty for "losing" much more harsh. With the current system, you can lose every round, and win one and break even.
If you do not want this change, let me know in your PM. If a majority want to continue as it is, we will do that. If you have any other ideas, let me know.
I think we want an increasing cap, but the desirable factor seems to be about 1.3-1.5. I think a function of previous "winning" bids is more elegant.
Edit: I've rethought my idea. See the other post for reasoning.
High Number Death Game
20 Questions (with Magic Cards)
The old system's ability to win even if you are very behind is the reason why I promote it! Otherwise players who get in the negative might as well give up!
That should encourage you to stay out of the highest range!
Otherwise, you'll lose!
That just makes the game more interesting for those remaining.
The other game was simply a pissing contest.
But regardless, I don't see how that addresses my concern that the rule change mid-game seems to target a particular player who has been executing a strategy that most likely depends on the assumption that the rules would stay the same for the duration of the game.
Strategy? Pfff. This is the High Number Death Game.
EDIT: I think it was never Error1's intention to win.
I think I've figured out the reason why the current cap system is fair. The first few rounds are irrelevant score wise, but they provide invaluable strategic information. I think I'm fine keeping the current system to see how this HNDG finishes.
High Number Death Game
20 Questions (with Magic Cards)
Error1 767.99
Wheat Grinder 762
Aurora Illumina 761
etherialscorpions 761
Heart of Draco 760
Draco9 760
Personman 760
Id_Ego 750
Sir Mu 749.89
benbuzz790 737
Thundersnow 717
The cap for round 5 is 1524
High Number Death Game
20 Questions (with Magic Cards)
Nevermind.
Well, that's one more spot for me!
Your high score was pretty much unreachable for me, so now I've got a better shot of getting there.
1.) If you submit a bid and the bid is the exact same number as another person's bid, the bids are invalidated and both players are not awarded any points for the round.
2.) Players may also increase by one point the bid of another player when they submit a bid. The recipient of the point gets a point added to his or her score for the round. If it puts that player above the upper limit, then he or she is penalized accordingly.
3.) Instead of the normal way of penalizing the highest bidder, the highest bidder gets penalized an amount of points equal to the bid of the lowest player.