I opened an account at True moneygames and I am sure people are using GNU to cheat (see the link above) It shows because of the way people playing. It looks to similar like how GNU plays. When I play with humans they always play a different pattern than GNU. This is a sure thing to loose money
sure there are some cheaters. you have to be careful when you play online. if somone is pretty slow and has a close to 0 error rate so you wont play him again.
no, experienced humen play like gnu/snowie plays, because they exercise with the bots and play the best move mostly.
> I opened an account at True moneygames and I am sure people are using GNU > to cheat (see the link above) > It shows because of the way people playing. > It looks to similar like how GNU plays. > When I play with humans they always play a different pattern than GNU. > This is a sure thing to loose money
Hi, of course there is a bunch of cheaters and you have to be carefully who you play. In my opinion the most important ability in online Playing is to learn to differnce between cheaters and good players One easy way is to observe how long people stay online. There are a lot of players who semms to play 7 days a week 24hours a day. And they keep very low Error rates. Just dont play then either they are houseplayers or bots. For me i dont know anybody who can play 7 days 24hours a day and keep low error rates ......... I played one time more then 30 hours online without break, my error rate at the last 12 hours was realy awful. Toos Vandermill:
> I opened an account at True moneygames and I am sure people are using GNU to > cheat (see the link above) > It shows because of the way people playing. > It looks to similar like how GNU plays. > When I play with humans they always play a different pattern than GNU. > This is a sure thing to loose money
You don't experience that at BGroom. Come and enjoy. www.bgroom.com Best graphics Best costumer support Best rake schedule - come and try newly created "jungle room" - no ranking, rake only 3.9% per player - can't beat that. Most importantly - never a problem with withdrawals, up to $ 5,000 per calendar month. I have no affiliation with BGroom, (wish I had) but take my word - it's absolutely the best site for you, backgammon addicts. Play 65, Gammon Empire, Prime Backgammon are designed to rip you off. They will steal your money if you win constantly.
> Hi, > of course there is a bunch of cheaters and you have to be carefully who > you play. In > my opinion the most important ability in online Playing is to learn to > differnce between cheaters and good players > One easy way is to observe how long people stay online. There are a lot > of players who semms to play 7 days a week 24hours a day. And they keep > very low Error rates. Just dont play then either they are houseplayers > or bots. For me i dont know anybody who can play 7 days 24hours a day > and keep low error rates ......... > I played one time more then 30 hours online without break, my error rate > at the last 12 hours was realy awful. > Toos Vandermill:
>> I opened an account at True moneygames and I am sure people are using > GNU to >> cheat (see the link above) >> It shows because of the way people playing. >> It looks to similar like how GNU plays. >> When I play with humans they always play a different pattern than > GNU. >> This is a sure thing to loose money
On 3 Jul., 12:27, "courtreporter" <sandr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You don't experience that at BGroom. Come and enjoy.www.bgroom.com > Best graphics > Best costumer support > Best rake schedule - come and try newly created "jungle room" - no ranking, > rake only 3.9% per player - can't beat that.
Donīt I love these statements? Every now and then one or another of these junk servers feels the need to justify their existence, but other than plain lies they got nothing to offer. For your info: 3.9% rake is on BGR the lowest you can reach under best possible circumstances, in only one room at the server. In all other rooms, under any different circumstances the rake is far higher, up to a point where it becomes the most expensive rake on the web. 3.9% per player still means 7.8% in total. There are several other servers offering a much lower rake, i.e. Ladbrokes and Gameaccount, where the rake in moneygames is a flat 2.5% per player regardless of rating or even unrated.
Yes, the rakes at bgr are ridiculous, but really backgammon as it is now is ridiculous too. I haven't played money matches in a while, just freerolls and against GNUBG, and I decided to see how the action was. I lost two 9 point matches, to a person rated awful and beginner. The luck differences in both matches were huge, and there was no entertainment value either. I just watched my opponent roll one "very luck" roll after another. Of course I'd like to see careful monitoring for cheating at these sites, but until something like my "draw" idea is instituted, poker is a much better online money game at this point, at least at the low stakes level.
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:26:42 -0700 (PDT), monty1...@lycos.com wrote: >Yes, the rakes at bgr are ridiculous, but really backgammon as it is >now is ridiculous too. I haven't played money matches in a while, >just freerolls and against GNUBG, and I decided to see how the action >was. I lost two 9 point matches, to a person rated awful and >beginner. The luck differences in both matches were huge, and there >was no entertainment value either.
Why is it when Monty loses due to bad luck he whines about it. But when he beat M. Petch by his good luck, he gloats about it. Monty says that since he beat M. Petch 5-2 that he was superior player. But when he loses two matches in a row why does that not mean that the player who beat him is the better player? After all he beat Monty two matches in a row. How many matches does this player have to win before Monty admits that he is better than Monty?
> I just watched my opponent roll >one "very luck" roll after another.
That is because backgammon has a very large element of luck. You should know this by now. It is how you beat M. Petch. Monty would like us to think it is because of a special strategy he has. He drops doubles that he should take because he thinks he can outplay his opponent in later games. He did this against Petch, but did not outplay him in later games. He simply got lucky.
> Of course I'd like to see careful >monitoring for cheating at these sites, but until something like my >"draw" idea is instituted, poker is a much better online money game at >this point, at least at the low stakes level.
You keep telling us how poker is much better on line game than backgammon but you post only in the backgammon group and not in the poker group. Why is that?
well everybody who plays backgammon knows that there is the Element of luck involved. The big difference of a realy good player and an amateur or fun player is that he knows that there is luck involved, and they know that they can have a bad luck streak. This bad luck streak comes more often the more you play. But in the long run the better player will win for sure, and he knows that. For the good player its more important, that he keeps his error rate as low as possible, specially in a bad luck streak, and always improving their games, by Analyising the matches. When you observe the realy good player, you will notice they usually dont complain about luck or dices, they just try to make the best decisions. And by the way its usually not so bad if the better Player looses against an awful player, because usually the bad player will come back and play again against you, cause he thinks he got a fish (: . Befor a few day i had lost in one day 5 x 7 pt matches against an realy awaful player (his error rate was not below 17 snowie. On the next day he came back to me and we played at double stake (: I took all my money back and won also a big amount extra (:. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Luck is changing but Skill not !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A Good Backgammon player is like a Casino, he knows that his Customer can come and win (even big amounts), but he knows also that on the long run he will make profit, because he good Skill Edge in the game. Luck is a nice advertisment to catch the fishes (: . So dont complain, when you are a good player about Luck. monty1945:
> Yes, the rakes at bgr are ridiculous, but really backgammon as it is > now is ridiculous too. I haven't played money matches in a while, > just freerolls and against GNUBG, and I decided to see how the action > was. I lost two 9 point matches, to a person rated awful and > beginner. The luck differences in both matches were huge, and there > was no entertainment value either. I just watched my opponent roll > one "very luck" roll after another. Of course I'd like to see careful > monitoring for cheating at these sites, but until something like my > "draw" idea is instituted, poker is a much better online money game at > this point, at least at the low stakes level.
"Why is it when Monty loses due to bad luck he whines about it. But when he beat M. Petch by his good luck, he gloats about it."
The point I make is that I'm either a clearly superior player to MP or else this game is too luck oriented. Now, some will say that poker is more luck oriented, but here's the problem: when I lose to Mr. "awful" I lose a set amount, let's say 1 Euro, but when I win I also win 1 Euro (minus the rake). So bad luck can really take a toll. In poker, I can minimize my losses, only losing "badly" once in a great while (limit hold'em), but I often can maximize winning sessions. Thus, luck is not nearly as problematic in poker as it is in backgammon. As to playing people like MP, since nobody wants to play, except for higher stakes, there's little to discuss, except to say that claims I've heard about a BG match of so many points being equal to one game of chess is nonsense - it's more like a BG match of 101 points. And again, this is why my idea about "draws" in online BG (where a match can be analyzed quickly) is so useful. Otherwise, you'll have to argue that I'm a much better player than MP.
And for the record, I have posted quite a bit in the poker newsgroup, just not recently. Poker is a game that is contingent upon the players at the table, so it doesn't have that objective quality that backgammon does. Hence, there's not much analysis to poker. It's a "feel" game. The major problem with online poker is that you can't see the players (so tells are not as easy to detect, if you can detect any at all) and players come and go too quickly (ring games).
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 10:20:26 -0700 (PDT), monty1...@lycos.com wrote: >"Why is it when Monty loses due to bad luck he whines about it. But >when he beat M. Petch by his good luck, he gloats about it."
>The point I make is that I'm either a clearly superior player to MP or >else this game is too luck oriented.
And the guy who beat you in two 9 point matches in a row is either superior to you or else this game is too luck oriented.
In the short run, backgammon is too luck oriented. In the long run it is not. In the long run, the superior player will prevail. I have made tens of thousands of dollars over the years in net profit even though I have long sustained periods of losses due to bad luck.
Gnu is a good way to determine if you are truly more skilled than your opponent or if you won by luck.
Monty seems to preferentially use gnu when he loses to complain about his bad luck. But when he wins, he is quick to decide that luck did not play an important role in his win. This is precisely what happened with M. Petch. Gnu clearly demonstrated that Monty and Petch play at about the same level. The main difference in the outcome of that match was due to luck. This is often the case with closely matched players. Monty's ego just won't let him see that.
The reality is that Monty's winning the match 5-2 does not mean that he is clearly superior to Petch. It does not even mean he is slightly superior to Petch. By the same token, if Petch won 5-2 it would not mean that he was the superior player. Just as Monty losing two 9 point matches in a row does not mean that he is the inferior player.
If Monty played gnu seven 15 point matches, about one time in 100 he would win 5-2. Now if that happened the first time they played the series would that mean that Monty was clearly the superior player. Of course not. That is why it is critical to look at the luck adjusted rating and not just the end result.
Monty looks at the end result when he wins. He looks at the luck adjusted rating when he loses. Objectivity at its finest.
> Now, some will say that poker is >more luck oriented, but here's the problem: when I lose to Mr. >"awful" I lose a set amount, let's say 1 Euro, but when I win I also >win 1 Euro (minus the rake). So bad luck can really take a toll. In >poker, I can minimize my losses, only losing "badly" once in a great >while (limit hold'em), but I often can maximize winning sessions.
You play for pennies. The rake is insignificant. If the rake was lower you would win a few more dollars per year. Big fucking deal. It is not like you are playing for meaningful stakes. You don't and likely never will.
>Thus, luck is not nearly as problematic in poker as it is in >backgammon. As to playing people like MP, since nobody wants to play, >except for higher stakes, there's little to discuss, except to say >that claims I've heard about a BG match of so many points being equal >to one game of chess is nonsense - it's more like a BG match of 101 >points. And again, this is why my idea about "draws" in online BG >(where a match can be analyzed quickly) is so useful. Otherwise, >you'll have to argue that I'm a much better player than MP.
As many of us have repeatedly said, while gnu is not perfect it can be useful by determining luck adjusted ratings. And gnu determined that M.Petch luck adjusted rating was higher than Monty's. Monty just cannot accept it. He continues to insist that he has some special strategy that he employs to give him an edge.
The one strategy that he claims he uses to good advantage is dropping doubles that are takes in order to later use his superior skill. The only problem in the Petch match is that Monty did not demonstrate superior skill. He just had superior luck. And the log is there for all to see. Monty did not demonstrate a clearly superior checker play skill over Petch. If he did, then his doubling strategy might have validity. His doubling strategy can possibly work against very weak (compared to him) players. It won't work against an equally matched player.
And these are your opinions, Rich. They now need to be demonstrated in practice. Here's a way to do that: I play someone of MP's skill (or a bit less, but "in the same ballpark"), but we adopt a "draw" feature, so that if the losing player plays within a certain skill rating as his opponent (say 150 points) but gets much worse luck (say 1.000 or more), then it's a draw. We can then play matches of 5 or 7 points instead of 15 or more. However, this would have to be done for free, since there is no money server that offers this feature. Is MP up for this (or anyone else around his skill level)?
