I played 9 people on BGM today for $2.50 a point
neilkaz
Out of 9 people I played for the enormous stake of $2.50 a point
(capped off course at $10 a game max) 6 of them left me after the FIRST
game and it wasn't because they had to leave, since they simply hung
around the room waiting for someone else to play. The 7th player left
after 2 games, and actually, believe it or not, 2 players played
several game + sessions with me.
What a sad state of affairs it is when I (not using my real name, off
course) or any other decent player cannot even play a bit very low
stakes recreational BG to pass the time and for a little bit of fun.
Are most online money players this type of whore who quits after 1 game
when they realize that their opponent, who plays very quickly, might
actually have a clue as to how to play ?
No wonder I spend my online time playing bridge, chess, and poker !!
.. neilkaz ..
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
neilkaz wrote:
> Out of 9 people I played for the enormous stake of $2.50 a point
> (capped off course at $10 a game max) 6 of them left me after the FIRST
> game and it wasn't because they had to leave, since they simply hung
> around the room waiting for someone else to play. The 7th player left
> after 2 games, and actually, believe it or not, 2 players played
> several game + sessions with me.
> ...
> Are most online money players this type of whore who quits after 1 game
> when they realize that their opponent, who plays very quickly, might
> actually have a clue as to how to play ?
Are most fish in the sea this type of whore who refuse to bite the worm
when they realize it has a hook inside it?
- From what I read here these days, the rakes are sufficiently large at
most online backgammon sites that it isn't worth your time to play
unless you have a decent chance of winning -- so given this, are you
actually surprised that gamblers, ie. people who are out to make money,
have no interest in an even match, especially with the high luck factor
involved in backgammon?
It's all well and good to play all comers if you're world-class or
reasonably close, and I routinely did it when I spent all my spare time
playing pool. But if you're only "skilled" and you'd like to make
money, then any time spent playing an equally matched opponent is not
only non-profitable, but in fact a guaranteed loss. Your only hope is
to make it back off what should be a much larger population of weaker
players... but ah, backgammon, like pool, no longer has that population
of weaker players who want to play for "just a few bucks". They have
mostly migrated to poker. The fish who play pool in bars play for beers
now, and the fish who play backgammon play the "online leagues".
I'm kind of surprised at your reaction, since this has to have been true
for a long time for backgammon, honestly... though I guess when everyone
in the pool looks like a guppy, it takes a lot longer to notice the lack
of true guppies.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEvELFtQZlu3o7QpERAk7PAKDo3V8LtlYnTrPnFLqxwuVVeNphVwCg5wka
/Zqpk5LPsV3R9WYQQcXhH9I=
=CIjZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gammo...@yahoo.com
Mr. Kazaross, your presence in this group is most welcome. I don't
think any other Giant offers his help.
BTW why are there no "her" helps, no female Giants.
Thanks also for your commentary on the WC. Perhaps someday backgammon
will be a game where we can reliably hope for a daylong final between
you and Ballard or Falafel or the like.
Obviously if you played under your own name people would line up to
play you for what amounts to matchsticks. But that's not the point of
your post.
It's hard to say why people did that. I wasn't one of them.
Be fair though. Different people have different motives. Money means
different things to them. If it didn't then there would not be some
people who play craps betting $10 and some betting $1000.
Backgammon is a funny game. You mention bridge poker and chess. Poker
is nothing without money. Bridge and chess rarely involve much money.
Backgammon is the only game where money doesn't have to be involved but
traditionally is.
A question for you Mr. Kazaross. With all respect for your ability and
generosity. Which would you prefer? To play on BGM under a hider and
be able to play for $2.50 a point without having to play different
people? Or to tell BGM to have a tournament where you would play the
winner and see if lots of people would come and play just for the
thrill of playing one of the world's top players? If I remember right
you've done that kind of thing before.
ethicalb...@yahoo.com
a lot more fun. If people had to use their real names and identify
themselves, you would get less people acting rude and leaving after one
game and disconnecting and bitching about their luck, etc. etc. Anyone
can log on to backgammon masters with any nick name they want and do
whatever they want.
The other problem with backgammon masters (as opposed to many other
sites) is that you can't record the match and run it through Snowie or
jellyfish and see how you, and others, played. If you could, you could
find out who the cheaters are and who the great players are that you
might want to avoid....I know you don't need to avoid anyone, but I'm
not interested in playing on line, or live, for money against a
computer or someone who is as good as a computer.
Nige M
There are two types of backgammon player.
You and I are from the old school - the pre-bot era who grew up playing in
live events. Today, we have a new type of player, whom have been initiated
into online BG.
For some, its a money making proposition where having an edge is key to
staying ahead. If they come to reason that a player is equal or better they
will cut their loses and find someone else to play. Of course they will
scratch you or any other decent player from their list.
I suppose $2.50 X games is a lot for some people to lose. For others, its a
matter of positive equity. But I am sure there are other relevant reasons
to add here.
On the flipside, there are people who believe they can make a living and
probably do - so recreational BG is not part of their mindset.
On the whole I believe your inquiry to be correct. As devils advocate, Who
really wants to play recreational BG for money! There are either fun money
or won money players not a combination of the two.
If your looking for a sparring partner however, you will not find me on any
street corner, you will find me on TMG under Majestyk9306. TO add I don't
figure on getting F***** by you as a service provider...lol.
Regards,
Nigel M
"neilkaz" <nei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1153187728.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Piranha
those players play where the stakes are REALLY small, such as 25 or 50
cent per point at TMG or partygammon
BGM with its policy to enforce high stakes by simply not offering
smaller stakes has driven away all weak players
furthermore the rake structure at BGM drives away most skillful
players, as far as they don´t have a strict moneymaking purpose
playing anyone in an environment of up to 30% rake is a secure loss for
everyone, therefore the only type of players left at BGM are sharks
playing absolute strict only the weakest of all opponents and since
everyone there does it this way, in the end basically no one plays at
all, except of one testgame with a new player
on top of that partygammon offers a temporary opportunity these days,
through their setup with deposit bonus rating system and progressive
rake structure
lots of players looking for easy wins play 50 cent sessions at
partygammon, where its easy to win 90% of games, because all you meet
there is a mix of the weakest players and sharks losing on purpose in
order to lower their rating so they can later on make a lot of money
for higher stakes upon low rake
this setup grants partygammon a huge amount of players, weak ones,
thinking they are good, because they meet a bunch of sharks who let
them win on purpose, strong ones who make easy money from weak ones and
sharks as well and sharks who have a very easy opportunity to abuse the
rating system
mgi...@gmail.com
head to head bg is just not going to work. I'm hopeful that money
tournaments will remain, though these 3 point matches are too short. At
least if you win a few matches it can be fun so I will time permitting
try to play in some.
If I played someone of Neil's standard under an alias I would see that
he plays like a pro. Not knowing he's a genuine player I would stop
playing worried that he's using a bot. At least for me it's not about
money at $2.50 a point but heck I don't want to play a computer and on
top of that pay a rake!
neilkaz
I played there for $2.50 a point..only 3 left me after the first game
and the rest all played the expected several game sessions with me.
The time really is ripe for one of these servers to make a statement
and take some chances to improve online head to head BG. Rake for
tournies and matches aren't so bad, but rake for head to head play are
honestly at least 3 times what they should be !
Raking higher based on rating is rediculous and prevents players who
would like to play each other from playing. Everyone has a choice as to
whether to play and can see the rating so please, I hope the servers
all don't remain clones of each other !!
For the good of BG, lower head to head rakes and maintain the same rake
regardless of ratings.
.. neilkaz ..
mgi...@gmail.com
I believe they instituted these rakes to protect weak players but
obviously it's a stupid idea. However I don't believe that's the reason
there are so few people playing.
As I've said before the trouble with head to head play is that the weak
player has virtually no chance to win a session. Even if someone can
afford to lose money to play someone good and learn there's a limit to
what he or she is willing to lose.
The end result is that apart from the diehards who have decided to keep
playing until they get good enough to play with the best and are
willing to pay for the "lessons" most of the others will get burnt,
lose more than they planned and go back to poker or whatever.
Contrast that with tournaments where weak players have a chance to win
once in a while which is fun and limits their losses.
Yes in a perfect world the ratings would be a guide, unfortunately they
can be manipulated or world class players can register under a few
names and clean out a few players before their rating gets too high.
Piranha
> and take some chances to improve online head to head BG. Rake for
> tournies and matches aren't so bad, but rake for head to head play are
> honestly at least 3 times what they should be !
If the rake was the big problem, then why isn´t anyone playing at Club
Games?
It has the lowest rake besides GG, no membership fee, and by now is
even the official host of the biggest online BG tournament in history
If you spend just a few seconds to think about it, it becomes obvious,
not the rake is the problem, but the rating
While all other sites offer several ways to abuse the rating system, CG
has driven ratings to the extreme, not only a figure to indicate a
players skill, but also public visible analysis results, downloadable
logfiles, win/loss statistics and more
(yes you can download matchlogs from ANY player, if you only bring up
your own match history, look up any of your own matches and exchange
the gameID in the URL)
The rake is just a matter of choosing opponents, the higher the rake,
the higher the difference between a shark and a weak player has to be,
at 30% rake, a world class shark will play exclusively novices and
still make his profit, but as soon as the world class level becomes
public, neither side is interested in playing anymore, the shark
doesn´t want to give away his real skills, the weak ones do not want
to play someone that much stronger and the result, as you can see at CG
is, no one plays at all, even upon one of the lowest rakes on the web
TMG had the chance and maybe still has it, their environment was
perfect for all kind of players, low rake and no rating, only the lack
of advertising killed their business
First their partner worldpx.com terminated backgammon, 2nd TMG placed
their bet on sponsoring big events like Monte Carlo, but what they
reached was the opposite of what they wanted
As sponsor of the big events, they attracted more and more strong
players, while weak ones often aren´t even aware of TMG´s existence,
and if they are, then all they will hear about it is, its the strongest
competition on the web, then, after they had almost only strong players
left, all aware of one another, the amount of matches played dropped
more and more, and without the profit from raked games the sponsoring
has cost them much more than they could afford, subsequent they have
now raised the rake by almost 100%, driving away some more players,
leading to the current situation where at night the server often is
entirely empty
If you guys look for an opportunity to play BG where its worth it, take
a look into my idea
I´ve come up with the biggest online BG tournament in history, I´m
running it at Club Games in a shark free environment, where players are
mostly nice to one another, it is set up with a qualification round for
low stakes players where they can enter for free (see my post above) as
well as regular buyins betwen $5 + $0.50 for average players and $150 +
$15 for high stakes players
The prizepool reaches a total of way over $150,000 and even includes
several bonus prizes
If you ask me, this tournament could be the beginning of a new era in
BG, all it takes is you guys to join it, instead of playing in abusive
environments just to come here and complain about it afterwards
As long as you keep playing on those GE clones, they will never get the
point, but if for example CG would suddenly have more players than GE,
only because someone like me had the right idea, THAT would move the
market, but obviously I´m not able to run large advertisings, so the
success of my idea depends on its players forwarding the news
Bryce
I played at GE for a little while for very small stakes. I am nowhere near
an expert, but I could at least see when someone was making reasonable moves
every turn--as far as I could tell--as opposed to making all sorts of
blunders. (If they played opening 61 as 13/6, I'd play them for a while.)
If I played a game with someone as skilled as you or Neil, it's unlikely I
would play him/her again. If I am playing recreationally, I play for rating
or play money on FIBS, TMG, even BSW, but if there's any money on the line,
why would I want negative expectation? Fortunately, since there's 10000
people on GE, it's not too hard to find someone less skilled.
Oddly enough, on the other hand, if I knew I were playing with one of you
world class masters, I might do it anyway, just to have the chance at saying
"I beat _______ in a 7-point match!" and to see what kind of decisions you
would make.
My apologies if that attitude sounds ridiculous to you--I want to get very
good at the game, but if I can do so without losing that much money, it
makes more sense to me. Maybe that's not possible...
-Bryce
"Nige M" <acu...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%a1vg.2490$q97...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
neilkaz
on GE and so few currently on BGM when both have the same, and very
high for head to head play, rake structure ?
I played a few games with someone also over 1700 rated last night on
BGM, and indeed, when I won, the rake was halved. I paid 46 cents rake
on a $10 win. Now that is a 2.3% rake per player, and while I still
think that is high, at least it is at a level where I think many people
can play BG with each other and not get raked over the coals.
I want to see BGM, GE, TMG, etc etc prosper and enhance our game and
bring more players to it, but for heaven's sake, lower the rakes, so
that when someone plays for an hour and wins two more games than his
opponent, he actually might end up a bit ahead.
.. neilkaz ..
Piranha
upon deposit most players expect a bonus, while the server gets charged
something between 5 and 10% of the transferred sum, depending on
transfer method
upon withdrawl most players expect no fees, while the server gets
charged another 5 - 10% transfer fee
and then the rake shall be below 2%?
if the server wants to make any profit, which is what a business does,
it would require that the average player plays at least 20 games at
stakes of $10 for each $1 deposited, anything below grants the server a
loss, unless they charge an upfront fee of 10% like gamecolony does
the comparism GE / BGM clearly shows the rake doesn´t even matter,
only the amount of options to cheat on the rating makes players come
and stay
so why in the world would ANY of the existing servers change anything
in their rake structure, while the only thing they need to have a lot
of players is to offer a rating system that can easy be abused?
Take the CG example again, besides GG the lowest rake on the market
independent of rating and no players at all because of an extreme
detailed rating system, isn´t it 100% obvious?
I do not understand why companies like BGM or CG keep their rating
system after it has approved its failure, but I do see the simple law
of business within the rake structure
Nige M
news:lmzvg.126884$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>I think you've hit the nail on the head, Nigel.
>
> I played at GE for a little while for very small stakes. I am nowhere
> near an expert, but I could at least see when someone was making
> reasonable moves every turn--as far as I could tell--as opposed to making
> all sorts of blunders. (If they played opening 61 as 13/6, I'd play them
> for a while.) If I played a game with someone as skilled as you or Neil,
> it's unlikely I would play him/her again. If I am playing recreationally,
> I play for rating or play money on FIBS, TMG, even BSW, but if there's any
> money on the line, why would I want negative expectation? Fortunately,
> since there's 10000 people on GE, it's not too hard to find someone less
> skilled.
>
> Oddly enough, on the other hand, if I knew I were playing with one of you
> world class masters, I might do it anyway, just to have the chance at
> saying "I beat _______ in a 7-point match!" and to see what kind of
> decisions you would make.
>
> My apologies if that attitude sounds ridiculous to you--I want to get very
> good at the game, but if I can do so without losing that much money, it
> makes more sense to me. Maybe that's not possible...
>
> -Bryce
Sounds logical upto a point. To get really good requires hanging out with
the right reference groups of BG players. Always seek to play with others
that are better or more knowledgable than yourself.
I know this goes against your gane plan, but there is only so much you can
achieve with minimum financial input. Yes you should read the books,
articles, analyse matches etc.
What I tend to do at our chouette club is allow the up and coming players to
play at a stake that is not going to hurt their pocket too much. Although,
if it does not hurt a little these players are not likely to learn as much.
I am sure the price of education in some chouettes is pretty high for
newcomers, who seek less competition at the right price elsewhere. There is
a danger of these players falling into the "Berzins Effect"
I was one such victim. What is the Berzins Effect? It is where you come to
perceive you are good among the same reference group who like you are on a
minimum budget. However whenever they enter an open they get a shock that
the standard of play is much higher.
To be tough requires you to hang with the tough. My philosohpy is best
suited for me but may not be for others. I am sure there are many
approaches. Work with one than best suites your style and needs.
Regards
Nigel M
robadams
...
> Take the CG example again, besides GG the lowest rake on the market
> independent of rating and no players at all because of an extreme
> detailed rating system, isn´t it 100% obvious?
>
> I do not understand why companies like BGM or CG keep their rating
> system after it has approved its failure, but I do see the simple law
> of business within the rake structure
GamesGrid and ClubGames keep the rating system because people like it.
They don't want hustlers pretending to be weaker than they are who are
only interested in taking weaker players' money. GamesGrid offers the
strongest, fair competition with fair rakes (at the highest stakes
their rake is incredibly tiny compared to other sites) and even webcams
if you want. Clubgames offers a small stakes friendly, competitive
environment. I don't see why both can't peacefully co-exist alongside
the other sites.
The rake structures that penalize ratings differences really should
give at least a percentage back to the weaker player. But, who is
going to tell the sites that? I'm pretty sure BackgammonMasters isn't
going to listen to me...
Piranha
> the other sites.
because a commercial website like CG cannot exist without any real
money players
whether or not the free players like the rating doesn´t even matter,
from a business point of view for the company running the server, a
rating system which cannot be abused is a perfect failure
regardeless how user friendly it looks, facts proove, no one ever plays
for real money in a fair rated environment
whether it shall co-exist or stand alone, without real money players it
cannot exist at all
CG may be an exception, because their main purpose is the software
development and the server just a minor part of their business, so they
might be able to finance the costs of the server without to have real
money players, but their current policy results in the same as if they
would not even offer real money play in the first place (I wouldn´t
bet how long P2Pgames is willing to keep CG up and running while this
part of their company writes permanent red numbers)
of course the intention is not bad, provide a fair base for weaker
players is at least worth a thought, but only if it really can be done,
a rating system surely does not, specially not if it can be abused
for now the fact stands, in a fair rated environment NO ONE plays for
real money
Bryce
chouettes with experts (where I expect to lose) to learn something from
them; in fact, now that I live within 5-10 miles of the Chicago Bar Point
club, maybe I can. (Assuming I can justify this on the salary of a married
grad student...) Also, I wanted to gain as much skill as I could beforehand
so that I didn't embarrass myself when I got there! (BG is fun win or lose,
but maybe a tad more fun when you win.)
Thanks Nigel...I appreciate your input.
donzaemon
On a slightly seperate note, Has anyone compiled a chart or formula for
comparing a standard type backgammon rating to the break even points and
rates of profit for various rakes ?
"neilkaz" <nei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1153331949.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
robadams
> On a slightly seperate note, Has anyone compiled a chart or formula for
> comparing a standard type backgammon rating to the break even points and
> rates of profit for various rakes ?
I check every now and then to see if I have any hope at all of
overcoming the rake.
I've played just a little on partygammon, and have encountered the
extreme rake differences.
On the good side, I played a 5pt match for $5 and paid $0.25 rake when
I won. This is the lowest they charge I think as we were both closely
rated over 1700.
So, if I won 20 and lost 19 at that rake I'd break even, so I'd need to
win 20/39 or 51.3%. I don't know exactly what FIBS rating difference
this relates to, but it must be very small. I think this rake was
reasonable.
But, I played a 5pt match for $3.50 that I won and I paid $0.88 rake.
This just seems unreasonably high to me. There was I think about 200
points difference in our ratings, maybe a little more even. At that
rake, winning 4 and losing 3 doesn't quite break even. So, winning 4/7
or 57.1% wouldn't be quite enough even so say 57.2% would be necessary.
I think this is somewhere between 100 and 150 FIBS ratings points
difference.
Still, the high rake isn't horrible for the stronger player as they can
quite possibly win 60%+ of their 5pt matches against weaker players.
But it is horrible for the weaker player. With a reasonable rake, they
can play a lot of backgammon and with a little luck more or less break
even. When they have to pay extra rake just because they are playing a
stronger player they lose coming and going and probably go broke fairly
quickly.
robadams
> Still, the high rake isn't horrible for the stronger player as they can
> quite possibly win 60%+ of their 5pt matches against weaker players.
> But it is horrible for the weaker player. With a reasonable rake, they
> can play a lot of backgammon and with a little luck more or less break
> even. When they have to pay extra rake just because they are playing a
> stronger player they lose coming and going and probably go broke fairly
> quickly.
I played another match on partygammon that further illustrates this
point. I played a 9pt match for $2. I was rated much higher than my
opponent, so when I won, I only won $1.28 while they lost $2.
At that rake, winning 25 and losing 16 breaks even. Still, I suppose I
might have been that strong a favorite, so it wasn't a terrible
proposition for me. But consider my opponent!
Maybe they thought they were underrated and so at least almost as good
as me if not better. And, maybe they were. So, what happens if they
manage to win not 25, but say 21 out of 41. They did manage to win a
majority of the time, but still after 41 matches end up down over $13.
That is huge. So even though they were correct that they were a little
stronger than me, in a $2 match, they were losing $0.32 on average
every match.
These are very small stakes, but you can easily see what happens when
the stakes get multiplied. The weaker players lose very, very fast. I
just don't see how that can be good in the long run.
What has been suggested by people before me is to simply give some of
the extra back to the weaker player. So, if I won as the stronger
player I'd still only win that $1.28, but my opponent wouldn't lose the
full $2, but something like $1.75 for instance. The site could still
take a rather large rake, but it would at least be compensating the
weaker player a little bit. And, if the weaker player wins, it seems
just cruel to increase the rake because of the skill difference. I
don't think GammonEmpire/Play65 does charge the weaker player extra,
but it seems that partygammon might (I'm really not sure, and hope they
are still improving regardless).
Piranha
> I played another match on partygammon
THAT already is the whole point
You´re playing there, same as a lot of others
WHY in the world would partygammon change anything about their rules or
rake structure, while you guys keep playing there?
Maybe you don´t play much, but imagine every member they attract
through their advertising plays one or another match once in a while
THATS how PG makes their profit
The ONLY way to show them how wrong their policy is not to play there
AT ALL and convince everyone else you can reach to follow your example
I myself follow this line, I´ve quit from GE when they invented
progressive rakes and I´ve refused to come back, even when they
offered me free bonus money, I´ve quit from BGM as soon as they copied
GE´s rake structure and at PG I´ve interrupted my signup when I
noticed the rake structure, resulting in an incomplete account where
they kept sending me advertisings and I kept asking them to delete my
incomplete account, and when they wouldn´t stop sending me their junk,
I´ve put their entire domain on my mail providers blacklist
Yet I seem to be an exception, while everyone else still plays on those
greedy servers, I alone can´t move a thing
Nige M
GREEDY SERVERS GREEDY SERVERS GREEDY SERVERS GREEDY SERVERS GREEDY SERVERS
GREEDY SERVERS GREEDY SERVERS GREEDY SERVERS GREEDY SERVERS GREEDY SERVERS
Just in case the MESSAGE IS NOT GETTING THROOOOOOOOOOOOOUGH TOOOOOOOOOOOO
YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.
Let me reiterate. Oh! perhaps not You get the idea. Or will you! The
trouble is you see, you DON'T LIKE CHANGE...Yeh! Then keep on paying the
GREEDY SERVERS to your hearts content. Don't blame me if you a cardiac
arrest.
PS. What is the definition of Insomnia: counting RAKES. When will you
SHEEP ever learn.
Nigel M
"robadams" <georgeha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154414948.8...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
robadams
> On a slightly seperate note, Has anyone compiled a chart or formula for
> comparing a standard type backgammon rating to the break even points and
> rates of profit for various rakes ?
>
http://www.gammonvillage.com/backgammon/news/article_display.cfm?resourceid=5049
Raccoon
neilkaz wrote:
> Absolutely amazing and I am totally flabbergasted to say the least.
> Are most online money players this type of whore who quits after 1 game
> when they realize that their opponent, who plays very quickly, might
> actually have a clue as to how to play ?
How much are you willing to pay for the dubious privilege of playing
better backgammon players online -- for money? For that matter, how
much are you willing to pay to play backgammon online against anyone at
all?
While some players grossly overestimate their abilities, and others are
oblivious to their opponents' superior skills, and others happily write
off small (and sometimes huge) losses as an entertainment expense,
unlike Neil I'm not at all surprised that for many money players the
object of playing for money is to make money, not lose it, and the
amount they're willing to pay to play is $0.
Nige M
is concerned. Although, I have to take my six thinking hats off to him, as
he has all perceived angles covered - bar one...there has to be one, for
Raccoon at least.
For the life of me I am unable to drum one up (damn it!). I was looking
forward to ripping into him...lol.
Nigel M.
"Raccoon" <racg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154454856.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...