Mrs. Cleaver, GamesGrid has a cheater
Hank Youngerman
without outside aids, it is time to respond to many things.
About 2-4 years ago, I spoke to a player who was a regular on
GamesGrid. He proudly showed me records of his GamesGrid error rates.
He had them in binders, tabulated by month, and bragged that he had
been moving steadily down, from 1.7 to 1.6 to 1.4. He was (surprise!)
the top-rated player on GamesGrid and (surprise!) the first non-bot (or
so he said) ever to reach a 2100 rating. There he was, perched at the
top of the backgammon world, with his amazing 1.4 error rate. And he
confessed it to me!!!!
Maybe I should have made a public accusation then. After all, unlike
the non-specific rumors of what my own error rate is, this person
showed me his self-tabulations!
What's more, this player hadn't played live in years. In the years I
had known him, he had never attended a live tournament. Why would
someone that good want to play online and run up his rating, but not
show up live? I don't know if he was playing for money on GamesGrid,
but I know he had money accounts with hider nicks on other sites.
All pretty suspicious, don't you think? Surely as strong, if not
stronger, proof of cheating than was made against me.
So I now accuse Paul Weaver of cheating.
Oh - um - wait. These were one-pt matches, Nackgammon matches. And
(at least Paul claimed) the reason for his playing Nackgammon had
nothing to do with his rating, he just liked playing the Nackblitz on
GamesGrid. Why he didn't play live, well, I never asked him. I do
know that, at least to tbe best of my knowledge, he did not play in a
single live tournament for the entire time that I lived in Alabama,
from November 2000 to July, 2003. Hell, even I played in one ABT event
in that interval! (Maybe he slipped over to Atlanta once or twice, but
if he did, it escaped my notice.)
One-point matches have much lower error rates than longer matches.
Using Jellyfish Level 5 as a test (JF5 plays at barely a world class
level, in other words, a level most players would be happy with but
many experts would not) error rates in 1pt matches are much much lower
than in long matches (say, 11pts). They are about a point lower in 3pt
matches than in long matches. There are a number of reasons why error
rates are lower, having to do with cubeless and/or gammonless games for
one or both sides.
Paul accused me of cheating because my error rate was a "world-best
2.5." I have yet to see evidence of that. But even if I did (and I
doubt it was that good, although anyone can come up with a selective
sample), it is meaningful only if the matches did not include a
significant number of 3pt or shorter matches.
As for Paul not playing live, I never asked him why he chose to while
away his time playing Nackblitz. It wasn't like he had a job or
anything. Or why he needed the glory of being the first human on
GamesGrid over 2100, and why he went to so much trouble to get it. I
guess I just figured that it was his business, and that it wasn't my
place to dictate his personal priorities. I see in hindsight that I
made a mistake. I should have accused him to the whole world of
cheating, because he had an ungodly error rate online and never played
live. I should have said "Paul, you have not played live in years, and
since you stopped playing live your error rate went down from (pick a
number) to a world-best 1.4." At least I would have had hard evidence
of his error rate, the pages he showed me himself.
Now then.... Paul, what have YOU done for backgammon? Have you given
FREE lessons for years? No, the lessons you give are an hour, and then
only if the tournament pays you. Have YOU writen thousands of words of
backgammon instruction and paid for a website to help people play
better? No, you proudly go around bragging that you are writing "The
best backgammon book ever written" - which appears to be "The best
backgammon book NEVER written." I've heard plenty of stories about you
Paul, about rudeness, overstaying your welcome, selfishness, etc. I
will let others who have experienced these first-hand reply.
More to come. Do NOT expect me to stay on this board and get into
debates though. I'm really not interested. I am tired of all the
goddamned jealousy and pettiness.
Stick
months. You or Paul probably wouldn't know me from the kid who won the
5th Golden Ticket in C&CF ... just saying I have no reason to be on
anyone's side.
First of all, I'd say drop it. It may be easy for me to say as an
outsider but I can tell you that if someone challenged my error rate I
would just laugh and tell them to go fuck themselves. You may have to
prove yourself to the site so you can continue playing which I am
perfectly fine with, but going out of your way to prove yourself to
other people ... why? Who cares? Prove it to the site, get another
nick (because nobody was going to continue playing that one anyway,
whether you proved yourself or not) I recently played online bg for
the first time ever for $$$ on TMG and I was unhappy w/TMG for many
reasons we won't get into right now, I did double my $$$, but when I
went to cash out they basically said I was under investigation because
I had played too good. I told them the same thing I'm telling you you
should tell everyone else to do if you really do play that well, go
fuck themselves. I didn't have to be nice about it because I didn't
plan on playing online bg again anyway, and certainly not on TMG. I
presented them w/plenty of information on how I couldn't be considered
a cheat and shortly after I had my money.
Obviously if you play 3 pt. matches or shorter, as Hank said, it's very
easy to keep an error rate of under 3 (I'd say under 2 is pretty easy
too). I have read a lot of this unfolding 'drama' and from what I
understand Hank there are a lot of 5 pt. + matches where you played
just as strong. I'm not saying you did or you didn't, again, couldn't
care less, just stating what I've read.
As I was going to post before your play today, which I didn't catch
btw, would prove nothing to anyone. The only thing it could possibly
prove is that you cheated, it could never prove that you didn't. There
are too many loopholes in ways that you still could play those matches
and cheat, web cam and all, so I think it was pointless for you to do
it. However, if you played today and had a bad session then everyone
would point and say you were a cheat and you'd finally proven it. No
win situation. Someone mentioned showing your running processes, any
computer nitwit can change the Snowie4.exe to show up as YPager.exe or
IEXPLORE.EXE ... you get the idea. Having someone else in the room is
a possibility to help you cheat, but if you're going to those lengths
to cheat and disprove you're a cheater, well I say yippie and good for
you lol
I don't think attacking Paul was the way to go either, but I'm sure
you've been wanting to vent for a while now. I've given free
backgammon lessons, I've written 'thousands of words on bg instruction'
and I pay for my bg site to help ppl play better. My site is also
intended to have almost all the actual information that the infamous
Weaver/Ballard book will have in it but it will have me annotating it,
not Ballard & Weaver. I offer my information up for free, but the
project they undertook is quite the load, and I hope it makes it to the
shelves because even though I already have all the information, I'd
love to hear what they have to say on the subject and I'm sure it will
be worth the money even if by the time it is released some of the
information is outdated. (that's twice today I've had to pat myself on
the back, I should have stretched this morning when I got up! and by
'morning' I mean 'afternoon' of course ...though Raccoon is the only
one who will have to read it twice as far as I know lol)
Since I lost my train of thought ... in short ... quit the girl
slapping fight and get on with it. I'm sure both you and Paul have
better things to do. Unfortunately I do not...so I'll be here typing
alllllllllll day long ;)
Stick
Robi
"Stick" <check...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1143411057.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
> Obviously if you play 3 pt. matches or shorter, as Hank said, it's very
> easy to keep an error rate of under 3 (I'd say under 2 is pretty easy
> too).
easy to play 3pointers below 3? don't think so. most of the best tmg
opponents play 3.x in 3pointers.
Stick
btw, I only played on there 2 weeks so I can't generalize, I was making
a broad statement.
Sticks
Raccoon
Stick wrote:
> Obviously if you play 3 pt. matches or shorter, as Hank said, it's very
> easy to keep an error rate of under 3 (I'd say under 2 is pretty easy
> too).
Under 3 is "easy"? Under 2 is "pretty easy too"? Baloney. None of the
players (with 5 or matches recorded) whose matches Robi has recorded
have an error rate under 3.0, except Hank. 3-point matches are the norm
in TMG tournaments. Not all TMG tournament players are "gimps." How
many players and 3-point matches have you recorded?
Raccoon
Hank Youngerman wrote:
> Why he didn't play live, well, I never asked him. I do
> know that, at least to tbe best of my knowledge, he did not play in a
> single live tournament for the entire time that I lived in Alabama,
> from November 2000 to July, 2003.
> As for Paul not playing live, I never asked him why he chose to while
> I should have accused him to the whole world of
> cheating, because he had an ungodly error rate online and never played
> live. I should have said "Paul, you have not played live in years, and
> since you stopped playing live your error rate went down from (pick a
> number) to a world-best 1.4."
None of that is factual. The Chicago Point website lists many
tournament results for Paul Weaver in recent years, including five
between November 2000 and July 2003.
Mar 2005 Nordic Wide Open. Open Consolation Semifinalist
Aug 2004 Georgia Backgammon Championships. Georgia Peach Cup Finalist
Aug 2003 Georgia Backgammon Championships. Open Winner
Jan 2003 Carolina Invitational. Queen City Cup Winner
Oct 2002 Florida State Championships - Open Consolation Finalist
Jan 2002 Carolina Invitational - Queen City Masters Finalist
Mar 2001 Midwest Championship - Grand Crystal Beaver Winner
Feb 2001 Pittsburgh Championships - Open Semifinalist
Sep 2000 Indiana Open - Championship Winner
Jun 1999 Georgia Championships - Championship Winner
Jun 1998 Georgia Championships - Last Chance Jackpot Winner
Stick
know what sarcasm is? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
in case you don't ... I have no clue who plays on TMG, I didn't know
who redtop was before I came here a couple weeks ago and wish I still
didn't know. If you're taking my "all TMG players are gimps" serious,
well ... jesus, you must be the biggest gimp of them all =)) For all I
know the top 20 of the Giants list could play on TMG, idrgaf, obviously
they don't if nobody is keeping under a 3.0 in 3 pt. matches or less.
The only person's 3 point matches I have recorded are my own. Any
other match I've studied has been online, and I haven't studied outside
the realm of 1 pointers or DMP, 2 pointers, which is 'basically' DMP,
and 3 pointers. I figured this was enough to get me by in tournaments
with a little common sense ;o) If you'd like me to send you my 3 pt.
matches vs. Snowie and then I could continue barking that it isn't
tough to keep under a 3 error rate you're shit out of luck =P That
would go against everything I recommended to Hank.
If you'd like to take my money sometime live though, I'm in like Flynn
guaranteed to win so step back with the battleship grip!
Stick
Raccoon
Stick wrote:
> lolllllll ...... does anyone realize this is online? Does anyone else
> know what sarcasm is? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
> in case you don't ... I have no clue who plays on TMG, I didn't know
> who redtop was before I came here a couple weeks ago and wish I still
> didn't know. If you're taking my "all TMG players are gimps" serious,
> well ... jesus, you must be the biggest gimp of them all =)) For all I
> know the top 20 of the Giants list could play on TMG, idrgaf, obviously
> they don't if nobody is keeping under a 3.0 in 3 pt. matches or less.
> The only person's 3 point matches I have recorded are my own. Any
> other match I've studied has been online, and I haven't studied outside
> the realm of 1 pointers or DMP, 2 pointers, which is 'basically' DMP,
> and 3 pointers. I figured this was enough to get me by in tournaments
> with a little common sense ;o) If you'd like me to send you my 3 pt.
> matches vs. Snowie and then I could continue barking that it isn't
> tough to keep under a 3 error rate you're shit out of luck =P That
> would go against everything I recommended to Hank.
In other words you don't know anything about error rates in 3-point
matches on TMG, except for the few matches you played there in two
weeks. Do you actually know something about the 3-point match error
rates of the top 20 on the Giants list, or is that just more bs or
lolllllll sarcasm like your "under 2.0 is easy" comment?
Stick
rates of 3 point matches on TMG exclusively? I was speaking in
general, and then Robi mentioned TMG and AGAIN I said I wasn't
referring to TMG but in general (for world class players, thought it
was implied, even if it wasn't, I was clear that I wasn't talking about
TMG players). Ever since then you've been pimping on about it for some
reason ... just scroll up.
I also didn't play any 3 pt. matches on TMG when I played there. I'm a
money player, there's no reason for me to play matches when there's
money games around.
I don't really think I need to know anything about 'the 3 pt. match
error rate of the top 20 Giants'. If they are indeed among the top 20
in the world (loosely of course) then I'm pretty safe to assume they
can handle a 3 pt. match lmfao... That's like taking the top 20
bowlers in the world and asking me the % of spares they pick up, maybe
I don't know specifically but I could take a willlllllld guess? I
could also take a crazy guess @ their strike % too. =P
I'd still be willing to back up how easy I personally think keeping it
under 3 in a 3 pt. match is if anyone wants to poney up, my $$$ is
always where my mouth is :)
Stick
Raccoon
Stick wrote:
> First of all where did I originally mention anything about the error
> rates of 3 point matches on TMG exclusively?
You didn't, and I didn't say you did. You said:
> Obviously if you play 3 pt. matches or shorter, as Hank said,
> it's very easy to keep an error rate of under 3 (I'd say under 2
> is pretty easy too).
Now that you've clarified what you meant ...
> I wasn't referring to TMG but in general (for world class players,
> thought it was implied).
... then your observation makes more sense. Even so, wouldn't it be
nice to have more (some? any?) data on how well world class players
play 3-point matches, and less lmfao-it's-obvious-rofling?
Stick
looked at a fair share of 3 pointers and under as it is all I've
studied as far as match play is concerned. When I see Gus Hansen who
was like 22/23 in the Giants list play a 17 pointer and stay under a 3
(I think he was under a 2 actually, but I don't remember if that was
pre or post rollouts) then I don't really need the hard data to back up
that he'd make it through a 3 pointer. I know, it was only one match,
but it was a 17 pointer ...and the only match of his I've found.
I gtg b4 I bark more on the subject ... get back to it later ... drinks
are calling my name.
Stick
Hank Youngerman
an honest mistake. Of course the entire post was sarcastic anyway. I
don't think Paul cheats, I just think that his "evidence" of my
cheating was comical. I DO know that he bragged to me about his 1.4
error rate in Nackgammon.
Roasted
"If you'd like to take my money sometime live though, I'm in like Flynn
guaranteed to win so step back with the battleship grip!"
Props for the Salt N Pepa quote! Haha haven't heard that in years.
Anyway, I would recommend against playing online backgammon. Cheating
is easy to accomplish, virtually untraceable and unproveable, and more
likely than not, commonplace. With thousands of people around, and
millions of dollars in circulation, you better believe that there are
plenty of cheaters out there milking the unwary day in, day out.