Cheating online backgammon
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
Robi
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.
"Toos Vandermill" <to...@thuis.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:486c2490$0$14467$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
SharkyFish
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:
courtreporter
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.
"SharkyFish" <nospam@invalid> wrote in message
news:RZvmHlrnhYjsqWOJnospam@invalid...
Piranha
> 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.
Don´t 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.
mont...@lycos.com
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.
Rich
>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?
Rich
SharkyFish
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:
mont...@lycos.com
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).
Rich
>"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.
Rich
mont...@lycos.com
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)?
Michael Petch
I have a money offer on the table to play you high stakes. It still exists
for 15pts. You refuse to play for high stakes stating that it would change
how you play (Like I give a rats ass) - it only tells me you are afraid of
losing your money to me. Based on your previous encounter with me, I can see
why a person that's not anywhere near world class would be afraid to play me
for higher stakes. You are afraid, I am not. I think you know we play at the
same level and you are afraid I might just get lucky.
The one that makes no sense is the Free offer of money if you can beat stick
in a skills based series. Not taking of this offer is mind boggling. You
don't have to put a penny up, you have no way to lose money and you can gain
500$ if you were to beat Sticks skill (See previous post for the
conditions).
Both offers are still on the table, and I have not withdrawn them.
Mike
Rich
>And these are your opinions, Rich.
Of course they are my opinions.
And my opinion is supported by the analysis by gnu.
> They now need to be demonstrated
>in practice.
They *were* demonstrated in practice. You played seven 15 point
matches and won five of them. Gnu analyzed the matches and determined
that you were equally matched and if anything M.Petch's luck adjusted
rating was slightly better than yours. Gnu is the best objective
evidence of support of my opinion.
You have gone on record saying that you deliberately will drop doubles
that are takes because you think you can outplay your opponent. You
further said that you did this against Petch and by virtue of your
winning, believe that your strategy worked.
Your entire basis for saying that your strategy worked is the result.
You completely discount the luck factor.
Of course when luck goes against you, you make a point of stressing
how unlucky you were.
Gnu confirmed this tendency to drop takes and M.Petch took advantage
of it. Unfortunately for M.Petch, he got unlucky and you won despite
your poor cube play.
> Here's a way to do that:
<snip>
No need. It has already been demonstrated. Petch paid you money to
play him. The match is a matter of record. Your poor cube play and
numerous blunders with checker play are a matter of record. Spin it
however you want. The bottom line is that you and Petch are evenly
matched and you won by luck. Gnu supports this belief. If you want to
assert that gnu is not the end all and be all of analysis, you are
correct but it is the best we have and a whole lot better than you
claiming you have some secret strategy that you won't explicitly
reveal.
I repeatedly asked you to find a single instance where a blunder on
your part resulted in your winning due to the "human factor" and you
just made up an excuse for not revealing it. And your excuse that it
would be foolish to divulge this strategy since you play for money is
ridiculous since you don't play for enough to make any difference
anyway.
Rich
Michael Petch
On 7/5/08 4:26 PM, in article C4955125.5EB5B%mpe...@capp-sysware.com,
"Michael Petch" <mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote:
> You refuse to play for high stakes
Should have read:
"You refuse to play for significantly higher stakes than you normally play".
I make this correction because some here will look at the stakes I suggested
as being "low" compared to what some world class players would play for. I
wasn't trying to price Monty out of accepting.
Mike
mont...@lycos.com
of my strategy against players like MP than I already have. My offer
will stand for a while, so if any of the other "windbag" characters
here want to actually play some backgammon, let's do it !
Rich
<mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote:
>
>I have a money offer on the table to play you high stakes. It still exists
>for 15pts. You refuse to play for high stakes stating that it would change
>how you play (Like I give a rats ass) - it only tells me you are afraid of
>losing your money to me.
You got that right. And it is not like he would be even playing with
his own money as you gave him hundreds of dollars for free. He can
play with that money. Cue Monty to say he already spent that money and
he has nothing to spare.
>Based on your previous encounter with me, I can see
>why a person that's not anywhere near world class would be afraid to play me
>for higher stakes. You are afraid, I am not. I think you know we play at the
>same level and you are afraid I might just get lucky.
Yep. Monty talks the talk but does not walk the walk. He takes your
money, then says that he is confident that he is the superior player.
So why not play for high stakes using money that you gave him.
>
>The one that makes no sense is the Free offer of money if you can beat stick
>in a skills based series. Not taking of this offer is mind boggling. You
>don't have to put a penny up, you have no way to lose money and you can gain
>500$ if you were to beat Sticks skill (See previous post for the
>conditions).
There is only one reason that he will not take you up on that offer.
He knows he cannot win. Once your remove luck from the equation Monty
is lost. He cannot use the excuse that he is using the "human factor"
strategy since it will be completely based upon error rate determined
by gnu.
>
>Both offers are still on the table, and I have not withdrawn them.
Cue Monty to come up with another rationalization for refusing these
offers and to come up with some lame offer that would be for pennies
and a waste of anyone's time.
Rich
Rich
>Again, this is all your opinion.
Opinion supported by fact. Opinion supported by analysis by gnu.
Fact: Gnu rated both you and Petch as about equal in checker play.
Fact: Gnu rated Petch significantly better in cube play.
Fact: Your most common error with the cube is dropping takes.
Fact: You have said that you deliberately drop cubes that gnu thinks
are takes because you think that you can outplay your opponent and
make up for lost equity.
Fact: You did drop a number of cubes that gnu thought were takes.
Fact: You said that the fact that you won the match 5-2 proves that
your strategy works and completely ignore the luck factor in your
assessment.
Fact: Gnu says that once luck is adjusted that Petch slightly
outplayed you and that if luck were completely eliminated, Petch would
have prevailed.
Fact: You have yet to provide a single example of how your strategy
worked against Petch coming up with the excuse that it would be
foolish to divulge this information as it may cost you money when you
play for pennies and are not even playing Petch anymore.
Fact: You refuse to play Petch for moderate stakes claiming that it
would adversely affect your play when you could just use the money he
gave you.
> I'm not going to disclose any more
>of my strategy against players like MP than I already have.
I know. You want to get paid for the information. Your strategy was to
play Petch and if you won, claim that you were the better player and
if you lost to make excuses about bad luck or some other reason why
you did not play well (eg playing too fast, getting distracted by
circumstances in your personal life, etc).
> My offer
>will stand for a while, so if any of the other "windbag" characters
>here want to actually play some backgammon, let's do it !
Petch has already made two offers. One offer does not require any risk
of loss on your part. The windbag is you Monty. You are just blowing
hot air.
Rich
EthicalBackgammon
> http://www.backgammon-blog.de/wp-content/tutorial/inaction2/inaction2...
>
> 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
Any time you play someone on the computer, on any web site, you run
the risk that the player is cheating. And there is no way to be
completely sure. But the best defense is to run your matches through
Snowie or GNUBG and see how they play. I know that the better sites
listen carefully to complaints and do everything they can to catch
cheaters and ban them. I know that Play65 does this and has banned
many players. However, if a player is smart, and he is a cheater, he
will intentionally make some moves that are not the best, and he will
only use the computer to help him on the very important cube and
checker play decisions, and might even intentionally make some
mistakes at other times. There is no sure protection. So, don't play
for more money than you are comfortable losing; don't play a second
time with anyone who plays too well (even if they are not a cheater!),
and play on sites, like Play65, that actively look for and ban
cheaters.
paulde...@att.net
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.
So, there's no objective theory to poker? No elegant mathematical
theory? Why don't you do a google on Chris Ferguson? You might learn
something
Paul Epstein
Peter Schneider
well said, sharkyfish!
Peter aka the juggler
courtreporter
"EthicalBackgammon" <psim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cdf065b3-b398-43ea...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>... play on sites, like Play65, that actively look for and ban
> cheaters.
Play65 is using that to steal money from players, who often withdraw and
rarely deposit. Majority of them don't cheat. Play65, GammonEmpire and
Primebackgammon are complete fraud, holding hundreds of thousands in unpaid
winnings. You are welcome there as long as you lose or generate income for
them by paying high rake. Once you start winning on regular basis - they
will get rid of you and keep your money.