CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

Challenge is still open. I missed your email somehow so I will send you an email.

I was coming on the board today to announce my retirement. I am planning to extend the challenge another 30 days. I am happy to stick to the existing terms. However, in order to drum up more challengers I am also offering this version :

- if you are below me in ELO rank I will play you for either 80%, 90% or 100% of your bank. If you wager me 100% I will reveal my first cell for the first 3 rounds. 90% the first 2 rounds and 80% I will reveal my first cell on just the first round.

- if you are above me in ELO and wager 100% of your stack original rules apply, if you only want to wager 90% you will reveal me your first cell on the first two rounds, 80% the first cell on the first round.

The revelations will take place on Chatzy. Let me know if there are any new takers for the new scheme. Otherwise my $400/$500 is leaving the game in 30 days.

cullman

Indeed it does prove something. My vote is Professor Chin gets the amulet. I feel bad knocking a better player out of the game. I thought my challenge would just steadily increase everyone's bankroll. But you guys are too chicken apparently.

Well played, Professor Chin!  Next Challenger!

  I dunno, I feel like I was Nate's flying mount in CM.

Thanks for the feedback, that's what we are looking for, so if anyone has some suggestions on how to improve game play we are all ears. Yeah, I think the whole 36+16=52 is a bit of kismet, and silly or not one of the things that makes me interested in this version. Whether or not we have the way that hole cards and community cards figured out the right way remains to be seen (my guess is no). We'll take a look at this bug it's a very rough prototype (we've spent less than a week throwing this together). We could somewhat easily implement the red and green bar scheme CM has. There are something like 7350 possible poker hands. So we could take the rank of all your possible hands and divide them by 73.5 and give you a rough idea with a 1 to 100 score of where your hand and potential hands stand. Would that be helpful?

Nah, Max isn't JA.  Max doesn't really play CM.  He is my cousin and business partner.  He is the coder on Terminal Heist for those of you familiar with that slow moving project.

Should we be seeing the amulet game button yet?

I get your proposal, I think, but I have the same problem with it that I do with the original proposal which is it looks like you are playing for money but you are not.  You can say the amulet is stakes, but there are cases where it may not be.  Imagine if it's the last hour of the tournament (and I haven't played the tournament at all) and I have $9 in my account and I chose to play $4.50, instead of increasing my account by 50% I get a copper amulet and no chance to win the physical one.  Again, strange behavior IMHO.  In the strata model if you want to play a $5 amulet game you play a $5 amulet game, if you want to play a $5 non-amulet game you play a $5.01 or $4.99.  Personally, I also think there should be buttons on the create/join screen that just say :
^^^^ ^^
00000.00
vvvvv  vv
[In Yellow or some color]
"Amulet Tournament Play - click here for info"
[.01] [.10] [.50] [$1] [$2] [$5]

If the player hits one of the tournament buttons, says [.50] The screen would change to

[Now the number is in yellow ]
^^^^ ^^
00000.50   (Amulet Tournament Play - click here for more info)
vvvvv  vv

The same color change and indication of amulet tournament play would happen if the user manually entered one of the amulet tournament strata amounts, like .50.

It's explicit, it solves most of collusion, it allows for people to play amulet games or regular games, it creates an opportunity to explain the tournament in game to someone who may not have stumbled across the tournament without reading the boards or news about the tournament. Etc, etc.  Ok I am done beating this dead horse.

While this isn't a bad idea, and it does sort of fix the no risk part for the main/amulet account, I think it has some other troublesome side effects.  For one, by design (and I think it's a neat design) neither player knows if the other has an amulet until the game is over.  In your proposed model, I would never create an amulet game, I would only join them, because I would have a much higher chance of getting an opponent with an amulet.  In fact, if I created games I'd be certain to never play an opponent with an amulet.  I assume this strategy would be adopted widely by all non-amulet holders and it would stunt the number of games being played, in my opinion.

Yup, I understood your comment to mean that, and I quoted you because I think it's concerning that even before the tournament is up and running it seems so obvious how to cheat.  I mean even if "we" didn't do the tiered thing I think at least forcing amulet games to be in increments of 50 cents (and maybe have a 10 cent or 1 cent game too).  At least it would cut down down on the ability to collude, but even that I think if I created a $3.50 or a $1.50 game, and my main could see it within a minute, those seem like relatively strange numbers to play at and I'm sure my 2 accounts could find each other especially at off peak hours.   I understand why Jason doesn't want to do this, cause it diverts from how the game is played now, though, if someone is really dying to play a game for $4.23 instead of $5 they can still do so in my model, it just won't be an amulet game.

Personally, I think having 3 or 4 set prices for amulet play is not only the best way (and maybe only) to prevent collusion, but it will also actually help legit players find more amulet games, and probably find them quicker as well.

That's why I proposed and still like the leaving penalty to be 2x next ante, as the players would be really incentivized to look at just one more card.  But, if the baby is crying or the boss is calling it's still not the end of the world if you have to get up and leave.  That seems like a reasonable balance to me.

I too thought the booth was cool looking, but probably hurt you functionality wise.  As you mentioned you had to explain the game to hundreds of people.  If your both was an open concept you could have explained it to more than 6-8 people at a time, and even better than that people walking by or standing around could watch others play.   This is not an inditement of your cousin's booth design skills, as it definitely was the most interesting thing there for money spent, which I am sure was one of the main goals....

On the plus side, it was the least I've ever lost at CM.

Also, I'd argue that Kotaku article did not cost nothing!