Originally posted by NordlysI'm tired so could be wrong, but by this method your man would continue to hold onto losing games, eventually ending up with 8 losing going on. Unless he continues to increase his number of games to compensate then he would have to lose a game to start another, and with only a 50/50 chance of winning the new game his loss ratio would increase.
Let's take an imaginary player who always has eight active games, who has a 50% chance of winning a game, and who uses one month for his good games and two for the bad ones (yes, I know this is an extremely unlikely scenario, but the principles are the same with different numbers, I just simplify). He starts out with eight games. After a month, he gets four ...[text shortened]... yers with the same rating as in the beginning, the wins won't bring him much points anymore.
Like I said, I could very well be wrong. Logic ain't my strong point after 14 hours at work
Originally posted by belgianfreakI am tired as well, so I could be wrong, too, although I don't think so. I'll sleep over it.
I'm tired so could be wrong, but by this method your man would continue to hold onto losing games, eventually ending up with 8 losing going on. Unless he continues to increase his number of games to compensate then he would have to lose a game to start another, and with only a 50/50 chance of winning the new game his loss ratio would increase.
Like I said, I could very well be wrong. Logic ain't my strong point after 14 hours at work
Originally posted by belgianfreakI don't normally like it when Phlab gives me a gut feeling, but my gut feeling on this is that he is right, in his most basic of scenarios.
I'm tired so could be wrong, but by this method your man would continue to hold onto losing games, eventually ending up with 8 losing going on. Unless he continues to increase his number of games to compensate then he would have to lose a game to start another, and with only a 50/50 chance of winning the new game his loss ratio would increase.
Like I said, I could very well be wrong. Logic ain't my strong point after 14 hours at work
You're better off losing first and then winning with the lowest rating. In that system you will lose few points, and then gain more.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI think we all agree on that.
I don't normally like it when Phlab gives me a gut feeling, but my gut feeling on this is that he is right, in his most basic of scenarios.
You're better off losing first and then winning with the lowest rating. In that system you will lose few points, and then gain more.
D
Originally posted by RavelloI rec Xan as queen of Drag moderation. And sense you are of the same feather go flock together.😏
I must ask Russ if he will create a drag moderation team,I'm fed up with all those sandbaggers,they give a bad name to the site!
Every site has a policy against game dragging,how can be possible that here nothing is being done??
I'm reconsidering my subscription renewal if nothing will be done!
Originally posted by RavelloI love it when someone plays innocent. It was a brilliant attempt to convince everyone to take a vote on you and XanthosNZ becoming the Drag Queen Moderators for RHP. 😀)) It's only because I like you that would I nominate you. But I wasn't really wanting to make a new thread on the issue. No flirt intended.😉
What are you talking about?
Originally posted by ChavvieJust goes to show how wrong one can be. I had pinned the cutoff point for wrist slashing chess at around 1700, those above being susceptible and those below being sociable. however, I had not factored in the pom wing factor before.
Hello, I refer you to the game i'm currently playing against madam Game 1393532 which is 3 day/7 day match.
I have had this game won long ago with a bishop and 2 pawns against her(?) king. Rather than do the decent thing and resign she has eroded her time bank down to half a day, now she has taken to moving once every three days just before the ti ...[text shortened]... ur time to keep the game running.
Madam, you are a chump.
Thanks for you time people.