From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: WRGPT II Rules change, anyone?
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:48:42 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

jxr@thumper.bellcore.com (Jonathan Rosenberg) writes:

}From: ahmcs@world.std.com (Alan H Mintz)
}Subject: Re: WRGPT II Rules change, anyone?
}Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:05:06 GMT

}> One thing's for sure, though. If you time out more than twice and your
}> machine isn't directly connected to the Internet, you're almost 
}> guaranteed to fall into an inescapable downward spiral of timeouts.

}So your argument is that since you often can't respond in time, we
}should all be willing to suffer a slower game.  Or, are you saying that
}there were one-time problems that won't recur & if you just got your
}12-hour timeout back, everything would be peachy?

I take his argument to be more that we should allow for the inescapable
reality that email is not perfect.  I myself have never (yet) timed out,
but I think the current time-out scheme needs some reworking. Obviously,
everyone wants the games to move along as fast as possible.  And players
shouldn't be allowed to sit on their bet forever, so *some* sort of
time-out is necessary.  But there's a big difference between the guy
who has mailer problems or some other problems out of his control, and
the guy at my table who deliberately and repeatedly let almost all of
his time run out before making a bet.  Given the current scheme, the
former player -- through no fault of his own -- gets "punished" by 
having his time-out shortened, while the latter player -- who is
deliberately slowing down the game -- gets to keep on doing it with
impunity.

I think what the poster above is saying about the "inescapable downward
spiral" is that if you are in a situation where your email takes some
time to get in and out -- not everyone is on The Internet, after all --
then a couple of unfortunate circumstances can get you into a situation
where you are simply unable to get your bets in on time, no matter *how*
conscientious you are, unless you *always* use advance betting.  And I
don't think that that's reasonable.

Rather than having a way to "earn back" one's time-outs, I would suggest
the following changes (which, I'm pretty sure, will be roundly ignored):

At the very least, the lower limit should be raised from 2 hours to,
say, six hours, so that the downward spiral doesn't go all the way into
a pit.

Penalties should be imposed for *repeated* time-outs.  Anyone can have
mailer problems, or just forget that they'll be gone for a day or two,
or have an emergency come up, or whatever.  I think the first offense
is forgivable.  Or perhaps the first couple of offenses should result 
in a loss of only one hour each, then the next two lose you two 
additional hours (which brings you down to six).

And along those lines, I would really like to see a penalty for REPEATEDLY
-- and I stress the REPEATEDLY here -- getting very close to your time-out
before betting.  The player at my table only pulled his trick a few times,
but I shudder to think of where we'd be if he decided to really make a
habit of that.

--James Preston