Bidding for first move, in GWG

I like the effect of the bidding for first move, in Golem's Word Game. It makes the game balanced, whatever the starting position.

But, I wonder how easy it would be to speed up the procedure by which is it done. The bidding can rise slowly, 8.5,9.5,10.5,11.5,12.5,13.5,14.5 etc., so that it can take weeks to establish that I am willing to pay 37.5 for first move and my opponent isn't.

Instead, you could have a system whereby each player tells the server the maximum he is willing to bid. Then the higher bidder gets the first move, for 1 more than his opponent's bid. This would be equivalent to the present system, but much faster. (If the bids were equal, it could assign the first move to one player at random, for a cost of that bid.)

I think that is a good idea, or something similar. I hate the bidding part, it is so cumbersome. I want to play not wait for may opponent to make up their mind.

Nick,

This idea is brilliant. And it is already familiar to anyone who regularly bids for items on eBay. eBay's proxy bidding works exactly the same way.

I'd like to say that the bidding feature itself is a brilliant rule. For one, bidding in increments of half-points, it guarantees that no game will ever end in a tie. Also, it's necessary, as Richard points out in the GWG instructions, to prevent the first player from too large of an advantage. (If the server gave out the first move randomly, the first player might have a very large advantage, based upon the random letter arrangement on the board.)

I'd like to see your proxy bidding system implemented. I can think of no reason not to implement it. All games would "begin" a lot sooner and yet the idea loses nothing in the process. As you point out, the end result would be exactly the same thing.

The idea's great, but one nit: the result can be slightly different.

As it stands now, if the more agresssive bidder bids the exact amount that the more cautious bidder is willing to go to, the more cautious bidder is shut out and the more aggressive bidder gets to go first for one 1 point less then he otherwise would. With the Amazon-style bidding, that would no longer be possible.

Or hmm, if it were done exactly as Amazon does rather than as Nick suggested, it would still be possible. But I like Nick's way better. Amazon alternates bids and whoever gets to the critical number first has the rights to that bid. nick suggests that the more cautious bidder automatically gets her/his maximum bid.

Good idea indeed. I would like to add that if there are made changes to the bidding system I woul like to have the possibility to negative bids. I have had boards where I would have accepted a staring bid around -10.

How does amazon-style bidding work?

Change rules is

necessity: look there

Why is it necessary based on that game? The games between me and Scot are usually very close. Last finished game in 2nd championship was decide by 2,5 points and that game decided the ch.ship.

It is necessary to find the lowest point where one player will pass. We do use some moves getting there, but so what?

Congrats to Scot by the way. With his win against Ed Collins it is clear he will be 2nd chapion in GWG.

Greetings Tore,

I think Richard was pointing out your game only because of the large number of bids and the fact that you two are STILL bidding. I think it's this game and others like it that help to make Nick's orginal point a valid suggestion.

For those who are still unclear on what this discussion is about, let's take my last game against Tore as an example. (#15612) In this game, Tore passed on the 43rd move. (!)

He was willing to offer 53.5 points for the right to go first. However, that was his limit. After I offered 54.5 points, he passed.

If proxy bidding were implemented, here's what would have happened.

At the beginning of the game we each would have entered a secret bid amount, known only to ourselves, for the right to go first. We know that Tore would have offered 53.5. Based on that initial board position, he was not willing to offer any more.

1) If my secret bid total was 54.5 points (or anything higher) the program logic would award me the right to go first with Tore receiving 54.5 points... one more point that what he offered me. Even if I entered a secret bid total of, say, 100.5 points, since he was willing to pass after entering 53.5, I would only have to give him 54.5... one more point than his bid total.

2) If my bid total was something very low, like 20.5 points, Tore would have been awarded the right to go first and only had to give me 21.5 points... again, one more point than my lower bid total. This is exactly the same thing that would would have happened if I had passed on Move #10.

3) If my total was 52.5 points, just one less than his, the program logic would have awarded him the right to go first with me receiving 53.5 points... again, one more than my lower bid total. This is exactly what would have occurred if I had passed on move #42, after he offered me 53.5 points.

As you can see, if the two secret bids are not identical, the player who offers the LEAST amount receives that amount of points + 1 and the other player goes first.

Again, the end result is EXACTLY the same... but the entire process is speeded up considerably!

However, I haven't yet decided what the best way would be to handle both players entering the exact SAME bid total at the beginning of the game.

We could really speed up the process with what Ed says, but why? I'm not in any hurry. There IS that sticky problem of what to do if opponents bid the same ammount! The only fair thing to do would be to throw out the letter set and let the opponents bid again! The bid tie would not happen very often, but if the point is to speed up the bidding then this would do it.

Thanks, Tore, for the congrats. I have enjoyed the contest. I'm pretty annoyed with BBW on that last game. He's used at least 12 vacation days.

I would have liked to post on this topic a week ago, but I don't like to have to read all the general category forums. Can we have some of these moved?

I don't think the problem of both players bidding the same amount is all that sticky. Right now, one player gets to bid first. If s/he bids that amount, s/he gets the contract. So all that would have to be done in the proposed system, is to designate one player as 'going first'. If both players bid the same amount, the designated player gets the contract.

That seems like the easiest solution.

bump