Ring Game Format ( was Re: Memo to Self - Greg's response )

Ring Game Format ( was Re: Memo to Self - Greg's response )

Post by Stev » Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:06:05


When talk first circulated in this newsgroup about Grady's ring game
and then the DCC's ring game I thought I knew the format of such a
game. After reading comments about the ring games at DCC in Greg's
response to Lou's criticism I'm not so sure I do.
Would somebody knowledgeable about the subject please expound on the
format of a normal ring game and further any changes to that normal
format as played at the DCC and Grady's event.
Thanks,
Steve.
 
 
 

Ring Game Format ( was Re: Memo to Self - Greg's response )

Post by John Barto » Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:12:40

Most ring games are fairly informal with no set criteria for riasing the bet
and changing the order.  Players can rotate in and out of the game at will.
Also most ring games do not require a particualr amount to be posted and
frozen in order to participate.

So the differences are that each player starts with the same amount of money
and they must play until they are out of money or have it all.  The wager
per game is steadily increased to force players out.  The order is changed
at certain intervals to balance the luck of following someone who routinely
sells out or leaves nothing. Changing the order also reduces the chances of
partners dumping to each other and reduces the chances of collusion to dump
the game.

Other than that it was played like any other ring game.  I personally have
never seen a game for $11,800 like the last game.

John


Quote:
> When talk first circulated in this newsgroup about Grady's ring game
> and then the DCC's ring game I thought I knew the format of such a
> game. After reading comments about the ring games at DCC in Greg's
> response to Lou's criticism I'm not so sure I do.
> Would somebody knowledgeable about the subject please expound on the
> format of a normal ring game and further any changes to that normal
> format as played at the DCC and Grady's event.
> Thanks,
> Steve.