Why does 2nd place benefit and 3rd place lose less ranking?

User avatar
Joe Andrews
Active Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:48 pm
Contact:

Hearts

Post by Joe Andrews » Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:35 am

The ideal "Moon" option would be for the "Shooter" to add the 26 points points to the scores of the other three opponents UNTIL -

Someone at the table has 74 or more points (in the standard 100 point game).

Now, we have these situations:

If the Shooter can end the game by adding the points on, and (most important, of all) winning First place, that is a "no - brainer".

However, if the shooter adds the points and finishes 2nd or lower, the he/she now has the option of subtracting, and still keeping the hope alive of finishing First.
------------

As for the "low man" discussion and the debate about rating points for 2nd place, it is my opinion that First Place should be the ONLY player who earns points. Hearts is a game which rewards First Place!

The Second Place player (who does finish ahead of third and fourth) breaks even - that is, he/she gets ZERO points for that game.

And 3rd / 4th finishers should lose points in the prescribed formula.

Now, and MAYBE, players will think about "low man" technique, and stop playing for 2nd place.

A very good thread!
Last edited by Joe Andrews on Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

ibeeducky
Active Poster
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 3:39 pm

Post by ibeeducky » Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:37 am

OK...gonna throw my 2 cents worth into this arena.

Maybe Hardwood could do a low man option in the game setting mix. Have no clue. Seems like different options already have different scoring. But, don't know if there is a different rating set up for those variations. You have to ask the programmers.

Now, remember we have a very diverse set of folks that play here. Sometimes, I can count. Most the time I prefer to play for fun. Don't get me wrong, I hate a low rating as much as the rest of you. In fact, i have gotten into trouble for saying "toilet water" which is my term for under 1500....(looking over shoulder). To clarify that analogy, "toilet water" used to be a word for watered down perfume. OK, now back to main point...

There are some who play just for fun....some who only play for rating...and some who are in between. And, dang those bad cards that get thrown into this mix. Spades got broken out into numerous lobbies because so many play spades. (Ibee always gets lost over there.) But, maybe that is a way for this rating thing to be solved?? Maybe the programmers can do different lobbies for different way of rating stuff.... Just tossing out an idea.....
But last time Hardwood tried to make another lobby for pards...it didn't work...hearts players are a rather small knit group...

Just my simple thoughts :D
ducky

Image

User avatar
Joe Andrews
Active Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:48 pm
Contact:

"A small knit group"

Post by Joe Andrews » Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:16 pm

There was a time that Hearts had a much larger community. Of course, Hearts has been around since the late 1700's (originally called "Reversis") and was the # 2 card game in the U.S. from 1850 until the rise of Bridge in the early 1900's.

Interestingly enough, Hearts is one of the card games that most of us learn during our childhood years, and is the card game which is always included in a lot of computer software.

Spades (created in 1937) has taken the card game community by storm, especially since the advent of the Internet in the '90's. Partnership card games such as Euchre, Bridge, Pinochle, and Spades have always enjoyed a large audience, and three of these Classic games have thriving "live" events.

Hearts has steadily declined during the past 30 years. It still has a small, but loyal following on many sites, and that includes HW. Sadly enough, Hearts has virtually almost no "live" tournament community and no national organization. (It is still played in many homes, in colleges, and in the military).

Hearts "purists" relish Low Man competitions. Perhaps HW could create a dedicated Low Man room. Then again, how would it be administered or monitored? What would be the Rules or Guidelines? I am afraid that we are left with the present structure.

Playing on HW is enjoyable, especially with all of the features and options.

And if you are lucky enought to find a group of Lowman players, then add their names to your list of preferred opponents, and savor the best darn Hearts games you will ever have!
Image

User avatar
Dust In The Wind
Guide
Posts: 5344
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: North Ga Mts

Post by Dust In The Wind » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:04 am

That is the truth, lowman hearts is a group thing not a majority thing. Some leagues sponsor lowman events, but you still have the few that do not understand the concept. You have to find those that like and play lowman at all costs and know if highman and they lead the Ace of spades 2nd or 3rd are not going to dump the queen on it BECAUSE they are looking to dump her on lowman. Part of lowman hearts is TRUST in the other 2 players to serve the same goal.

We had our group of players when the site first started, that all we played was lowman and if you sat in an open chair (if we didn't already have our 4) and didn't abide by our table rules you were booted for the next game. Very simple we were looking for games that went to the end with each player having an opportunity to win in that last hand.

To promote lowman play making the only winner the winner and all others a loser is valid, but the majority of the players here do not see it that way now because that is the way it is.

SOoooooo...... we have 3 options that I see....

1) Find players, start a club with the secret handshake and all noting that all players in this club have agreed to play and honor lowman hearts as it is designed. Those are the players that you play and you will enjoy the games that are played the way you expect.

2) Start a league with the rules that questionable games will be reviewed and violators will be....... TBD..... This way you have a place to play with players that play the same.

3) If it is possible Jonas and company make an option were it is called lets say "LOWMAN HEARTS" and if you choose to join that game you understand the rating will be as follows. Winner takes all, losers lose equally. Call it an optional game, check box must be checked. This way if any that join the game do not play lowman they will not gain and will share in the lose with the other 3 equally. You cannot force someone to play lowman but you can penalize them for not if they take anything other than first.

I do not know if this can be done or if SCE has the time to add an option to do this and will not fault them for not doing so since from what I have seen we are in the minority of present hearts players. I have stated before and will state again I will play any group of players that are willing to play "LOWMAN" with honor. True LOWMAN is not a game for the faint of heart and to sacrafice one self on one hand to live to fight on another hand is the way to play. If your lowman... ya take the enemy out!!!

JUST DUST

PS - I have joined many games that proclaimed LOWMAN and were not.
TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

User avatar
NatashaX
Active Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Metamora, MI
Contact:

Post by NatashaX » Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:04 am

A lowman option would be great, but like you said...you cant make someone play a certian way. You would find those sitting at a lowman table & dumping on others & there is nothing you can do about it. You cant boot them if they are playing & not stalling....so why should everyone elses rating points suffer because of one bad egg messing with a game? :cry: If your really think about it there is nothing that can be done that if fair to everyone. Just anounce a lowman game when you set a table & hope those players show up :wink:

dadiomac
Active Poster
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:55 am

Post by dadiomac » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:03 pm

Thank you for your comments Joe. I can’t think of anyone more credible to chime in on this thread than you. You’re the man that wrote the book…… Twice! I agree with your suggestions especially the following:

“First Place should be the ONLY player who earns points. Hearts is a game which rewards First Place! The Second Place player (who does finish ahead of third and fourth) breaks even - that is, he/she gets ZERO points for that game. And 3rd / 4th finishers should lose points in the prescribed formulaâ€

User avatar
The Messenger
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:36 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

theres an idea

Post by The Messenger » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:23 am

what would it take to get them to just add a "lowman option"? thats the perfect solution!!! so those of us who wanted to play the regular way could do so and those who didnt could still play the way they wanted to play. i would come back to hardwood if they did that. oh and by the way... having the winner gain 15 and each loser lose 5 points is a excellent idea but your right...it would not be for noobies. what do we have to do to get them to add a lowman option?? *SNIP*

Straeh31
Active Poster
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:26 am

Post by Straeh31 » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:02 pm

As for the "low man" discussion and the debate about rating points for 2nd place, it is my opinion that First Place should be the ONLY player who earns points. Hearts is a game which rewards First Place!

The Second Place player (who does finish ahead of third and fourth) breaks even - that is, he/she gets ZERO points for that game.

And 3rd / 4th finishers should lose points in the prescribed formula.
This is basically what happens now without any changes by HW. Even if 2nd place automatically gets zero; players will still fight for 2nd place rather than going for low man. "Zero" points for 2nd does not alter the current playing style of HW.
having the winner gain 15 and each loser lose 5 points is a excellent idea
This is very different and closer resembles low man. Now the value of 2nd place means nothing. The only way to "win" is to go after the low man. Minus 5 points for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th places might be the right amount; i'm not sure.

The problem on HW then becomes; if people are so out of the game by high score, they may just quit.

So then starts the "what to do with quitters" debate. But I would gladly insert a BOT and play on.

User avatar
NatashaX
Active Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Metamora, MI
Contact:

Post by NatashaX » Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:39 am

:cry: Sorry to say but I would fight for 2nd or 3rd :oops:
When you look at a persons profile I would rather see al lot of 2nd or 3rds than a zillion 4th places :(
:? At least I am willing to admit it :) :D

dadiomac
Active Poster
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:55 am

Post by dadiomac » Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:20 am

NatashaX….

That brings up a very good point. If people are willing to do whatever they can so they don’t finish 3rd or last just to keep their profile looking good, why not just do away with listing how many times you finished 1st, - last. Does your profile really need to list how many times you have finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and last? If it could improve the game why not just show your rank and that’s it?

User avatar
Joe Andrews
Active Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:48 pm
Contact:

2nd - 4th Places

Post by Joe Andrews » Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:21 am

There has to be some differentiation between 2nd, 3rd and 4th places. Perhaps 2nd Place should lose points as well. (A good suggestion by another "poster" on this thread.) First Place would win 15 or 20 points (or whatever number is appropriate) Second place might lose five points; third place, ten points; and fourth place, fifteeen points. If 2nd - 4th places are just "lumped together" as losers with equal deductions for each, you will then have a "hybrid" game in which these three players will not care where they finish. After all, they are going down the drain and 2nd is the same as 4th. If they don't quit, then they will play listlessly to get the game over and done.

However.........

They may decide to work together and take a shot at winning First Place.
(of course, the First Place person may have a huge lead, and might be unreachable).

Although second place is not a win, it still better than third place / fourth place.

Unless a "Lowman" room is created, this debate will carry on. Players are humans, and will tend to take the easy way out by "ducking and dumping", especially, if they can still earn points by finishing 2nd! Hearts may be diminishing in popularity; however, it is still an appealing game for those who enjoy its meanness and emotional element.

Here are my five all time favorite comments from "live" Hearts games.

1. "I can't believe this - my lead was the deuce of diamonds or hearts, and I got blasted" (He was not counting and the deuce was the 13th of the suit!)

2. "Congratulations - it's a girl" (uttered by a player who was dropping the spade Queen on one of his opponents.)

3. "Oh My God", I thought you took a heart earlier" - WOW (as another player stumbles into a surprise Moon)

4. "YOU were passing to him, how come YOU didn't take THAT heart to stop him".

5. "Oink - whaja you do dat for? (uttered by the third place player getting hit with the spade Queen by the fourth place player - ending the game)!

Carry On - Play hearts!
Image

dadiomac
Active Poster
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:55 am

Post by dadiomac » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:04 am

If ever there is any kind of a change I’m afraid that it may be difficult for a separate lowman room to be successful. It’s hard to get people to leave Smoot’s Cavern and venture into another room to play but who knows? I personally like the idea of having a low man option if it is at all possible.

ibeeducky
Active Poster
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 3:39 pm

Post by ibeeducky » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:50 am

There have been many very good posts on this subject. Thank you for that as it has given good discussion to a number of valid points.

But to have something like a lowman game an option, there must be a big enough following, to my way of thinking. I posted earlier that HH tried a separate pards lobby and we all had a fit and Bless the powers dat be it didn't happen. We got more hearts rooms in one lobby :D But you have to remember, the number of hearts folks here is much bigger now than then. Dadiomac said he tried to initiate a poll, but that he couldn't. I have no idea why that was.

Most of us have no idea how much it might cost to initiate changes in a program. We just assume it is easy and don't think abouts costs, much less how it might impact the saleabilty of people's interest to buy the program and further play at a website. Many websites let folks play for free. So HH has put together a very nice site...and I am sure it had lots and lots of work (as well as someone had to put up money) to make it what it is.

So maybe we need to bless what we have and if enough interest is given to support costs for changes, we just keep our growing happy family of hearts players :)

My normal 2 cents worth

ducky
ducky

Image

User avatar
NatashaX
Active Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:25 am
Location: Metamora, MI
Contact:

Post by NatashaX » Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:45 am

:( I would prefer not to just show my 1st place wins.....that would look just as bad for me! There would be a BIG negitive sign there

1st place ----------0000 out of 5000 games played :cry:

:shock: :? :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

dadiomac
Active Poster
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:55 am

Post by dadiomac » Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:26 pm

Natasha,

You have a lot better chance to add some first place wins to your profile if your'e playing lowman style! 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :D

Post Reply