tarheelv's dashboard

tarheelv replied on February 13, 2008 01:48 to the idea "Product development: Power user vetting and leaderboards" in Hubdub:

I understand this. However, in many sites where multiple accounts can cause gaming or cheating, only one account per IP/household is the norm. I am not saying this is the definitive answer and the fact is the old saying about one bad apple comes to mind.

tarheelv marked one of anaverageamerican's replies in Hubdub as useful. anaverageamerican replied to the idea "Product development: Power user vetting and leaderboards".

tarheelv marked one of Steph's replies in Hubdub as useful. Steph replied to the question "Should Hubdub players be allowed to "hide" their predictions by making them private? What is the rational for this feature?".

tarheelv marked one of anaverageamerican's replies in Hubdub as useful. anaverageamerican replied to the question "Should Hubdub players be allowed to "hide" their predictions by making them private? What is the rational for this feature?". tarheelv and 4 other people think it's one of the best replies.

tarheelv replied on February 12, 2008 04:34 to the discussion "New: Hubdub questions now have their own category" in Hubdub:

I see the points in both responses. I think, however, that the other features, primarily the 'power users' vetting the questions will take away the gaming possibilities in the HD related questions.

tarheelv replied on February 12, 2008 04:32 to the idea "Product development: Power user vetting and leaderboards" in Hubdub:

Multiple accounts can be partially remidied by blocking multiple registrations from the same IP address. I have seen this process implemented on other sites. The ideas are great and while they may kill the weekly contests on the forum, I knew that it would be temporary anyway. :)

tarheelv started following the idea "Product development: Power user vetting and leaderboards" in Hubdub.

tarheelv replied on February 08, 2008 03:11 to the question "Have we become too concerned about gaming ?" in Hubdub:

Nigel...some very good ideas and they sound promising. I have to say I am impressed by how much you truly want the community to have input on the site as it grows. Might I suggest multiple leader boards, similar to how I am running the contest on the forum where there will be weekly as well as monthly competitions? Overall, I am excited about where things are heading!

tarheelv marked one of Nigel Eccles' replies in Hubdub as useful. Nigel Eccles replied to the question "Have we become too concerned about gaming ?".

tarheelv started following the problem "what's up with the main site?" in Hubdub.

tarheelv replied on February 07, 2008 15:20 to the question "Request Settlement - no reaction for more than 15 hours" in Hubdub:

Remember, the majority of the HD team is based in Scotland (if not all of them), so while the PST time zone may be there for suspending the question, all settlements are manual and they are not PST. It looks like the suspend time was 8:35 PM PST. It has not been 12 hours yet. Give it a little time. The settlement will come.

www.hubdubforum.com

tarheelv replied on February 07, 2008 15:15 to the question "Have we become too concerned about gaming ?" in Hubdub:

Patrick...

You bring some valid points. However, I think there is a bigger underlying issue here. The integrity of the game is key for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, in order to monetize the site, which I would think is key for the HD guys, you need people to play as it is all about eyeballs. While I see how you feel, I think you are the exception as it relates to competition. Sure, we all want to compete against ourselves, but, IMO, the point of competition is to win. If, however, there is obvious cheating, it does discourage me. I love the community aspect of HD, hence the reason I started the forums to help accelerate the growth of the community. Granted, I think there is a bit of overreaction with the changes, but part of being in beta is trying things and seeing what works and what doesn't work.

I am pretty confident the HD team will make the appropriate changes during the beta and will implement several fail-safes to protect the overall integrity of the game.

tarheelv replied on February 06, 2008 13:51 to the discussion "Cashing in now only allowed after question is 12 hrs old" in Hubdub:

Infernal, you are the example I use for those that play the game game correctly (and very well, apparently) that have top returns. I think a public log of trades for the last 30 days would be good (more than 30 days would probably be a data management nightmare) to have the players police themselves. A flag next to trades on self-created markets would be one way to glance and see. Something like:

30-Day Prediction Log for PLAYER NAME
Question Content - Created Date - Created By - TIme and Amount of Wager - Settlement Date (this shows if when they cashed out) - Settlement Amount

Just a thought

tarheelv marked one of InfernalMachine's replies in Hubdub as useful. InfernalMachine replied to the question "Some confusion regarding percentages".

tarheelv replied on February 06, 2008 04:51 to the discussion "Cashing in now only allowed after question is 12 hrs old" in Hubdub:

I understand your reasoning and while you can still wager, you can't take short term gains. I think the block of people wagering on their own questions for a period of time is the best fix. This gives the community a chance to review questions and flag those that appear out of line. Granted, you don't have the staff (yet) to manage all the flags, however, this keeps folks from placing a wager on their own question that they have skewed the percentages on, then using other accounts to quickly change the returns. Another option would be not letting new accounts create any questions until they reach a certain return on their initial H$ or place X number of wagers. This forces them to play and learn the game rather than try to game it. Or, you could set up a system that flags innordinate returns on single wagers. Sure, there will be times that can happen, but in general, someone tripling their money overnight is something that should raise some flags. Set a threshold and when accounts hit that threshold, it triggers a review of their transactions. Should be pretty obvious there is gaming going on if it is. If not, then those that do have the big returns won't mind being looked at since they would be working within the system.

There will always be people who find ways to game a system where they have direct input on the returns. However, you can put some triggers in place to have them show up.

tarheelv replied on February 06, 2008 03:43 to the discussion "Cashing in now only allowed after question is 12 hrs old" in Hubdub:

I understand the need to manage the system, however, with a 12-hour limit, you are going to hamper several key markets:

1) Stocks - One of the most active markets out there, I guess we would need to create the daily "Will the market close..." questions well in advance.

2) Quick happening news - this takes the short-term gamblers out there, like myself, completely out of wagering on quick happening, current news.

3) Not everyone is predicting for the long term, and in my opinion, that 12-hour window completely cancels out an entire segment of those that are playing for legitimate, short-term gains.

tarheelv marked one of InfernalMachine's replies in Hubdub as useful. InfernalMachine replied to the question "Where does it say that sporting events can have no wagers after start?".

tarheelv marked one of Tom Griffiths' replies in Hubdub as useful. Tom Griffiths replied to the problem ""Will North Dakota Reach -50 degree tempuratures" Prediction".

tarheelv asked a question in Hubdub on February 05, 2008 20:59:

Isn't 12 hours a bit long to block question creators from wagering?

While I understand and applaud the locking out of wagering on your own created questions, but isn't 12 hours a tad long?

tarheelv replied on February 05, 2008 17:50 to the question "Some confusion regarding percentages" in Hubdub:

Here is what I think is the case:

When you placed your first wager, the option was at 45% and when you placed your second wager, it was at 56%. Option 3 is currently at 56%. Your 45% wager should show an increase in overall value while the 56% wager should be at the wager (assuming whole numbers).