From: brett l. <wak...@gm...> - 2010-01-13 21:30:00
|
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Aliza Panitz <ali...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM, John A. Tamplin <ja...@ja...> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:46 PM, brett lentz <wak...@gm...> wrote: >>> >>> Doing "pass until something interesting occurs" [...] >> it gets problematic to try and anticipate all the possible reasons. > > I suspect 2 or 3 cases would cover 99% of the conditional passes. > > There's also the whole meta-game -- If Jim says "pass unless a share > is sold" that probably means he's done but is reserving the right to > change his mind if something unexpected happens, but if he says "pass > until Aliza finishes floating the Penn" then he probably has something > more malicious in mind. > > - Aliza > > I'm not sure I want to tread down this path. The issue of meta-gaming opens a whole can of worms that I really don't want Rails to touch. If we're going to be an impartial rules arbiter, I don't think it's right for us to provide information that can be (ab)used. I think that knowing additional information about your opponent's stock buying strategy falls into this category. I think that going beyond a simple all or nothing "Auto-Pass" will add unnecessary complexity, and the benefits it provides are of dubious value. ---Brett. |