rails-devel

[Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Another 1835 implementation issue:

President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 18xx (you 
are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are allowed to 
tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then 
receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director 
certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares into the 
pool and keeps the other).

In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more interesting.

Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share movements:

A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new president

B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool

In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% or 10% 
shares)

Depending on what the president received in A) this might even change 
the possible options for B.

However it implies that the current president has to choose both A) 
which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which 
certificate to put into the pool.

The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious bugs in 
executing the share transfers.

I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I would ask 
if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?

Example:

In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:

(Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem games - 
see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he 
moved to the US)

Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
Nick: 10% (1 10% share)

What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?

** Eyal selling 20% of shares:

- Receiving 1 20% share from Marco-
- Putting 1 20% share into the Pool
Eyal ends up with 1 20% share, 1 10% share
Marco ends up with 1 20% director, 2 10% shares
Pool ends up with 1 20% share

- Receiving 2 10% share from Marco
- Putting 1 20% share into the Pool
Eyal ends up with 3 10% share
Marco ends up with 1 20% director, 1 20% share
Pool ends up with 1 20% share

- Receiving 2 10% share from Marco
- Putting 2 10% share into the Pool
Eyal ends up with 3 10% share
Marco ends up with 1 20% director, 1 20% share
Pool ends up with 2 10% share

There are similar cases for 30%, 40% and 50% selling of shares.

Some special (hypothetical) cases:

A) No shares in Pool

Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
Marco: 20% (20%)

IPO: 40% (4 10%)

Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to Eyal.
Eyal has to sell all 40%.

B) 10% shares in Pool

Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
Marco: 20% (20%)

Pool: 40% (4 10%)

Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20% 
share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required

[John D. G. <jd...@di...>]

On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
> Another 1835 implementation issue:
> 
> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 18xx (you
> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are allowed to
> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares into the
> pool and keeps the other).
> 
> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more interesting.
> 
> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share movements:
> 
> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new president
> 
> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool

I do not agree that these are separate steps.

> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% or 10%
> shares)
> 
> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even change
> the possible options for B.
> 
> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
> certificate to put into the pool.
> 
> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious bugs in
> executing the share transfers.
> 
> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I would ask
> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?

I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it wrong (in
my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.

The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen in any
purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet).  This applies to
all games, not just 1835.

In a purchase of stock:

(1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).

(2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new president
exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.  (This
is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829 (receivership)
or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)

(In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's hand.
 I would follow this principle in any other game where any company has
non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules do not
address the question.)

In a sale of stock:

(1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only be made
if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
president's certificate contains.

(2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
certificate(s), not share(s).

(3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate.  Otherwise the
seller must retain the president's certificate.

(4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank pool.  (The
outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not have
any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)

(5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
shares smaller than one of his certificates.  (For this purpose "one
share" is defined as the amount of the smallest certificate that exists
for that company.)

In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
following is true in addition to point (3):

   A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in the right
sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges certificates with
the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.

   B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause a change
of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents' hands
together contain enough certificates of the company to give both the old
and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new president
holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way swap of
certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
certificate(s) he gives up.

> Example:
> 
> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
> 
> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem games -
> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
> moved to the US)
> 
> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
> 
> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?

If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just moves
his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.

If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
certificates) to place in the bank pool.

If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
place in the bank pool.

If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
place in the bank pool.

If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
(either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.

[snip]
> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
> 
> A) No shares in Pool
> 
> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
> Marco: 20% (20%)
> 
> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
> 
> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to Eyal.
> Eyal has to sell all 40%.

Agreed.

> B) 10% shares in Pool
> 
> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
> Marco: 20% (20%)
> 
> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
> 
> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?

Eyal may sell 30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and
taking a 10% certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his
20% certificate for the president's certificate.

Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% certificate.

-end-

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[John D. G. <jd...@di...>]

Please use this version, I hit send too soon.

On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
> Another 1835 implementation issue:
> 
> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 18xx (you
> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are allowed to
> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares into the
> pool and keeps the other).
> 
> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more interesting.
> 
> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share movements:
> 
> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new president
> 
> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool

I do not agree that these are separate steps.

> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% or 10%
> shares)
> 
> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even change
> the possible options for B.
> 
> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
> certificate to put into the pool.
> 
> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious bugs in
> executing the share transfers.
> 
> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I would ask
> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?

I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it wrong (in
my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.

The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen in any
purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet).  This applies to
all games, not just 1835.

In a purchase of stock:

(1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).

(2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new president
exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.  (This
is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829 (receivership)
or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)

(In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's hand.
 I would follow this principle in any other game where any company has
non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules do not
address the question.)

In a sale of stock:

(1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only be made
if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
president's certificate contains.

(2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
certificate(s), not share(s).

(3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate.  Otherwise the
seller must retain the president's certificate.

(4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank pool.  (The
outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not have
any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)

(5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
shares that is not divisible by one of his certificates.  (For this
purpose "one share" is defined as the amount of the smallest certificate
that exists for that company.)

In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
following is true in addition to point (1):

   A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in the right
sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges certificates with
the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.

   B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause a change
of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents' hands
together contain enough certificates of the company to give both the old
and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new president
holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way swap of
certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
certificate(s) he gives up.

> Example:
> 
> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
> 
> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem games -
> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
> moved to the US)
> 
> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
> 
> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?

If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just moves
his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.

If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
certificates) to place in the bank pool.

If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
place in the bank pool.

If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
place in the bank pool.

If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
(either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.

[snip]
> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
> 
> A) No shares in Pool
> 
> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
> Marco: 20% (20%)
> 
> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
> 
> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to Eyal.
> Eyal has to sell all 40%.

Agreed.

> B) 10% shares in Pool
> 
> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
> Marco: 20% (20%)
> 
> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
> 
> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?

In most games (and I think this includes 1835), Eyal is prevented from
selling 30% because this would cause 70% to be in the bank pool.

But let's change the example by having the pool hold two 10%
certificates and a third player hold the other two.  Then Eyal may sell
30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and taking a 10%
certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his 20%
certificate for the president's certificate.

Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% certificate.

-end-

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Follow-up to my proposal below:

* Remark first: "Certificate" versus "Share"

To be precise I use "certificate" to the physical representation of 
shares in 18xx. I use "share" is the smallest unit of the division of 
the share capital in 18xx.

So the president certificate in 1830 represents 2 shares, the other 
certificates are single shares. Each share represents 10% of share capital.

In 1835 the companies of the second group (BA, WT, HE) feature a 
double-share certificate at the bottom of their IPO stack.

The new mechanism is implemented now. As far as it possible and/or 
technical feasible at the moment.

* What are the current limitations on selling shares/certificates?

- Selling certificates can only be done in groups that represent the 
same number of shares.

- As the president certificate can be sold in "parts" (and the old 
president receives Pool certificates in return), it belongs to the 
single share group.

Example: In some cases in 1835 the double share certificates have to be 
sold before it is possible to dump the president.

- Exchanges to the Pool for the new president are executed by returning 
certificates which represent minimal shares. Thus the new president 
prefers to give up two single share certificates instead of one double 
shares certificate.

* What is the long-run target?

Players first select what percentage they want to sell. For Example: 
"40% of BY". If there are several combinations of certificates that 
allow 40% the next step allows to select which certificates to sell.

If the new president has choices what to return to the Pool in exchange 
for the president certificate he is asked to choose.


* Reason for this limitation:
I am reluctant to change the action definitions of selling shares just 
before the Rails 2.0 release.

However behind the scene the code has been changed substantially and is 
already based on the long-run goals.

The automated test games run again and I have added a few new specific 
test cases. However I am still a little bit reluctant and will release a 
new Rails 2.0 beta 5 tomorrow based on the new implementation.

As before feedback welcome and thanks again to John David Galts ideas I 
have based my implementation on.

Stefan


On 08/23/2015 04:37 PM, Stefan Frey wrote:
> John:
> I really like your suggestion. I think it is a good way to handle those
> cases in a rigorous way. In addition it is fully compatible with the
> standard way of how standard 18xx treat the change of director in such
> cases.
>
> I adapted your proposal to include that it is not allowed to sell
> multiple certificates such that you are able to get a nominal share in
> exchange, which Volker and Erik referred to.
>
> However it is still possible for the director share, which I believe is
> important. (The second edition of the German rules claim that this is
> not possible, however I do not agree with that ruling).
>
> And Dave is fully right, game rules are not written as algorithms. It is
> our task to transform those rules into an algorithm which most people
> can agree on that the algorithm is a good representation of the game rules.
>
> So my proposed algorithm (based on John David Galts suggestion) is found
> below.
>
> Again feedback is very welcome.
>
> Stefan
>
>
> * Algorithm for Change of Director after Sale of Stock:
>
> ** Definitions:
>
> Share nominal n%
>
> Nominal (n) certificate 1 times n%
> Director (d) certificate has d times n%
> Multiple (m) certificate has m times n%
>
> Director X  has x times n% of stock
> Potential director Y has y times n% of stock
>
> Pool P has p times n% of stock
> Pool limit p_max times n%
>
> ** Steps:
>
> 1. Director can trigger change of director if he sells s >= (x-y) + 1
>
> 2. Only allowed if (s + p) <= p_max
>
> 3. Director puts d and other certificates (total o) into the pool, such
> that (d + o) >= s. Choose o such that o is minimal.
>
> 4. Potential (new) director exchanges certificates (of his choice, but
> see below) of total size e = d with the pool for the director certificate
>
> 5. (Old) director receives [(d+o) - s] (of his choice) from the pool, if
> this is not possible the previous step is repeated with a different
> choice until the old director receives the required amount of shares
>
> 6. If the last step cannot be executed in any way, selling s is not possible
>
> ** Remarks:
> - The program only offers choices in step 4 that allow step 5/6 to be
> succesfull
> - The program only offers transaction of size s that can be executed
>
> ** Examples:
>
> A) 1830 standard case
>
> Nominal certificate 10%
> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>
> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, 2*n]
> Y has 30%, y = 3 [3*n]
>
> Pool has 30%, p = 3
>
> Director sells 20%  (s=2)
>
> 1. Yes: s= 2;  (x-y) + 1 = (4- 3) + 1 = 2
>
> 2. Yes: s + p = 2 + 3 <= 5 = p_max
>
> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the pool (o
> = 0). (d + o) =  2 >= 2, minimal o
>
> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>
> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction finished
>
> B) 1830 selling the director partially
>
> Certificates as above in A)
>
> X has 20%, x = 2 [d]
> Y has 20%, y = 2 [2*n]
>
> Pool is empty, p = 0
>
> Director sells 10%  (s=1)
>
> 1. Yes: s = 1; (x - y) + 1 = 1
>
> 2. Yes: s + p = 1 + 0  <= 5 = p_max
>
> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the pool (o
> = 0) d + o = 2 >= 1, minimal o
>
> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>
> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>
> C) 1835 case
>
> Nominal certificate 10%
> Director certificate d=2 20% share
> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>
> X has 50%, x = 5 [d, m, n]
> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>
> Pool is empty, p = 0
>
> Director sells 30% (s=3)
>
> 1. Yes
> 2. Yes
> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool and a 10% share. It is
> not allowed to choose the 20% share here, as o has to be chosen to be
> minimal
> 4. Potential director chooses to exchange the director certificate from
> the pool with either the multiple certificate m or the two nominal
> certificates
> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction is finished
>
> D) Another 1835 case
>
> Certificates as above in C)
>
> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, m]
> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>
> Pool is empty, p = 0
>
> Director sells 10% (s=1)
>
> 1. Yes
> 2. Yes
> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool, but no other
> 4. Potential director can only exchange the 2 nominal certificates, as
> otherwise the director cannot receive the 10% share in step 5. If Pool
> contains a nominal certificate it is his choice
> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>
> On 08/21/2015 11:59 PM, John David Galt wrote:
>> Please use this version, I hit send too soon.
>>
>> On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>> Another 1835 implementation issue:
>>>
>>> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 18xx (you
>>> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are allowed to
>>> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
>>> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
>>> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares into the
>>> pool and keeps the other).
>>>
>>> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more interesting.
>>>
>>> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share movements:
>>>
>>> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new president
>>>
>>> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool
>>
>> I do not agree that these are separate steps.
>>
>>> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% or 10%
>>> shares)
>>>
>>> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even change
>>> the possible options for B.
>>>
>>> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
>>> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
>>> certificate to put into the pool.
>>>
>>> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious bugs in
>>> executing the share transfers.
>>>
>>> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I would ask
>>> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?
>>
>> I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it wrong (in
>> my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.
>>
>> The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen in any
>> purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet).  This applies to
>> all games, not just 1835.
>>
>> In a purchase of stock:
>>
>> (1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).
>>
>> (2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new president
>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
>> of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.  (This
>> is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
>> certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829 (receivership)
>> or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)
>>
>> (In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
>> certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's hand.
>>    I would follow this principle in any other game where any company has
>> non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules do not
>> address the question.)
>>
>> In a sale of stock:
>>
>> (1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only be made
>> if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
>> president's certificate contains.
>>
>> (2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
>> certificate(s), not share(s).
>>
>> (3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
>> certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate.  Otherwise the
>> seller must retain the president's certificate.
>>
>> (4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
>> of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank pool.  (The
>> outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not have
>> any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)
>>
>> (5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
>> two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
>> shares that is not divisible by one of his certificates.  (For this
>> purpose "one share" is defined as the amount of the smallest certificate
>> that exists for that company.)
>>
>> In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
>> following is true in addition to point (1):
>>
>>      A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in the right
>> sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
>> from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges certificates with
>> the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.
>>
>>      B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause a change
>> of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents' hands
>> together contain enough certificates of the company to give both the old
>> and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new president
>> holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way swap of
>> certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
>> perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
>> certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
>> certificate(s) he gives up.
>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
>>>
>>> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem games -
>>> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
>>> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
>>> moved to the US)
>>>
>>> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
>>> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
>>> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
>>>
>>> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?
>>
>> If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just moves
>> his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.
>>
>> If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
>> pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>> certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>
>> If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
>> place in the bank pool.
>>
>> If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
>> place in the bank pool.
>>
>> If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
>> pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
>> (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>
>> [snip]
>>> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
>>>
>>> A) No shares in Pool
>>>
>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>
>>> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
>>>
>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to Eyal.
>>> Eyal has to sell all 40%.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> B) 10% shares in Pool
>>>
>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>
>>> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
>>>
>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
>>> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?
>>
>> In most games (and I think this includes 1835), Eyal is prevented from
>> selling 30% because this would cause 70% to be in the bank pool.
>>
>> But let's change the example by having the pool hold two 10%
>> certificates and a third player hold the other two.  Then Eyal may sell
>> 30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and taking a 10%
>> certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his 20%
>> certificate for the president's certificate.
>>
>> Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
>> non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% certificate.
>>
>> -end-
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails-devel mailing list
>> Rai...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...]

> Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20% non-president
> certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% certificate.

Apparently you follow the line, that 1835 players buy certificates and sell
shares, both understood as referring to the current common sense meaning of
the words certificate and share.

I don't believe that the (old) rules as written follow this strict
distinction. In some places, the English rules seem to support your view, in
other places I find it pretty clear that the word 'share' should actually be
understood as 'certificate'. 
The word 'certificate' as used in the English rules only seems to occur in
contexts where minors and privates are included as well.

The German rules (found on BGG) state in 2.6.3.2:
"Jedes "Papier" kann nur als Ganzes verkauft werden, nicht teilweise (z.B.
durch den Austausch einer 20%-Aktie durch einen 10%-Anteil)."
" Each certificate can only be sold as a whole, not in parts (e.g. by
swapping a 20% share for a 10% share)."

That seems pretty clear to me. If Rails would ever support your way, it
should in my opinion be a non-default game option.

Erik

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[<da...@mi...>]

 

I have long since given up on the notion that Games Designers/ Rules
Writers can write in their native tongue as concisely as we must
program. 

Dave. 

On 2015-08-22 08:09, Erik Vos wrote: 

>> -----Original Message----- From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...]
> 
>> Eyal may also sell 10%. In this case he just places his 20% non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% certificate.
> 
> Apparently you follow the line, that 1835 players buy certificates and sell
> shares, both understood as referring to the current common sense meaning of
> the words certificate and share.
> 
> I don't believe that the (old) rules as written follow this strict
> distinction. In some places, the English rules seem to support your view, in
> other places I find it pretty clear that the word 'share' should actually be
> understood as 'certificate'. 
> The word 'certificate' as used in the English rules only seems to occur in
> contexts where minors and privates are included as well.
> 
> The German rules (found on BGG) state in 2.6.3.2:
> "Jedes "Papier" kann nur als Ganzes verkauft werden, nicht teilweise (z.B.
> durch den Austausch einer 20%-Aktie durch einen 10%-Anteil)."
> " Each certificate can only be sold as a whole, not in parts (e.g. by
> swapping a 20% share for a 10% share)."
> 
> That seems pretty clear to me. If Rails would ever support your way, it
> should in my opinion be a non-default game option.
> 
> Erik
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel [1]
 

Links:
------
[1] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required

[Schnell, V. <vol...@ar...>]

Hi Stefan,

below my opinions:
First: the Exchange of shares takes place after the share selling to the 
Bankpool.
Second: in the Bankpool can hold 50% of the Shares. (2.6.3.2) and each 
paper can be sold only as whole one (i.e.  20% Paper  as 1 Paper)


Am 21.08.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Stefan Frey:
> Another 1835 implementation issue:
>
> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 18xx 
> (you are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are 
> allowed to tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool 
> and then receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed 
> director certificate, then the old director puts one of received 
> shares into the pool and keeps the other).
>
> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more interesting.
>
> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share movements:
>
> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new president
>
> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool
>
> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% or 
> 10% shares)
>
> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even change 
> the possible options for B.
>
> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A) 
> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which 
> certificate to put into the pool.
>
> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious bugs 
> in executing the share transfers.
>
> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I would 
> ask if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?
>
> Example:
>
> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
>
> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem games 
> - see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he 
> moved to the US)
>
> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
>
> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?
>
> ** Eyal selling 20% of shares:
>
> - Receiving 1 20% share from Marco-
> - Putting 1 20% share into the Pool
> Eyal ends up with 1 20% share, 1 10% share
> Marco ends up with 1 20% director, 2 10% shares
> Pool ends up with 1 20% share
>
> - Receiving 2 10% share from Marco
> - Putting 1 20% share into the Pool
> Eyal ends up with 3 10% share
> Marco ends up with 1 20% director, 1 20% share
> Pool ends up with 1 20% share
>
> - Receiving 2 10% share from Marco
> - Putting 2 10% share into the Pool
Not possible, because the Exchange of shares takes place after the share 
selling to the Bankpool.
>
> Eyal ends up with 3 10% share
> Marco ends up with 1 20% director, 1 20% share
> Pool ends up with 2 10% share
>
> There are similar cases for 30%, 40% and 50% selling of shares.
>
> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
>
> A) No shares in Pool
>
> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
> Marco: 20% (20%)
>
> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
>
> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
Not possible, because the Exchange of shares takes place after the share 
selling to the Bankpool. The Bank Pools always ends up with  1 20% Share
One way is possible: buying a 10% Share from the pool and selling the 
20% Share.
> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to Eyal.
> Eyal has to sell all 40%.
>
> B) 10% shares in Pool
>
> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
> Marco: 20% (20%)
>
> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
Not possible, because the Exchange of shares takes place after the share 
selling to the Bankpool. The Bank Pools always ends up with  1 20% Share
> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20% 
> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?

-- 
Volker Schnell
email: vol...@ar...
homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

John:
I really like your suggestion. I think it is a good way to handle those 
cases in a rigorous way. In addition it is fully compatible with the 
standard way of how standard 18xx treat the change of director in such 
cases.

I adapted your proposal to include that it is not allowed to sell 
multiple certificates such that you are able to get a nominal share in 
exchange, which Volker and Erik referred to.

However it is still possible for the director share, which I believe is 
important. (The second edition of the German rules claim that this is 
not possible, however I do not agree with that ruling).

And Dave is fully right, game rules are not written as algorithms. It is 
our task to transform those rules into an algorithm which most people 
can agree on that the algorithm is a good representation of the game rules.

So my proposed algorithm (based on John David Galts suggestion) is found 
below.

Again feedback is very welcome.

Stefan


* Algorithm for Change of Director after Sale of Stock:

** Definitions:

Share nominal n%

Nominal (n) certificate 1 times n%
Director (d) certificate has d times n%
Multiple (m) certificate has m times n%

Director X  has x times n% of stock
Potential director Y has y times n% of stock

Pool P has p times n% of stock
Pool limit p_max times n%

** Steps:

1. Director can trigger change of director if he sells s >= (x-y) + 1

2. Only allowed if (s + p) <= p_max

3. Director puts d and other certificates (total o) into the pool, such 
that (d + o) >= s. Choose o such that o is minimal.

4. Potential (new) director exchanges certificates (of his choice, but 
see below) of total size e = d with the pool for the director certificate

5. (Old) director receives [(d+o) - s] (of his choice) from the pool, if 
this is not possible the previous step is repeated with a different 
choice until the old director receives the required amount of shares

6. If the last step cannot be executed in any way, selling s is not possible

** Remarks:
- The program only offers choices in step 4 that allow step 5/6 to be 
succesfull
- The program only offers transaction of size s that can be executed

** Examples:

A) 1830 standard case

Nominal certificate 10%
Director certificate d=2 20% share

X has 40%, x = 4 [d, 2*n]
Y has 30%, y = 3 [3*n]

Pool has 30%, p = 3

Director sells 20%  (s=2)

1. Yes: s= 2;  (x-y) + 1 = (4- 3) + 1 = 2

2. Yes: s + p = 2 + 3 <= 5 = p_max

3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the pool (o 
= 0). (d + o) =  2 >= 2, minimal o

4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool

5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction finished

B) 1830 selling the director partially

Certificates as above in A)

X has 20%, x = 2 [d]
Y has 20%, y = 2 [2*n]

Pool is empty, p = 0

Director sells 10%  (s=1)

1. Yes: s = 1; (x - y) + 1 = 1

2. Yes: s + p = 1 + 0  <= 5 = p_max

3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the pool (o 
= 0) d + o = 2 >= 1, minimal o

4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool

5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool

C) 1835 case

Nominal certificate 10%
Director certificate d=2 20% share
Multiple certificate m=2 20% share

X has 50%, x = 5 [d, m, n]
Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]

Pool is empty, p = 0

Director sells 30% (s=3)

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Director puts director certificate d the pool and a 10% share. It is 
not allowed to choose the 20% share here, as o has to be chosen to be 
minimal
4. Potential director chooses to exchange the director certificate from 
the pool with either the multiple certificate m or the two nominal 
certificates
5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction is finished

D) Another 1835 case

Certificates as above in C)

X has 40%, x = 4 [d, m]
Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]

Pool is empty, p = 0

Director sells 10% (s=1)

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Director puts director certificate d the pool, but no other
4. Potential director can only exchange the 2 nominal certificates, as 
otherwise the director cannot receive the 10% share in step 5. If Pool 
contains a nominal certificate it is his choice
5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool

On 08/21/2015 11:59 PM, John David Galt wrote:
> Please use this version, I hit send too soon.
>
> On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
>> Another 1835 implementation issue:
>>
>> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 18xx (you
>> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are allowed to
>> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
>> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
>> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares into the
>> pool and keeps the other).
>>
>> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more interesting.
>>
>> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share movements:
>>
>> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new president
>>
>> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool
>
> I do not agree that these are separate steps.
>
>> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% or 10%
>> shares)
>>
>> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even change
>> the possible options for B.
>>
>> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
>> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
>> certificate to put into the pool.
>>
>> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious bugs in
>> executing the share transfers.
>>
>> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I would ask
>> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?
>
> I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it wrong (in
> my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.
>
> The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen in any
> purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet).  This applies to
> all games, not just 1835.
>
> In a purchase of stock:
>
> (1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).
>
> (2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new president
> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
> of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.  (This
> is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
> certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829 (receivership)
> or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)
>
> (In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
> certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's hand.
>   I would follow this principle in any other game where any company has
> non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules do not
> address the question.)
>
> In a sale of stock:
>
> (1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only be made
> if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
> president's certificate contains.
>
> (2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
> certificate(s), not share(s).
>
> (3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
> certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate.  Otherwise the
> seller must retain the president's certificate.
>
> (4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
> of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank pool.  (The
> outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not have
> any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)
>
> (5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
> two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
> shares that is not divisible by one of his certificates.  (For this
> purpose "one share" is defined as the amount of the smallest certificate
> that exists for that company.)
>
> In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
> following is true in addition to point (1):
>
>     A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in the right
> sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
> from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges certificates with
> the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.
>
>     B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause a change
> of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents' hands
> together contain enough certificates of the company to give both the old
> and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new president
> holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way swap of
> certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
> perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
> certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
> certificate(s) he gives up.
>
>> Example:
>>
>> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
>>
>> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem games -
>> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
>> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
>> moved to the US)
>>
>> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
>> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
>> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
>>
>> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?
>
> If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just moves
> his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.
>
> If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
> pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
> certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>
> If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
> place in the bank pool.
>
> If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
> place in the bank pool.
>
> If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
> pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
> (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>
> [snip]
>> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
>>
>> A) No shares in Pool
>>
>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>
>> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
>>
>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to Eyal.
>> Eyal has to sell all 40%.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> B) 10% shares in Pool
>>
>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>
>> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
>>
>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
>> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?
>
> In most games (and I think this includes 1835), Eyal is prevented from
> selling 30% because this would cause 70% to be in the bank pool.
>
> But let's change the example by having the pool hold two 10%
> certificates and a third player hold the other two.  Then Eyal may sell
> 30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and taking a 10%
> certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his 20%
> certificate for the president's certificate.
>
> Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
> non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% certificate.
>
> -end-
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[Schnell, V. <vol...@ar...>]

Hi Stefan,

I don't agree with your opinion, that the exchange of the directors 
certificate works with the bank pool.
in all 18xx games, except with receivership like 1829, 1853, the 
certificates are exchanged between players.
The Change of director is also possible, when buying shares.

1835 cases.

Nominal certificate 10%
Director certificate d=2 20% share
Multiple certificate m=2 20% share

X has 40%, x = 4 [d, n, n]
Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]

X sells one share, the old director decides about the make up of the percentages (english rules IV.3 last sentence), he receives 1m or 2n from Y.

Same situation but Y buys n, he has now 50% and receives the directors certificate (d). the new director now hands 1m or 2n to the old director, while the old directer decides about the make up.

Greetings
Volker
Am 28.08.2015 um 22:47 schrieb Stefan Frey:
> Follow-up to my proposal below:
>
> * Remark first: "Certificate" versus "Share"
>
> To be precise I use "certificate" to the physical representation of
> shares in 18xx. I use "share" is the smallest unit of the division of
> the share capital in 18xx.
>
> So the president certificate in 1830 represents 2 shares, the other
> certificates are single shares. Each share represents 10% of share capital.
>
> In 1835 the companies of the second group (BA, WT, HE) feature a
> double-share certificate at the bottom of their IPO stack.
>
> The new mechanism is implemented now. As far as it possible and/or
> technical feasible at the moment.
>
> * What are the current limitations on selling shares/certificates?
>
> - Selling certificates can only be done in groups that represent the
> same number of shares.
>
> - As the president certificate can be sold in "parts" (and the old
> president receives Pool certificates in return), it belongs to the
> single share group.
>
> Example: In some cases in 1835 the double share certificates have to be
> sold before it is possible to dump the president.
>
> - Exchanges to the Pool for the new president are executed by returning
> certificates which represent minimal shares. Thus the new president
> prefers to give up two single share certificates instead of one double
> shares certificate.
>
> * What is the long-run target?
>
> Players first select what percentage they want to sell. For Example:
> "40% of BY". If there are several combinations of certificates that
> allow 40% the next step allows to select which certificates to sell.
>
> If the new president has choices what to return to the Pool in exchange
> for the president certificate he is asked to choose.
>
>
> * Reason for this limitation:
> I am reluctant to change the action definitions of selling shares just
> before the Rails 2.0 release.
>
> However behind the scene the code has been changed substantially and is
> already based on the long-run goals.
>
> The automated test games run again and I have added a few new specific
> test cases. However I am still a little bit reluctant and will release a
> new Rails 2.0 beta 5 tomorrow based on the new implementation.
>
> As before feedback welcome and thanks again to John David Galts ideas I
> have based my implementation on.
>
> Stefan
>
>
> On 08/23/2015 04:37 PM, Stefan Frey wrote:
>> John:
>> I really like your suggestion. I think it is a good way to handle those
>> cases in a rigorous way. In addition it is fully compatible with the
>> standard way of how standard 18xx treat the change of director in such
>> cases.
>>
>> I adapted your proposal to include that it is not allowed to sell
>> multiple certificates such that you are able to get a nominal share in
>> exchange, which Volker and Erik referred to.
>>
>> However it is still possible for the director share, which I believe is
>> important. (The second edition of the German rules claim that this is
>> not possible, however I do not agree with that ruling).
>>
>> And Dave is fully right, game rules are not written as algorithms. It is
>> our task to transform those rules into an algorithm which most people
>> can agree on that the algorithm is a good representation of the game rules.
>>
>> So my proposed algorithm (based on John David Galts suggestion) is found
>> below.
>>
>> Again feedback is very welcome.
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> * Algorithm for Change of Director after Sale of Stock:
>>
>> ** Definitions:
>>
>> Share nominal n%
>>
>> Nominal (n) certificate 1 times n%
>> Director (d) certificate has d times n%
>> Multiple (m) certificate has m times n%
>>
>> Director X  has x times n% of stock
>> Potential director Y has y times n% of stock
>>
>> Pool P has p times n% of stock
>> Pool limit p_max times n%
>>
>> ** Steps:
>>
>> 1. Director can trigger change of director if he sells s >= (x-y) + 1
>>
>> 2. Only allowed if (s + p) <= p_max
>>
>> 3. Director puts d and other certificates (total o) into the pool, such
>> that (d + o) >= s. Choose o such that o is minimal.
>>
>> 4. Potential (new) director exchanges certificates (of his choice, but
>> see below) of total size e = d with the pool for the director certificate
>>
>> 5. (Old) director receives [(d+o) - s] (of his choice) from the pool, if
>> this is not possible the previous step is repeated with a different
>> choice until the old director receives the required amount of shares
>>
>> 6. If the last step cannot be executed in any way, selling s is not possible
>>
>> ** Remarks:
>> - The program only offers choices in step 4 that allow step 5/6 to be
>> succesfull
>> - The program only offers transaction of size s that can be executed
>>
>> ** Examples:
>>
>> A) 1830 standard case
>>
>> Nominal certificate 10%
>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>
>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, 2*n]
>> Y has 30%, y = 3 [3*n]
>>
>> Pool has 30%, p = 3
>>
>> Director sells 20%  (s=2)
>>
>> 1. Yes: s= 2;  (x-y) + 1 = (4- 3) + 1 = 2
>>
>> 2. Yes: s + p = 2 + 3 <= 5 = p_max
>>
>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the pool (o
>> = 0). (d + o) =  2 >= 2, minimal o
>>
>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>
>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction finished
>>
>> B) 1830 selling the director partially
>>
>> Certificates as above in A)
>>
>> X has 20%, x = 2 [d]
>> Y has 20%, y = 2 [2*n]
>>
>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>
>> Director sells 10%  (s=1)
>>
>> 1. Yes: s = 1; (x - y) + 1 = 1
>>
>> 2. Yes: s + p = 1 + 0  <= 5 = p_max
>>
>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the pool (o
>> = 0) d + o = 2 >= 1, minimal o
>>
>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>
>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>
>> C) 1835 case
>>
>> Nominal certificate 10%
>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>>
>> X has 50%, x = 5 [d, m, n]
>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>
>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>
>> Director sells 30% (s=3)
>>
>> 1. Yes
>> 2. Yes
>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool and a 10% share. It is
>> not allowed to choose the 20% share here, as o has to be chosen to be
>> minimal
>> 4. Potential director chooses to exchange the director certificate from
>> the pool with either the multiple certificate m or the two nominal
>> certificates
>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction is finished
>>
>> D) Another 1835 case
>>
>> Certificates as above in C)
>>
>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, m]
>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>
>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>
>> Director sells 10% (s=1)
>>
>> 1. Yes
>> 2. Yes
>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool, but no other
>> 4. Potential director can only exchange the 2 nominal certificates, as
>> otherwise the director cannot receive the 10% share in step 5. If Pool
>> contains a nominal certificate it is his choice
>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>
>> On 08/21/2015 11:59 PM, John David Galt wrote:
>>> Please use this version, I hit send too soon.
>>>
>>> On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>>> Another 1835 implementation issue:
>>>>
>>>> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 18xx (you
>>>> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are allowed to
>>>> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
>>>> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
>>>> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares into the
>>>> pool and keeps the other).
>>>>
>>>> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share movements:
>>>>
>>>> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new president
>>>>
>>>> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool
>>> I do not agree that these are separate steps.
>>>
>>>> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% or 10%
>>>> shares)
>>>>
>>>> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even change
>>>> the possible options for B.
>>>>
>>>> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
>>>> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
>>>> certificate to put into the pool.
>>>>
>>>> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious bugs in
>>>> executing the share transfers.
>>>>
>>>> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I would ask
>>>> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?
>>> I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it wrong (in
>>> my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.
>>>
>>> The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen in any
>>> purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet).  This applies to
>>> all games, not just 1835.
>>>
>>> In a purchase of stock:
>>>
>>> (1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).
>>>
>>> (2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new president
>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
>>> of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.  (This
>>> is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
>>> certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829 (receivership)
>>> or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)
>>>
>>> (In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
>>> certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's hand.
>>>     I would follow this principle in any other game where any company has
>>> non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules do not
>>> address the question.)
>>>
>>> In a sale of stock:
>>>
>>> (1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only be made
>>> if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
>>> president's certificate contains.
>>>
>>> (2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
>>> certificate(s), not share(s).
>>>
>>> (3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
>>> certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate.  Otherwise the
>>> seller must retain the president's certificate.
>>>
>>> (4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
>>> of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank pool.  (The
>>> outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not have
>>> any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)
>>>
>>> (5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
>>> two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
>>> shares that is not divisible by one of his certificates.  (For this
>>> purpose "one share" is defined as the amount of the smallest certificate
>>> that exists for that company.)
>>>
>>> In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
>>> following is true in addition to point (1):
>>>
>>>       A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in the right
>>> sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
>>> from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges certificates with
>>> the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.
>>>
>>>       B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause a change
>>> of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents' hands
>>> together contain enough certificates of the company to give both the old
>>> and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new president
>>> holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way swap of
>>> certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
>>> perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
>>> certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
>>> certificate(s) he gives up.
>>>
>>>> Example:
>>>>
>>>> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
>>>>
>>>> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem games -
>>>> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
>>>> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
>>>> moved to the US)
>>>>
>>>> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
>>>> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
>>>> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
>>>>
>>>> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?
>>> If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just moves
>>> his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.
>>>
>>> If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
>>> pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>> certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>
>>> If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>
>>> If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>
>>> If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
>>> pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
>>> (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
>>>>
>>>> A) No shares in Pool
>>>>
>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>
>>>> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to Eyal.
>>>> Eyal has to sell all 40%.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> B) 10% shares in Pool
>>>>
>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>
>>>> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
>>>> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?
>>> In most games (and I think this includes 1835), Eyal is prevented from
>>> selling 30% because this would cause 70% to be in the bank pool.
>>>
>>> But let's change the example by having the pool hold two 10%
>>> certificates and a third player hold the other two.  Then Eyal may sell
>>> 30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and taking a 10%
>>> certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his 20%
>>> certificate for the president's certificate.
>>>
>>> Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
>>> non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% certificate.
>>>
>>> -end-
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>> Rai...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails-devel mailing list
>> Rai...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

-- 
Volker Schnell
email: vol...@ar...
homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Hi Volker,

I agree that there is a difference between buying and selling and that 
in the case of another player buying more is different and is and will 
be handled as you described.

Caveat: There is no mechanism yet in Rails to ask the old director for 
his choice in the case of another player getting more shares. (e.g. 
buying or during share exchange of the Prussian minors/privates). 
However I changed the current implementation that the old director 
receives the multiple share if possible.

The difference in understanding the rules is what happens exactly during 
share selling: Selling to the Pool or Exchanging the Presidency?

It is clear that the president certificate cannot end-up in the Pool in 
non-pure-Tresham 18xx. However in my view is that if you sell more than 
needed for dumping, your president certificate ends up for a "virtual" 
second in the Pool and then the new president receives the

There are technical reasons (ease of implementation, generalization to 
30% director shares, etc.), but in addition it is my view that selling 
the director to the Pool (even it it cannot stay there in the end) is 
more fundamental than the specific interpretation that the old director 
"always" chooses what he receives in return. Especially if he ends up 
with nothing in his portfolio in the end.

I hope that you can live with that rule interpreation. And unfortunately 
I will not add a game option to play it differently, as this would 
require drastic changes how share selling is implemented in Rails.

The current algorithm is much more robust to (potential future) share 
structures than a specific solution for 1835 only.

By the way: Do you know how Lemmis moderator handles those cases?

Stefan

Those are the examples where our view differs:

** The result differs mainly for examples of that structure:

X has 40% [d, 2*n]
Y has 40% [m, 2*n]

Pool has 10 [n]

I understand that you prefer the outcome for those cases where X sells 
10% or 20%, where in your interpretation the old president X is allowed 
to choose the m certificate in exchange.

However in those cases where X sells 30% or 40%, the m certificate 
possibly ends in the pool, which I think is counter-intuitive.

** But a more extreme example:

X has 20% [d]
Y has 20% [m]

Pool has 40% [4*n]

How does X sell 10% here? In standard 18xx this no problem: Sell d to 
the pool, receive one n in exchange and the d moves to Y in exchange for 
20%.

But in your interpretation X first exchanges d with m and then puts m 
into the pool and receives one n from the pool?








On 08/29/2015 12:14 PM, Schnell, Volker wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> I don't agree with your opinion, that the exchange of the directors
> certificate works with the bank pool.
> in all 18xx games, except with receivership like 1829, 1853, the
> certificates are exchanged between players.
> The Change of director is also possible, when buying shares.
>
> 1835 cases.
>
> Nominal certificate 10%
> Director certificate d=2 20% share
> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>
> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, n, n]
> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>
> X sells one share, the old director decides about the make up of the percentages (english rules IV.3 last sentence), he receives 1m or 2n from Y.
>
> Same situation but Y buys n, he has now 50% and receives the directors certificate (d). the new director now hands 1m or 2n to the old director, while the old directer decides about the make up.
>
> Greetings
> Volker
> Am 28.08.2015 um 22:47 schrieb Stefan Frey:
>> Follow-up to my proposal below:
>>
>> * Remark first: "Certificate" versus "Share"
>>
>> To be precise I use "certificate" to the physical representation of
>> shares in 18xx. I use "share" is the smallest unit of the division of
>> the share capital in 18xx.
>>
>> So the president certificate in 1830 represents 2 shares, the other
>> certificates are single shares. Each share represents 10% of share capital.
>>
>> In 1835 the companies of the second group (BA, WT, HE) feature a
>> double-share certificate at the bottom of their IPO stack.
>>
>> The new mechanism is implemented now. As far as it possible and/or
>> technical feasible at the moment.
>>
>> * What are the current limitations on selling shares/certificates?
>>
>> - Selling certificates can only be done in groups that represent the
>> same number of shares.
>>
>> - As the president certificate can be sold in "parts" (and the old
>> president receives Pool certificates in return), it belongs to the
>> single share group.
>>
>> Example: In some cases in 1835 the double share certificates have to be
>> sold before it is possible to dump the president.
>>
>> - Exchanges to the Pool for the new president are executed by returning
>> certificates which represent minimal shares. Thus the new president
>> prefers to give up two single share certificates instead of one double
>> shares certificate.
>>
>> * What is the long-run target?
>>
>> Players first select what percentage they want to sell. For Example:
>> "40% of BY". If there are several combinations of certificates that
>> allow 40% the next step allows to select which certificates to sell.
>>
>> If the new president has choices what to return to the Pool in exchange
>> for the president certificate he is asked to choose.
>>
>>
>> * Reason for this limitation:
>> I am reluctant to change the action definitions of selling shares just
>> before the Rails 2.0 release.
>>
>> However behind the scene the code has been changed substantially and is
>> already based on the long-run goals.
>>
>> The automated test games run again and I have added a few new specific
>> test cases. However I am still a little bit reluctant and will release a
>> new Rails 2.0 beta 5 tomorrow based on the new implementation.
>>
>> As before feedback welcome and thanks again to John David Galts ideas I
>> have based my implementation on.
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2015 04:37 PM, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>> John:
>>> I really like your suggestion. I think it is a good way to handle those
>>> cases in a rigorous way. In addition it is fully compatible with the
>>> standard way of how standard 18xx treat the change of director in such
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> I adapted your proposal to include that it is not allowed to sell
>>> multiple certificates such that you are able to get a nominal share in
>>> exchange, which Volker and Erik referred to.
>>>
>>> However it is still possible for the director share, which I believe is
>>> important. (The second edition of the German rules claim that this is
>>> not possible, however I do not agree with that ruling).
>>>
>>> And Dave is fully right, game rules are not written as algorithms. It is
>>> our task to transform those rules into an algorithm which most people
>>> can agree on that the algorithm is a good representation of the game rules.
>>>
>>> So my proposed algorithm (based on John David Galts suggestion) is found
>>> below.
>>>
>>> Again feedback is very welcome.
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>> * Algorithm for Change of Director after Sale of Stock:
>>>
>>> ** Definitions:
>>>
>>> Share nominal n%
>>>
>>> Nominal (n) certificate 1 times n%
>>> Director (d) certificate has d times n%
>>> Multiple (m) certificate has m times n%
>>>
>>> Director X  has x times n% of stock
>>> Potential director Y has y times n% of stock
>>>
>>> Pool P has p times n% of stock
>>> Pool limit p_max times n%
>>>
>>> ** Steps:
>>>
>>> 1. Director can trigger change of director if he sells s >= (x-y) + 1
>>>
>>> 2. Only allowed if (s + p) <= p_max
>>>
>>> 3. Director puts d and other certificates (total o) into the pool, such
>>> that (d + o) >= s. Choose o such that o is minimal.
>>>
>>> 4. Potential (new) director exchanges certificates (of his choice, but
>>> see below) of total size e = d with the pool for the director certificate
>>>
>>> 5. (Old) director receives [(d+o) - s] (of his choice) from the pool, if
>>> this is not possible the previous step is repeated with a different
>>> choice until the old director receives the required amount of shares
>>>
>>> 6. If the last step cannot be executed in any way, selling s is not possible
>>>
>>> ** Remarks:
>>> - The program only offers choices in step 4 that allow step 5/6 to be
>>> succesfull
>>> - The program only offers transaction of size s that can be executed
>>>
>>> ** Examples:
>>>
>>> A) 1830 standard case
>>>
>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>>
>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, 2*n]
>>> Y has 30%, y = 3 [3*n]
>>>
>>> Pool has 30%, p = 3
>>>
>>> Director sells 20%  (s=2)
>>>
>>> 1. Yes: s= 2;  (x-y) + 1 = (4- 3) + 1 = 2
>>>
>>> 2. Yes: s + p = 2 + 3 <= 5 = p_max
>>>
>>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the pool (o
>>> = 0). (d + o) =  2 >= 2, minimal o
>>>
>>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>>
>>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction finished
>>>
>>> B) 1830 selling the director partially
>>>
>>> Certificates as above in A)
>>>
>>> X has 20%, x = 2 [d]
>>> Y has 20%, y = 2 [2*n]
>>>
>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>
>>> Director sells 10%  (s=1)
>>>
>>> 1. Yes: s = 1; (x - y) + 1 = 1
>>>
>>> 2. Yes: s + p = 1 + 0  <= 5 = p_max
>>>
>>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the pool (o
>>> = 0) d + o = 2 >= 1, minimal o
>>>
>>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>>
>>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>>
>>> C) 1835 case
>>>
>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>>>
>>> X has 50%, x = 5 [d, m, n]
>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>
>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>
>>> Director sells 30% (s=3)
>>>
>>> 1. Yes
>>> 2. Yes
>>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool and a 10% share. It is
>>> not allowed to choose the 20% share here, as o has to be chosen to be
>>> minimal
>>> 4. Potential director chooses to exchange the director certificate from
>>> the pool with either the multiple certificate m or the two nominal
>>> certificates
>>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction is finished
>>>
>>> D) Another 1835 case
>>>
>>> Certificates as above in C)
>>>
>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, m]
>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>
>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>
>>> Director sells 10% (s=1)
>>>
>>> 1. Yes
>>> 2. Yes
>>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool, but no other
>>> 4. Potential director can only exchange the 2 nominal certificates, as
>>> otherwise the director cannot receive the 10% share in step 5. If Pool
>>> contains a nominal certificate it is his choice
>>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>>
>>> On 08/21/2015 11:59 PM, John David Galt wrote:
>>>> Please use this version, I hit send too soon.
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>>>> Another 1835 implementation issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 18xx (you
>>>>> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are allowed to
>>>>> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
>>>>> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
>>>>> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares into the
>>>>> pool and keeps the other).
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share movements:
>>>>>
>>>>> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new president
>>>>>
>>>>> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool
>>>> I do not agree that these are separate steps.
>>>>
>>>>> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% or 10%
>>>>> shares)
>>>>>
>>>>> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even change
>>>>> the possible options for B.
>>>>>
>>>>> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
>>>>> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
>>>>> certificate to put into the pool.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious bugs in
>>>>> executing the share transfers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I would ask
>>>>> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?
>>>> I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it wrong (in
>>>> my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.
>>>>
>>>> The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen in any
>>>> purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet).  This applies to
>>>> all games, not just 1835.
>>>>
>>>> In a purchase of stock:
>>>>
>>>> (1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).
>>>>
>>>> (2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new president
>>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
>>>> of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.  (This
>>>> is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
>>>> certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829 (receivership)
>>>> or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)
>>>>
>>>> (In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
>>>> certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's hand.
>>>>      I would follow this principle in any other game where any company has
>>>> non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules do not
>>>> address the question.)
>>>>
>>>> In a sale of stock:
>>>>
>>>> (1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only be made
>>>> if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
>>>> president's certificate contains.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
>>>> certificate(s), not share(s).
>>>>
>>>> (3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
>>>> certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate.  Otherwise the
>>>> seller must retain the president's certificate.
>>>>
>>>> (4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
>>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of shares
>>>> of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank pool.  (The
>>>> outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not have
>>>> any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)
>>>>
>>>> (5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
>>>> two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
>>>> shares that is not divisible by one of his certificates.  (For this
>>>> purpose "one share" is defined as the amount of the smallest certificate
>>>> that exists for that company.)
>>>>
>>>> In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
>>>> following is true in addition to point (1):
>>>>
>>>>        A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in the right
>>>> sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
>>>> from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges certificates with
>>>> the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.
>>>>
>>>>        B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause a change
>>>> of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents' hands
>>>> together contain enough certificates of the company to give both the old
>>>> and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new president
>>>> holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way swap of
>>>> certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
>>>> perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
>>>> certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
>>>> certificate(s) he gives up.
>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>>
>>>>> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem games -
>>>>> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
>>>>> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
>>>>> moved to the US)
>>>>>
>>>>> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
>>>>> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
>>>>> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?
>>>> If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just moves
>>>> his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.
>>>>
>>>> If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
>>>> pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>>> certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>>
>>>> If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
>>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
>>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>>
>>>> If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
>>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to
>>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>>
>>>> If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
>>>> pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
>>>> (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
>>>>>
>>>>> A) No shares in Pool
>>>>>
>>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>>
>>>>> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>>> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to Eyal.
>>>>> Eyal has to sell all 40%.
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>> B) 10% shares in Pool
>>>>>
>>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>>> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
>>>>> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?
>>>> In most games (and I think this includes 1835), Eyal is prevented from
>>>> selling 30% because this would cause 70% to be in the bank pool.
>>>>
>>>> But let's change the example by having the pool hold two 10%
>>>> certificates and a third player hold the other two.  Then Eyal may sell
>>>> 30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and taking a 10%
>>>> certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his 20%
>>>> certificate for the president's certificate.
>>>>
>>>> Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
>>>> non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% certificate.
>>>>
>>>> -end-
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>> Rai...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails-devel mailing list
>> Rai...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[Schnell, V. <vol...@ar...>]

Hi Stefan,

in the end it should be the same result.

Lemmis moderator: when in doubt about the certificates, there is a 
popup, where the user has to decide.
This is for me the best way, because the decision has an impact on the 
certificate limit.

greetings

Volker

Am 29.08.2015 um 12:58 schrieb Stefan Frey:
> Hi Volker,
>
> I agree that there is a difference between buying and selling and that 
> in the case of another player buying more is different and is and will 
> be handled as you described.
>
> Caveat: There is no mechanism yet in Rails to ask the old director for 
> his choice in the case of another player getting more shares. (e.g. 
> buying or during share exchange of the Prussian minors/privates). 
> However I changed the current implementation that the old director 
> receives the multiple share if possible.
>
> The difference in understanding the rules is what happens exactly 
> during share selling: Selling to the Pool or Exchanging the Presidency?
>
> It is clear that the president certificate cannot end-up in the Pool 
> in non-pure-Tresham 18xx. However in my view is that if you sell more 
> than needed for dumping, your president certificate ends up for a 
> "virtual" second in the Pool and then the new president receives the
>
> There are technical reasons (ease of implementation, generalization to 
> 30% director shares, etc.), but in addition it is my view that selling 
> the director to the Pool (even it it cannot stay there in the end) is 
> more fundamental than the specific interpretation that the old 
> director "always" chooses what he receives in return. Especially if he 
> ends up with nothing in his portfolio in the end.
>
> I hope that you can live with that rule interpreation. And 
> unfortunately I will not add a game option to play it differently, as 
> this would require drastic changes how share selling is implemented in 
> Rails.
>
> The current algorithm is much more robust to (potential future) share 
> structures than a specific solution for 1835 only.
>
> By the way: Do you know how Lemmis moderator handles those cases?
>
> Stefan
>
> Those are the examples where our view differs:
>
> ** The result differs mainly for examples of that structure:
>
> X has 40% [d, 2*n]
> Y has 40% [m, 2*n]
>
> Pool has 10 [n]
>
> I understand that you prefer the outcome for those cases where X sells 
> 10% or 20%, where in your interpretation the old president X is 
> allowed to choose the m certificate in exchange.
>
> However in those cases where X sells 30% or 40%, the m certificate 
> possibly ends in the pool, which I think is counter-intuitive.
>
> ** But a more extreme example:
>
> X has 20% [d]
> Y has 20% [m]
>
> Pool has 40% [4*n]
>
> How does X sell 10% here? In standard 18xx this no problem: Sell d to 
> the pool, receive one n in exchange and the d moves to Y in exchange 
> for 20%.
>
> But in your interpretation X first exchanges d with m and then puts m 
> into the pool and receives one n from the pool?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 08/29/2015 12:14 PM, Schnell, Volker wrote:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> I don't agree with your opinion, that the exchange of the directors
>> certificate works with the bank pool.
>> in all 18xx games, except with receivership like 1829, 1853, the
>> certificates are exchanged between players.
>> The Change of director is also possible, when buying shares.
>>
>> 1835 cases.
>>
>> Nominal certificate 10%
>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>>
>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, n, n]
>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>
>> X sells one share, the old director decides about the make up of the 
>> percentages (english rules IV.3 last sentence), he receives 1m or 2n 
>> from Y.
>>
>> Same situation but Y buys n, he has now 50% and receives the 
>> directors certificate (d). the new director now hands 1m or 2n to the 
>> old director, while the old directer decides about the make up.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Volker
>> Am 28.08.2015 um 22:47 schrieb Stefan Frey:
>>> Follow-up to my proposal below:
>>>
>>> * Remark first: "Certificate" versus "Share"
>>>
>>> To be precise I use "certificate" to the physical representation of
>>> shares in 18xx. I use "share" is the smallest unit of the division of
>>> the share capital in 18xx.
>>>
>>> So the president certificate in 1830 represents 2 shares, the other
>>> certificates are single shares. Each share represents 10% of share 
>>> capital.
>>>
>>> In 1835 the companies of the second group (BA, WT, HE) feature a
>>> double-share certificate at the bottom of their IPO stack.
>>>
>>> The new mechanism is implemented now. As far as it possible and/or
>>> technical feasible at the moment.
>>>
>>> * What are the current limitations on selling shares/certificates?
>>>
>>> - Selling certificates can only be done in groups that represent the
>>> same number of shares.
>>>
>>> - As the president certificate can be sold in "parts" (and the old
>>> president receives Pool certificates in return), it belongs to the
>>> single share group.
>>>
>>> Example: In some cases in 1835 the double share certificates have to be
>>> sold before it is possible to dump the president.
>>>
>>> - Exchanges to the Pool for the new president are executed by returning
>>> certificates which represent minimal shares. Thus the new president
>>> prefers to give up two single share certificates instead of one double
>>> shares certificate.
>>>
>>> * What is the long-run target?
>>>
>>> Players first select what percentage they want to sell. For Example:
>>> "40% of BY". If there are several combinations of certificates that
>>> allow 40% the next step allows to select which certificates to sell.
>>>
>>> If the new president has choices what to return to the Pool in exchange
>>> for the president certificate he is asked to choose.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Reason for this limitation:
>>> I am reluctant to change the action definitions of selling shares just
>>> before the Rails 2.0 release.
>>>
>>> However behind the scene the code has been changed substantially and is
>>> already based on the long-run goals.
>>>
>>> The automated test games run again and I have added a few new specific
>>> test cases. However I am still a little bit reluctant and will 
>>> release a
>>> new Rails 2.0 beta 5 tomorrow based on the new implementation.
>>>
>>> As before feedback welcome and thanks again to John David Galts ideas I
>>> have based my implementation on.
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/23/2015 04:37 PM, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>>> John:
>>>> I really like your suggestion. I think it is a good way to handle 
>>>> those
>>>> cases in a rigorous way. In addition it is fully compatible with the
>>>> standard way of how standard 18xx treat the change of director in such
>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> I adapted your proposal to include that it is not allowed to sell
>>>> multiple certificates such that you are able to get a nominal share in
>>>> exchange, which Volker and Erik referred to.
>>>>
>>>> However it is still possible for the director share, which I 
>>>> believe is
>>>> important. (The second edition of the German rules claim that this is
>>>> not possible, however I do not agree with that ruling).
>>>>
>>>> And Dave is fully right, game rules are not written as algorithms. 
>>>> It is
>>>> our task to transform those rules into an algorithm which most people
>>>> can agree on that the algorithm is a good representation of the 
>>>> game rules.
>>>>
>>>> So my proposed algorithm (based on John David Galts suggestion) is 
>>>> found
>>>> below.
>>>>
>>>> Again feedback is very welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Algorithm for Change of Director after Sale of Stock:
>>>>
>>>> ** Definitions:
>>>>
>>>> Share nominal n%
>>>>
>>>> Nominal (n) certificate 1 times n%
>>>> Director (d) certificate has d times n%
>>>> Multiple (m) certificate has m times n%
>>>>
>>>> Director X  has x times n% of stock
>>>> Potential director Y has y times n% of stock
>>>>
>>>> Pool P has p times n% of stock
>>>> Pool limit p_max times n%
>>>>
>>>> ** Steps:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Director can trigger change of director if he sells s >= (x-y) + 1
>>>>
>>>> 2. Only allowed if (s + p) <= p_max
>>>>
>>>> 3. Director puts d and other certificates (total o) into the pool, 
>>>> such
>>>> that (d + o) >= s. Choose o such that o is minimal.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Potential (new) director exchanges certificates (of his choice, but
>>>> see below) of total size e = d with the pool for the director 
>>>> certificate
>>>>
>>>> 5. (Old) director receives [(d+o) - s] (of his choice) from the 
>>>> pool, if
>>>> this is not possible the previous step is repeated with a different
>>>> choice until the old director receives the required amount of shares
>>>>
>>>> 6. If the last step cannot be executed in any way, selling s is not 
>>>> possible
>>>>
>>>> ** Remarks:
>>>> - The program only offers choices in step 4 that allow step 5/6 to be
>>>> succesfull
>>>> - The program only offers transaction of size s that can be executed
>>>>
>>>> ** Examples:
>>>>
>>>> A) 1830 standard case
>>>>
>>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>>>
>>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, 2*n]
>>>> Y has 30%, y = 3 [3*n]
>>>>
>>>> Pool has 30%, p = 3
>>>>
>>>> Director sells 20%  (s=2)
>>>>
>>>> 1. Yes: s= 2;  (x-y) + 1 = (4- 3) + 1 = 2
>>>>
>>>> 2. Yes: s + p = 2 + 3 <= 5 = p_max
>>>>
>>>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the 
>>>> pool (o
>>>> = 0). (d + o) =  2 >= 2, minimal o
>>>>
>>>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>>>
>>>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction finished
>>>>
>>>> B) 1830 selling the director partially
>>>>
>>>> Certificates as above in A)
>>>>
>>>> X has 20%, x = 2 [d]
>>>> Y has 20%, y = 2 [2*n]
>>>>
>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>
>>>> Director sells 10%  (s=1)
>>>>
>>>> 1. Yes: s = 1; (x - y) + 1 = 1
>>>>
>>>> 2. Yes: s + p = 1 + 0  <= 5 = p_max
>>>>
>>>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the 
>>>> pool (o
>>>> = 0) d + o = 2 >= 1, minimal o
>>>>
>>>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>>>
>>>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>>>
>>>> C) 1835 case
>>>>
>>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>>> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>>>>
>>>> X has 50%, x = 5 [d, m, n]
>>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>>
>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>
>>>> Director sells 30% (s=3)
>>>>
>>>> 1. Yes
>>>> 2. Yes
>>>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool and a 10% share. 
>>>> It is
>>>> not allowed to choose the 20% share here, as o has to be chosen to be
>>>> minimal
>>>> 4. Potential director chooses to exchange the director certificate 
>>>> from
>>>> the pool with either the multiple certificate m or the two nominal
>>>> certificates
>>>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction is finished
>>>>
>>>> D) Another 1835 case
>>>>
>>>> Certificates as above in C)
>>>>
>>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, m]
>>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>>
>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>
>>>> Director sells 10% (s=1)
>>>>
>>>> 1. Yes
>>>> 2. Yes
>>>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool, but no other
>>>> 4. Potential director can only exchange the 2 nominal certificates, as
>>>> otherwise the director cannot receive the 10% share in step 5. If Pool
>>>> contains a nominal certificate it is his choice
>>>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>>>
>>>> On 08/21/2015 11:59 PM, John David Galt wrote:
>>>>> Please use this version, I hit send too soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>>>>> Another 1835 implementation issue:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any 
>>>>>> 18xx (you
>>>>>> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are 
>>>>>> allowed to
>>>>>> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
>>>>>> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
>>>>>> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares 
>>>>>> into the
>>>>>> pool and keeps the other).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more 
>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share 
>>>>>> movements:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new 
>>>>>> president
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool
>>>>> I do not agree that these are separate steps.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5% 
>>>>>> or 10%
>>>>>> shares)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even 
>>>>>> change
>>>>>> the possible options for B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
>>>>>> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
>>>>>> certificate to put into the pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious 
>>>>>> bugs in
>>>>>> executing the share transfers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I 
>>>>>> would ask
>>>>>> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?
>>>>> I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it 
>>>>> wrong (in
>>>>> my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen 
>>>>> in any
>>>>> purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet). This 
>>>>> applies to
>>>>> all games, not just 1835.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a purchase of stock:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new 
>>>>> president
>>>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of 
>>>>> shares
>>>>> of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.  
>>>>> (This
>>>>> is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
>>>>> certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829 
>>>>> (receivership)
>>>>> or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)
>>>>>
>>>>> (In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
>>>>> certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's 
>>>>> hand.
>>>>>      I would follow this principle in any other game where any 
>>>>> company has
>>>>> non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules 
>>>>> do not
>>>>> address the question.)
>>>>>
>>>>> In a sale of stock:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only 
>>>>> be made
>>>>> if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
>>>>> president's certificate contains.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
>>>>> certificate(s), not share(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
>>>>> certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate. Otherwise 
>>>>> the
>>>>> seller must retain the president's certificate.
>>>>>
>>>>> (4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
>>>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of 
>>>>> shares
>>>>> of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank 
>>>>> pool.  (The
>>>>> outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not 
>>>>> have
>>>>> any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)
>>>>>
>>>>> (5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
>>>>> two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
>>>>> shares that is not divisible by one of his certificates. (For this
>>>>> purpose "one share" is defined as the amount of the smallest 
>>>>> certificate
>>>>> that exists for that company.)
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
>>>>> following is true in addition to point (1):
>>>>>
>>>>>        A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in 
>>>>> the right
>>>>> sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
>>>>> from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges 
>>>>> certificates with
>>>>> the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.
>>>>>
>>>>>        B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause 
>>>>> a change
>>>>> of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents' 
>>>>> hands
>>>>> together contain enough certificates of the company to give both 
>>>>> the old
>>>>> and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new 
>>>>> president
>>>>> holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way 
>>>>> swap of
>>>>> certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
>>>>> perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
>>>>> certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
>>>>> certificate(s) he gives up.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem 
>>>>>> games -
>>>>>> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
>>>>>> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
>>>>>> moved to the US)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
>>>>>> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
>>>>>> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?
>>>>> If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just 
>>>>> moves
>>>>> his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
>>>>> pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>>>> certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
>>>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% 
>>>>> certificates) to
>>>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
>>>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10% 
>>>>> certificates) to
>>>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
>>>>> pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
>>>>> (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) No shares in Pool
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>>>> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to 
>>>>>> Eyal.
>>>>>> Eyal has to sell all 40%.
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> B) 10% shares in Pool
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>>>> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
>>>>>> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?
>>>>> In most games (and I think this includes 1835), Eyal is prevented 
>>>>> from
>>>>> selling 30% because this would cause 70% to be in the bank pool.
>>>>>
>>>>> But let's change the example by having the pool hold two 10%
>>>>> certificates and a third player hold the other two.  Then Eyal may 
>>>>> sell
>>>>> 30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and taking a 
>>>>> 10%
>>>>> certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his 20%
>>>>> certificate for the president's certificate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
>>>>> non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10% 
>>>>> certificate.
>>>>>
>>>>> -end-
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>> Rai...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>

-- 
Volker Schnell
email: vol...@ar...
homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 presidency swap: Bug fix required (typos corrected)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Volker,
I agree that in the end it does not change the game a lot.

However the results are not 100% identical.

Yes I remember that Lemmi moderator asks, the issue is mainly whom to 
ask and when. The devil is in the details. ;-)

What is easier and also on my wish-list is a certificate correction mode 
that allows moving around certificates between players.

Implementing that is easier and helps in more cases than adding more 
options how the president exchange should be handled. ;-)

Thanks for your input,

Stefan


On 08/30/2015 10:43 AM, Schnell, Volker wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> in the end it should be the same result.
>
> Lemmis moderator: when in doubt about the certificates, there is a
> popup, where the user has to decide.
> This is for me the best way, because the decision has an impact on the
> certificate limit.
>
> greetings
>
> Volker
>
> Am 29.08.2015 um 12:58 schrieb Stefan Frey:
>> Hi Volker,
>>
>> I agree that there is a difference between buying and selling and that
>> in the case of another player buying more is different and is and will
>> be handled as you described.
>>
>> Caveat: There is no mechanism yet in Rails to ask the old director for
>> his choice in the case of another player getting more shares. (e.g.
>> buying or during share exchange of the Prussian minors/privates).
>> However I changed the current implementation that the old director
>> receives the multiple share if possible.
>>
>> The difference in understanding the rules is what happens exactly
>> during share selling: Selling to the Pool or Exchanging the Presidency?
>>
>> It is clear that the president certificate cannot end-up in the Pool
>> in non-pure-Tresham 18xx. However in my view is that if you sell more
>> than needed for dumping, your president certificate ends up for a
>> "virtual" second in the Pool and then the new president receives the
>>
>> There are technical reasons (ease of implementation, generalization to
>> 30% director shares, etc.), but in addition it is my view that selling
>> the director to the Pool (even it it cannot stay there in the end) is
>> more fundamental than the specific interpretation that the old
>> director "always" chooses what he receives in return. Especially if he
>> ends up with nothing in his portfolio in the end.
>>
>> I hope that you can live with that rule interpreation. And
>> unfortunately I will not add a game option to play it differently, as
>> this would require drastic changes how share selling is implemented in
>> Rails.
>>
>> The current algorithm is much more robust to (potential future) share
>> structures than a specific solution for 1835 only.
>>
>> By the way: Do you know how Lemmis moderator handles those cases?
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> Those are the examples where our view differs:
>>
>> ** The result differs mainly for examples of that structure:
>>
>> X has 40% [d, 2*n]
>> Y has 40% [m, 2*n]
>>
>> Pool has 10 [n]
>>
>> I understand that you prefer the outcome for those cases where X sells
>> 10% or 20%, where in your interpretation the old president X is
>> allowed to choose the m certificate in exchange.
>>
>> However in those cases where X sells 30% or 40%, the m certificate
>> possibly ends in the pool, which I think is counter-intuitive.
>>
>> ** But a more extreme example:
>>
>> X has 20% [d]
>> Y has 20% [m]
>>
>> Pool has 40% [4*n]
>>
>> How does X sell 10% here? In standard 18xx this no problem: Sell d to
>> the pool, receive one n in exchange and the d moves to Y in exchange
>> for 20%.
>>
>> But in your interpretation X first exchanges d with m and then puts m
>> into the pool and receives one n from the pool?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/29/2015 12:14 PM, Schnell, Volker wrote:
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> I don't agree with your opinion, that the exchange of the directors
>>> certificate works with the bank pool.
>>> in all 18xx games, except with receivership like 1829, 1853, the
>>> certificates are exchanged between players.
>>> The Change of director is also possible, when buying shares.
>>>
>>> 1835 cases.
>>>
>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>>>
>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, n, n]
>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>
>>> X sells one share, the old director decides about the make up of the
>>> percentages (english rules IV.3 last sentence), he receives 1m or 2n
>>> from Y.
>>>
>>> Same situation but Y buys n, he has now 50% and receives the
>>> directors certificate (d). the new director now hands 1m or 2n to the
>>> old director, while the old directer decides about the make up.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>> Volker
>>> Am 28.08.2015 um 22:47 schrieb Stefan Frey:
>>>> Follow-up to my proposal below:
>>>>
>>>> * Remark first: "Certificate" versus "Share"
>>>>
>>>> To be precise I use "certificate" to the physical representation of
>>>> shares in 18xx. I use "share" is the smallest unit of the division of
>>>> the share capital in 18xx.
>>>>
>>>> So the president certificate in 1830 represents 2 shares, the other
>>>> certificates are single shares. Each share represents 10% of share
>>>> capital.
>>>>
>>>> In 1835 the companies of the second group (BA, WT, HE) feature a
>>>> double-share certificate at the bottom of their IPO stack.
>>>>
>>>> The new mechanism is implemented now. As far as it possible and/or
>>>> technical feasible at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> * What are the current limitations on selling shares/certificates?
>>>>
>>>> - Selling certificates can only be done in groups that represent the
>>>> same number of shares.
>>>>
>>>> - As the president certificate can be sold in "parts" (and the old
>>>> president receives Pool certificates in return), it belongs to the
>>>> single share group.
>>>>
>>>> Example: In some cases in 1835 the double share certificates have to be
>>>> sold before it is possible to dump the president.
>>>>
>>>> - Exchanges to the Pool for the new president are executed by returning
>>>> certificates which represent minimal shares. Thus the new president
>>>> prefers to give up two single share certificates instead of one double
>>>> shares certificate.
>>>>
>>>> * What is the long-run target?
>>>>
>>>> Players first select what percentage they want to sell. For Example:
>>>> "40% of BY". If there are several combinations of certificates that
>>>> allow 40% the next step allows to select which certificates to sell.
>>>>
>>>> If the new president has choices what to return to the Pool in exchange
>>>> for the president certificate he is asked to choose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Reason for this limitation:
>>>> I am reluctant to change the action definitions of selling shares just
>>>> before the Rails 2.0 release.
>>>>
>>>> However behind the scene the code has been changed substantially and is
>>>> already based on the long-run goals.
>>>>
>>>> The automated test games run again and I have added a few new specific
>>>> test cases. However I am still a little bit reluctant and will
>>>> release a
>>>> new Rails 2.0 beta 5 tomorrow based on the new implementation.
>>>>
>>>> As before feedback welcome and thanks again to John David Galts ideas I
>>>> have based my implementation on.
>>>>
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/23/2015 04:37 PM, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>>>> John:
>>>>> I really like your suggestion. I think it is a good way to handle
>>>>> those
>>>>> cases in a rigorous way. In addition it is fully compatible with the
>>>>> standard way of how standard 18xx treat the change of director in such
>>>>> cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> I adapted your proposal to include that it is not allowed to sell
>>>>> multiple certificates such that you are able to get a nominal share in
>>>>> exchange, which Volker and Erik referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> However it is still possible for the director share, which I
>>>>> believe is
>>>>> important. (The second edition of the German rules claim that this is
>>>>> not possible, however I do not agree with that ruling).
>>>>>
>>>>> And Dave is fully right, game rules are not written as algorithms.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> our task to transform those rules into an algorithm which most people
>>>>> can agree on that the algorithm is a good representation of the
>>>>> game rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my proposed algorithm (based on John David Galts suggestion) is
>>>>> found
>>>>> below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again feedback is very welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Algorithm for Change of Director after Sale of Stock:
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Definitions:
>>>>>
>>>>> Share nominal n%
>>>>>
>>>>> Nominal (n) certificate 1 times n%
>>>>> Director (d) certificate has d times n%
>>>>> Multiple (m) certificate has m times n%
>>>>>
>>>>> Director X  has x times n% of stock
>>>>> Potential director Y has y times n% of stock
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool P has p times n% of stock
>>>>> Pool limit p_max times n%
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Steps:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Director can trigger change of director if he sells s >= (x-y) + 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Only allowed if (s + p) <= p_max
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Director puts d and other certificates (total o) into the pool,
>>>>> such
>>>>> that (d + o) >= s. Choose o such that o is minimal.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Potential (new) director exchanges certificates (of his choice, but
>>>>> see below) of total size e = d with the pool for the director
>>>>> certificate
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. (Old) director receives [(d+o) - s] (of his choice) from the
>>>>> pool, if
>>>>> this is not possible the previous step is repeated with a different
>>>>> choice until the old director receives the required amount of shares
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. If the last step cannot be executed in any way, selling s is not
>>>>> possible
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Remarks:
>>>>> - The program only offers choices in step 4 that allow step 5/6 to be
>>>>> succesfull
>>>>> - The program only offers transaction of size s that can be executed
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Examples:
>>>>>
>>>>> A) 1830 standard case
>>>>>
>>>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>>>>
>>>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, 2*n]
>>>>> Y has 30%, y = 3 [3*n]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool has 30%, p = 3
>>>>>
>>>>> Director sells 20%  (s=2)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes: s= 2;  (x-y) + 1 = (4- 3) + 1 = 2
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Yes: s + p = 2 + 3 <= 5 = p_max
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the
>>>>> pool (o
>>>>> = 0). (d + o) =  2 >= 2, minimal o
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction finished
>>>>>
>>>>> B) 1830 selling the director partially
>>>>>
>>>>> Certificates as above in A)
>>>>>
>>>>> X has 20%, x = 2 [d]
>>>>> Y has 20%, y = 2 [2*n]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Director sells 10%  (s=1)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes: s = 1; (x - y) + 1 = 1
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Yes: s + p = 1 + 0  <= 5 = p_max
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Director puts the director certificate, but no other into the
>>>>> pool (o
>>>>> = 0) d + o = 2 >= 1, minimal o
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Potential director exchanges 2 10% shares with the pool
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>>>>
>>>>> C) 1835 case
>>>>>
>>>>> Nominal certificate 10%
>>>>> Director certificate d=2 20% share
>>>>> Multiple certificate m=2 20% share
>>>>>
>>>>> X has 50%, x = 5 [d, m, n]
>>>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Director sells 30% (s=3)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes
>>>>> 2. Yes
>>>>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool and a 10% share.
>>>>> It is
>>>>> not allowed to choose the 20% share here, as o has to be chosen to be
>>>>> minimal
>>>>> 4. Potential director chooses to exchange the director certificate
>>>>> from
>>>>> the pool with either the multiple certificate m or the two nominal
>>>>> certificates
>>>>> 5. Old director gets nothing in return, transaction is finished
>>>>>
>>>>> D) Another 1835 case
>>>>>
>>>>> Certificates as above in C)
>>>>>
>>>>> X has 40%, x = 4 [d, m]
>>>>> Y has 40%, y = 4 [m, 2*n]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pool is empty, p = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Director sells 10% (s=1)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Yes
>>>>> 2. Yes
>>>>> 3. Director puts director certificate d the pool, but no other
>>>>> 4. Potential director can only exchange the 2 nominal certificates, as
>>>>> otherwise the director cannot receive the 10% share in step 5. If Pool
>>>>> contains a nominal certificate it is his choice
>>>>> 5. Old director receives 1 10% share from the pool
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/21/2015 11:59 PM, John David Galt wrote:
>>>>>> Please use this version, I hit send too soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-08-21 13:18, Stefan Frey wrote:
>>>>>>> Another 1835 implementation issue:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> President swaps are not easy to understand for newbies in any
>>>>>>> 18xx (you
>>>>>>> are not allowed to sell the president share, however you are
>>>>>>> allowed to
>>>>>>> tear it apart, virtually sell one half of it to the pool and then
>>>>>>> receive two shares by the new director, who gets the fixed director
>>>>>>> certificate, then the old director puts one of received shares
>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>> pool and keeps the other).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1835 the 20% shares make selling the presidency even more
>>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Selling the president certificate involves two steps of share
>>>>>>> movements:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) Exchange the president certificate with shares from the new
>>>>>>> president
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B) Move the remaining sold shares into the pool
>>>>>> I do not agree that these are separate steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1835 both steps could include either 10% or 20% shares (PR: 5%
>>>>>>> or 10%
>>>>>>> shares)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depending on what the president received in A) this might even
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>> the possible options for B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However it implies that the current president has to choose both A)
>>>>>>> which certificate to exchange with the new president and B) which
>>>>>>> certificate to put into the pool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current implementation only asks for A) and has some serious
>>>>>>> bugs in
>>>>>>> executing the share transfers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I intend to fix those bugs before the next release, however I
>>>>>>> would ask
>>>>>>> if anyone has a different opinion on how it works for 1835?
>>>>>> I have not seen any case in which the current program gets it
>>>>>> wrong (in
>>>>>> my view) -- however, I have not exhaustively tried every single case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following is the exact sequence of events I expect to happen
>>>>>> in any
>>>>>> purchase or sale of stock (after any starting packet). This
>>>>>> applies to
>>>>>> all games, not just 1835.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a purchase of stock:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) The player buys a certificate, not share(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) If the purchase causes a change of president, then the new
>>>>>> president
>>>>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of
>>>>>> shares
>>>>>> of that company) for the president's certificate, wherever it is.
>>>>>> (This
>>>>>> is a direct exchange between two players, unless the president's
>>>>>> certificate is in the bank pool, as it might be in 1829
>>>>>> (receivership)
>>>>>> or 1853v1 (when the company hasn't floated yet).)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (In 1835, if there is a choice, the outgoing president chooses which
>>>>>> certificate(s) he receives from among those in the new president's
>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>      I would follow this principle in any other game where any
>>>>>> company has
>>>>>> non-presidential certificates of more than one size, if the rules
>>>>>> do not
>>>>>> address the question.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a sale of stock:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) A sale that is going to cause a change of president may only
>>>>>> be made
>>>>>> if some other player holds at least the number of shares that the
>>>>>> president's certificate contains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Except for the special case given in point (5), the player sells
>>>>>> certificate(s), not share(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) If the sale will cause a change of president, then one of the
>>>>>> certificate(s) sold must be the president's certificate. Otherwise
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> seller must retain the president's certificate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (4) If the sale causes a change of presidency, then the new president
>>>>>> exchanges one or more certificates (totaling the same number of
>>>>>> shares
>>>>>> of that company) for the president's certificate in the bank
>>>>>> pool.  (The
>>>>>> outgoing president does not participate in this swap and does not
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> any right to claim a certificate from the new president's hand.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (5) A special case is where a player who holds only certificate(s) of
>>>>>> two or more shares each in that company wishes to sell a number or
>>>>>> shares that is not divisible by one of his certificates. (For this
>>>>>> purpose "one share" is defined as the amount of the smallest
>>>>>> certificate
>>>>>> that exists for that company.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case the "fractional sale" may only be made if one of the
>>>>>> following is true in addition to point (1):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        A: The bank pool contains certificate(s) of the company in
>>>>>> the right
>>>>>> sizes such that the seller can be given the correct number of shares
>>>>>> from the bank pool.  In this case the seller exchanges
>>>>>> certificates with
>>>>>> the bank pool, and then point (4) applies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        B: Statement A above is not true, but, the sale will cause
>>>>>> a change
>>>>>> of presidency, and the bank pool and the old and new presidents'
>>>>>> hands
>>>>>> together contain enough certificates of the company to give both
>>>>>> the old
>>>>>> and new presidents the correct numbers of shares, with the new
>>>>>> president
>>>>>> holding the president's certificate.  In this case a three-way
>>>>>> swap of
>>>>>> certificates is performed.  If there is more than one correct way to
>>>>>> perform the swap, first the outgoing president chooses which
>>>>>> certificate(s) he gives up; then the new president chooses which
>>>>>> certificate(s) he gives up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the attached save file OL has the following share distribution:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Remark: this is from a replay of one of Bill Stoll's 1835 pbem
>>>>>>> games -
>>>>>>> see http://askwaltstollmd.com/bill/archive/1835zwolf/index.html
>>>>>>> Fun fact is that I played 1835 ftf with one of the players before he
>>>>>>> moved to the US)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eyal: 50% (1 20% director, 1 20% share, 1 10% share)
>>>>>>> Marco: 40% (1 20% share, 2 10% share)
>>>>>>> Nick: 10% (1 10% share)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are the possible scenarios for Eyal to sell his directorship?
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 10% (which does not change the presidency), he just
>>>>>> moves
>>>>>> his 10% certificate to the bank pool.  Done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 20%, he moves the president's certificate to the bank
>>>>>> pool.  Then Marco takes it and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>>>>> certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 30%, he moves the president's certificate and the 10%
>>>>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>>>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>>>>> certificates) to
>>>>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 40%, he moves the president's certificate and the 20%
>>>>>> certificate to the bank pool.  Then Marco takes the president's
>>>>>> certificate and chooses 20% (either one 20% or two 10%
>>>>>> certificates) to
>>>>>> place in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Eyal sells 50%, he moves all three of his certificates to the bank
>>>>>> pool.  Then Marco takes the president's certificate and chooses 20%
>>>>>> (either one 20% or two 10% certificates) to place in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> Some special (hypothetical) cases:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) No shares in Pool
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IPO: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>>>>> Answer: No, as it not possible to get a 10% share out of IPO to
>>>>>>> Eyal.
>>>>>>> Eyal has to sell all 40%.
>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B) 10% shares in Pool
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eyal: 40% (20%P + 20%)
>>>>>>> Marco: 20% (20%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pool: 40% (4 10%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it possible for Eyal to sell 30%?
>>>>>>> Answer: Likely yes? Is it possible for Eyal to swap the received 20%
>>>>>>> share from Marco with a 10% of the Pool?
>>>>>> In most games (and I think this includes 1835), Eyal is prevented
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> selling 30% because this would cause 70% to be in the bank pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But let's change the example by having the pool hold two 10%
>>>>>> certificates and a third player hold the other two.  Then Eyal may
>>>>>> sell
>>>>>> 30% by placing both his certificates in the bank pool and taking a
>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>> certificate from the bank pool.  Marco must then trade his 20%
>>>>>> certificate for the president's certificate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eyal may also sell 10%.  In this case he just places his 20%
>>>>>> non-president certificate in the bank pool and takes a 10%
>>>>>> certificate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -end-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rails-devel mailing list
>>>> Rai...@li...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>>>
>