# Cry babies who quit online backgammon when they start to lose **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 14, 2012, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792 "2012-02-14T04:53:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/101 "2012-02-18T02:21:00Z")
Sheldon? is that you? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/102 "2012-02-18T02:50:14Z")
I’m sure that Milton Bradley has a good reason for their house rules but in my experience, a game that allows one player to stonewall everyone else without providing a mechanism to break said stonewalling is not good design and players who use them end up not being very fun. Parcheesi wouldn’t be any fun if you could blockade indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/103 "2012-02-18T02:55:01Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I’m sure that Milton Bradley has a good reason for their house rules but in my experience, a game that allows one player to stonewall everyone else without providing a mechanism to break said stonewalling is not good design Agreed–monopoly in general is a pretty bad game. But I’d say it’s got even less to think about strategically with unlimited houses. And it needs every bit it can get. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/104 "2012-02-18T03:07:13Z")
I’m not a monopoly whiz but isn’t it really just as pat without unlimited houses? I mean, if I know I’m playing against someone like DCnDC then it’s just a race to see who can get the most houses and then we’ll chase each other around the board for ages, taking much longer to wear our opponents’ money away since 4 houses don’t garner as much rent as a hotel and you can’t build any hotels without putting houses back in circulation. The increase I see in strategy is inextricably linked with a much greater decrease in playability and enjoyment and monopoly can ill afford to lose in that latter category. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/105 "2012-02-18T03:09:13Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > So you’re saying… make sure everyone agrees on the rules beforehand. Why do you think you’re disagreeing with the person you’re responding to? Because he’s not talking about establishing the rules ahead of time, but establishing what type of people you are playing with. The problem is that the very people who are most likely to not care about the rules are the very people are not likely to tell you about their house rules ahead of time. Heck, they may not even know they are house rules. Furthermore, even if they follow the rules, they may still object to overly aggressive play. Or they may think it’s the only way to play. Even if you discuss the rules ahead of time, these sorts of thing is not something you are likely to find out. My point is, it’s not as easy as “discuss the rules ahead of time.” There are a lot of dynamics in group play. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/106 "2012-02-18T03:40:28Z")
> [@](#): > > However, even though I’ve been aware for decades not only that these rules exist, and that in serious Monopoly competition, the official rules are THE rules, I’ve never in my life, in hundreds of games of Monopoly, played with anyone who took this rule seriously. Ditto the related rule that says you’ve got to have four houses before you have a hotel, that you can’t just go directly from getting a monopoly to building hotels in one fell swoop if you’ve got the cash. And I’m sure ditto a number of other rules. > > I think with a game like Monopoly, you’ve got to know who you’re playing with, whether you’re playing with a follow-the-rules crowd, or a tic-tacs-for-houses crowd. Because if you’re playing with the latter group and you start being a hardass over the rules everyone ignores, then you may win the point, but you won’t win any friends.[URL=“[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=14786372](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=14786372)”] House rules can be fun in any game, but they do need to be agreed upon in advance. I mean, I always assume that we are going to play by the official rules unless someone states that the fines and fees and taxes are put in the middle of the board and people who land exactly on “Free Parking” get that money, for instance. And it’s EXTREMELY annoying to have refrained from buying hotels because I haven’t been able to buy the four houses first, and then someone else goes from two houses to a hotel on their property, and I didn’t know that was an option in this game. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/107 "2012-02-18T05:35:01Z")
> [@DCnDC](#): > > Some think that’s dirty pool, but I consider it a brilliant strategy. They’re just mad they didn’t think of it first. Isn’t that an example of what the gamer world calls an “exploit”? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/108 "2012-02-18T06:03:45Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Agreed–monopoly in general is a pretty bad game. But I’d say it’s got even less to think about strategically with unlimited houses. And it needs every bit it can get. I actually think it’s a pretty darned good game, but if you play it with unlimited housing stock or stupid free parking jackpots, or pretty much any house rule I’ve encountered (I can’t think of a single house room that actually improves the game), it becomes pretty much a game of chance. It doesn’t work well with two people, either. Too easy to get a natural monopoly without trading. I’d say four is about optimum. Played correctly, it is a good blend of skill and luck, something on par with, say, cribbage or backgammon. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/109 "2012-02-18T06:08:24Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > Isn’t that an example of what the gamer world calls an “exploit”? I really don’t think so. It’s one of the more important strategic elements of Monopoly–controlling housing stock. I don’t know the history of the game in depth, but housing shortages are addressed in the official rules, so I have to assume the game was designed with that in mind, and this isn’t any sort of “exploit” in the rules. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/110 "2012-02-18T11:30:18Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > So you’re saying… make sure everyone agrees on the rules beforehand. Why do you think you’re disagreeing with the person you’re responding to? Because what he said was this: > [@](#): > > if people **want to play a variant** , they should negotiate that rule change in advance. Bolding mine. Where I differ is that the rules need to be nailed down **either way** , not just if you’re going off the official rules, given that it’s well known that most people who play Monopoly **don’t** play by the official rules, and aren’t even aware of some of the rules. If, in casual play, you want to play by the official rules, you need to establish that and give particulars of what that involves, rather than just assume that they’re the default, because even the people who play by them know they’re not. IME, which I’ll admit is somewhat dated at this point, there seemed to be an almost universally recognized set of unofficial rules. They were the official rules, except for three things: the number of houses and hotels that came with the set didn’t function as a limit\*, you could go directly to hotels, and there would be some sort of pot for landing on Free Parking, although the nature of the pot would vary according to different players’ traditions. \*Hell, nobody knew how many houses and hotels there were: some would inevitably get knocked under furniture and sucked up in vacuum cleaners, eventually you’d consolidate two incomplete sets and wind up with 47 houses and 19 hotels, and maybe even a genuinely adequate stock of $500 bills. ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/111 "2012-02-18T13:54:48Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I’m not a monopoly whiz but isn’t it really just as pat without unlimited houses? I mean, if I know I’m playing against someone like **DCnDC** then it’s just a race to see who can get the most houses and then we’ll chase each other around the board for ages, taking much longer to wear our opponents’ money away since 4 houses don’t garner as much rent as a hotel and you can’t build any hotels without putting houses back in circulation. The increase I see in strategy is inextricably linked with a much greater decrease in playability and enjoyment and monopoly can ill afford to lose in that latter category. To be perfectly honest with you, I HATE Monopoly, which is why I ventured to figure out the quickest way to end the game. There’s really not that much enjoyment to be had to begin with, IMHO. With unlimited houses and skipping straight to hotels, you’ll inevitably end up trading the same money back and forth between yourself and the other remaining player and it pretty much never ends. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/112 "2012-02-18T14:11:58Z")
> [@DCnDC](#): > > …and it pretty much never ends. There’s a great Dane Cook rant where he asks audience members how many of them like Monopoly. To which he screams “LIAR!” "Ok, _this_ is why you’re a liar. Because _this_ is your Monopoly game at two in the morning: 'Grandma, can’t we just quit and go to bed? Come on. Okay, we’ll concede… oh, _come ON_! You’re cheating, let’s just give up. No, Grandpa, _you_ back off-- Grandma’s a _cheating whore!"_ ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/113 "2012-02-18T15:03:29Z")
Again, it’s been awhile since I played (and maybe this discussion is really better suited for an IMHO thread), but ISTM the biggest reason why Monopoly goes on forever is that there’s an ever-increasing supply of money in the game (+$200 per player per trip around the board), but a fixed limit on how much damage one player can inflict on another on a given trip around the board. So if you get to a point where everyone has a decent set of monopolies, someone has to be killed off quick, or you may never get anyone killed off at all: once everyone has a decent cash buffer to absorb landing on a couple of hotels, you might as well just call it a draw. The question is, what set of rules has the best chance of either (a) keeping you from getting to that perpetual balance of power in the first place, or (b) maximizing the odds of being able to kill off players after achieving such a balance? Back in summer camp, our solution to (b) was unlimited hotels on a property. If you had the cash to put 10 hotels on the light blue group, then you could do that, and charge 10 times the hotel rate. $5500 for landing on Oriental Avenue gave you a chance to deplete the other guy’s cash fast. And it also expanded the one big way to suck cash out of the game entirely (removal/rebuilding of houses and hotels) because you’d have a lot more of them, and could put as much of your cash into construction as you were willing to gamble. ---
**Author:** ![Oly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oly/32/8255_2.png) [@Oly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oly)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/114 "2012-02-18T16:55:18Z")
> [@Michael\_Ellis](#): > > Holy shit who gives a fuck you dumbass it’s fucking online backgammon. > > I can’t possibly imagine anyone lamer than the OP if they aren’t anime-obsessed obese furry shut-ins. Yes! Finally someone who really understands! Online backgammon is all I have. That’s what makes this so painful. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/115 "2012-02-18T18:08:45Z")
> [@DCnDC](#): > > There’s really not that much enjoyment to be had to begin with, IMHO. All the fun is in the trading. I don’t understand all the hate for Monopoly. It’s a well-constructed game that, when played according to the actual rules, is reasonably skillful. Interestingly enough, concerning housing shortages, apparently tournament rules do prohibit selling a hotel down to four houses in order to create a shortage. Developing up to four houses and leaving them there is fine. Selling down a hotel apparently is not. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/116 "2012-02-18T18:36:32Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > All the fun is in the trading. I don’t understand all the hate for Monopoly. It’s a well-constructed game that, when played according to the actual rules, is reasonably skillful. > > Interestingly enough, concerning housing shortages, apparently tournament rules do prohibit selling a hotel down to four houses in order to create a shortage. Developing up to four houses and leaving them there is fine. Selling down a hotel apparently is not. Apparently according to who or what? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/117 "2012-02-18T19:05:54Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Apparently according to who or what? [Here](http://www.examiner.com/gaming-industry-in-des-moines/monopoly-strategy-housing-shortages-are-deadly-weapons)" > [@](#): > > There’s an interesting story behind the housing shortage technique. In the second preliminary round of the 1983 United States Championship, one player decided to purposely sell his three hotels back to the bank in order to exchange them for four houses each. Judges decided that that tactic was unfair, and from that point forward, the only way that players have been allowed to create a shortage in official tournament play is to freeze development at four houses, before ever buying hotels. That’s a testament to how potent this strategy really is. ETA: However, reading the comments says that it’s been legalized again: > [@](#): > > And they do allow you to breakdown from hotels in tournament play now, but preference is given to someone building over someone breaking down (if requests happen at the same time). > > Kevin Tostado > Producer, Under the Board ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/118 "2012-02-18T19:14:12Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > [Here](http://www.examiner.com/gaming-industry-in-des-moines/monopoly-strategy-housing-shortages-are-deadly-weapons)" > > ETA: However, reading the comments says that it’s been legalized again: Yeah, I can’t even think of a coherent rule in the area of what they were trying to do before re-legalizing it, other than forbidding selling hotels at all unless reducing the property down to zero improvements. You can’t “create” the shortage in question–the shortage exists from the beginning of the game. As far as I can tell, the proposed rule would have required psychic powers to determine what the _purpose_ of the hotel selling would have been. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/119 "2012-02-18T19:18:07Z")
I guess the rule would have been maybe–sell the hotel, but then before buying houses everyone else gets a chance to buy them first. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792/120 "2012-02-18T19:41:17Z")
The problem with Monopoly is that because 95% of the strategy (and fun) is in trading, people who aren’t interested in actually thinking can effectively turn it into a game of pure chance just by stonewalling, and there’s not a damned thing you can do to stop them. If I had any interest in an hours-long coin flip, I’d play six-deck War; it’d go faster and be more entertaining. I do like **RTFirefly** ’s unlimited hotels rule, though. Next time our Risk group plays Monopoly for giggles, I’ll definitely be suggesting it. …huh? There was an OP? Oh, yeah, ragequitters suck. Carry on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-babies-who-quit-online-backgammon-when-they-start-to-lose/612792.md?page=7)