US Championship clarifications

Hi folks, I would like to clarify some things about the article I wrote for John Eno's blog: http://enoplay.blogspot.com/2010/07/origins-special-report-us-championships.html . The conversation I had with James was made prior to the time when the finalists were gathered to pick seating. That conversation was held in public (at one of the tables in the V:TES area), but away from most of the other players. I understand now that it was a bad idea to have that conversation away from most of the other V:TES players. The caution with which I spoke to James was not to aid in our secrecy, but in order to protect my existence in the final round. As alpha members of the same playgroup, James and I have a history of ruining each other's game from across the table. When playing his Lutz/Maris Streck deck, James often "whores out" intercept via Maris to thwart my actions across the table. The primary reason I spoke with James was to try to get him to not screw me too early in the round. My talk of not letting Hugh win was a smokescreen that really meant "please leave me alone". At no point was I interested in any outcome of the US Championship final that did not involve me winning. In writing my article for the State of Play blog, I chose to include my anti-Hugh talk as theme of the article to provide what I thought would be compelling reading, and a sort of "rah-rah", pep rally enthusiasm. My article seems to have been compelling, but in a way I had not envisioned :) At the time my conversation with James I did not think I was cheating (or else I wouldn't have done it). A week later I did not think of it as cheating (or else I wouldn't have written about it). After the fallout from my article I'm not sure. I do see the arrangement of seating for final rounds as an opportunity for shady behavior. I would be okay with the V:EKN rules being changed to seat final rounds randomly. Jay Kristoff

Jay Kristoff wrote: > I do see the > arrangement of seating for final rounds as an opportunity for shady > behavior. I would be okay with the V:EKN rules being changed to seat > final rounds randomly. I'd prefer just an official acceptance that the seating decisions are essentially part of that game, and thus any and all deals surrounding seating positions should be made publicly in front of all players in the game, with opportunity for rebuttal and counter-offer, just like 'normal' in-game deals. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] Define "official". Then define how that rule is to be enforced. Which is why such a rule and/or clarification isn't useful. There already exist definitions and clarifications and enforcement issues for this kind of thing. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

salem wrote: Either this; > I'd prefer just an official acceptance that the seating decisions are > essentially part of that game, and thus any and all deals surrounding > seating positions should be made publicly in front of all players in the > game, with opportunity for rebuttal and counter-offer, just like 'normal' > in-game deals. or no game related discussion during seating. Let the permutations be run in the choosers head. Now that IS easy to enforce. ~Aa

On Jul 11, 5:38 am, Sudden Reversal <sudden.rever...@gmail.com> wrote: > > or no game related discussion during seating. Let the permutations be > run in the choosers head. Now that IS easy to enforce. > > ~Aa Might be 'easy to enforce' but it's not necessarily fair. People when choosing can currently ask questions of other players to try and find out what they're playing/contestation issues etc. If players were fobbiden from talking/communicating at all in this exciting 'choose your chamber' event, then players who'd 'successfully' scouted or had friends who'd done this for them would have an advantage - and I see no reason to given these players and advantage that can't be removed by the other finalists talking.

> People when choosing can currently ask questions of other players to > try and find out what they're playing/contestation issues etc. If > players were fobbiden from talking/communicating at all in this > exciting 'choose your chamber' event, then players who'd > 'successfully' scouted or had friends who'd done this for them would > have an advantage - and I see no reason to given these players and > advantage that can't be removed by the other finalists talking. This is the one thing that bothers me about finals. One player should not have an out of game advantage over another going into a final. Yet finishing a game early often results in an advantage as players can scout the tournament.(see one of many discussions on this). The Sunday tournament is a great example of that. By the time the finals rolled around everyone knew Una was at the table. Cylon model fourteen, or John Eno as you all know him, smartly chose to sit as my predator since Una plays no pool gain or bounce(or I'd assume that's why), and if the deck goes off it doesn't matter where you are sitting because Una rushes you anyways. The only player in the final who had seen the deck in game was Merlin who faced it the round before. He chose to sit across from me, a spot he got 1VP and almost two the round before. All for naught as Mr. Cesewayo taught them the folly of taking D actions to oust your prey not being conducive to victory. I've been on both ends of final round seating decisions, but I'd rather just see them go away and make it random. I don't get to choose seating position in round 2 or 3 because I'm currently the highest seed, so why does that change for the finals? It falls into the same issue I have with rounds being 2 hours and a final switching to 2.5 or 3 hours. Every round of a tournament(including finals) should be played under the same rules.

[ quoted text not captured ] Some questions: So can I assign some eyes to scout other tables and rounds, to give me some insight of the tournament? Can I take note of every and all information in the tournament? Can I have access to other players deck list? If not, how could someone know if there was not illegal changes to decks, in between rounds? Team play is legal? In My country have some cases of some team players that act to oust player dangrous to his team friends, even without cross-table relationship. Or just act to make the friends the two last players in the table, then to decide who will get the GW. - Is that legal? Is that legal even in the final round? Some confusion becouse we have a soccer culture here. And in soccer, combination of games results is illegal. Like is illegal to a player to facilitate other victory.

On Jul 11, 1:13 pm, Kaze Arashi <kamuino...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some questions: > So can I assign some eyes to scout other tables and rounds, to give me > some insight of the tournament? I don't 'like' the word assign but essentially friends of yours are free to tell you whatever else they've seen and unless the judge precludes wondering around after your round has finished that can include other tables you've not actually played at. > Can I take note of every and all information in the tournament? Yes - but you can't do this if it stops you being able to play the game at a sensible speed - e.g. don't spend your turn writing down crap. > Can I have access to other players deck list? If not, how could > someone know if there was not illegal changes to decks, in between > rounds? What the f*ck is a decklist and why would you have one at a tournament you attend? How would you know if there are 'illegal' changes anyway and why would you care really? Deckstacking/pool miscounting/deliberate table misinformation are ways people are actually likely to cheat (although I appreciate that now decent hosers like uncoiling/scourge are avaiable these coudl be put in and out of decks bewteen rounds if a player thought was necessary). And no if a decklist was used it's not public information during an event and why should it be - if a judge chooses to use decklists it's his responsibility and only he should have any interest in what is on them. > Team play is legal? In My country have some cases of some team players > that act to oust player dangrous to his team friends, even without > cross-table relationship. Or just act to make the friends the two last > players in the table, then to decide who will get the GW. - Is that > legal? Is that legal even in the final round? Team play is fine as long as that team is just you and you alone. Finals are different as everyone is assumed to be Play To Win at this stage - but collusion is still cheating and not allowed. However there are lots of times/ways you can help your friends where it's is perfectly acceptable play - even by doing wierd cross table oustings (e.g. you decide that the Una deck cross table needs to die for instance for you to be able to win) - and there's no blanket decision you can use as it will always involve the actual circumstances of the game in question. Ousting players because they may pose a threat to you or your friends in a later round the finals later is and out of game consideration and is not allowed by the tournament rules. Ousting them because you believe they will stop you winning the particular round you're in is fine. 2-1 table splits where the final two guys then duke it out is perfectly acceptable - just remember when it comes down to 2 players left in the game all deals are null and void and the remaining players need to PTW i.e. they need to try and win the game for them and only them. Oh and of course if you're in a losing position i.e. do not believe you have a reasonable possiblity to get more VPs on a table, you can essentially choose how to die. It's recommended that you're not an idiot over this (e.g. random cross table pain before you die) beause people will stop playing with you because you're a wanker. > Some confusion becouse we have a soccer culture here. And in soccer, > combination of games results is illegal. Like is illegal to a player > to facilitate other victory.- Hide quoted text - Sure even in the Premier League teams can be penalised if they are suspected to not be running enough of a first team in some matches e.g. in order to rest key players for a later, more important match.

> This is the one thing that bothers me about finals. One player should > not have an out of game advantage over another going into a final. > Yet finishing a game early often results in an advantage as players > can scout the tournament.(see one of many discussions on this). At the Aus nats this year, all finalists openly explained the general theme of their deck (Lutz S/B, AAA Grand Ball, blah blah) before seats were chosen, so nobody who scouted could have much of an advantage. This still doesn't solve the advantage a scouter might enjoy by watchign a game and spotting the tricks/curveballs of a particular deck, but at least it gave everyone a general idea. Seemed to work well for us, even if organising seating took a little longer (mainly due to me umming and ahhing over my spot for ten minutes :P) jase

squidalot wrote: > Might be 'easy to enforce' but it's not necessarily fair. > > People when choosing can currently ask questions of other players to > try and find out what they're playing/contestation issues etc. If > players were fobbiden from talking/communicating at all in this > exciting 'choose your chamber' event, then players who'd > 'successfully' scouted or had friends who'd done this for them would > have an advantage - and I see no reason to given these players and > advantage that can't be removed by the other finalists talking. It is a common courtesy for finalists to give a brief description of what deck type they are playing, in the order of "I gots me a Malk Stealth Bleed or I'm packing a Ventrue Political" prior to seating, at least at all the tournaments I have attended. After that no discussion about the game until it starts is in my opinion the fairest option available. ~Aa

[ quoted text not captured ] I've never seen anyone do this in >100 finals I've witnessed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <i1h5ik$km1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I've never seen anyone do this in >100 finals I've witnessed. We always do this at our tournaments. Well, not really have everyone give an oral report on their decks, but if there is someone in the final who doesn't know what everyone is playing, they'll ask the table, and someone will say "oh, he's got a weenie vote deck" or whatever. The *biggest* flaw in the seating rules for final games is, for my money, that there is imperfect distribution of information in terms of what decks are being played. Some people go into the finals and know what everyone is playing by virtue of pure luck and having been in games with everyone else in the finals, and some people might have only seen one other deck at the table (heck, possibly even no other decks at the table in a huge tournament). This makes picking seats no better than random some of the time, and greatly incentivizes scouting tables (which isn't a problem for me, but some folks seem to think it is bad--I think scouting is just the only reasonable option if you are using the finals seating rules we have), just to make sure you know what everyone is playing in case you get to the finals. As a result, it makes complete sense to, if you get to the finals and don't know what decks people are playing, say "Hey. What is Bill using?" I'll happily tell folks every time if I know. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

On Jul 10, 2:35 pm, Jay Kristoff <jaykrist...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would be okay with the V:EKN rules being changed to seat > final rounds randomly. That's at least the second time this has come up this year. First regarding scouting. Now, somehow, for collusion. So, to refresh everyone: Removing seat choice would leave as the only difference between finishing first and fifth in the preliminaries a matter of winning VP- ties in the final. ( cf. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eaa869fb877118de ) That raises the question as to whether or not that tie-splitting is enough of a carrot to push someone who's already assured a seat in the final to choose a GW in the third round over a closely-weighted (PTW- wise) 2-2-1 option that may boost xeir friend to the finals. ( http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8c7ca3ff4f145d0f from that same thread ) Which in turn leads to the question of what other incentives could be introduced if seat-choice is no longer an incentive. Examples: +0/1/2/3/4 pool for entering the final in 5th/4th/3rd/2nd/1st place ( cf. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c4149232150f1876 ) Shuffle 0/1/2/3/4 cards from hand back into library and redraw to hand size prior to the start of the game. Look at every lower-placed finalists' starting hand and uncontrolled region prior to the start of the game. Seat 1-5-2-3-4 (or the reverse) around the table. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ffadcd6fdd90da8e Additional reading: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0bfd0e887b25e8ad [PDB6] http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e55a51e05197a8 [LSJ] http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d96fc3b640b3d623 [agzocgud] Without re-hashing all the ways of stating the POVs covered in that first thread this year, would anyone like to toss in any additional constructive comments?

On Jul 13, 4:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2:35 pm, Jay Kristoff <jaykrist...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I would be okay with the V:EKN rules being changed to seat > > final rounds randomly. > > That's at least the second time this has come up this year. First > regarding scouting. Now, somehow, for collusion. > > So, to refresh everyone: > > Removing seat choice would leave as the only difference between > finishing first and fifth in the preliminaries a matter of winning VP- > ties in the final. > ( cf.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eaa8... > ) > > That raises the question as to whether or not that tie-splitting is > enough of a carrot to push someone who's already assured a seat in the > final to choose a GW in the third round over a closely-weighted (PTW- > wise) 2-2-1 option that may boost xeir friend to the finals. > > (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8c7c... > from that same thread ) > > Which in turn leads to the question of what other incentives could be > introduced if seat-choice is no longer an incentive. > > Examples: > > +0/1/2/3/4 pool for entering the final in 5th/4th/3rd/2nd/1st place > ( cf.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c414... > ) > > Shuffle 0/1/2/3/4 cards from hand back into library and redraw to hand > size prior to the start of the game. > > Look at every lower-placed finalists' starting hand and uncontrolled > region prior to the start of the game. > > Seat 1-5-2-3-4 (or the reverse) around the table.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ffad... > > Additional reading:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0bfd... > [PDB6]http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e5... > [LSJ]http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d96f... > [agzocgud] > > Without re-hashing all the ways of stating the POVs covered in that > first thread this year, would anyone like to toss in any additional > constructive comments? no but thank you for the succinct summary Scott.

[ quoted text not captured ] > no but thank you for the succinct summary Scott.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - To be honest, I don't have a problem with the only carrot of finishing higher being winning VP-ties in the final. Selecting seat is really only a true selection (knowing who your prey and predator are) if you seat last (finish in 1st) so the incentive for those who place 2-5 is already not super.

On Jul 13, 3:59 pm, Rhavas <anthony.lun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 4:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > That raises the question as to whether or not that tie-splitting is > > > enough of a carrot to push someone who's already assured a seat in the > > > final to choose a GW in the third round over a closely-weighted (PTW- > > > wise) 2-2-1 option that may boost xeir friend to the finals. snip > To be honest, I don't have a problem with the only carrot of finishing > higher being winning VP-ties in the final. Selecting seat is really > only a true selection (knowing who your prey and predator are) if you > seat last (finish in 1st) so the incentive for those who place 2-5 is > already not super. Agreed. But I'd like to add other considerations. Even with random finals seating, a player still has an incentive to try to be top-ranked, because the top-ranked player still has the substantial advantage that he can play the final to a tie, and still win the tournament. Hence, there will still be an incentive to play as well as possible in the prelims unless: (1) one is assured of a rank 1 position (2) one is assured of getting into the finals, but a rank 1 position is not possible. Neither of these scenarios seems likely to occur in the ordinary course of a tournament. Combine them with a realistic opportunity to propel a colluding buddy into the finals, and it becomes even more unlikely.

Well, it seems that the fairest option available and least open to possible collusion and the disparity from scouting is that of randomised seating for the final. The incentive for PTW and higher seeding during prelim rounds is still present, as in the case of a tie in the final, but it could be further enhanced by ensuring four transfers on the first turn for the top seed. Easy to implement, the prey of the top seed starts first and then clockwise from there. It is generally accepted that only 1st and 2nd seed have any real impact on the table positioning as it currently stands and that going first (as reflected by the greater TP's awarded when having less transfers) is a disadvantage, this would help further preserve the incentive to top seed. ~Aa

On Jul 14, 5:35 am, Sudden Reversal <sudden.rever...@gmail.com> wrote: > The incentive for PTW and higher seeding [...] could be further > enhanced by ensuring four transfers on the first turn for the top > seed. Easy to implement, the prey of the top seed starts first and > then clockwise from there. It is generally accepted that only 1st and Assuming that the player finds going fifth an advantage. In general, the fifth seat is the worst seat of the table, available- activity-wise. > 2nd seed have any real impact on the table positioning as it currently > stands and that going first (as reflected by the greater TP's awarded > when having less transfers) is a disadvantage, this would help further > preserve the incentive to top seed. The TP award doesn't reflect this -- the number of transfers is not a factor in TPs at all. Going first is advantageous: you get in the four equalized seats (ramp- up transfers) and you get a head start on master phase actions and discard phase actions. For more on the relative advantages of each seating position, see http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f66cc055271f09ef and the surround thread (and linked articles).

LSJ wrote: > Going first is advantageous: you get in the four equalized seats (ramp- > up transfers) and you get a head start on master phase actions and > discard phase actions. > > For more on the relative advantages of each seating position, see > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- cards.jyhad/msg/f66cc055271f09ef > > and the surround thread (and linked articles). The 'first is good' theory is also born out by my playgroup's stats. Seating_Position Number_of_Game_Wins Number_of_VPs ---------------- ------------------- ------------- 1 61 286.5 3 43 238.5 4 42 231.0 2 37 196.0 5 13 88.5 6 7 45.0 7 1 4.5 Sure, we haven't weighted it by frequency of game size (ie: we play less 6 player games than we do 4 player, so position 6 will naturally tend to win less in raw counts than positions 1 through 4), but all our games are 3+ players, and most 4+. So 1st doing better than positions 2 through 4 by the amount noted above is statistically* significant. * at an educated guess. I couldn't actually be bother crunching the numbers to find out. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > For more on the relative advantages of each seating position, see > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f66cc055271f09ef > > and the surround thread (and linked articles). Personally, I prefer sending people here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/da1575278a7f01c3 ...since that data shows that there is no real difference. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > For more on the relative advantages of each seating position, see > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f66cc055271f09ef > > and the surround thread (and linked articles). > Thanks for pointing clarifying this, my misconception then. Instead, top seed can decide who will be the starting player after seating but before card drawing. ~Aa

On Jul 14, 5:35 am, Sudden Reversal <sudden.rever...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it seems that the fairest option available and least open to > possible collusion and the disparity from scouting is that of > randomised seating for the final. Yet the current system provides a good, concrete incentive to try and do as well as you possibly can in the preliminaries--scraping up one extra VP in some game can mean the difference between top seed and second seed, which is very significant. Which I think is good. Honestly, I suspect that the issue of final round seating collusion is one that is being vastly overblown here; it seems likely that the vast majority of final rounds have people choosing their seats with no thought of anything other than what seat gives them the best chance to win. And throwing out a perfectly good system in the name of protecting the game from a really small chance of someone trying to collude in a final round with their seating seems silly. In terms of imperfect deck knowledge, that is easily solved by virtue of simply assuming that people are going to scout or get information from their buddies about what decks everyone is playing, and giving that official blessing. Nothing in the game changes as a result (as it is already super simple to scout and get information of people's decks anyway) except that is one less thing for a hyper-anal judge to have to worry about. -Peter

Sudden Reversal <sudden....@gmail.com> wrote: >Instead, top seed can decide who will be the starting player after >seating but before card drawing. This can work out pretty well. I've seen it done in years gone by (way before ratings and rankings and stuff), and it's not bad. You could do a number of reasonably small game-related tweaks. For example, the Edge starts play uncontrolled in preliminary rounds - but in the final, the top seed starts with it, or similar. Alternatively, the top seed might be able to get a free discard from their hand before play begins. Not game-breaking, but a good player would get a small benefit. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Honestly, I suspect that the issue of final round seating collusion is > one that is being vastly overblown here; it seems likely that the vast > majority of final rounds have people choosing their seats with no > thought of anything other than what seat gives them the best chance to > win. And throwing out a perfectly good system in the name of > protecting the game from a really small chance of someone trying to > collude in a final round with their seating seems silly. Oh I don't believe it's systemic, just that anything able to reduce the capacity and hence probability to cheat and\or be unfair should by rights be considered. Why not make a change if it's better? > In terms of imperfect deck knowledge, that is easily solved by virtue > of simply assuming that people are going to scout or get information > from their buddies about what decks everyone is playing, and giving > that official blessing. So the lone traveller is boned in tournaments? Well, that sucks...not to mention discourages interstate and international participation. ~Aa

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Honestly, I suspect that the issue of final round seating collusion is > one that is being vastly overblown here; Yeah, totally. Let's change all the rules because Jay Krisoff tried to be funny. He's not a comedian! If people want to cheat, they will find a way to do so. The current system works for the majority of us who play fair. I've had tournaments where I was top seed going to the finals, had decent knowledge of the other decks and was able to pick the seat that I was sure would give me the win. It doesn't work that way every time, but when it works it really works. 2nd and 3rd seed are also reasonable rewards. Of the decks already seated, pick one to be sure it won't be your predator. Pick one to be sure it won't be your prey. At 2nd seed, pick the deck you don't want to be next to at all. I'm not seeing the problem here. I don't know of any good player who won't try to play for a higher seed every time. I'd go so far as to say that if a player isn't trying to get a higher seed, he (not xe, but he, as only jackass dudes would cheat at a stupid game) isn't any good.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, salem wrote: > The 'first is good' theory is also born out by my playgroup's stats. This has been my experience as well, though I probably play more 9 caps than I should, so that's maybe part of it. There's no way going 4th or 5th (or ick 3rd!) isn't bad when you have no crypt accelerator and need a 9 cap. But ignoring influence math for the moment, I'd much rather go 1st than 5th. Going 1st is so much better. Ever start 4th with a Dreams or Info Highway in hand and then the 1st or 2nd player plays it? Great. Now your choices or A) hold a dead card, B) contest cross-table from turn 1 or C) discard a great 1st turn play. I've never understood people who think 4th or 5th is better.

On Jul 14, 3:35 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I'm not seeing the problem here. I don't know of any good player who > won't try to play for a higher seed every time. I'd go so far as to say > that if a player isn't trying to get a higher seed, he (not xe, but he, as > only jackass dudes would cheat at a stupid game) isn't any good. This why I think all the hand-wringing over the idea of people colluding during the finals of a tournament is so silly. The people who are willing to throw a game in order to help their friend win? Turns out, they're the same ones who aren't competitive enough to be in the finals in the first place. So let those worries evaporate. John Eno

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Yet the current system provides a good, concrete incentive to try and > do as well as you possibly can in the preliminaries--scraping up one > extra VP in some game can mean the difference between top seed and > second seed, which is very significant. Which I think is good. Sure, but that's not the issue. That incentive (a significant difference between top seed and second seed) remains without the rule. And, if the extra incentive is thought necessary, it could be created via a different rule (see, for example, the alternatives suggested by LSJ). I see no need for staggered incentives based on ranking. If an extra incentive is needed, it need be given only to the top ranked player. Since it is virtually impossible for a player in the prelims to be simultaneously certain that both he will be in the finals and not top- ranked, staggered incentives are not needed. I would do no more than allow the top-seeded player to pick his seat (deciding, for instance, whether he goes first). The remaining seats would be determined randomly. It just seems to me contrary to the spirit of the game to allow a player to choose his opponent with knowledge of his opponent's deck. The possibility of collusion / cheating is for me just icing on the cake. > Honestly, I suspect that the issue of final round seating collusion is > one that is being vastly overblown here; [...] It's a minor issue no matter how you look at it. Those arguing against change are also tempted, perhaps, to overstate their case. > In terms of imperfect deck knowledge, that is easily solved by virtue > of simply assuming that people are going to scout or get information > from their buddies about what decks everyone is playing, and giving > that official blessing. Nothing in the game changes as a result (as it > is already super simple to scout and get information of people's decks > anyway) except that is one less thing for a hyper-anal judge to have > to worry about. If we switch to random finals seating, then a "hyper-anal" judge's temptation to worry about scouting (whether legitimate or not) will be reduced even further.

In article <4c3e05f6$0$28662$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>, Sudden Reversal <sudden....@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh I don't believe it's systemic, just that anything able to reduce the > capacity and hence probability to cheat and\or be unfair should by > rights be considered. Why not make a change if it's better? It is only better if you think that not being able to pick your seat in the final round as top seed is better than the current system. I don't think that it is. And I'm unconvinced that fear of collusion in final seat picking is enough to justify changing what is already a good rule. > So the lone traveller is boned in tournaments? Well, that sucks...not to > mention discourages interstate and international participation. You walk around a look at decks when you are ousted. Or ask people what other folks are playing. If I'm at a final table, and someone says "Huh. I have no idea what Bill is playing..." and I do? I'll tell them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > I would do no more than allow the top-seeded player to pick his seat > (deciding, for instance, whether he goes first). The remaining seats > would be determined randomly. What problem does this solve exactly? > It just seems to me contrary to the spirit of the game to allow a > player to choose his opponent with knowledge of his opponent's deck. Why? What about the spirit of the game says to you that one must be ignorant of one's opponents before the game begins? > The possibility of collusion / cheating is for me just icing on the > cake. Have there been any instances of cheating or collusion in finals? I haven't seen any and I've played in a lot of tournaments. Are you sure it's an actual problem you're trying to solve here?

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > > It just seems to me contrary to the spirit of the game to allow a > > player to choose his opponent with knowledge of his opponent's deck. > > Why? This and other issues were discussed rather exhaustively in that previous thread to which LSJ made reference. > What about the spirit of the game says to you that one must be > ignorant of one's opponents before the game begins? That's not what I said.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT), LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 2:35 pm, Jay Kristoff <jaykrist...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I would be okay with the V:EKN rules being changed to seat >> final rounds randomly. > > That's at least the second time this has come up this year. First > regarding scouting. Now, somehow, for collusion. This can't be a coincidence. :) > So, to refresh everyone: > > Removing seat choice would leave as the only difference between > finishing first and fifth in the preliminaries a matter of winning VP- > ties in the final. > ( cf. > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eaa869fb877118de > ) Which is still a big advantage. It's for sure the bigger advantage. > That raises the question as to whether or not that tie-splitting is > enough of a carrot to push someone who's already assured a seat in the > final to choose a GW in the third round over a closely-weighted (PTW- > wise) 2-2-1 option that may boost xeir friend to the finals. > > ( http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8c7ca3ff4f145d0f > from that same thread ) If we discount the cases where the entry to the finals is not guaranteed and the player is better off gaining as many VPs & GWs as possible to ensure xe or xhe makes it... If we take into consideration that if xe or xhe can ensure that xis or xer buddy makes it into the final, they are both better off doing so if they can safely collude there, irrespective of seating... Then I'd say the clear-cut cases mentioned above by LSJ are so few that we can discuss them next to self-ousting. > Which in turn leads to the question of what other incentives could be > introduced if seat-choice is no longer an incentive. None are needed. [snip unneeded extra carrot ideas] > Without re-hashing all the ways of stating the POVs covered in that > first thread this year, would anyone like to toss in any additional > constructive comments? I think that it is limiting our thinking to assume that it is necessary to have extra benefits for those higher seed. Assume no benefits. You play to make top 5 to be able to play in the finals. Would people still play to win most of the time? For sure, until they can be sure they made the finals. So keeping current scores secret ensures that people are never certain of their participation and are always fully motivated to give their best. The advantage of having 3 GW instead of 2 GW? Higher probability of making the cut. Then add the tie-breaker. Not only are you more likely to make the final table... You are also having a built-in 0.1 VP advantage over the other players. Awesome! That said I do believe that rewarding the Game Win is a good thing to do. Maybe give a booster for each Game Win, and then split the rest among the finalists (who already have some GWs coming in). Not only does this address the (mostly strawman) argument that a player with high score entering round 2 would not be motivated to PTW, it also addresses the very real concern that people who have very *low* score coming into round 3 would not be motivated to PTW! If it wasn't obvious until now - I'm all for random seating in finals. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > The current > system works for the majority of us who play fair. I've had tournaments > where I was top seed going to the finals, had decent knowledge of the > other decks and was able to pick the seat that I was sure would give me > the win. It doesn't work that way every time, but when it works it really > works. The logic here seems to be: The top seed in the prelims is he that most deserves to win the tournament. The seating rule (often) ensures the top seed's victory in the final and the tournament. Therefore, the seating rule (often) "works". But such logic only begs the question of why we did not simply declare the top seed the winner after the prelims and go home 2-3 hours early. Such a rule would *always* "work", by the same criteria. > I'm not seeing the problem here. I don't know of any good player who > won't try to play for a higher seed every time. I'd go so far as to say > that if a player isn't trying to get a higher seed, he (not xe, but he, as > only jackass dudes would cheat at a stupid game) isn't any good. It is certainly not impossible to envision a situation where a player has the opportunity, combined with a reasonably belief that it will improve his chance of being the winner of the tournament, to throw a game to a buddy in the third round of a tournament, for the purpose of both being in the finals, colluding in the finals, and splitting the prize. It *is* possible to be reasonably confident of a finals seat after the first two rounds, even if you throw the last game. It is hard to be equally confident that one will or will not have a top-seeded position. However, It is possible to believe that the advantages of the collusion of your buddy outweigh any advantages that might be gained by trying to get a top-seed position. Honest players would never do this, of course. But I see no reason why dishonest players could not otherwise have the skills to do well in a tournament.

In article <2cdbdc72-568e-4e1e...@u11g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > The logic here seems to be: The top seed in the prelims is he that > most deserves to win the tournament. The seating rule (often) > ensures the top seed's victory in the final and the tournament. > Therefore, the seating rule (often) "works". Well, to be fair, I suspect that the majority of the time, Top Seed going into the final doesn't actually win (Kevin--you have statistics on this? I'm totally guessing, but most of the time I have been in or seen a final, Top Seed fails to win). So I don't think the logic is actually "Top Seed deserves to win" so much as "Top Seed gets an advantage for being Top Seed" which is the case in, like, any kind of tournament situation with a seeding system (i.e. Top Seed gets to play Bottom Seed, for example in most single elimination tournaments of any type you can imagine). > But such logic only begs the question of why we did not simply declare > the top seed the winner after the prelims and go home 2-3 hours > early. Such a rule would *always* "work", by the same criteria. 'Cause again, Top Seed doesn't win, likely, most of the time. So the issue is one of giving Top Seed an advantage for being top seed (pick the seat you like best), not assuming Top Seed gets to win. James (I'm pretty sure it was James) mentioned some other possible ways that Top Seed could get an advantage in the finals (start with an extra pool or an extra discard or whatever), all of which are certainly a possibility, but the system we have currently works fine as it is. So changing it for the sake of changing it seems silly, and changing it for the sake of preventing likely non existent cheating also seems silly. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > The logic here seems to be: The top seed in the prelims is he that > most deserves to win the tournament. The seating rule (often) > ensures the top seed's victory in the final and the tournament. > Therefore, the seating rule (often) "works". Where did I say the top seed most deserves to win and what would that have to do with anything anyway? I was arguing that seating choice is a good reward and incentive enough for any good player to play for top seed. > But such logic only begs the question of why we did not simply declare > the top seed the winner after the prelims and go home 2-3 hours > early. Such a rule would *always* "work", by the same criteria. Well, that's pretty damn stupid. Why not just forgo playing any games and give the win to whomever has the nicest hair (me)? Because the point of vtes is to play games of vtes and the top seeded player doesn't always win, despite advantage. Does this really need to be explained to you? > It is certainly not impossible to envision a situation where a player > has the opportunity, combined with a reasonably belief that it will > improve his chance of being the winner of the tournament, to throw a > game to a buddy in the third round of a tournament, for the purpose of > both being in the finals, colluding in the finals, and splitting the > prize. So you change the rules envisoning this possibility? Are you aware that this has actually happened ever? If so, let's talk about that. If not, why discuss it at all? If people aren't cheating all over the place after 15 years, they aren't about to start now! > Honest players would never do this, of course. But I see no reason > why dishonest players could not otherwise have the skills to do well > in a tournament. Which dishonest players? Where are they? How are they spoiling your enjoyment of the game? As you're no doubt aware, I've played in a few tournaments in New York and never seen anything like this at all. Help me zero in on this problem you're trying to solve.

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Where did I say the top seed most deserves to win and what would that have > to do with anything anyway? I was guessing at your logic (hence the word "seems"). It was actually my second guess. My first guess was that you were saying that the rule is a good one because it helps Matt Morgan win. It seemed an unfriendly interpretation so I looked for another interpretation, and found one. I'm sorry for overlooking your actual meaning. > I was arguing that seating choice is a good > reward and incentive enough for any good player to play for top seed. My apologies. But the reason I misunderstood this is because: No-one has argued otherwise. It's simply not an issue under dispute. There are some who think it is adequate, so that if we do random seating we must replace the incentive, and some who think it is more-than adequate, so that there will be no need to replace the incentive. No- one thinks it is inadequate. > > It is certainly not impossible to envision a situation where a player > > has the opportunity, combined with a reasonably belief that it will > > improve his chance of being the winner of the tournament, to throw a > > game to a buddy in the third round of a tournament, for the purpose of > > both being in the finals, colluding in the finals, and splitting the > > prize. > > So you change the rules envisoning this possibility? No. This has little if anything to do with my reasons for wanting to change the rules. I was in favor of random finals seating before I envisioned this possibility. See that earlier thread. [Re: throwing a game to put colluding buddy in finals] > Are you aware that this has actually happened ever? If I was, would I admit it? If someone else was, and I was not their partner-in-crime, would they tell me? > Which dishonest players? Where are they? How are they spoiling your > enjoyment of the game? As you're no doubt aware, I've played in a few > tournaments in New York and never seen anything like this at all. Help me > zero in on this problem you're trying to solve. I was not trying to solve it. In fact, I essentially agree with Daneel that the advantages of such deliberate collusion (if one can get them) are so great that no reasonable first-rank incentive can outweigh them. We must simply rely on the fact that such opportunities will be rare. Hence, I think the incentives need only be strong enough to prevent a player from gratuitously throwing his third game to a buddy or to someone he thinks he can do well against in the final. I think the first-ranker's ability to win a tie-game is good enough, but would not be averse to also allowing him to choose whether he goes 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., as long as the remaining seats are determined randomly around him.

Daneel wrote: > If we discount the cases where the entry to the finals is not > guaranteed and the player is better off gaining as many > VPs & GWs as possible to ensure xe or xhe makes it... Seriously, are you kidding me? Why even bother? /bang! [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > James (I'm pretty sure it was James) mentioned some other possible ways > that Top Seed could get an advantage in the finals (start with an extra > pool or an extra discard or whatever), all of which are certainly a > possibility, [...] LSJ also mentioned it, in the initial post here. > [...] but the system we have currently works fine as it is. So > changing it for the sake of changing it seems silly, True. But no-one has suggested "changing it for the sake of changing it" > and changing it for > the sake of preventing likely non existent cheating also seems silly. Well, it did look to me that random seating would have deterred the sort of conduct described by Jay Kristoff, whether you choose to call that "cheating" or not. Nor was this described as a unique situation, but rather one that the offenders had come to regard, based on past experience, as normal and therefore innocent.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > My first guess was that you were saying > that the rule is a good one because it helps Matt Morgan win. Ha ha. Yes, also add to the list judges who don't check my sleeves for extra Direct Interventions before a match...oops! > My apologies. But the reason I misunderstood this is because: No-one > has argued otherwise. It's simply not an issue under dispute. There > are some who think it is adequate, so that if we do random seating we > must replace the incentive, and some who think it is more-than > adequate, so that there will be no need to replace the incentive. No- > one thinks it is inadequate. So maybe if I was just saying "yeah, me too!" not in response to you, but in response to Peter, you could just let it go by or something. >> So you change the rules envisoning this possibility? > > No. This has little if anything to do with my reasons for wanting to > change the rules. I was in favor of random finals seating before I > envisioned this possibility. See that earlier thread. I did see it. If this isn't actually about collusion, then why are we talking about it? Why inject that bit of irrelevance into the discussion? > [Re: throwing a game to put colluding buddy in finals] > >> Are you aware that this has actually happened ever? > > If I was, would I admit it? If someone else was, and I was not their > partner-in-crime, would they tell me? Well, you might if you wanted to win an argument. But if nobody has any examples they want to share, then I think my motion to irrelevance carries. Judge? Snip more blah blah about how you weren't actually disagreeing with me. That's nice. I guess your whole point is just that 1st seed is too advantaged. I'm not really seeing the problem. It's something to strive for and coming first seed means you won't be taken out by the one deck that is the rock to your scissors in the final. I'm completely okay with that.

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > > My first guess was that you were saying > > that the rule is a good one because it helps Matt Morgan win. > > Ha ha. Yes, also add to the list judges who don't check my sleeves for > extra Direct Interventions before a match...oops! Even my first guess had nothing to do with cheating. > >> So you change the rules envisoning this possibility? > > > > No. This has little if anything to do with my reasons for wanting to > > change the rules. I was in favor of random finals seating before I > > envisioned this possibility. See that earlier thread. > > I did see it. If this isn't actually about collusion, then why are we > talking about it? Why inject that bit of irrelevance into the discussion? Jay Kristoff raised the issue of collusion, and its connection to the current seating method. However, that was a different sort of collusion, not directly related to players violating PTW in preliminary round games. It was LSJ who raised the issue of players, assured of a seat in the finals, throwing preliminary round games. As I understood it, the concern was not that it was CURRENTLY a problem, but rather that it might become a problem if we (for other reasons) switched to random finals seating, removing the EXTRA incentives to do will that the current seating system gives to top ranked players. So if you vigorously insist that LSJ's concern is a non-issue, you are actually helping my position. > > [Re: throwing a game to put colluding buddy in finals] > > > >> Are you aware that this has actually happened ever? > > > > If I was, would I admit it? If someone else was, and I was not their > > partner-in-crime, would they tell me? > > Well, you might if you wanted to win an argument. Not if I wanted to win THIS argument. You are actually helping my overall position, though I cannot agree with your precise logic. > I guess your whole point is just that 1st seed is too advantaged. Not at all. That has nothing to do why I advocate random seating.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > John Whelan wrote: >> The logic here seems to be: The top seed in the prelims is he >> that most deserves to win the tournament. The seating rule >> (often) ensures the top seed's victory in the final and the >> tournament. Therefore, the seating rule (often) "works". > > Well, to be fair, I suspect that the majority of the time, > Top Seed going into the final doesn't actually win (Kevin-- > you have statistics on this? I'm totally guessing, but most > of the time I have been in or seen a final, Top Seed fails to win). Oh, I know for a fact that Top Seed rarely wins. The term "Top Seed curse" was coined years ago for that reason. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 16, 3:49 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Oh, I know for a fact that Top Seed rarely wins. The term > "Top Seed curse" was coined years ago for that reason. Yep totally - the last three years Australian Nationals were not won by the top seed (for the record by 5th, 3rd and 2nd I believe). In the last two finals the top seed was faced with a bunch of sucky seating choices based on what the players in front of them did.

Shade wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:49 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > Oh, I know for a fact that Top Seed rarely wins. The term > > "Top Seed curse" was coined years ago for that reason. > > Yep totally - the last three years Australian Nationals were not won > by the top seed [...] If this is really so, then perhaps the best reward a top-seed can get is that no issue be made about the fact that he is top-seed. The judge simply declares who the finalists are (in alphabetical order or no particular order or the order in which seating has been randomly determined). Seating is then determined randomly. Even the top-seed might be unsure of his top-seed status. This might increase his incentive to go for a game win, rather than settle for a tournament-winning tie.

John Whelan wrote: > Shade wrote: >> "Kevin M." wrote: >>> Oh, I know for a fact that Top Seed rarely wins. The term >>> "Top Seed curse" was coined years ago for that reason. >> >> Yep totally - the last three years Australian Nationals were not won >> by the top seed [...] > > If this is really so, then perhaps the best reward a top-seed can > get is that no issue be made about the fact that he is top-seed. Once again, secrecy rears its ugly head. One question: How are you going to police people talking between rounds about the VPs and GWs which they have achieved? > Even the top-seed might be unsure of his top-seed status. > This might increase his incentive to go for a game win, > rather than settle for a tournament-winning tie. So now a player in the final can't choose to WIN in the way that she chooses to do so? Now we're policing WINNING? [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > Shade wrote: > >> "Kevin M." wrote: > >>> Oh, I know for a fact that Top Seed rarely wins. The term > >>> "Top Seed curse" was coined years ago for that reason. > >> > >> Yep totally - the last three years Australian Nationals were not won > >> by the top seed [...] > > > > If this is really so, then perhaps the best reward a top-seed can > > get is that no issue be made about the fact that he is top-seed. > > Once again, secrecy rears its ugly head. > > One question: How are you going to police people talking between > rounds about the VPs and GWs which they have achieved? ??? I (as Judge) am not going to try. I said absolutely nothing to suggest that I would try. They can talk all they want. They can even tell a pack of lies for all I care. > > Even the top-seed might be unsure of his top-seed status. > > This might increase his incentive to go for a game win, > > rather than settle for a tournament-winning tie. > > So now a player in the final can't choose to WIN in the > way that she chooses to do so? What the hell are you talking about? > Now we're policing WINNING? I am policing nothing. I (as Judge) am simply refusing to disclose to the finalists (prior to the end of the tournament) the scores of his fellow players. It is an out-of-game consideration, and simply none of their business at this stage.

John Whelan wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: > > John Whelan wrote: > > > Even the top-seed might be unsure of his top-seed status. > > > This might increase his incentive to go for a game win, > > > rather than settle for a tournament-winning tie. > > > > So now a player in the final can't choose to WIN in the > > way that she chooses to do so? > > What the hell are you talking about? > > > Now we're policing WINNING? > > I am policing nothing. I'd just like to add that the behavior you are accusing me of policing is already illegal, at least according to the letter of the current rules. A player is not supposed to settle for a tie game, when he has a reasonable chance of a game win. It is a violation of PTW, and therefore "cheating". But I am still not planning to "police" it any more than before. This scheme merely minimizes the temptation.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > It was LSJ who raised the issue of players, assured of a seat in the > finals, throwing preliminary round games. As I understood it, the > concern was not that it was CURRENTLY a problem, but rather that it > might become a problem if we (for other reasons) switched to random > finals seating, removing the EXTRA incentives to do will that the > current seating system gives to top ranked players. > > So if you vigorously insist that LSJ's concern is a non-issue, you are > actually helping my position. Scott has more experience judging than I have, but I have more experience playing than he does. I have NEVER heard of a player throwing a preliminary round game for any reason. vtes players play to win. That's my experience. I do believe this is a non-issue. Now what is your position that I'm supporting? >> Well, you might if you wanted to win an argument. > > Not if I wanted to win THIS argument. You are actually helping my > overall position, though I cannot agree with your precise logic. That's fantastic! What's your position? >> I guess your whole point is just that 1st seed is too advantaged. > > Not at all. That has nothing to do why I advocate random seating. Well, that's the impression I got from reading your post that Scott linked: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eaa869fb877118de So, oh mysterious one, if your position isn't that 1st seed is too advantaged and your position isn't that vtes is rife with cheating and collusion, then why do we need to change the rules and randomize final round seating? Is it because you find the choosing seats phase annoying (last paragraph)?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: >> Yep totally - the last three years Australian Nationals were not won >> by the top seed [...] > > If this is really so, then perhaps the best reward a top-seed can get > is that no issue be made about the fact that he is top-seed. No. That wouldn't be a good reward. The reason top seed doesn't always win is there are four other players who may win. That gives you a base 20%. Nudge that number up a little for 1st seed advantage and a little more because you've got to be a good player/have a good deck/be lucky to be 1st seed and you're still well below 50%. There's no table position that will generally win in a 5 player game. 1st seed still has advantages (as previously discussed - though you said that EVERYBODY already agreed with what you're now taking issue with), but they aren't so great as to guarantee winning. Maybe they take shots at the top seed down under. I don't know as I haven't played there. But we're just talking about three games here. You can't draw a conclusion from three games. > The judge simply declares who the finalists are (in alphabetical order > or no particular order or the order in which seating has been randomly > determined). Seating is then determined randomly. > > Even the top-seed might be unsure of his top-seed status. This might > increase his incentive to go for a game win, rather than settle for a > tournament-winning tie. This would only increase the level of scouting as players tracked all the tables to determine what seed they would be. Why hide information from players or encourage this kind of thing. Most importantly, why do this at all?

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > I'd just like to add that the behavior you are accusing me of policing > is already illegal, at least according to the letter of the current > rules. A player is not supposed to settle for a tie game, when he has > a reasonable chance of a game win. It is a violation of PTW, and > therefore "cheating". Are you talking about a final table? If so, you are completely mistaken about how it works. It is legal for a finalist to play for a tie if in fact it's not a tie at all but a win. Why? Because it's not a tie. Even v:ekn rules count a timed out final table as a table win for the top seed (and therefore winner). > But I am still not planning to "police" it any more than before. This > scheme merely minimizes the temptation. That's your theory. I can't imagine it working out in practice though. Finalists always want to know who's on top and will find out.

On Jul 16, 8:48 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > > It was LSJ who raised the issue of players, assured of a seat in the > > finals, throwing preliminary round games. As I understood it, the > > concern was not that it was CURRENTLY a problem, but rather that it > > might become a problem if we (for other reasons) switched to random > > finals seating, removing the EXTRA incentives to do will that the > > current seating system gives to top ranked players. > > > So if you vigorously insist that LSJ's concern is a non-issue, you are > > actually helping my position. > > Scott has more experience judging than I have, but I have more experience > playing than he does. I have NEVER heard of a player throwing a > preliminary round game for any reason. vtes players play to win. That's > my experience. I do believe this is a non-issue. Take it up with LSJ then. > Now what is your position that I'm supporting? I did not say you favored my position. I said you were helping it. I favor random seating in the finals. By declaring this to be a non- issue, you remove one of the obstacles. > >> Well, you might if you wanted to win an argument. > > > Not if I wanted to win THIS argument. You are actually helping my > > overall position, though I cannot agree with your precise logic. > > That's fantastic! What's your position? I favor random seating in the finals. > >> I guess your whole point is just that 1st seed is too advantaged. > > > Not at all. That has nothing to do why I advocate random seating. > > Well, that's the impression I got from reading your post that Scott > linked:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eaa8... You got the wrong impression. But there is an entire thread to go with it, which makes things considerably more clear. > So, oh mysterious one, if your position isn't that 1st seed is too > advantaged and your position isn't that vtes is rife with cheating and > collusion, then why do we need to change the rules and randomize final > round seating? Is it because you find the choosing seats phase annoying > (last paragraph)? In part. It also had something to do with scouting (as LSJ already mentioned). You will find my reasons exhaustively discussed in the prior thread, as I already told you.

On Jul 16, 9:00 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Are you talking about a final table? If so, you are completely mistaken > about how it works. It is legal for a finalist to play for a tie if in > fact it's not a tie at all but a win. Why? Because it's not a tie. Even > v:ekn rules count a timed out final table as a table win for the top seed > (and therefore winner). I'll take your word for it. It is still a regrettable (but perhaps necessary) exception to what ought to be the rule.

On Jul 16, 8:55 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > The reason top seed doesn't always > win is there are four other players who may win. That gives you a base > 20%. Nudge that number up a little for 1st seed advantage and a little > more because you've got to be a good player/have a good deck/be lucky to > be 1st seed and you're still well below 50%. So, according to you, there is no "top seed curse" then. Fair enough.

On Jul 16, 5:48 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > > It was LSJ who raised the issue of players, assured of a seat in the > > finals, throwing preliminary round games. As I understood it, the > > concern was not that it was CURRENTLY a problem, but rather that it > > might become a problem if we (for other reasons) switched to random > > finals seating, removing the EXTRA incentives to do will that the > > current seating system gives to top ranked players. > > > So if you vigorously insist that LSJ's concern is a non-issue, you are > > actually helping my position. > > Scott has more experience judging than I have, but I have more experience > playing than he does. I have NEVER heard of a player throwing a > preliminary round game for any reason. vtes players play to win. That's > my experience. I do believe this is a non-issue. When we first introduced the play to win rules we were doing so in response to actual situations where some players were not playing to the best of their abilities in preliminary rounds. Since the carrot of seating choice I haven't heard of many cases where problems still exist. The question is whether or not a lesser carrot can be substituted for seating choice while still maintaining sufficient motivation for doing your best in the prelims. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I just checked the tournament rules. They are clear. A tie game is not a game win, and playing for a game win is mandatory when reasonably possible. No exception is made for the final game. However, I was wrong to say violating PTW was defined as "cheating". It is merely defined as bad sportsmanship.

In article <d5a683e9-4fad-429e...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > True. But no-one has suggested "changing it for the sake of changing > it" Well, if the change is done in the name of preventing non existent cheating, it is as good as changing it just for the sake of changing it. > Well, it did look to me that random seating would have deterred the > sort of conduct described by Jay Kristoff, whether you choose to call > that "cheating" or not. I would not call it cheating, no. Based on what I read about the situation (as I wasn't there), it was at worst a slightly dubious idea and at best just a normal conversation about the game. And not anything that needs to be prevented. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > So, according to you, there is no "top seed curse" then. Fair enough. Of course there isn't. See the other thread where you made a comment about how I've been able to easily win some finals by picking my seat. The "curse" from what I remember was John Bell having a nice run of hitting the final with 3 GW and then losing. 3 GW is not the same as top seed, though it's usually top seed. But even then, if you think about things rationally for a moment, you'll realize that no "curse" needs to be involved because in any 5 player game, a single player will be more likely to lose than win.

On Jul 16, 10:28 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > > So, according to you, there is no "top seed curse" then. Fair enough. > > Of course there isn't. Take it up with Kevin.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] You don't need to take my word for it. You've given me plenty of homework. Go read billions of posts to ferret out the truth. I could just link a few, but I know that's not how you like it. And I don't agree that that ought to be the rule. That would be a silly rule. If a player is already winning (already achieved the goal of the game), why should anything more be required of that player?

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > Actually, I just checked the tournament rules. They are clear. A tie > game is not a game win, and playing for a game win is mandatory when > reasonably possible. No exception is made for the final game. > However, I was wrong to say violating PTW was defined as "cheating". > It is merely defined as bad sportsmanship. I admit this isn't spelled out in the tournament rules, but it has been ruled as legal for years and years now. Read any of the umpteen-million newsgroup posts on the subject. Additionally, as previously stated, when scoring a tournament, v:ekn rules always give the tournament winner a game win for the final round, even if that round was won with only 0.5 VPs. For all intents and purposes, any final round victory is a game win.

On Jul 16, 10:31 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > If a player is already winning (already achieved the goal of the > game), why should anything more be required of that player? The goal of the game, as defined in both the standard and tournament rules, is to get more victory points than any other player.

On Jul 16, 10:54 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > > Actually, I just checked the tournament rules. They are clear. A tie > > game is not a game win, and playing for a game win is mandatory when > > reasonably possible. No exception is made for the final game. > > However, I was wrong to say violating PTW was defined as "cheating". > > It is merely defined as bad sportsmanship. > > I admit this isn't spelled out in the tournament rules, It is explicitly contradicted by the tournament rules. > but it has been > ruled as legal for years and years now. Well then, someone should get around to changing the tournament rules, then.

John Whelan wrote: > "Matthew T. Morgan" wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> So, according to you, there is no "top seed curse" then. >> >> Of course there isn't. > > Take it up with Kevin. AFAIK there has been, for some years now, players discussing the "3GW curse" and also the "Top Seed curse". Matt being unfamiliar with one of these, or the terms not being in the general VTES lexicon, is no reason to assume that they don't exist, or whatever you were trying to imply to me or Matt. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> Shade wrote: >>>> "Kevin M." wrote: >>>>> Oh, I know for a fact that Top Seed rarely wins. The term >>>>> "Top Seed curse" was coined years ago for that reason. >>>> >>>> Yep totally - the last three years Australian Nationals were not >>>> won by the top seed [...] >>> >>> If this is really so, then perhaps the best reward a top-seed can >>> get is that no issue be made about the fact that he is top-seed. >> >> Once again, secrecy rears its ugly head. >> >> One question: How are you going to police people talking between >> rounds about the VPs and GWs which they have achieved? > > ??? > > I (as Judge) am not going to try. I said absolutely nothing > to suggest that I would try. They can talk all they want. > They can even tell a pack of lies for all I care. My apologies. The way I read it was that "no issue be made" was equivalent to "this is a matter which cannot be discussed". Sorry for the somewhat-reasonable assumption on my part. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: >> I admit this isn't spelled out in the tournament rules, > > It is explicitly contradicted by the tournament rules. Depending on your view, yes. I would like for it to be more clear, but I don't think yours is the only possible interpretation. >> but it has been >> ruled as legal for years and years now. > > Well then, someone should get around to changing the tournament rules, > then. My impression was that Scott felt since the obvious goal was to win the tournament and that since a first seed tie = tournament win, it wasn't necessary to spell this out as a legal outcome in the rules. Also, enforcing this kind of rule ("play to win even more than you're already winning") would be impossible. You would basically have to have the judge play the top seed player's deck. I believe that was the other side of Scott's point. Perhaps he'll weigh in here. Like a lot of proposed solutions, yours is fine on paper, but would be terrible in practice.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > On Jul 16, 10:28 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: >>> So, according to you, there is no "top seed curse" then. Fair enough. >> >> Of course there isn't. > > Take it up with Kevin. Well that would be a massive waste of time since Kevin was obviously being a bit facetious. He's run more tournaments than just about anybody and has clearly seen the top seeded player win many times.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Kevin M. wrote: > John Whelan wrote: >> "Matthew T. Morgan" wrote: >>> John Whelan wrote: >>>> So, according to you, there is no "top seed curse" then. >>> >>> Of course there isn't. >> >> Take it up with Kevin. > > AFAIK there has been, for some years now, players discussing > the "3GW curse" and also the "Top Seed curse". Matt being > unfamiliar with one of these, or the terms not being in the general > VTES lexicon, is no reason to assume that they don't exist, > or whatever you were trying to imply to me or Matt. Of course I'm familiar with the lexicon. I was only trying to caution John not to take it so literally.

On Jul 16, 12:00 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Also, enforcing this kind of rule ("play to win even more than you're > already winning") would be impossible. I understand the Realities of the situation. But that does not change the underlying ideals -- that all players should play for the goal of the game as defined in the standard rules. Hence, it might not necessarily be a Bad Thing if finalists were not always 100% certain of their relative rankings. Such uncertainty would make them more likely to "play to win" the final game, by the standard rulebook's definition. That's not an enforcement issue, it's just another Reality. Similarly, longer time limits in finals tend to have the effect of forcing even top-seeded players to Play to Win (according to the standard rulebook meaning), simply because ties are relatively rare in finished games, and a longer time limit makes games more likely to finish. > Like a lot of proposed solutions, yours is fine on paper, but would be > terrible in practice. However, my proposed solution was NOT to try to enforce the unenforceable.

On Jul 16, 12:23 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > > On Jul 16, 10:28 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > >>> So, according to you, there is no "top seed curse" then. Fair enough. > > >> Of course there isn't. > > > Take it up with Kevin. > > Well that would be a massive waste of time since Kevin was obviously being > a bit facetious. He's run more tournaments than just about anybody and > has clearly seen the top seeded player win many times. Well, you seem to want to argue with SOMEBODY about it. But I was merely assuming Kevin's premise for the sake of argument. And it may well be that, in Kevin's experience, the Top Seed tends to win less than 20% of the time, whether through a fluke of bad luck, or some other reason. Who am I to say?

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > This would only increase the level of scouting as players tracked all > the tables to determine what seed they would be. Why hide information > from players or encourage this kind of thing. Most importantly, why do > this at all? From 4.8 Playing to Win (**) added for emphasis "One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or **overall tournament standing**, etc.)." As you cannot use or take into account current standings in decision making prior to the final table, this information should not be disclosed by the Judge. Sure, players can talk amongst themselves but it would be an imperfect guess rather than an "Oh, I only need 1 VP and I am in for sure." If players can really scout that much information and crunch the numbers in their head accurately, then they are a living Archon1.3 and should be given a medal to go along with their unsportsmanlike ways. Collusion may not seem prevalent to some, but it is a symptom of its success that if indeed people are doing it successfully then it will go unobserved. And it DOES happen. I have been told of its success both by its victims and by its perpetrators. I must say I am leaning ever more to random seating for the final, the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" doesn't wash for me in this case. Be it collusion, scouting, unsportsmanlike behaviour...whatever, any change to the system that makes it a fairer and more balanced match up is a good one and should be considered rather than discarded off hand to maintain the status quo. ~Aa

On Jul 16, 1:15 pm, Sudden Reversal <sudden.rever...@gmail.com> wrote: > Collusion may not seem prevalent to some, but it is a symptom of its > success that if indeed people are doing it successfully then it will go > unobserved. And it DOES happen. I have been told of its success both by > its victims and by its perpetrators. Who are these people, and why haven't they come forward themselves? John Eno

On Jul 16, 1:02 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > And it may well be that, in Kevin's experience, the Top Seed tends to > win less than 20% of the time, whether through a fluke of bad luck, or > some other reason. Who am I to say? We don't know that Top Seed wins less than 20% of the time. We do know that Top Seed does not *usually* win. If I were to guess, and removing the possibility of a tie (not 'cause I'm discounting it, but just 'cause it makes the math harder), I suspect that Top Seed wins the final a little more than the 20% of the time one would assume people win a blind 5 player game (again, ignoring ties. Which happen. But make the math harder in this instance). So picking one's seat, and being Top Seed in the first place likely provide some kind of advantage. But not one that is so big that Top Seed is more likely to win than not. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Are you demanding that he point fingers and name names? Or are you merely trying to imply that, if he refuses to do so, he must not be telling the truth?

On Jul 16, 1:41 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 1:02 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And it may well be that, in Kevin's experience, the Top Seed tends to > > win less than 20% of the time, whether through a fluke of bad luck, or > > some other reason. Who am I to say? > > We don't know that Top Seed wins less than 20% of the time. Then we don't know of any "top seed curse". But Kevin said, or at least strongly implied, that there was one in his experience, and I was willing to assume so for the sake of discussion.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > On Jul 16, 12:00 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: >> Also, enforcing this kind of rule ("play to win even more than you're >> already winning") would be impossible. > > I understand the Realities of the situation. But that does not change > the underlying ideals -- that all players should play for the goal of > the game as defined in the standard rules. So you say. I don't see how having useless, unenforceable standards helps anything. > Hence, it might not necessarily be a Bad Thing if finalists were not > always 100% certain of their relative rankings. Such uncertainty > would make them more likely to "play to win" the final game, by the > standard rulebook's definition. That's not an enforcement issue, it's > just another Reality. But in practice they won't be uncertain. How can you make them uncertain? They'll do the math. Someone will every time. I know a lot of players who keep time at their own tables and calculate their own tournament points and such. It's not hard to do. It's a pipe dream to think that finalists will sit down not knowing who wins on a tie. > Similarly, longer time limits in finals tend to have the effect of > forcing even top-seeded players to Play to Win (according to the > standard rulebook meaning), simply because ties are relatively rare in > finished games, and a longer time limit makes games more likely to > finish. This is non-sequitor. The game is finished when it times out or when only one player remains. All final games finish. >> Like a lot of proposed solutions, yours is fine on paper, but would be >> terrible in practice. > > However, my proposed solution was NOT to try to enforce the > unenforceable. Your solution is what again? Randomize final seating and keep seeding information secret? Righto. All that does is make being top seed less useful, which is fine, but has nothing to do with PTW. All it does is exchange one arbitratry measure (first seed is X useful) for another arbirary measure (first seed is Y useful). PTW remains constant.

On Jul 16, 1:55 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you demanding that he point fingers and name names? Or are you > merely trying to imply that, if he refuses to do so, he must not be > telling the truth? Kindly keep your words out of my mouth. Here's what I want to know: "Who are these people, and why haven't they come forward themselves?" John Eno

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Sudden Reversal wrote: > As you cannot use or take into account current standings in decision making > prior to the final table, this information should not be disclosed by the > Judge. Sure, players can talk amongst themselves but it would be an imperfect > guess rather than an "Oh, I only need 1 VP and I am in for sure." If players > can really scout that much information and crunch the numbers in their head > accurately, then they are a living Archon1.3 and should be given a medal to > go along with their unsportsmanlike ways. Crunching numbers is not unsportsmanlike. Wanting to know one's current standing and playing differently based on that knowledge are two different things. And it isn't hard to do. I'm not sure why you think it is, but it's not that hard. Just figure out possible game wins, subtract any timeouts, pay attention to players who seem to have multiple game wins. It's really easy in a small or medium tournament. In a large tournament, you need 2 GP and a big pile of VPs. Letting any VPs at all get away is stupid, never mind sportsmanship. > Collusion may not seem prevalent to some, but it is a symptom of its success > that if indeed people are doing it successfully then it will go unobserved. > And it DOES happen. I have been told of its success both by its victims and > by its perpetrators. Really, people come up to you and tell you how they cheated to win a tournament? That's pretty weird. Are you a priest or something? In any case, you saying that you know it happens but can't or won't provide any details is quite useless. I've played a lot of vtes all over North America and Europe and haven't noticed this as a problem at all. > I must say I am leaning ever more to random seating for the final, the "if it > ain't broke don't fix it" doesn't wash for me in this case. Be it collusion, > scouting, unsportsmanlike behaviour...whatever, any change to the system that > makes it a fairer and more balanced match up is a good one and should be > considered rather than discarded off hand to maintain the status quo. The proposed changes don't address any of your concerns. Two players colluding can do so regardless of where they are at the table. Cross-table? Great! They can mask it as overzealous cross-table buddyness. Pred and prey? Great! Even easier to cheat. The only way to deal with any of the problems you complaining about is through good judging. And scouting isn't illegal by the way. It can be specifically disallowed by the judge, but the v:ekn rules don't prohibit it.

On Jul 16, 2:37 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > But in practice they won't be uncertain. In practice they will be more uncertain more often. > How can you make them uncertain? I would make them more uncertain more often by implementing the rule I suggested to Kevin. > They'll do the math. Some will. Some will be certain they did their math correctly. Some will be less certain. > Someone will every time. And perhaps someone won't. > > Similarly, longer time limits in finals tend to have the effect of > > forcing even top-seeded players to Play to Win (according to the > > standard rulebook meaning), simply because ties are relatively rare in > > finished games, and a longer time limit makes games more likely to > > finish. > > This is non-sequitor. The game is finished when it times out or when only > one player remains. All final games finish. A game that finishes, per standard rules, is unlikely to tie. A tournament game with a long time limit is more likely to finish per standard rules. See standard rulebook. > Your solution is what again? The one I just suggested to Kevin.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: >> How can you make them uncertain? > > I would make them more uncertain more often by implementing the rule I > suggested to Kevin. When I poke a hole in an idea you had and you respond by telling me you had an idea, that's completely circular. I guess you've got nothing else to say here. >> This is non-sequitor. The game is finished when it times out or when only >> one player remains. All final games finish. > > A game that finishes, per standard rules, is unlikely to tie. A > tournament game with a long time limit is more likely to finish per > standard rules. See standard rulebook. Yes, we must stay true to that precious tome. Make sure you cut your library down to 80 cards if you are seated at a 4 player table. Oh, that's right, tournaments are bit different than standard play. I don't feel that any rule in the rulebook is sacrosanct. Organized play should and does make changes to the rules when doing so makes for a better organized play environment. For the longest time v:ekn had its own NRA rule before that was finally added to the rulebook. I'd be surprised to hear anyone say that wasn't a good thing.

On Jul 16, 2:56 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Really, people come up to you and tell you how they cheated to win a > tournament? That's pretty weird. Are you a priest or something? In any > case, you saying that you know it happens but can't or won't provide any > details is quite useless. I've played a lot of vtes all over North > America and Europe and haven't noticed this as a problem at all. Perhaps your honest face and aura of authority prevents villains from confiding with you.

On Jul 16, 3:42 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Yes, we must stay true to that precious tome. Make sure you cut your > library down to 80 cards if you are seated at a 4 player table. Oh, > that's right, tournaments are bit different than standard play. > > I don't feel that any rule in the rulebook is sacrosanct. Organized play > should and does make changes to the rules when doing so makes for a better > organized play environment. For the longest time v:ekn had its own NRA > rule before that was finally added to the rulebook. I'd be surprised to > hear anyone say that wasn't a good thing. This sarcastic screed has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what I was saying. I was merely saying that a game which finishes "normally" (as opposed to timingt out) is far less likely to tie than a game that times out. A game with a long time limit is less likely to time out; and therefore less likely to tie. Moreover, all games that finish "normally" result in game wins, provided they do not tie. Therefore, a long time limit is a natural PTW enforcement mechanism.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:42 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: >> Yes, we must stay true to that precious tome. Make sure you cut your >> library down to 80 cards if you are seated at a 4 player table. Oh, >> that's right, tournaments are bit different than standard play. >> >> I don't feel that any rule in the rulebook is sacrosanct. Organized play >> should and does make changes to the rules when doing so makes for a better >> organized play environment. For the longest time v:ekn had its own NRA >> rule before that was finally added to the rulebook. I'd be surprised to >> hear anyone say that wasn't a good thing. > > This sarcastic screed has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what I was > saying. I guess you should make your points a bit more clearly. What did you mean when you wrote "See standard rulebook"? > I was merely saying that a game which finishes "normally" (as opposed > to timingt out) is far less likely to tie than a game that times out. > A game with a long time limit is less likely to time out; and > therefore less likely to tie. Moreover, all games that finish > "normally" result in game wins, provided they do not tie. Therefore, > a long time limit is a natural PTW enforcement mechanism. Actually there's no chance at all of a final game ending in a tie, due to tiebreakers. They thought of everything!

On Jul 16, 3:42 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > >> How can you make them uncertain? > > > I would make them more uncertain more often by implementing the rule I > > suggested to Kevin. > > When I poke a hole in an idea you had and you respond by telling me you > had an idea, that's completely circular. I guess you've got nothing else > to say here. I never suggested we make them uncertain, except by implementing the rule I suggested to Kevin. It is you who false assume I was suggesting any greater enforcement or had in mind any additional methods. Hence, any circularity is entirely your invention, not mine. You already know the "how". So why waste my time asking the question?

In article <c7f83675-2721-4c14...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Then we don't know of any "top seed curse". "Top Seed Curse" refers to the reality that the majority of the time, top seed doesn't win. 'Cause mathematically speaking, again, removing ties, there are 5 people in the final. And so any one of them is going to have about a 20% chance of winning, give or take. So if things are exactly average (again, ignoring ties for the sake of easier math), Top Seed will have about a 20% chance of winning, and about a 80% chance of not winning. If you adjust some based on getting to pick seat, and that the Top Seed probably has a good deck with a good player behind it, and give Top Seed, say, a 30% chance of winning, xe still has a 70% chance of not winning. > But Kevin said, or at > least strongly implied, that there was one in his experience, and I > was willing to assume so for the sake of discussion. I am also willing to take Kevin's assessment as a base assumption--and I'm pretty sure that assessment is "Top Seed does not win the final round the majority of the time", which is more or less what he said. He did not, however, say "Top Seed has a worse chance of winning than everyone else" or "Top Seed has less than a 20% chance (again, removing ties) of winning". -Peter Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

On Jul 16, 4:24 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I guess you should make your points a bit more clearly. What did you mean > when you wrote "See standard rulebook"? You (unnecessarily) refused to understand my meaning when I merely referred to time limits making games more likely to finish. So I specified the definition of "finish" I had in mind. > > I was merely saying that a game which finishes "normally" (as opposed > > to timing out) is far less likely to tie than a game that times out. > > A game with a long time limit is less likely to time out; and > > therefore less likely to tie. Moreover, all games that finish > > "normally" result in game wins, provided they do not tie. Therefore, > > a long time limit is a natural PTW enforcement mechanism. > > Actually there's no chance at all of a final game ending in a tie, due to > tiebreakers. So basically, you are still twisting my words and refusing to understand what I was trying to say.

On Jul 16, 4:25 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Top Seed Curse" refers to the reality that the majority of the time, > top seed doesn't win. ' Please. Just let Kevin tell me what he meant.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:20:05 -0700 (PDT), John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Shade wrote: >> On Jul 16, 3:49 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> > Oh, I know for a fact that Top Seed rarely wins. The term >> > "Top Seed curse" was coined years ago for that reason. >> >> Yep totally - the last three years Australian Nationals were not won >> by the top seed [...] > > If this is really so, then perhaps the best reward a top-seed can get > is that no issue be made about the fact that he is top-seed. > > The judge simply declares who the finalists are (in alphabetical order > or no particular order or the order in which seating has been randomly > determined). Seating is then determined randomly. > > Even the top-seed might be unsure of his top-seed status. This might > increase his incentive to go for a game win, rather than settle for a > tournament-winning tie. I kind of like this idea. A bit radical, but a clever solution - introducing just the right amount of uncertainty to motivate people to do their best while still giving a benefit for the higher seed. Essentially makes it almost impossible to properly scout (as for perfect information you need the complete score of all your opponents for all prelims - one slip and maybe you're lower seed than you thought and lose in the finals instead of winning). -- Regards, Daneel

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > I never suggested we make them uncertain, except by implementing the > rule I suggested to Kevin. You never suggested it, except you did. Okay. > It is you who false assume I was > suggesting any greater enforcement or had in mind any additional > methods. Well in that case let me just say that your idea about having new rules and not enforcing them at all is pretty silly.

Matt, I think it's clear now that you're just heckling me. I think we're done.

On Jul 16, 4:36 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:20:05 -0700 (PDT), John Whelan > > The judge simply declares who the finalists are (in alphabetical order > > or no particular order or the order in which seating has been randomly > > determined). Seating is then determined randomly. > > > Even the top-seed might be unsure of his top-seed status. This might > > increase his incentive to go for a game win, rather than settle for a > > tournament-winning tie. > > I kind of like this idea. A bit radical, but a clever solution - > introducing just the right amount of uncertainty to motivate people > to do their best while still giving a benefit for the higher seed. > > Essentially makes it almost impossible to properly scout (as for > perfect information you need the complete score of all your > opponents for all prelims - one slip and maybe you're lower seed > than you thought and lose in the finals instead of winning). Thanks. I'm not really sure myself, though, how hard the scouting would be. I am a poor judge of such things, being a terrible scouter with no patience for or interest in the exercise. But even if I were a better scouter than I am, I think I would focus on different information, like what sorts of decks and tactics my opponents were playing.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > So basically, you are still twisting my words and refusing to > understand what I was trying to say. No, I'm trying to engage you in a discussion and get you to defend your points, but all you do is refer me back to your previous posts (which I did read), so I guess it isn't worth it.

[ quoted text not captured ] Rules can be useful even when they aren't enforceable by judges.

On Jul 16, 5:03 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I guess it isn't worth it. Agreed

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > Matt, I think it's clear now that you're just heckling me. I think > we're done. We're probably done, you're right. I was actually trying to talk about the issues and your idea, but I guess you just want people to tell you it's awesome and not discuss potential problems with it. So be it.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Daneel wrote: > I kind of like this idea. A bit radical, but a clever solution - > introducing just the right amount of uncertainty to motivate people > to do their best while still giving a benefit for the higher seed. > > Essentially makes it almost impossible to properly scout (as for > perfect information you need the complete score of all your > opponents for all prelims - one slip and maybe you're lower seed > than you thought and lose in the finals instead of winning). Please, I know it seems like I'm harping. I'm really not. What problem does this solve?

On Jul 16, 5:11 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I was actually trying to talk about > the issues and your idea, but I guess you just want people to tell you > it's awesome and not discuss potential problems with it. You must be right.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > Rules can be useful even when they aren't enforceable by judges. Such as?

[ quoted text not captured ] Are tied final games really such an evil? Is it really conflicting with the goal of the game and being completely unsportsmanlike? Though if you think there should be a longer time limit in finals, that's a different matter. If the semantics of "tie" is what bothers you, why not assign fractions of VPs to finalists, like the half-point tiebreaker in Go. 1st seed gets 0.4vp, 2nd gets 0.3vp, and so on. Then it's impossible to have a tied VP result, it would be more like 2.4vp to 2.1vp, which is a win according to the rulebook blablabla. Of course this changes nothing of how tournaments are run, though it may be more confusing to those who dislike adding numbers, but I suppose it would satisfy whatever problem you have with tied results? Of course with this it just makes the "uncertainty" rule even more ridiculous, almost like a rule that declares pool totals to be private knowledge.

[ quoted text not captured ] I would rather not get distracted from the issue that I actually want to discuss by presenting specific examples for you to pick holes in while missing the purpose of the example. You have implied that rules don't have value if they aren't enforceable by judges. I think this would only be true if every player would always cheat when given a reasonable chance.

On Jul 16, 5:51 pm, Haze <headlessr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was merely saying that a game which finishes "normally" (as opposed > > to timingt out) is far less likely to tie than a game that times out. > > A game with a long time limit is less likely to time out; and > > therefore less likely to tie. Moreover, all games that finish > > "normally" result in game wins, provided they do not tie. Therefore, > > a long time limit is a natural PTW enforcement mechanism. > > Are tied final games really such an evil? Is it really conflicting > with the goal of the game and being completely unsportsmanlike? Though > if you think there should be a longer time limit in finals, that's a > different matter. I merely said that a longer time limit is a natural PTW enforcement mechanism. Which it is. Whether you think PTW has value is for you to decide. Your response, in effect, seems to be "So what? Who cares about PTW?" How do you expect me to answer? You could just have easily have said, "So what? Who cares about V:tES?" If we do not share some basic standards of value, then we have no basis for discussion.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > You have implied that rules don't have value if they aren't > enforceable by judges. I think this would only be true if every player > would always cheat when given a reasonable chance. It doesn't take very many players to say "I'm not going to follow this unenforceable rule" to make the rule worthless. Some players would probably see such a thing as an invitation to not follow the rule, not because they are bad people or want to cheat but because if the rule isn't going to be enforced, then that suggest nobody really cares that much about it. I can't think of a vtes-related rule that doesn't get enforced much off the top of my head. A real-world example might be jaywalking laws. People who regard themselves as law-abiding citizens jaywalk all the time. They do so right in front of the police. Why? Because nobody enforces the anti-jaywalking laws. Maybe if we could put this in vtes terms it might make more sense to me.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > John Whelan wrote: >> Then we don't know of any "top seed curse". > > "Top Seed Curse" refers to the reality that the majority of the > time, top seed doesn't win. 'Cause mathematically speaking, again, [...] What Top Seed Curse really comes down to isn't the math, I dont think. It's the fact that everyone KNOWS you are top seed, so their human nature to fear and to protect themselves starts with that person even before the game begins, which makes it harder than normal for the top-seeded player to win the final. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

Kushiel wrote: > Who are these people, and why haven't they come forward themselves? > > John Eno I am not about to point the finger at specific people and one of the culprits I am thinking of in particular is a self professed avoider of the usenet groups. Suffice it to say, I have had an explanation given to me about an overseas playgroup that this person was part of who in tournaments make sure that at least one of them is in the finals, preferably two so that they can make it almost certain that the eventual winner will be one of their own. Really, it is not that had to envisage that this can and thus will occur. ~Aa

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Crunching numbers is not unsportsmanlike. Wanting to know one's current > standing and playing differently based on that knowledge are two > different things. Agreed. But using that information is. > And it isn't hard to do. I'm not sure why you think it is, but it's not > that hard. Just figure out possible game wins, subtract any timeouts, > pay attention to players who seem to have multiple game wins. It's > really easy in a small or medium tournament. In a large tournament, you > need 2 GP and a big pile of VPs. Letting any VPs at all get away is > stupid, never mind sportsmanship. It's easy enough to have an idea whereabouts you stand, but to know definitively and absolutely is a different thing entirely. I have seen coin flips decide finals berths, such as the three tied for 4th and 5th place in the 2010 Aussie Nats. I deliberately do not seek out my current ranking, however had I known my exact position going into the third round, either by seeing the standings or doing the maths I would have been hard pressed not to play differently, knowing I only needed 0.5vp to get in. It would be very difficult for others to know I had altered my decisions in game. Best course of action is to have players as ignorant as possible of the standings so they are not tempted. > In any case, you saying that you know it happens but can't or won't provide > any details is quite useless. Really? So you need all the cheaters out there to raise their hands in order to feel like it exists? That's so not going to happen and I think you know it. In essence I am either fabricating it or it's true. Take your pick. > The proposed changes don't address any of your concerns. Two players > colluding can do so regardless of where they are at the table. > Cross-table? Great! They can mask it as overzealous cross-table > buddyness. Pred and prey? Great! Even easier to cheat. Randomised seating ameliorates it. There would be an optimal position for the two colluding players occupy, this way they get no input into it. This is the same reason for my arguing against pre-seating table discussion, randomise it and that is moot. > The only way to deal with any of the problems you complaining about is > through good judging. And scouting isn't illegal by the way. It can be > specifically disallowed by the judge, but the v:ekn rules don't prohibit > it. Scouting is not illegal. Using said information in any round BUT the final is unsportsmanlike. ~Aa

In article <i1qtae$9kr$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > What Top Seed Curse really comes down to isn't the math, I dont think. > It's the fact that everyone KNOWS you are top seed, so their human > nature to fear and to protect themselves starts with that person even > before the game begins, which makes it harder than normal for the > top-seeded player to win the final. Oh, sure, that is certainly an issue, but a lot of the time, there really isn't anything anyone can do about it. So while there certainly is going to be some sort of "Get Dave, he's winning!" from the very beginning of the game, it is unlikely to have *that* much of an effect, as really, like, arbitrarily KRCing Top Seed cross table isn't really legal. I'd be interested to see statistics of what percentage of final games are actually won by Top Seed, but as I don't have the data, and I don't want to suggest that anyone actually do the work to figure it out, it seems unlikely it will show up :-) Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

In article <5ed4df09-43e8-427e...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please. Just let Kevin tell me what he meant. Kevin can do that all he wants. I can also explain what I understand to be the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> What Top Seed Curse really comes down to isn't the math, I dont >> think. It's the fact that everyone KNOWS you are top seed, so their >> human nature to fear and to protect themselves starts with that >> person even before the game begins, which makes it harder than >> normal for the top-seeded player to win the final. > > Oh, sure, that is certainly an issue, but a lot of the time, there > really isn't anything anyone can do about it. So while there > certainly is going to be some sort of "Get Dave, he's winning!" > from the very beginning of the game, it is unlikely to have *that* > much of an effect, as really, like, arbitrarily KRCing Top Seed > cross table isn't really legal. > > I'd be interested to see statistics of what percentage of final > games are actually won by Top Seed, but as I don't have the data, > and I don't want to suggest that anyone actually do the work > to figure it out, it seems unlikely it will show up :-) If it's REALLY something you want, I'll do it with everything that I have ever run, but it'll take me a while. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 16, 11:36 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Kevin can do that all he wants. I can also explain what I > understand to be the case. Sorry if I come across as impatient. It is just that, like most people on this NG, I really was assuming, up til now, that the Top Seed position was an advantage. Thus I really did not need everyone to explain to me what we all have been assuming. What Kevin appeared to suggest (that it might actually be a curse) surprised me. It also intrigued me a bit, because I realized I had no proof that he was wrong. I just don't have the hard data, and his tournament experience far exceeds mine. I did not assume Kevin was correct. The "top seed curse" remains unproven and still, I suspect, probably wrong (though even if it is, it may well be that the top seed advantage is far less than some assume). But it was still an intriguing hypothetical that I was willing to assume for purposes of discussion.

On 17 heinä, 02:46, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > > You have implied that rules don't have value if they aren't > > enforceable by judges. I think this would only be true if every player > > would always cheat when given a reasonable chance. > > It doesn't take very many players to say "I'm not going to follow this > unenforceable rule" to make the rule worthless. If some players follow the rule it has had some effect. Some effect is better than no effect. For the rule to be worthless there would have to be no players that follow the rule. > Some players would > probably see such a thing as an invitation to not follow the rule, not > because they are bad people or want to cheat but because if the rule isn't > going to be enforced, then that suggest nobody really cares that much > about it. > > I can't think of a vtes-related rule that doesn't get enforced much off > the top of my head. A real-world example might be jaywalking laws. > People who regard themselves as law-abiding citizens jaywalk all the time. > They do so right in front of the police. Why? Because nobody enforces > the anti-jaywalking laws. And possibly because jaywalking is perceived as a victimless crime. V:TES rules are there to make the game playable. If a V:TES rule was constantly getting broken it would make the game less playable for everyone. Maybe littering would be a more accurate analogy. But now we're discussing specific examples and muddling things with whatever unrelated baggage they might have. > Maybe if we could put this in vtes terms it might make more sense to me.

In article <6d720789-2bac-4663...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry if I come across as impatient. It is just that, like most > people on this NG, I really was assuming, up til now, that the Top > Seed position was an advantage. Thus I really did not need everyone > to explain to me what we all have been assuming. Fair enough. I think it is an advantage. But a reasonably small one. > What Kevin appeared to suggest (that it might actually be a curse) > surprised me. It also intrigued me a bit, because I realized I had no > proof that he was wrong. I just don't have the hard data, and his > tournament experience far exceeds mine. My understanding of "The Top Seed Curse" is such that it is mostly an anecdotal, not actually supported by data, bit of color (i.e. Jim gets into the final as Top Seed all the time, but never wins when he is Top Seed). Yes, Top Seed does not win the final more often than xe does. But I have no reason to believe that being Top Seed makes you any *less* likely to win than anyone else. As noted, I suspect that getting seat choice is a bonus. Being in everyone's gun sights from the get go is a negative. It probably balances out. Add in that being Top Seed likely means that you have a good deck and are a good player, and you probably have a slightly better chance than average to win the final as Top Seed, but not so much that it overcomes the reality that there are 4 other players at the table, all of whom can also win. > I did not assume Kevin was correct. The "top seed curse" remains > unproven and still, I suspect, probably wrong (though even if it is, > it may well be that the top seed advantage is far less than some > assume). But it was still an intriguing hypothetical that I was > willing to assume for purposes of discussion. Sure. But all we know from presented data is that Top Seed in a given final does not win a majority of the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <i1rhjj$jja$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > If it's REALLY something you want, I'll do it with everything > that I have ever run, but it'll take me a while. :) It would certainly be interesting to see. But not if it will take up important time. Or make you insane. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:14:29 -0500, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Daneel wrote: > >> I kind of like this idea. A bit radical, but a clever solution - >> introducing just the right amount of uncertainty to motivate people >> to do their best while still giving a benefit for the higher seed. >> >> Essentially makes it almost impossible to properly scout (as for >> perfect information you need the complete score of all your >> opponents for all prelims - one slip and maybe you're lower seed >> than you thought and lose in the finals instead of winning). > > Please, I know it seems like I'm harping. I'm really not. What problem > does this solve? The way I see it, it takes away the main drawback of being higher seed (people sometimes ganging up on you because they know you're higher seed) while keeping the tie-breaker benefit. It was brought up in response to some people pointing out that high seed rarely wins. I like the out-of-the-box thinking and the side benefit: that I imagine such a setup would encourage everyone to go for the tournament win via VPs & GW and not gunning to win a tie, as they would be uncertain which way the tie would resolve. -- Regards, Daneel

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Daneel wrote: > The way I see it, it takes away the main drawback of being higher seed > (people sometimes ganging up on you because they know you're higher seed) > while keeping the tie-breaker benefit. It was brought up in response > to some people pointing out that high seed rarely wins. That's not my experience. I believe top seed to be a good benefit. It doesn't guarantee victory, but it's still a good benefit. Yes, people gun for the top seeded player sometimes, but not always. I wouldn't trade not picking my seat for keeping my (now lessened) advantage a secret, especially since it wouldn't always be a secret anyway. > I like the out-of-the-box thinking and the side benefit: that I imagine > such a setup would encourage everyone to go for the tournament win via > VPs & GW and not gunning to win a tie, as they would be uncertain which > way the tie would resolve. This still doesn't seem like a problem being solved. More like a "nice-to-have" then. I expect that's not sufficient justification to change the rules. Also, if players are "gunning for a tie" and succeeding, it is only due to massive failure on the part of the other four players at the table who are all aware that they lose on a tie. If timeouts are a problem, they are best solved by better (or more situationally aware) players, not better rules, IMO. That's the major problem that I have with this line of attack. I too have been troubled by excessive timeouts in vtes (though mostly in preliminary rounds). This has been solved to some degree by retraining myself and by believing that .5 VPs is not a good outcome on any table. My philosophy now is that a 5% shot at 1 VP is better than a 100% shot at .5. I'm not sure that this practice has increased overall the number of VPs I'm taking, but I'm timing out less at least. Next step: better decks! (any year now)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:06:44 -0500, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Daneel wrote: > >> The way I see it, it takes away the main drawback of being higher seed >> (people sometimes ganging up on you because they know you're higher >> seed) >> while keeping the tie-breaker benefit. It was brought up in response >> to some people pointing out that high seed rarely wins. > > That's not my experience. I believe top seed to be a good benefit. It > doesn't guarantee victory, but it's still a good benefit. Yes, people > gun for the top seeded player sometimes, but not always. Clear. > I wouldn't trade not picking my seat for keeping my (now lessened) > advantage a secret, especially since it wouldn't always be a secret > anyway. Assuming that there are other considerations why we don't want people to pick their seats - giving a little extra bonus might mitigate some of the edge lost by no longer being able to pick your seats. Nitpicking: if you're able to pick your seat... Your seed is most likely not a secret. :) >> I like the out-of-the-box thinking and the side benefit: that I imagine >> such a setup would encourage everyone to go for the tournament win via >> VPs & GW and not gunning to win a tie, as they would be uncertain which >> way the tie would resolve. > > This still doesn't seem like a problem being solved. More like a > "nice-to-have" then. I expect that's not sufficient justification to > change the rules. For sure not. > Also, if players are "gunning for a tie" and succeeding, it is only due > to massive failure on the part of the other four players at the table > who are all aware that they lose on a tie. If timeouts are a problem, > they are best solved by better (or more situationally aware) players, > not better rules, IMO. You can't change the players, not as another player, not as a judge. But raising the importance of time as one of the most valuable resources in V:tES at every opportunity for sure helps. > That's the major problem that I have with this line of attack. I too > have been troubled by excessive timeouts in vtes (though mostly in > preliminary rounds). This has been solved to some degree by retraining > myself and by believing that .5 VPs is not a good outcome on any table. > My philosophy now is that a 5% shot at 1 VP is better than a 100% shot > at .5. I'm not sure that this practice has increased overall the number > of VPs I'm taking, but I'm timing out less at least. > > Next step: better decks! (any year now) Not sure about either - being a crappy player with crappy decks... :) But yeah, I wholeheartedly sympathize with your .5 VP is no VP attitude, I'm also like this. I'm sure that if you play at a table where everyone thinks like this your VPs will be mathematically more than otherwise (as there is a clear VP loss when a table times). -- Regards, Daneel

On Jul 17, 4:55 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 heinä, 02:46, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > > > You have implied that rules don't have value if they aren't > > > enforceable by judges. I think this would only be true if every player > > > would always cheat when given a reasonable chance. > > > It doesn't take very many players to say "I'm not going to follow this > > unenforceable rule" to make the rule worthless. > > If some players follow the rule it has had some effect. Some effect is > better than no effect. For the rule to be worthless there would have > to be no players that follow the rule. > Players who follow an unenforceable rule are at a disadvantage to players who do not. That is not an environment we want to create. Later, ~Rehlow

Rehlow wrote: > Players who follow an unenforceable rule are at a disadvantage to > players who do not. That is not an environment we want to create. This discussion about unenforceable rules is entirely moot. The rule under discussion is NOT unenforceable. Far from it. The judge need govern no-one's conduct but his own. Admittedly, the rule is modest in its aims and in its effects, but that's an entirely different issue.

On Jul 16, 5:10 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 5:51 pm, Haze <headlessr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I was merely saying that a game which finishes "normally" (as opposed > > > to timingt out) is far less likely to tie than a game that times out. > > > A game with a long time limit is less likely to time out; and > > > therefore less likely to tie. Moreover, all games that finish > > > "normally" result in game wins, provided they do not tie. Therefore, > > > a long time limit is a natural PTW enforcement mechanism. > > > Are tied final games really such an evil? Is it really conflicting > > with the goal of the game and being completely unsportsmanlike? Though > > if you think there should be a longer time limit in finals, that's a > > different matter. > > I merely said that a longer time limit is a natural PTW enforcement > mechanism. Which it is. Whether you think PTW has value is for you > to decide. > > Your response, in effect, seems to be "So what? Who cares about > PTW?" How do you expect me to answer? You could just have easily > have said, "So what? Who cares about V:tES?" If we do not share some > basic standards of value, then we have no basis for discussion. Wow. You're strange. Do you read posts before or after you smoke the crack? Because I have no idea whatsoever how you inferred "Who cares about PTW?" from that.

[ quoted text not captured ] Wow! You are rude and insulting! > Because I have > no idea whatsoever how you inferred "Who cares about PTW?" from that. Either that is the gist, or your questions are non-sequiturs. Take your pick. But apparently you have been puffing on the same pipe as I. Where did I say "tied final games really are such an evil?" Where did I say "It is really conflicting with the goal of the game and being completely unsportsmanlike?" Why did you ask those questions?