I'm in a legal 2-2vp deal with another player.
We're in a position where one of us can transfer out to achieve that
deal.
Then my buddy offers the possibility to flip a coin for the win, the
other guy will transfer out. 1 VP for the loser, 3VP and GW for the
winner.
Legal? I think so. Your thoughts?
Non-LSJ respondents also welcome.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Too vague, but it looks like: no. It is not PTW for at least one of the
people involved. Either you or your buddy is looking at an advantage,
or you're equally matched. In the former case, the person with the
advantage is not PTW if he accepts the deal. In the latter, neither of
you are.
When in doubt, though, a good rule is to play.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not legal.
This is stated explicitly in the Judge's Guide under the Collusion
section (emphasis mine):
164. Cheating - Collusion
<snip>
Philosophy:
Players participating in standard table talk or in-game agreements
should
not be considered in violation of this rule as long as they meet the
following criteria:
No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as
cash,
cards, or other items.
No part of the agreement has been secret or has taken place outside
of the
current game.
**** No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the
winner. ***
The agreement does not otherwise violate section 5.2 of the V:EKN
-Robert
> Too vague, but it looks like: no. It is not PTW for at least one of the
> people involved. Either you or your buddy is looking at an advantage, or
> you're equally matched. In the former case, the person with the
> advantage is not PTW if he accepts the deal. In the latter, neither of
> you are.
>
> When in doubt, though, a good rule is to play.
I thought a person was allowed to determine their own risk analysis. In
other words, when I'm faced with a choice to earn 2 VPs now or 3 VP with a
50% chance and 1 VP with a 50% chance, I'm allowed to gamble that the 50%
chance of a game win is worth the shot. Or am I misunderstanding the
rules?
I think the example is more "clear" if the percentage is 90%. Couldn't I
take the chance if the percentage was 30%? 10? I could assign any
threshold for what an acceptable "win percentage" would be.
Ankur
Ankur Gupta wrote:
> > Too vague, but it looks like: no. It is not PTW for at least one of the
> > people involved. Either you or your buddy is looking at an advantage, or
> > you're equally matched. In the former case, the person with the
> > advantage is not PTW if he accepts the deal. In the latter, neither of
> > you are.
> >
> > When in doubt, though, a good rule is to play.
>
> I thought a person was allowed to determine their own risk analysis.
Of course not. The only risk analysis that matters is the one done by
the judge.
> In
> other words, when I'm faced with a choice to earn 2 VPs now or 3 VP with a
> 50% chance and 1 VP with a 50% chance, I'm allowed to gamble that the 50%
> chance of a game win is worth the shot. Or am I misunderstanding the
> rules?
If you are equally matched, you're trading a "sure" 50% chance for a
"maybe" 50% chance (since the deal could be broken).
If not, you're trading your better position for a 50% loss.
Which is all moot, since the odds cannot be calculated.
So, in the interest of playing the game, play the game.
>> I thought a person was allowed to determine their own risk analysis.>
> Of course not. The only risk analysis that matters is the one done by
> the judge.
I was more asking the question in the sense of trying to determine what a
player *ought* to do so as to not require a judge. Sorry if that wasn't
clear.
>> In other words, when I'm faced with a choice to earn 2 VPs now or 3 VP
>> with a 50% chance and 1 VP with a 50% chance, I'm allowed to gamble
>> that the 50% chance of a game win is worth the shot. Or am I
>> misunderstanding the rules?>
> If you are equally matched, you're trading a "sure" 50% chance for a
> "maybe" 50% chance (since the deal could be broken).
>
> If not, you're trading your better position for a 50% loss.
Assuming odds could be calculated to some degree, what if the chances were
99.9%? Must I still choose the "sure" 2 VPs? Is the 50% important here?
Why or why not?
> Which is all moot, since the odds cannot be calculated. So, in the
> interest of playing the game, play the game.
Well, I certainly agree with the latter statement. I'm more trying to
discover what valid avenues of "playing the game" involve. To that extent,
simply suggesting that one play the game is not illuminating.
(Anyway, this discussion is moot due to Robert's discovery of the rules
forbidding such a thing, but I'd like to explore this abstract problem to
see if I can understand where I've been misguided.)
Ankur
LSJ wrote:
> If you are equally matched, you're trading a "sure" 50% chance for a
> "maybe" 50% chance (since the deal could be broken).
Nice argument, but not logical. There is no "maybe 50%".
If i play the game, i have the 50% chance to win. If i make the deal, i
have a 50% chance to win with the coin toss and the 50% chance the
other will break the deal. Thats 25%. But there is also the 50% chance
i lose the coin toss with a 50% chance i break the deal. Thats another
25%. So in the end we have 50%.
But that the rules forbid it, is enough for me. (I really got offered
that deal a year ago and didnt accept because it feeled wrong.)
Frank
Ankur Gupta wrote:
> Assuming odds could be calculated to some degree, what if the chances were
> 99.9%? Must I still choose the "sure" 2 VPs? Is the 50% important here?
> Why or why not?
Huh?
If you have a 99.9% chance of winning, why take the coin toss?
If you're rolling a d1000, and "win" on any roll except 1, then the
question becomes: why would your opponent?
> Well, I certainly agree with the latter statement. I'm more trying to
> discover what valid avenues of "playing the game" involve. To that extent,
> simply suggesting that one play the game is not illuminating.
To the extent that the coin flip suggestion obfuscates the issue, it is
better to leave it alone and stick with the actual, illuminating,
suggestion: play the game, not the coin.
>> Assuming odds could be calculated to some degree, what if the chances were
>> 99.9%? Must I still choose the "sure" 2 VPs? Is the 50% important here?
>> Why or why not?>
> Huh?
>
> If you have a 99.9% chance of winning, why take the coin toss?
>
> If you're rolling a d1000, and "win" on any roll except 1, then the
> question becomes: why would your opponent?
For her, suppose that's a worthwhile percentage for her to accept. A more
moderate example is a 60/40 split. The point here is really: is a person
allowed to make a less-than-optimal decision simply because it grants that
person an acceptable-to-them percentage of something great happening?
I'm trying to ascertain whether the chance of success is allowed in
analyzing your position. I'm suggesting (strongly) that it is, and further
suggesting that a response based upon it is personal. A person may be
aggressive enough to accept a 20% win ratio, for instance. Is that ok?
>> Well, I certainly agree with the latter statement. I'm more trying to
>> discover what valid avenues of "playing the game" involve. To that
>> extent, simply suggesting that one play the game is not illuminating.>
> To the extent that the coin flip suggestion obfuscates the issue, it is
> better to leave it alone and stick with the actual, illuminating,
> suggestion: play the game, not the coin.
Just to clarify that this abstract problem can be used in a real, game
playing situation, you can imagine a case where a person has ascertained
two consequences of a "gutsy" play: one that wins the game with X%, the
other that grants few (or no) VPs with (100-X)%. Not taking the gutsy move
gives a more moderate finish, but one that (with high probability) neither
wins the game, nor grants as few VPs as the failing case above.
Now, there's no coin involved, yet the scenario is much the same. For
"gutsy" play, you could introduce a deal as the mechanic, or any other
situation you desire. The question, however, remains to be answered. Is
the percentage a usable measurement? If so, is its value measurable by the
player in any way that he desires?
Followup question: Suppose a judge is called in such a situation. Both
player and judge agree as to the value of X < 50, and the near-certainty
of the "moderate solution". Due to this player's aggressive nature, she
wishes to take the course with X%. She is still playing to win the game,
but at the "risk of being a non-optimal choice. Is the judge going to
force the player to play for the moderate choice?
Ankur
Ankur Gupta wrote:
> I'm trying to ascertain whether the chance of success is allowed in
> analyzing your position. I'm suggesting (strongly) that it is, and further
> suggesting that a response based upon it is personal. A person may be
> aggressive enough to accept a 20% win ratio, for instance. Is that ok?
Of course, if it's better than the alternative (something less than a
20% win ratio).
This thread should help:
http://murl.se/9374
Robert Goudie wrote:
> 164. Cheating - Collusion
> <snip>
> Philosophy:
> Players participating in standard table talk or in-game agreements
> should
> not be considered in violation of this rule as long as they meet the
> following criteria:
> No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as
> cash,
> cards, or other items.
> No part of the agreement has been secret or has taken place outside
> of the
> current game.
>
> **** No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the
> winner. ***
Interesting, so we can randomly determine everything but the winner :)
I guess the spirit of the rule is random elements should not be part of
deals? A lot of deals between players seem more legal if you don't
specify in advance who gets the table win, but you both works toward
ensuring one of you does.
Would it be legal to make a deal involving flipping a coin for another
purpose, say whether you play a minion tap or not on Saulot, that goes
a long way to determining who wins?
-Matt Kanninen
MathiasTCK wrote:
> Robert Goudie wrote:> Would it be legal to make a deal involving flipping a coin for another
> purpose, say whether you play a minion tap or not on Saulot, that goes
> a long way to determining who wins?
Section 164 is talking about all table talk and/or in-game agreements
(not just VP and GW table-splitting deals). The "no random selection"
clause is poorly written and, IMO, should't sound like it was intended
to only apply to table-splitting deals. Even as written, it could still
be read to apply to all agreements that include a random element. So in
answer to your question, I'd say no.
Or as Scott says, play the game and not the coin.
-Robert
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorry, I'm still confused. Here is the exact situation:
4 Player table, A -> B -> C -> D.
A and C have no reasonable chance at a GW, so A says to C, "help me
oust my prey and I'll help you oust your prey, and then we'll both
withdraw." For the sake of this discussion, please assume this is a
legal deal.
A and C proceed to oust their respective preys. Let's say A now has
the advantage and a reasonable chance at a GW. Nonetheless, A can
choose to keep the legally made deal and withdraw. I'm confident
everything I've written so far is correct.
Given that the 2-2 withdraw deal is in place and that A wants to keep
his deal, can A and C modify the deal to allow a coin flip to determine
the winner? In A's mind, since he knows he's going to keep the deal,
he's going from a 0% chance at a GW to a 50% chance at a GW. Clearly
such a vast improvement is PTW, right?
LSJ, in private e-mail to me you said that if one player wants to
concede to another, the judge should not step in to stop it. This
seems like a similar situation - A and C flip a coin, and then one of
them wants to concede to the other.
It's legal for A to not PTW to keep the 2-2 split deal, but it's not
legal for A and C to modify that deal to allow them a 50% chance at a
GW? Why not?
Does any part of the legality of this relate to the random element of
flipping the coin?
Ira
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> Does any part of the legality of this relate to the random element of
> flipping the coin?
See Judge's Guide: 164. Cheating - Collusion
-Robert
> LSJ, in private e-mail to me you said that if one player wants to
> concede to another, the judge should not step in to stop it. This
> seems like a similar situation - A and C flip a coin, and then one of
> them wants to concede to the other.
>
> It's legal for A to not PTW to keep the 2-2 split deal, but it's not
> legal for A and C to modify that deal to allow them a 50% chance at a
> GW? Why not?
>
> Does any part of the legality of this relate to the random element of
> flipping the coin?
History of sensible random plays:
Bremerton, WA
Josh (local player) wished to rush one of his predator's minions, but
heard a lot of table talk. Instead of trying to sort it out, he rolled
a die, and attacked the appropriate minion.
Seattle, WA
Brian (me) avoids the mind games of Malkavian Prank by rolling a
4-sided die and revealing it as his number when the Malkavian player
tried to guess numbers.
Los Angeles, CA
A player (I don't know his name) suggests to the table that instead of
timing out, they roll a die and then concede in turn order to the
player whose number came up. This way, instead of getting the
negligible 1/2 vp for timing out, or the 1 for withdrawing, they all
have a chance at a GW + 5 vps. This is so sensible it could ruin the
game--if players time out too often. So Robert Goudie, Darby Keeney,
and/or Mike Courtois are called over, and decide that it's not legal
play. The "no random decisions" rule is birthed.
Now, you should ask the LA guys for the official version, but that's
how I remember being told it. However, the WA stuff, which was
unrelated and IMHO not something that should be prevented, is now
illegal play.
I am in favor of random decisions, especially random decisions by one
player (as opposed to two or more in an agreement) as a way to subvert
psychology when one thinks he/she is too gullible (as in the first
example) or too transparent (as in the second). I am also opposed to
timeouts, and if those hadn't come up again, then perhaps this solution
wouldn't have been proposed, and random decisions would still be a part
of this game.
-- Brian
> To the extent that the coin flip suggestion obfuscates the issue, it is
> better to leave it alone and stick with the actual, illuminating,
> suggestion: play the game, not the coin.
In the example that I am proposing (and I believe is being discussed in
this thread), the game is already just about to end (by a 2-2 split.)
The players want to use the coin to avoid the fate of a 2-2 split.
As Robert pointed out, the judge's guidelines state explicitly that
it's considered collusion for an agreement to be reached by a random
method. Below is a copy of a recent e-mail from LSJ to me (I'm assume
he doesn't mind if I reference it.)
So, in the case we're discussing, it's not illegal to concede, but it's
illegal to flip the coin to determine who concedes. Is that because
it's listed in the Judge's Guidelines? I didn't realize that was part
of the rules governing the play of the game. LSJ, can you confirm if
flipping a coin to determine the winner is really illegal?
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:59:16 -0400
From: LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
To: Ira Fay
Subject: Re: rules questions
Ira Fay wrote:
> Hello LSJ,
>
> > > > Doesn't seem justifiable from PTW, but concession is allowed.
> > >
> > > Why is concession allowed if it's not PTW?
> >
> > Concession is always allowed.
>
> I understand that concession is allowed. I also
> understand that players must PTW.
>
> Can you attempt to explain the reason *why*
> concession is allowed, even if it's not PTW?
>
> If you can't explain why, I can accept it as true, but I'd
> rather understand why.
There's no reason to regulate it -- there's no incentive to concede in
violation of PTW (except for incentives that are themselves illegal,
like
bribery).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes
[ quoted text not captured ]
But we're discussing situations where the game is practically already
over, either because time is about to run out or a previously made deal
is about to end the game.
Within the context of a game that's about to end, 1 minute on the
clock, no hope of an oust from either side, a mutual withdraw deal is
perfectly fine because neither player has a reasonable chance at a GW.
In that case, is it also illegal for players to flip a coin to
determine who concedes to whom? If so, I think it's important for
people to understand the reason *why* as well. Is that reason purely
Section 164 in the Judge's Guidelines?
Ira
> Los Angeles, CA
> A player (I don't know his name) suggests to the table that instead of
> timing out, they roll a die and then concede in turn order to the
> player whose number came up. This way, instead of getting the
> negligible 1/2 vp for timing out, or the 1 for withdrawing, they all
> have a chance at a GW + 5 vps. This is so sensible it could ruin the
> game--if players time out too often. So Robert Goudie, Darby Keeney,
> and/or Mike Courtois are called over, and decide that it's not legal
> play. The "no random decisions" rule is birthed.
That example is a weak reason, in my opinion: a devious player will
agree to the die roll, and if his number doesn't come up, he won't
actually concede.
Nonetheless, in thinking about it more, enough people probably will
keep their word that it would be a bad idea to allow such deals.
I was worried that it was only listed in the Judge's Guidelines, but it
actually is listed in the official rules, under section 5.1 Cheating,
where it references collusion. I wouldn't normally think of an
agreement based on randomness as collusion, but I see why it's
categorized that way.
I'm satisfied - no agreements based on randomness. Note that you can
still roll your die to foil Malkavian Prank if you want - this rule is
based on collusion and avoiding agreements based on randomness, not
individual, independant action.
Ira
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> But we're discussing situations where the game is practically already
> over, either because time is about to run out or a previously made deal
> is about to end the game.
>
> Within the context of a game that's about to end, 1 minute on the
> clock, no hope of an oust from either side, a mutual withdraw deal is
> perfectly fine because neither player has a reasonable chance at a GW.
> In that case, is it also illegal for players to flip a coin to
> determine who concedes to whom? If so, I think it's important for
> people to understand the reason *why* as well. Is that reason purely
> Section 164 in the Judge's Guidelines?
That is indeed the situation, and I'm curious to a reaction
(LSJ/Robert?) as well.
Tobias
tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote:
> That is indeed the situation, and I'm curious to a reaction
> (LSJ/Robert?) as well.
Nevermind, answered further down in thread
> Not legal.
>
> This is stated explicitly in the Judge's Guide under the Collusion
> section (emphasis mine):
First, is this "Judge's Guide" available online? If so, where?
Anyway, this is weird...I remember seeing this admonition against
random decisions written explicitly in the rules, and even arguing
about it this newsgroup, yet I just searched the V:TES website's page
of all V:EKN tournament rules for the string "random", and it wasn't in
the document--nor in that of the online rulebook.
> 164. Cheating - Collusion
This rule 164., where would I find it?
> The agreement does not otherwise violate section 5.2 of the V:EKN
Section 5.1 of the V:EKN rules online is in list form. It lists a
number of rules violations, but this is not listed among them. Section
5.2 is in paragraph form, and also does not mention this. Where can I
find this?
-- Brian
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> 4 Player table, A -> B -> C -> D.
> A and C have no reasonable chance at a GW, so A says to C, "help me
> oust my prey and I'll help you oust your prey, and then we'll both
> withdraw." For the sake of this discussion, please assume this is a
> legal deal.
>
> A and C proceed to oust their respective preys. Let's say A now has
> the advantage and a reasonable chance at a GW. Nonetheless, A can
> choose to keep the legally made deal and withdraw. I'm confident
> everything I've written so far is correct.
Yes.
> Given that the 2-2 withdraw deal is in place and that A wants to keep
> his deal, can A and C modify the deal to allow a coin flip to determine
> the winner?
That would not be keeping the deal -- keeping the deal means finishing
2-2.
Making a new deal means breaking the old one.
> In A's mind, since he knows he's going to keep the deal,
> he's going from a 0% chance at a GW to a 50% chance at a GW. Clearly
> such a vast improvement is PTW, right?
For A, who has the advantage, he's going from a better-than-50% chance
at a GW, to a 50% chance. This is not an improvement. It is not PTW.
> LSJ, in private e-mail to me you said that if one player wants to
> concede to another, the judge should not step in to stop it. This
> seems like a similar situation - A and C flip a coin, and then one of
> them wants to concede to the other.
Except for being illegal (conceding based on a coing toss, per the
section Robert cited).
Instead of taking a 2-2 "honoring deal" finish, one could concede, but
that seems unwarranted -- since that player will always do better by
not conceding (at least as long as it appears the other player is
honoring the deal).
> It's legal for A to not PTW to keep the 2-2 split deal, but it's not
> legal for A and C to modify that deal to allow them a 50% chance at a
> GW? Why not?
1) it involves conceding on a coin toss, which is illegal
2) It involves making a deal that is not PTW for one of them.
> Does any part of the legality of this relate to the random element of
> flipping the coin?
That is a part, but the non-PTW part would be sufficient on its own.
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> > Not legal.
> >
> > This is stated explicitly in the Judge's Guide under the Collusion
> > section (emphasis mine):
>
> First, is this "Judge's Guide" available online? If so, where?
Here:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknjudgesguide
White Wolf VTES site>Event information>Tournament Rules>Judges'
Guidelines
> Anyway, this is weird...I remember seeing this admonition against
> random decisions written explicitly in the rules, and even arguing
> about it this newsgroup, yet I just searched the V:TES website's page
> of all V:EKN tournament rules for the string "random", and it wasn't in
> the document--nor in that of the online rulebook.
>
> > 164. Cheating - Collusion
>
> This rule 164., where would I find it?
In the Judges' Guidelines above.
[...]
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
firstco...@aol.com wrote:
> > Not legal.
> >
> > This is stated explicitly in the Judge's Guide under the Collusion
> > section (emphasis mine):
>
> First, is this "Judge's Guide" available online? If so, where?
Yes.
VTES -> Event Information -> Tournament Rules -> Judge's Guide
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknjudgesguide
[ quoted text not captured ]
You've got a great memory. Yes, that was the beginning. I was the
judge. Indeed this was the birth of the rule. Yes, i can see that it
would be sensible for the players but I also know that lots of games
time out. Frankly, I could see players making the final table solely
based on coin tosses or die rolls and didn't want the game to turn into
that.
-Robert