Playing to win the tournament?

Are tournament standings legitimate considerations under the "playing to win" doctrine? This comes up with some frequency in tournament finals. Is it perfectly sportsmanlike playing-to-win-play to orchestrate a table-split (or time-out) in order to tie the game with someone of lower standings to secure the tournament win? Or are players obligated to always try to maximize VPs -- with tournament standings an "out of game consideration"? How about in a preliminary round? Is it legitimate to consider whether the success or failure of another player or deck increases or decreases your chances of winning the tournament itself? And use that judgment to assist or thwart a player? Or are players obligated to stick with maximizing VPs regardless of standings or potential finals match-ups? -Ben Swainbank

[ quoted text not captured ] My understanding is that tournament position is an out of game consideration that is not supposed to affect how one plays the games. In the real world, since the point of a tournament is to win the tournament, I will do what gives me the best chances of winning the tournament. Doesn't bother me when others do the same, like trying to get someone ousted because they don't want to see that deck in the finals, because, uh, it *makes sense*. A tournament is greater than the sum of its parts. One of these days. One of these days, the tournament win with no game wins goal will be fulfilled (more to point out the failings of tracking game win % rather than a meaningful stat for ranking purposes, but it has these side benefits).

On 1 Mar 2004 11:16:24 -0800, bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) scrawled: >Are tournament standings legitimate considerations under the "playing >to win" doctrine? 'Playing to win' doctrine states you must play to win _the current game_, and applies to all rounds of a tournament including the final. win == strictly more vps than anyone else. if you can't 'reasonably' expect to win you must play to get as many more vps as you can. if you can't 'reasonably' expect to gain any more vps, you can gain those 0 vps however you want. 'reasonably' seems to be something you need to be able to convince the judge of. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040301145759...@mb-m22.aol.com>... > >Are tournament standings legitimate considerations under the "playing > >to win" doctrine? > > My understanding is that tournament position is an out of game consideration > that is not supposed to affect how one plays the games. > > In the real world, since the point of a tournament is to win the tournament, I > will do what gives me the best chances of winning the tournament. Yeah. There seems to be a serious theory and practice split here. Players who "secretly" play conservatively or split tables in order to win tournaments seems to engaging in a rather common practice. And its hard to say that this is unsportsmanlike conduct. You've showed up a card tournament and you're trying to win it. What's the problem? Isn't this accepted pactice in other games. In a multi-game Chess match up isn't it common for the guy who gets the lead to play for the draws thereafter -- force the guy who's behind to make something happen. This seems like reality already. As a prominent example I would site Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win, which is interesting in that it was high profile and LSJ was officiating. In the finals, Jared was ousted his prey and then later ousted his new prey and sad new cross-table grand-prey simulataniously. Jared had 2 VP and was higher seed than the one remaining player (who had 0 VP). So, he conceded to his predator and won the tournament. But the GAME was tied 2-2-1. Was that unsportsman-like play? Should they have been forced to play it out even though Jared couldn't possibly not win the tournament? In the finals at least, its seems like players who are trying to win the tournament are clearly "playing to win", that tournament standings DO and should impact players in-game stragegies, and that sanctioning this behavior would just be accepting something good players are already covertly doing already - because they are trying to win. -Ben Swainbank

bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote in message: > This seems like reality already. As a prominent example I would site > Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win, which is interesting in that it was high > profile and LSJ was officiating. In the finals, Jared was ousted his > prey and then later ousted his new prey and sad new cross-table > grand-prey simulataniously. Jared had 2 VP and was higher seed than > the one remaining player (who had 0 VP). So, he conceded to his > predator and won the tournament. But the GAME was tied 2-2-1. > > Was that unsportsman-like play? Should they have been forced to play > it out even though Jared couldn't possibly not win the tournament? IIRC in finals your previous game standings can be taken into account with the play to win rule. Also Jared had a plan to catch, and they were closing down the con around us as that game was ending. :P Cameron

Ben Swainbank > This seems like reality already. As a prominent example I would site > Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win, which is interesting in that it was high > profile and LSJ was officiating. In the finals, Jared was ousted his > prey and then later ousted his new prey and sad new cross-table > grand-prey simulataniously. Jared had 2 VP and was higher seed than > the one remaining player (who had 0 VP). So, he conceded to his > predator and won the tournament. But the GAME was tied 2-2-1. > > Was that unsportsman-like play? Should they have been forced to play > it out even though Jared couldn't possibly not win the tournament? No. Jared fulfilled the goal of having the most VP at the table (even if he was tied). Once he met that goal, he could finish out the rest of the game however he wanted. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

On 2 Mar 2004 18:51:05 -0800, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] i'm pretty sure "most" means "more than anyone else". tying with someone is not "most". however, if he didn't reasonably expect to gain any more vps (above his 2), he can do what he wants. [ quoted text not captured ]

bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote: > This seems like reality already. As a prominent example I would site > Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win, which is interesting in that it was high > profile and LSJ was officiating. In the finals, Jared was ousted his > prey and then later ousted his new prey and sad new cross-table > grand-prey simulataniously. Jared had 2 VP and was higher seed than > the one remaining player (who had 0 VP). So, he conceded to his > predator and won the tournament. But the GAME was tied 2-2-1. > > Was that unsportsman-like play? Should they have been forced to play > it out even though Jared couldn't possibly not win the tournament? No. The finals have a built-in, in-game win condition factor: ranking going into the finals serving as a tie breaker. With that, Jared won the final. Therefore, his concession was an example of playing to win. > In the finals at least, its seems like players who are trying to win > the tournament are clearly "playing to win", that tournament standings > DO and should impact players in-game stragegies, and that sanctioning > this behavior would just be accepting something good players are > already covertly doing already - because they are trying to win. Correct. [LSJ 18-JUN-2001] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote > Ben Swainbank wrote: > > This seems like reality already. As a prominent example I would site > > Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win, which is interesting in that it was high > > profile and LSJ was officiating. In the finals, Jared was ousted his > > prey and then later ousted his new prey and sad new cross-table > > grand-prey simulataniously. Jared had 2 VP and was higher seed than > > the one remaining player (who had 0 VP). So, he conceded to his > > predator and won the tournament. But the GAME was tied 2-2-1. > > > > Was that unsportsman-like play? Should they have been forced to play > > it out even though Jared couldn't possibly not win the tournament? > > No. > The finals have a built-in, in-game win condition factor: ranking > going into the finals serving as a tie breaker. > With that, Jared won the final. Therefore, his concession was an > example of playing to win. What if this wasn't a final round? Would Jared have been allowed to tie for first place with VP? [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04030...@posting.google.com>... > bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote: > > This seems like reality already. As a prominent example I would site > > Jared Strait's 2002 NAC win, which is interesting in that it was high > > profile and LSJ was officiating. In the finals, Jared was ousted his > > prey and then later ousted his new prey and sad new cross-table > > grand-prey simulataniously. Jared had 2 VP and was higher seed than > > the one remaining player (who had 0 VP). So, he conceded to his > > predator and won the tournament. But the GAME was tied 2-2-1. > > > > Was that unsportsman-like play? Should they have been forced to play > > it out even though Jared couldn't possibly not win the tournament? > > No. > The finals have a built-in, in-game win condition factor: ranking > going into the finals serving as a tie breaker. > With that, Jared won the final. Therefore, his concession was an > example of playing to win. > You are the best. I love how you state things as fact based on cryptic criterion that are never directly revealed. > > In the finals at least, its seems like players who are trying to win > > the tournament are clearly "playing to win", that tournament standings > > DO and should impact players in-game stragegies, and that sanctioning > > this behavior would just be accepting something good players are > > already covertly doing already - because they are trying to win. > > Correct. [LSJ 18-JUN-2001] I might try to win a tournament by punching someone in the face if I think they have a better chance then me. As long as I do this outside, is it playing to win (i.e. I don't get caught). I think it should be. The best thing about VTES is that you get to make up the rules, except in those instances when LSJ gets to.

bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote in message news:<b20d2553.04030...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I was thinking about this very same thing in the last tournament. I had 2-7 from the first two rounds. My predator in the third round was playing Big-Vamp-votey-like stuff with Camarilla, and already had 1-5. I think my deck could have him (MICHAEL LUTHER RULES) in the finals. I was considering being ousted to make sure he made the finals, thereby increasing my chances to win the tournament (especially in hindsight). I chose not too because i didn't think it was that sportsmanlike, nor very fun to do. But i think it would have been very hard to tell for a judge if i did, or if i was just making some bad decisions. W

In message <6933e80c.04030...@posting.google.com>, kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) mumbled something about: >vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04030...@posting.google.com>... >> bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote: >> > Was that unsportsman-like play? Should they have been forced to play >> > it out even though Jared couldn't possibly not win the tournament? >> >> No. >> The finals have a built-in, in-game win condition factor: ranking >> going into the finals serving as a tie breaker. >> With that, Jared won the final. Therefore, his concession was an >> example of playing to win. >> >You are the best. I love how you state things as fact based on cryptic >criterion that are never directly revealed. Dear Tardo, "The finals have a built-in, in-game win condition factor: ranking going into the finals serving as a tie breaker." That's about as directly revealed as it gets, wouldn't you say? -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Ben Peal wrote: > What if this wasn't a final round? Would Jared have been allowed > to tie for first place with VP? ... if he could've gotten a Game Win some other way? No. In the preliminary rounds, "winning the game" is "get a Game Win". In the final, "winning the game" is "winning the final." -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > In the preliminary rounds, "winning the game" is "get a Game Win". > In the final, "winning the game" is "winning the final." Having a single, unified standard is more appealing. I think it would be better to retain the "Game Win" criteria of the qualifying rounds, discard the win-by-seeding rule, and let timed out finals resolve with no winner; roll the prize support over for the next turn, and maybe 2x the goodies will be an incentive to *play* rather than muse. The number of non-resolved finals may also increase attention to how many of them just don't finish. -- -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@duke.edu

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kauc401tqb7ffpsv4...@4ax.com>... > In message <6933e80c.04030...@posting.google.com>, > kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) mumbled something about: > > >vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04030...@posting.google.com>... > >> bswai...@hotmail.com (Ben Swainbank) wrote: > >> > Was that unsportsman-like play? Should they have been forced to play > >> > it out even though Jared couldn't possibly not win the tournament? > >> > >> No. > >> The finals have a built-in, in-game win condition factor: ranking > >> going into the finals serving as a tie breaker. > >> With that, Jared won the final. Therefore, his concession was an > >> example of playing to win. > >> > >You are the best. I love how you state things as fact based on cryptic > >criterion that are never directly revealed. > > Dear Tardo, > > "The finals have a built-in, in-game win condition factor: ranking going > into the finals serving as a tie breaker." > > That's about as directly revealed as it gets, wouldn't you say? > Thanks for being so sweet. Do you want to watch a movie sometime? Let us look at the phrase: 'playing to win'. It incorporates a notion of playing. How is conceeding playing? I don't really give a crap what Jared does. For all I care he can force his opponents to transfer out by dancing naked on the table and threatening to be friends with the competetors. I just notice that LSJ's response to these questions is always "yeah, sure."

kit3...@yahoo.com (Jeff Haar) wrote: > It incorporates a notion of playing. How is conceeding playing? By the rules governing play (which allow concession). [VEKN 3.6] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

(Jeff Haar) wrote: > I don't really give a crap what Jared does. For all I care he can > force his opponents to transfer out by dancing naked on the table and > threatening to be friends with the competetors. AAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MY EYES!!! MY EYES!!! Noal

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:40:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Ben Peal wrote: >> What if this wasn't a final round? Would Jared have been allowed >> to tie for first place with VP? > >... if he could've gotten a Game Win some other way? No. > >In the preliminary rounds, "winning the game" is "get a Game Win". >In the final, "winning the game" is "winning the final." i'm very uncomfortable with the distinction. so you're allowed to play to win the tournament as your highest priority over the definition of 'game win' in the tournament rules in the final round, but not in preliminary rounds? the final round is still a 'game', as referred to by the tournament rules, right? (not that 'game' is in the glossary, last time i checked) but the final round is allowed to not follow the tournament rules on the 'play to win' point, but all the other games have to? seems....wrong. against the spirit of the 'play to win' ideal. i know the final round is allowed exceptions for other things too like time limits. perhaps that also should be looked at. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] David, you state that "Having a single, unified standard is more appealing." and then you propose replacing this: In the preliminary rounds, "winning the game" is "get a Game Win". In the final, "winning the game" is "winning the final." ...with this: - retain the "Game Win" criteria of the qualifying rounds - discard the win-by-seeding rule - let timed out finals resolve with no winner - roll the prize support over for the next turn I mean, maybe there *should* be a single, unifying standard, but what you just said wasn't it, dude. ;) In every sport that I can think of that resolves their "season" with a "seeding" system, their rules of winning change during that time, e.g. "Best X out of Y wins the series", instead of "Most points wins the game". Why not with VTES? > David Cherryholmes > david.che...@duke.edu Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

salem wrote: > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:40:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > scrawled: > > >>Ben Peal wrote: >> >>> What if this wasn't a final round? Would Jared have been allowed >>> to tie for first place with VP? >> >>... if he could've gotten a Game Win some other way? No. >> >>In the preliminary rounds, "winning the game" is "get a Game Win". >>In the final, "winning the game" is "winning the final." > > > i'm very uncomfortable with the distinction. The distinction is in what it means to win the given game. The "play to win" rule makes no distinction itself - "play to win" just means "attempt to win the current game according to whatever win conditions are given" > so you're allowed to play to win the tournament as your highest > priority over the definition of 'game win' in the tournament rules in > the final round, but not in preliminary rounds? No. "Winning the game" in the finals includes the tie-breakers, per the rules. The preliminary rounds have their own "Game Win" criteria, per the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iu9g40l6i1r65j30c...@4ax.com>... > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:40:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > scrawled: > > >Ben Peal wrote: > >> What if this wasn't a final round? Would Jared have been allowed > >> to tie for first place with VP? > > > >... if he could've gotten a Game Win some other way? No. > > > >In the preliminary rounds, "winning the game" is "get a Game Win". > >In the final, "winning the game" is "winning the final." > > i'm very uncomfortable with the distinction. > The main reason I'm not having a problem with this distinction is the way in which seating is determined in the finals. By that point, individual standings (which should be kept relatively confidential until then) are used to decide pred/prey relationships. You cannot keep this aspect of the finals, and continue to keep standings as an out-of-game consideration at the same time. Is it ideal? Nope. But it beats any method that does not use standings to determine seating... DZ AW

Kevin M. wrote: > David, you state that "Having a single, unified standard is more appealing." > and then you propose replacing this: > In the preliminary rounds, "winning the game" is "get a Game Win". > In the final, "winning the game" is "winning the final." Yes. So, that post you quoted was minimal-cofee, and this post is minimal-coffee, so just to clarify: that is two different sets of conditions, right? > ...with this: > > - retain the "Game Win" criteria of the qualifying rounds > - discard the win-by-seeding rule > - let timed out finals resolve with no winner > - roll the prize support over for the next turn All I'm really saying is, if you don't get a Game Win, you don't win the final round. Timeouts are a problem, at least to me. If the players in the final round knew they had to play for the same win that applied in all the games that got them there, maybe they would play faster. The rest is just figuring out what to do with the prize support. > I mean, maybe there *should* be a single, unifying standard, but what you > just said wasn't it, dude. I don't see how it isn't. The winner of the game is the player with the Game Win for that game. End of story. > In every sport that I can think of that resolves their "season" with a > "seeding" system, their rules of winning change during that time, e.g. "Best > X out of Y wins the series", instead of "Most points wins the game". Why > not with VTES? Let's not shwerve off into analogy; there are enough facts about the game we are playing to build the discussion on. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:43:26 -0800, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >In every sport that I can think of that resolves their "season" with a >"seeding" system, their rules of winning change during that time, e.g. "Best >X out of Y wins the series", instead of "Most points wins the game". Why >not with VTES? Am I misunderstanding you here, or are you completely forgetting the NFL? Xian I mean, it's understandable, what with living near the Cardinals and all...

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:37:08 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >salem wrote: [snip] >> so you're allowed to play to win the tournament as your highest >> priority over the definition of 'game win' in the tournament rules in >> the final round, but not in preliminary rounds? > >No. >"Winning the game" in the finals includes the tie-breakers, per the rules. >The preliminary rounds have their own "Game Win" criteria, per the rules. so the preliminary rules use the standard vtes rulebook criteria for winning a game (with a slight mod to fix for the fact that in the rulebook there is no consideration for time-outs), but the final round does not use the rulebook criteria. and in the tournament rules, it says nothing about how 'winning the final round' has a different criteria. "3.8.5. Final Round Scoring The player with the highest total of Victory Points from the final round only is the tournament winner. The player with the next highest total of Victory Points from the final round only is the second place winner, and so on. In the event of a tie, the players' rankings at the end of the preliminary rounds will be the deciding tiebreaker." This section talks about a TOURNAMENT winner. not a winner of the final round. i can't find anything to support the ruling that tieing on vps in the final round is a 'win' for THAT GAME if you are ranked higher from the prelims. are the final round and the tournament itself supposed to be synonymous, such that the tournament _is_ the final round, and the prelims are just there to find out who gets to play in that final round. that would sort of make sense i guess.... [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian <xi...@visi.com> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:43:26 -0800, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> > wrote: > >>In every sport that I can think of that resolves their "season" with a >>"seeding" system, their rules of winning change during that time, >>e.g. "Best X out of Y wins the series", instead of "Most points wins >>the game". Why not with VTES? > > Am I misunderstanding you here, or are you completely > forgetting the NFL? Possibly misunderstanding. The NFL does allow each division winner into the playoffs, but the NFL also uses a seeding system to determine "wild card" teams. Also, they then "seed" the matchups in a swiss-like final format, i.e. 1st strongest plays 1st weakest, 2nd strongest plays 2nd weakest, etc., hence my statement that their "season" resolves with a "seeding" system. > Xian > I mean, it's understandable, > what with living near the Cardinals and all... Oh, by the way, thank your Vikings for losing to those shitty Cardinals, thereby losing their playoff spot and thereby getting my Packers into the playoffs.. ;D [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 00:27:35 -0800, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >Xian wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:43:26 -0800, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> >> wrote: >> >>>In every sport that I can think of that resolves their "season" with a >>>"seeding" system, their rules of winning change during that time, >>>e.g. "Best X out of Y wins the series", instead of "Most points wins >>>the game". Why not with VTES? >> >> Am I misunderstanding you here, or are you completely >> forgetting the NFL? > >Possibly misunderstanding. The NFL does allow each division winner into the >playoffs, but the NFL also uses a seeding system to determine "wild card" >teams. Also, they then "seed" the matchups in a swiss-like final format, >i.e. 1st strongest plays 1st weakest, 2nd strongest plays 2nd weakest, etc., >hence my statement that their "season" resolves with a "seeding" system. But the rules of winning don't change at that point. It's still "most points wins the game". That's what seems inaccurate in your original statment. >Oh, by the way, thank your Vikings for losing to those shitty Cardinals, >thereby losing their playoff spot and thereby getting my Packers into the >playoffs.. ;D Dude. You know where I was born & raised. I'm not a Vikings fan. :) Xian

[ quoted text not captured ] If Jared ever does this I'm burning all my cards and going to start playing Pokemon. Well I suppose I might give the cards away or trade for suitable Pokemon cards. Ah this hurts my head. Raille

Xian <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message news:<ev3k40dm9tf4eh4hh...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Must make Gangrel/Settite vote deck... Cameron

On 2 Mar 2004 12:06:40 -0800, Ben Swainbank wrote: >Isn't this accepted pactice in other games. In a multi-game Chess >match up isn't it common for the guy who gets the lead to play for the >draws thereafter -- force the guy who's behind to make something >happen. Playing for a draw in chess is common but that just shows that that game is broken too. See current reporting of the Linares tournament in which phrases like "the death of chess" are being used. Andrew