Me and another player had discussion about a tournament finals scenario. This is the theoretical situation:
Final table:
Players A, B and C are still on the table. A is fifth seed with 0 vps, B is third seed with 0 vps and C is first seed with 2 vps.
Seating A -> B -> C ->
It's B's trun. B has no resonable chance to take a GW/tournament win (per Play to win rule). B has to options in this scenario. 1) Give all B got to go forward and (maybe) get 1 vp and then (most probably) loose the heads up with A. (Ending on 1 vps) 2) Backoust get into the heads up with C and (most probably) oust C in the heads up. (Ending on 2 vps)
You could argue that option 2 is illegal, because then it's theortically impossible to get a GW/tournament win.(as state previously, player B have no resonale chance to get the GW/tourament win)
You could agrue that option 2 is the best way to go, since is maximizes the number of vps for player B (as per Play to win).
My question is: Is choosing option 2 illegal for player B?
These sources as been used by me and the other player to make our case, needless to say we have not reached an agreement and need a clarifiction from an official souce, i.e. Pascal:
newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/2007-12/msg00107.html
newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/2007-12/msg00131.html
> 4.8. Play to Win
>
> 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.). For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.
>
> Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or regulate deals made between players. The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken. This only applies to deal that are in the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made. That is, it applies only when making the deal is playing to win. (It is also allowable to break such a deal, of course).
>
> Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals.
>
Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark
I'd tell player 'B' to act like an adult and oust his prey.
But.. But.. But.. But..
No.
Are you an adult or are you a little baby?
Stop talking and oust your prey. and try to have some fun while you're at it.
This isn't difficult.
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! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
I really can't see why B would ever want to backoust and try a headsup in Finals if he can't win that way. I mean, there's nothing for the one coming second. Sometimes there is, but honestly.
In a non-final tournament game I'd call it okay to backoust and try to win the headsup. It's up to people themselves decide which way to get their best position in the tournament, and it helps no one to be left with no VPs.
I think the 'play to win' rule should be even thought of only in cases where other palyers are trying to help someone else win. Like, "I'll buy you stacks of beer if you help me get into the finals".
Other than this, a simple "That's how I intend to win the game" is reason and justification enough to play how one pleases.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
If B can backoust A, why can't he just weaken him to make the duel easier? The situation seems to require more careful play than full forward or full backward.
If B has any chance of getting the GW, he should go for that. In this situation, back-ousting is clearly not in any of the ways that bring B to the GW.
Otherwise (B has 0% change of getting the GW), B should try to maximize VPs, as described in the PTW rule.
If B has 0% change of getting a single VP (thus 0% chance of getting the GW), then he's free to go amok, and back-oust, oust, or self-oust. Or continue playing.
> Pascal wrote:
> If B has any chance of getting the GW, he should go for that. In this situation, back-ousting is clearly not in any of the ways that bring B to the GW.
>
> Otherwise (B has 0% change of getting the GW), B should try to maximize VPs, as described in the PTW rule.
>
> If B has 0% change of getting a single VP (thus 0% chance of getting the GW), then he's free to go amok, and back-oust, oust, or self-oust. Or continue playing.
>
Thank you, but could you elaborate a bit on that?
So the resonable chance for GW that is discribed in Play to win is not use? what I mean is that a 0.000001% chance for GW is what should go for instead of vp-maximaztion. Only 0% chance of getting a GW alllows you to go for the higher VP option. Im my ears 0,00001% chance of winning is not resonable. This might just be me not having English as a first language, thought.
Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark
From an "ethical" side I think you should go for the backoust and make the 2vps. You are still 2nd like everybody else, but at least you maximized your vp's, which should be some sort of secondary priority.
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
Sorry, one more thought: I've seen a player sitting between two tupdog decks without any combat defence. At some points anybody would have agreed that the guy has 0% chance of winning that table. He won it. So much for reasonable chance to win.
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
> Pascal wrote:
> Otherwise (B has 0% change of getting the GW), B should try to maximize VPs, as described in the PTW rule.
>
Why should he, since VPs have no value in a final? I know it is the letter of the rule, but can the rule be applied as is in a final? Maximizing VPs is not winning anything in a ranking system where only the GW player is ranked.
> Forhead wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > If B has any chance of getting the GW, he should go for that. In this situation, back-ousting is clearly not in any of the ways that bring B to the GW.
> >
> > Otherwise (B has 0% change of getting the GW), B should try to maximize VPs, as described in the PTW rule.
> >
> > If B has 0% change of getting a single VP (thus 0% chance of getting the GW), then he's free to go amok, and back-oust, oust, or self-oust. Or continue playing.
> >
> Thank you, but could you elaborate a bit on that?
>
> So the resonable chance for GW that is discribed in Play to win is not use?
>
It is. That's what my "any" was standing for in the first sentence.
>
> Forhead wrote:
> what I mean is that a 0.000001% chance for GW is what should go for instead of vp-maximaztion. Only 0% chance of getting a GW alllows you to go for the higher VP option. Im my ears 0,00001% chance of winning is not resonable. This might just be me not having English as a first language, thought.
>
I have just the same issue
"Reaonable" is not a term that has a mathematical value. I think there's a longer post where LSJ explains it's all about risk-assessment. I'll try to find it and post it over here.
In the end, it's down to a judgment (from a player, validated by a judge):
{discussion here} (but the whole discussion there is as long as interesting)
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > I tried to use an example that relied on the chances of a single card
> > draw to highlight this issue - because, in both cases, it has an
> > equally measurable amount of risk. Even in a game, when a judge is
> > called over, the player can state his situation, and say, for example,
> > I need to draw a specific card to get the GW in the former, or VP in
> > the latter - I have three cards left in my library - and one of them
> > is it - giving me a 33% chance of getting what I need. The same judge
> > might be guided by his intuition that, in the former example, the 33%
> > chance is too risky and tell the player they are free to play either
> > way, while, in the latter example he might be guided by his intuition
> > to say that 33% chance isn't risky enough, so the player should go for
> > the VP.
>
> Sure, No double standard. That same judge could judge the former as a reasonable
> chance while judging that latter as unreasonable. That is, he could err the
> other way, too. Or he could judge both to be reasonable, or both to be unreasonable.
>
> > While I agree that the judge *should* hold up the same standard in
> > both situations, given the way that the PTW clause is written at the
> > moment - it seems counter-intuitive. Going for the safety of a VP as
> > opposed to the chance of a GW seems like someone who is, in fact,
> > playing to win (because the certain VP would lead him to tie with
> > someone else and get to coin-flip against them - a 50% chance as
> > opposed to a 33% chance- or lead to a better tournament position).
>
> A 33% shot at a VP vs. a 33% shot at a GW leads the player to have to go for the
> GW. Having a 90% chance at a VP and a 5% chance at a GW leaves the player free
> to go for the VP (assuming the judge judges the 5% chance at the GW to be not a
> reasonable chance).
>
So, in the end, it's up to the judge.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Otherwise (B has 0% change of getting the GW), B should try to maximize VPs, as described in the PTW rule.
> >
> Why should he, since VPs have no value in a final? I know it is the letter of the rule, but can the rule be applied as is in a final? Maximizing VPs is not winning anything in a ranking system where only the GW player is ranked.
>
That one has been answered by LSJ in that long post I linked right above: sportmanship.
This question pertains the final table only. The two rulings quoted from the discussion about the 2008 tournament rules are about final table only. They do not concern PTW in general.
Unless there has been a written explicit reversal then we have a ruling by LSJ stating that a 0.001% chance at winning the tournament means you go for the 0.001% chance. We also have an equally explicit ruling that reads, I quote: "Any player still in the game has a chance at 1st vs. 2nd (and nothing else), so must try for 1st."
That leaves zero wiggle-room for a judge to decide.
The above ruling obviously includes a false statement if any player has managed to get 3 VP during the final round, in which case the tournament is effectively finished.
Observe that the above rulings say absolutely nothing about PTW during any round except the final round.
Edit: I'm perfectly aware that this lands us with two different sets of PTW-rules depending on if it's a prelim or a final round being played.
> Mephistopheles wrote:
> From an "ethical" side I think you should go for the backoust and make the 2vps. You are still 2nd like everybody else, but at least you maximized your vp's, which should be some sort of secondary priority.
>
WTF?
2-2 split with first seed: 0% chance at winning.
Ousting the guy who has 2 VPs already: Greater than 0% chance at winning.
Your answer makes no sense. The question makes no sense. The idea that a judge would even have to be involved makes no sense.
> Ankur wrote:
> Play. The. Game.
>
> Mephistopheles wrote:
> From an "ethical" side I think you should go for the backoust and make the 2vps. You are still 2nd like everybody else, but at least you maximized your vp's, which should be some sort of secondary priority.
>
I'm not sure to grab what you mean by "ethical". This has nothing to do with ethics. B should try to oust C before A is ousted in order to win the game.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
So I always thought and still think that PTW is way too subjective and that more than often its interpretation depends on what mood the Judge is in. Therefore it's best we forget about it (sort of).
I have therefore my own guideline what to do in certain situations:
1. Try to get the game win
2. If you see no way (~0% chance) to make the game win maximize your vp's, even in the final when everybody else is still 2nd. 0,5 VPS > 0 VP!!!
3. If you are in a dead position where even 0,5 VP can not be achieved don't suicide into your prey, or anybody else. Try to stay in game for as long as possible, because maybe something totally unpredictable happens. This doesn't mean you should totally ruin your predator just to give your grand predator 2 vp's!
I think this is ethical play, since you cause the least damage to others. Some people show the tendency to suicide into their prey when in a lost position just to make their predators 2 vp's. Or the other way. I hate that.
See there are certain decks that need to hurt there predator to stay alive. Suiciding into that deck with the argument "because you did that or that" is lame imo. You should never punish somebody for playing a deck the way it is supposed to be played. Of course if there is a small chance to somehow oust it go for it! Sure! But just crashing in a guy as a revenge is unethical.
/sorry I went a little offtopic since this is general game play and really has little to do with the original example/
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
> Mephistopheles wrote:
> Try to stay in game for as long as possible, because maybe something totally unpredictable happens.
>
I think this should be the second best think, if you cannot win. That is what a vampire would do
But I´ve heard that sometimes it is better for you tournament result to self-oust, although I have never been in such a situation myself.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> Ashur wrote:
>
> > Mephistopheles wrote:
> > Try to stay in game for as long as possible, because maybe something totally unpredictable happens.
> >
> I think this should be the second best think, if you cannot win. That is what a vampire would do
>
> But I´ve heard that sometimes it is better for you tournament result to self-oust, although I have never been in such a situation myself.
>
I think that would be an out of game consideration, which is illegal as far as I know. Pascal could you please confirm that?
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
> Mephistopheles wrote:
>
> > Ashur wrote:
> >
> > > Mephistopheles wrote:
> > > Try to stay in game for as long as possible, because maybe something totally unpredictable happens.
> > >
> > I think this should be the second best think, if you cannot win. That is what a vampire would do
> >
> > But I´ve heard that sometimes it is better for you tournament result to self-oust, although I have never been in such a situation myself.
> >
> I think that would be an out of game consideration, which is illegal as far as I know. Pascal could you please confirm that?
>
PTW doesn't include out of game considerations. PTW is about the current game, and getting the best of it.
I hardly see how the current game affects your tournament position, except, perhaps, in the case when you're going to get 0, and you self-oust to avoid having a GW given to someone else.
This is perfectly OK with PTW - if you're going to get X VPs(in this case, X=0), you can get it with whatever path you choose. Self-oust, regular oust, cross-table oust are all valid methods, as long as you get the 0 you were aiming at.
Some players consider table points when they're about to be ousted, and they try to maximize their TPs at the current game. That is: if you're going to get 0, try to have the maximum players get 0, so that, instead of a mere 12 TPs, you get 30.
This is not covered by the PTW. You are free to act to maximize your TPs, but you don't have to do it.
@ Yaggo: I'm considering your remark. Didn't notice it was finals in the first place. Maybe VPs are worth nothing in a final, PTW-wisely. I need to think on that.
The reason for the initial change of the rule was that players would struggle to be second or third, and would give the GW to whomever was most able to give them that second/third place.
In smaller tournaments I prefer to have one player have the GW with a perfect sweep rather than let's say a 2-2-1, or 1,5-1,5-0,5-0-0 with me being 1 or 0,5 (or even worse) in the example, since less players will be in front of you in the ranking.
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
> Mephistopheles wrote:
> 2. If you see no way (~0% chance) to make the game win maximize your vp's, even in the final when everybody else is still 2nd. 0,5 VPS > 0 VP!!!
>
Not in finals. 2nd is 2nd, whatever VP you may score. Otherwise, unexperienced players tend to be happy with their half VP that is in reality useless.
> Mephistopheles wrote:
> Suiciding into that deck with the argument "because you did that or that" is lame imo. You should never punish somebody for playing a deck the way it is supposed to be played. Of course if there is a small chance to somehow oust it go for it! Sure! But just crashing in a guy as a revenge is unethical.
>
If someone feels the need to suicide by crushing himself on you, then there are great chances that you have badly played in the first place. There's nothing unethical there, just a lack of psychology if you bring someone to the verge on self-destruction.
Sometimes, players commit suicide by fear also (the fight deck backrushing the bleed stealth deck, then both of them being killed by the predator of the B&S deck), but this is bad play, nothing unethical once again.
No, unethical play happens only when there's collusion or cheating.
> Mephistopheles wrote:
> for playing a deck the way it is supposed to be played"
>
This is also lame imho if you don't manage to adapt the use of your deck to the situation. A deck is a tool. If I give you a hammer, you're not obliged to strike with it blindly. If you do, I'm not surprised some people turn against you out of anger.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
This time I actually did talk about general observation and not about personal experience only. What I consider ethical play is 100% subjective and I know and accept that other players have other ideas about that. I don't really know why I am writing all this. I think I better just shut up in the future.
NC for Hungary
hunfragment.blogspot.com
> Pascal wrote:
>
> @ Yaggo: I'm considering your remark. Didn't notice it was finals in the first place. Maybe VPs are worth nothing in a final, PTW-wisely. I need to think on that.
> The reason for the initial change of the rule was that players would struggle to be second or third, and would give the GW to whomever was most able to give them that second/third place.
>
No, VP are worthless during the final table unless they make you win. Four players share second place. There is no such thing as third place unless something VERY strange happened since the 2008 tournament rules. This is also the underlying reason behind the LSJ ruling. You have absolutely nothing to lose by struggling to win the game from even an idiotically lost position. Worst case you get second place, which is exactly what you gain from NOT attempting to win.
Indirectly, and slightly off-topic, I think the judge could decide to terminate the final table the moment one player has mathematically won the tournament (usually by getting three VP). This very much like when the five deciding penalty shots are terminated prematurely in a football match as soon as one team leads by a mathematically guaranteed win (3 - 0 and two penalty shots remaining for each team. Those will never be shot).
On-topic, the LSJ ruling also means that any table split deal during the final table is illegal unless the 'losing' party makes it explicitly clear that he/she intends to break it (ie both parties make it clear they aim at winning the game).
> yappo wrote:
> No, VP are worthless during the final table unless they make you win. Four players share second place. There is no such thing as third place unless something VERY strange happened since the 2008 tournament rules. This is also the underlying reason behind the LSJ ruling. You have absolutely nothing to lose by struggling to win the game from even an idiotically lost position.
>
It also addresses table-splitting deals in the finals, which were thought to be very unpopular. With a fully-ranked final (1st place through 5th place), I have an incentive to 'settle' for 2nd place. This is especially the case when there are differential prizes - by settling for second, I get 10 boosters, instead of the 3 boosters for fifth (or whatever).
At the time, that sort of issue was addressed by the ruling that tournament finalists were assumed to be playing to 'win', in the sense that there was nothing else to try to achieve so we assume they're doing the best for themselves. With the current everyone-else-is-joint-second setup, you have to rely on that ruling a whole lot less because the behaviour is seen a lot less.
> Mephistopheles wrote:
>
> > Ashur wrote:
> > But I´ve heard that sometimes it is better for you tournament result to self-oust, although I have never been in such a situation myself.
> >
> I think that would be an out of game consideration, which is illegal as far as I know. Pascal could you please confirm that?
>
It's not necessary to ask Pascal. Here's why:
For someone to self-oust, they have to be in a "lost" position, since if they are in a "lost" position, they can lose in any way they wish. If they are NOT in a "lost" position, they must play -- not self-oust, but Play -- To Win.
So, why they wish to self-oust is never relevant, as long as they are in a "lost" position.
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! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
I would love to see Pascal give his final say in one clear ruling which covers the entirety of the PTW-rule. Non-tournament play, preliminary tournament round and finals, it's relationship with first-or-second in the finals, who has the right to decide a 0% chance of x VPs/GWs, etc, etc. More or less every point that has been brought up here.
I appreciate the delicacy and ambiguity of the rule, but I feel like we've been searching and interpreting rulings every which way for years now. One ruling or one piece of text which covers all of it (confirming the rulings that are in effect and reverting the old ones which are poorly worded or just plain wrong). There are almost as many understandings of the PTW rule as there are VTES players and everyone is 100% sure their interpretation is the right one.
If Pascal needs to work on it for a longer amount of time to get this ruling right I for one am prepared to wait for it, as long as it's final and non-ambiguous. If this is possible I would be very grateful.
Adam Esbjörnsson,
Prince of Örebro
I do need time to work on that.
One of the easy questions you might ask yourself is this:
It's a 3 player game. You have 0 VP, your prey has 2, your predator 0.
You have a 33% chance of ousting your prey on your last action. If that fails, your prey will oust your predator. It is then quite certain that you would oust her and get 2 VPs.
"33%" could be you need that Seduction on the top of your library, as a replacement for Govern.
Do you take that chance? (I'm not asking "should/must you", just "do you")
> Pascal wrote:
> I do need time to work on that.
>
> One of the easy questions you might ask yourself is this:
>
> It's a 3 player game. You have 0 VP, your prey has 2, your predator 0.
> You have a 33% chance of ousting your prey on your last action. If that fails, your prey will oust your predator. It is then quite certain that you would oust her and get 2 VPs.
>
What are the chances my prey ousts my predator if I do nothing?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Erm, I need to change some setting a bit.
Not during the finals:
Let's say it's down to: bleed and get GW (33%) or 0 (66%) on that action or don't bleed and get 2 VPs (100%) later.
Same question with 25/75. And 10/90.
To represent the chance, just imagine that you need to replace your Govern with a Seduction to oust your prey. There's one Seduction left in your deck, and X (2/3/9) other cards.
edit : then it gets trickier...
If it is tournament finals, i would go for A.
If it is first round of a tournament, i would go for A
if it is second round, and i already have a GW, and some good vp's i would go for B.
Etc...
In friendly game, i would go for A.
So, to be super-clear, I have the choice of two options:
Option 1:
- 1/3 chance of 3VP for me, 2VP for prey (outcome a)
- 2/3 chance of 0VP for me, 3VP for prey (outcome b)
Option 2:
- 1/1 chance of 2VP for me, 3VP for prey (outcome c)
(I'm assuming a tournament setting, because PTW is a tournament rule.)
In a final, there really isn't a decision to be made here. Outcome b and c are equivalent - they both have you in second place. Common sense and PTW are aligned in this case.
If this situation showed up in a pre-final round, there are two questions:
Q1: which choice better increases my chance of winning the tournament?
Q2: am I compelled to take one option or the other because of PTW?
Q1 really depends on the size of the tournament and the results of any prior rounds. Seating at the final table is important, but getting there at all is much more important. If you think that 2VPs will be enough to get you to the final table, you would want to choose Option 2; if you think the game win is required, choose Option 1.
Q2 is more interesting. The rules say:
> 4.8 For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.
>
Think about this: even in the best of circumstances, each table can generate at most one Game Win. If every table produces a GW, and all players and decks at the table are equal, each player has only a 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 chance of getting that GW. In practice, because tables time out or split, it's less than that.
I think it would be ridiculous for someone to claim that a GW was not reasonably possible for them after just having sat down at a new table.
To put a number on it, we might estimate that 75% of tables generate a GW. Thus a just-seated player at a five player table has only a 15% shot at a game win. Now, you can argue that a given player could have an advantage because of skill or deck construction, so their actual chance of winning might be more than that 15%; if so, however, the GW chance of the other players at the table will be less, and they must still be considered to have a reasonable chance at a GW.
The PTW wording is clear: only GWs should be considered as long as a GW is reasonable possible. So, if I think I'm in a position where a GW is reasonably possible - and I clearly am - I cannot consider victory points at all, and so am compelled to choose option 1, as it's the one that maximizes my chances of that game win.
As for the follow-up questions with different probabilities:
I'd argue that in order to be considered a "lost" position, a player would have to be doing significantly worse than someone who just sat down. I don't want it to be OK for a player to say "oh snap, I didn't draw a copy of my star vampire and my opening hand is bad, so I have no reasonable chance at a game win and PTW doesn't apply to me" That means 2x, 3x, or even 4x worse than a "neutral" starting position should still be considered to have a reasonable shot. At this point, we're clearly talking about single-digit percentages.
I think it would be eminently reasonable, and might be extremely useful, to simply rule that a 1% chance is a reasonable possibility. If we did that, it would deal with a bunch of situations. For example: is there one card in your deck that, if you top-deck it, you would get the GW? Well, the number of cards in your deck is less than 100, so you have a reasonable chance. If the number of cards in your deck is less than 50, even if topdecking the card only gives you a 50% chance, you still have a 1% shot.
Note that my suggested ruling is "1% is a reasonable possibility", not "less than 1% is not a reasonable possibility". I'm saying "if", not "if and only if". I don't think a lower bound is that useful. PTW makes people play more interesting games; putting a stake in the ground at the 1% point would make it clearer where the rule does apply, and would help judges when they are administering it, but wouldn't give players any ammunition for arguing it doesn't apply to them.
> Pascal wrote:
> One of the easy questions you might ask yourself is this:
>
> It's a 3 player game. You have 0 VP, your prey has 2, your predator 0.
> You have a 33% chance of ousting your prey on your last action. If that fails, your prey will oust your predator. It is then quite certain that you would oust her and get 2 VPs.
>
> "33%" could be you need that Seduction on the top of your library, as a replacement for Govern.
>
> Do you take that chance? (I'm not asking "should/must you", just "do you")
>
Seems like kind of a constructed situation. Would be hard-pressed to recall finding myself in a situation like this. Most of the time the point is to give yourself a better set-up than this. In my opinion you make this choice maybe one hour before you're actually at this point and when you are at this point the choice has already been made, it can't be unmade. I would, though, choose to go for the GW at that point (one hour before the ousting action). In this constructed scenario, it depends on how much yield the risk would gain me. If it's in the first round of a tournament I would weigh the risks and rewards differently from the finals of a really prestigious tournament.
Is it really relevant to ask people for their risk assessments? I thought that was the point of PTW; that people weigh risks differently. If we try to quantify and regulate this risk-assessment precisely everyone would be obliged to weigh risks identically, no?
Adam Esbjörnsson,
Prince of Örebro
> Xaddam wrote:
> If it's in the first round of a tournament I would weigh the risks and rewards differently from the finals of a really prestigious tournament.
>
Point being that in the final round you're not allowed to weigh the risk at all in the constructed scenario.
You can't get worse than second. A 33% chance at the GW versus a 0% chance has the 2008 ruling explicitly ordering you to go for the 33%. In fact that ruling orders you to go for the 0.001% chance if the alternative is 0%.
I'm aware that there remains tournaments where prize support mirrors an inofficial take that there are indeed a second, third, fourth and fifth place. However, prize support is, since a few years, an out of game consideration, and thus illegal to take into consideration when you weigh risks.
> yappo wrote:
>
> > Xaddam wrote:
> > If it's in the first round of a tournament I would weigh the risks and rewards differently from the finals of a really prestigious tournament.
> >
> Point being that in the final round you're not allowed to weigh the risk at all in the constructed scenario.
>
> You can't get worse than second. A 33% chance at the GW versus a 0% chance has the 2008 ruling explicitly ordering you to go for the 33%. In fact that ruling orders you to go for the 0.001% chance if the alternative is 0%.
>
> I'm aware that there remains tournaments where prize support mirrors an inofficial take that there are indeed a second, third, fourth and fifth place. However, prize support is, since a few years, an out of game consideration, and thus illegal to take into consideration when you weigh risks.
>
Pascal asked "would you", not "should you".
Adam Esbjörnsson,
Prince of Örebro
> yappo wrote:
> I'm aware that there remains tournaments where prize support mirrors an inofficial take that there are indeed a second, third, fourth and fifth place.
>
I would strongly support such tournaments being stripped of official sanctioning. Players in the final are first or second, no ifs, buts, or maybes. There's no slightly-better-second or slightly-worse-second, just second.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > yappo wrote:
> > I'm aware that there remains tournaments where prize support mirrors an inofficial take that there are indeed a second, third, fourth and fifth place.
> >
> I would strongly support such tournaments being stripped of official sanctioning. Players in the final are first or second, no ifs, buts, or maybes. There's no slightly-better-second or slightly-worse-second, just second.
>
Amen, but that's just my opinion.
Minor edit: I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but in case the ranking system hasn't changed since 2008 a minor remnant of second to fifth place remains in as much as the VP gained still counts. Ie, if that's the case there's an officially sanctioned 'out of game consideration' reward for getting second place with more than zero VP.
Rulebook rules apply to all games.
Tournament rules apply to all tournament games. When Tournament Rules and Rulebook contradict, Tournament Rules superseed.
I hope this answers most of the questions, I can only see one remaining: does PTW rule apply to the finals of a tournament? (which was OP's question)
I'm working on this one. One thing is certain, though: as Kevin said, as long as your chances of getting the GW aren't unreasonably low, you must struggle for the GW.
"Unreasonably" has no strict definition. As I wanted to show with the example, everyone is free to make an estimation of their odds. Also, evaluation of "chances that this or that might happen" are, sometimes, blind guesses which can't be represented by numbers.
@Xaddam: I'm thinking about what happens if your chances of GW in the finals are 0. Maybe we do need a PTW rule for the finals in the Tournament Rules -- that would be LSJ's links Forhead gave in his initial post (if you have any chance of getting the GW, then go for it. Otherwise, you're free to choose how to finish second)
Finally, for reminders:
Considerations such as "2 VPs are enough to get me to the finals" or "Let's not give that guy 2 VPs, let's rather have this guy get them, I'm more likely to oust them in the finals" is totally out of game.
PTW is about winning the current game. There is no PTWTT ("Play to win the tournament") rule. Choosing the "secure" VPs over the "less-secure" GW is against the PTW rule.
[EDIT]: Finals end up with one winner and 4 tying for second place. No distinction should be made (at least for tournament prize) regarding these four players. Rating points, as much as table points, time spent playing or being ousted after someone else aren't criteria PTW takes into consideration. Second is second, and the only thing better than second is first.
> Pascal wrote:
> Maybe we do need a PTW rule for the finals in the Tournament Rules -- that would be LSJ's links Forhead gave in his initial post (if you have any chance of getting the GW, then go for it. Otherwise, you're free to choose how to finish second)
>
It would be great if this got into the tournament rules.
Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark
> Forhead wrote:
>
> > Pascal wrote:
> > Maybe we do need a PTW rule for the finals in the Tournament Rules -- that would be LSJ's links Forhead gave in his initial post (if you have any chance of getting the GW, then go for it. Otherwise, you're free to choose how to finish second)
> >
> It would be great if this got into the tournament rules.
>
Observe that the second link explicitly states that any player still in the game is considered to have that chance (which is blatantly false as soon as any player has gained 3 VP, but still). Ie, you're never free to choose how to finish second.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > yappo wrote:
> > No, VP are worthless during the final table unless they make you win. Four players share second place. There is no such thing as third place unless something VERY strange happened since the 2008 tournament rules. This is also the underlying reason behind the LSJ ruling. You have absolutely nothing to lose by struggling to win the game from even an idiotically lost position.
> >
> It also addresses table-splitting deals in the finals, which were thought to be very unpopular. With a fully-ranked final (1st place through 5th place), I have an incentive to 'settle' for 2nd place. This is especially the case when there are differential prizes - by settling for second, I get 10 boosters, instead of the 3 boosters for fifth (or whatever).
>
This is why finals should never be run with prizes distributed in a way that encourages not winning in a specific way over doing your best to win, even if it is somewhat unlikely.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/