Strategies

[mib2932]

Originally Posted by zooma

If everyone pitches in twelve cents, you win twelve cents per each losing player. But if two of you share a win, that's only six cents each per losing player (and there are one fewer losers).

Then you need to check your percentages in your post - it assumes that only losers pitch in to the winnings. If everyone pitches into the winnings before the game, sharing a win still gets you 50% of the winnings, regardless of how many players.

[Cheese8242]

Originally Posted by zooma

I'm basing these points on a gambling system.

If everyone pitches in twelve cents, you win twelve cents per each losing player. But if two of you share a win, that's only six cents each per losing player (and there are one fewer losers).



That would mean winning a three player game is worth the same as winning a six player game. If you do it my way, winning sixty cents is clearly better than winning twenty four.

To me, a win is a win is a win. Doesn't matter if you have help or not, doesn't matter how many opponents you have.

Sorry, but your way seems to cheapen the victory (pun intended). "Oh, your win isn't as good as the win I had last game, because I won 36 cents and you and Fred only won 12 cents each. HAHA"

No I'll stick to the "I win," weither its solo or if I have help, approach. Why? because I do win. Either way, in the end I still get to walk away with the demon's head on a pike and that's all that really matters.

[zooma]

Originally Posted by mib2932

If everyone pitches into the winnings before the game, sharing a win still gets you 50% of the winnings, regardless of how many players.

Suppose four of us pitch 12 cents each. If I win 10 games in a row, I'll be $36.00 richer than when I started. If I instead win 100 games in a row, but share the win with a second player, I'll be only twelve dollars richer than when I started - one third as much profit.

Philosophy is great, but you can literally take the above analysis to the bank! The money doesn't lie.

Originally Posted by mib2932

Then you need to check your percentages in your post - it assumes that only losers pitch in to the winnings.

They do. The losers pay the winners. Period. Everything you win comes straight form the the losers' pockets.

Each player pitching in twelve cents is equivalent to each loser paying twelve cents to be shared among the winners (and the winner pitching nothing). This is two ways to describe the same situation. Your initial investment doesn't count as "winnings" - in a four way draw (were it possible) it would be correct to say that each player breaks even, and incorrect to say that each player "won" twelve cents.

This is a zero sum situation. The total wins must equal the total losses.

Of course in practice, there is no difference. You try for the two way if you chance of succeeding plus twice your chance of failing the two way but winning later anyway is greater than twice your chance of declining the two way and winning on your own. This equation hold whether you analise for gross or net winnings.

I've simplified it, there is always a chance you'll decline (or fail) the joint effort only to succeed at another such effort later, but let's keep it simple for now.

[zooma]

Originally Posted by Cheese8242

Sorry, but your way seems to cheapen the victory (pun intended). "Oh, your win isn't as good as the win I had last game, because I won 36 cents and you and Fred only won 12 cents each. HAHA"

Yes, that is the point. It's harder to win alone than with somebody.

Now if we actually play for twelve cents, I'll be HAHAing all the way to the bank! If you're playing for a sense of personal satisfaction and/or bragging rights only, then the value of a solo win vs a joint win vs a loss is vague and can't be quantified. That's why I advocate playing for twelve cents.

If I value a two way win (compared to a solo win) less than you do, then I'll pass on two way opportunities more than you. You'll end up with more shared wins than I have, but I'll have more solo wins than you (because I hold out for them). If we don't quantify it, we might both end up thinking we have a better track record than each other!

If we keep score differently in our own minds, we aren't really even playing the same game. The competitive factor reduces in meaningfulness. A simple 12 cents each puts us all on the same page!

Incidentally, do you count winning a three way game "as good" as winning a six way game? The later is clearly harder.

[zooma]

Originally Posted by milord

Hey hey, when did this become a thread on semantics?

It's not about semantics, but about math and quantification. How a shared win compares to a solo win is a relevant concept with huge implications on strategy. It's a facet of competition that hobby gamers tend to neglect, but gamblers always consider.

Originally Posted by milord

Especially if you just do it the way my group does it: "Losers have to clean up the game and shuffle the decks."

:)

Interestingly enough, in this case the reward for winning is the same in a shared win, but the penalty for losing is increased if more than one player beats you (cleaning up half the game each instead of one third).

This is equivalent to (in a four way game) the losers paying 12 cents each to the winner if one player wins, but eighteen cents each to each winner if two players win.

This system matches the philosophy which motivates Cheese8242's playing style I think. I'm fine with such a system too! I just think any game with a chance of shared victory should be played for trinkets, so that everyone quantifies the possibility the same (or else incorrectly).

To some people a shared win is a good as a lone win, but to others it's not. If you add consequences to winning or losing, the matter is clear. Otherwise, it's subjective. I have similar views regarding games which are played for points.

[Cheese8242]

Originally Posted by zooma

Yes, that is the point. It's harder to win alone than with somebody.

Now if we actually play for twelve cents, I'll be HAHAing all the way to the bank! If you're playing for a sense of personal satisfaction and/or bragging rights only, then the value of a solo win vs a joint win vs a loss is vague and can't be quantified. That's why I advocate playing for twelve cents.

If I value a two way win (compared to a solo win) less than you do, then I'll pass on two way opportunities more than you. You'll end up with more shared wins than I have, but I'll have more solo wins than you (because I hold out for them). If we don't quantify it, we might both end up thinking we have a better track record than each other!

If we keep score differently in our own minds, we aren't really even playing the same game. The competitive factor reduces in meaningfulness. A simple 12 cents each puts us all on the same page!

Incidentally, do you count winning a three way game "as good" as winning a six way game? The later is clearly harder.

See, that's the big difference. I play games like Munchkin and Munchkin Quest for fun not competition. Win or lose the game, as long as everyone playing had fun then I win. Your way means less fun for all, because someone is going to be sore for losing money. And in that regards, weither it was a solo win or a dual victory, I still lose.

I want everyone to walk away from my table having fun that night. Bringing money(even if it's just a few pennies) into a simple game means someone won't be walking away happy. To me that is not fun.

Another thing that bringing money into a game like this does, is ramp up the chance of arguements. This game already has a high chance of someone argueing about the wording of one card/room or another, throw the chance at winning money on that fire and real fights could break out.

No, I would rather just play for fun. You can claim more solo victories than me, but in the end I still have a better track record with my friends along the way. Well at least in my opinion. If your style of play works for you and yours, more power to you.

"A good friend will pick you up from the dungeon, a great friend will be there slaying the dragon with you and saying, Man is this fun!"

[zooma]

Originally Posted by Cheese8242

See, that's the big difference. I play games like Munchkin and Munchkin Quest for fun not competition. Win or lose the game, as long as everyone playing had fun then I win.

I play for fun too. But a large part of the fun in a strategy game is, for me, the strategy. I don't have any less fun if I lose, as long as I get to think hard about how to maximize my chances - that's strategy. Without this goal, I have no reason to take one action over another. I'll make my plays almost at random, and find the game less captivating and less fun.

When it comes to the strategic decision of attempting a shared win vs holding out for a solo win I have no bases to make that decision unless I quantify the two. In order for the game to remain competitive, every player should quantify the two by the same scale.

Originally Posted by Cheese8242

Your way means less fun for all, because someone is going to be sore for losing money.

Nobody I play with gets too sore over twelve cents. Sometimes we play for as much as a quarter or even a dollar, but it's chump change - we spend far more on beer and pretzels! If one of us is broke, somebody will pitch for them without a second thought.

The point of the stakes is precisely to quantify shared vs solo wins, No one gets hurt or feels sore. Milord's stakes work just as well - the losers clean up. Nobody gets sore, and everyone knows a shared win (in that scenario) reaps the same reward as a solo win.

[Quaff_fu]

Originally Posted by zooma

It's not about semantics, but about math and quantification. How a shared win compares to a solo win is a relevant concept with huge implications on strategy. It's a facet of competition that hobby gamers tend to neglect, but gamblers always consider.

YAWN. :-O'

[zooma]

Originally Posted by Quaff_fu

YAWN. :-O'

Yet you read this far.

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by zooma

Yet you read this far.

It's not that hard to go to the end of the thread and express the opinion that your semantic and philosophical arguments have exceeded the purpose of this thread and that it is perhaps time to move on to somewhere where your arguments aren't corrupting it. I don't know that it was executed well, but it's certainly drawn my attention to the fact that is what seems to be happeningat this point and that you who are arguing should probably stop hijacking the thread and take the philosophical arguments elsewhere. . .