The thing is, even though you aren't playing to totally win, your winning is already a foregone conclusion. Since your odds of victory are already 100%, because the skill difference is so large, you can play however you like as long as you are still going to win.
Winning isn't a foregone conclusion at all. If we are playing to 5 points, I don't mind messing about and letting others get a few points. Very often I won't concentrate and not gain back the points I need to win. But in the vast majority of cases it doesn't matter.
Last summer I took part in the european juggling convention fight night contest, an event where I've been beaten in the final (and never won) for 5 out of the previous 6 times I took part. 5 second places and never winning? Kinda stings a bit. But I expected that last year would be the same, as I would be up against Jochen Pfeiffer in the final, and he beats me every time.
Except in the semi-final, against a friend from Berlin who I know I can beat, I messed about too much, playing things for the audience (about 1000 people). And then when I played to win, Alex pulled out some crazy moves and beat me. It was the real upset of the tournament, as everyone (including me and Alex) expected me to cruise through to the final to face Jochen, and then lose there.
And you know what? I had more fun being beaten by Alex and watching someone new face Jochen in the final than beating him. Even though I let him have two points in a first to five points game.
Winning isn't the most important part of gaming. Really not. It's part of the fun, but so often in my life I can have more meaningful experiences by taking part in other ways.
If you're a newb to Go, and you play against someone who has any experience at all, you've lost before you've begun. It's just that kind of game.
As rare as it is, Scott's absolutely right. A newb at go will get crushed 100% of the time by even a very low level player. You Pretty much lost before you even laid your first stone. Even someone of Scott or Zehaeva levels will be nearly 100% likely to be destroyed by pro-level players like Akasha Yi, Yilun Yang, Xiaoren He, and Jimmy Cha.
My Go level is basically zero. I am ultimate fail.
You know it exists, and I assume you know the basics of the rules. That puts you minimum two levels above most people, who look at it and go "Oooh, Reversi!"
Even someone of Scott or Zehaeva levels will be nearly 100% likely to be destroyed by pro-level players like Akasha Yi, Yilun Yang, Xiaoren He, and Jimmy Cha.
So true. Even as strong as I am now, which isn't very, there are some scary people out there who play me as if I have just picked up a stone for the first time. The luck factor in go is basically zero. I honestly think there is more luck in chess than go.
Even someone of Scott or Zehaeva levels will be nearly 100% likely to be destroyed by pro-level players like Akasha Yi, Yilun Yang, Xiaoren He, and Jimmy Cha.
So true. Even as strong as I am now, which isn't very, there are some scary people out there who play me as if I have just picked up a stone for the first time. The luck factor in go is basically zero. I honestly think there is more luck in chess than go.
No, there's no luck in Chess either. The difference is that in Chess you will take some pieces and they will take some pieces. You won't really realize that checkmate is just around the corner. Then suddenly, checkmate! You lose.
In Go, you put down stones, and they all come off the board. You won't be able to to take any stones from the opponent at all. You're just constantly devastated. Like you are the general of an army, and every single one of your soldiers is dying and not even stabbing an enemy soldier even once. You feel like you've lost from the time you place your second stone.
Even someone of Scott or Zehaeva levels will be nearly 100% likely to be destroyed by pro-level players like Akasha Yi, Yilun Yang, Xiaoren He, and Jimmy Cha.
So true. Even as strong as I am now, which isn't very, there are some scary people out there who play me as if I have just picked up a stone for the first time. The luck factor in go is basically zero. I honestly think there is more luck in chess than go.
No, there's no luck in Chess either. The difference is that in Chess you will take some pieces and they will take some pieces. You won't really realize that checkmate is just around the corner. Then suddenly, checkmate! You lose.
In Go, you put down stones, and they all come off the board. You won't be able to to take any stones from the opponent at all. You're just constantly devastated. Like you are the general of an army, and every single one of your soldiers is dying and not even stabbing an enemy soldier even once. You feel like you've lost from the time you place your second stone.
If you're a newb to Go, and you play against someone who has any experience at all, you've lost before you've begun. It's just that kind of game.
You're not telling me anything I don't know. I was talking about my experience in a sport where there is a shit ton of flexibility. Top players can avoid randomness in their own play, but when other people are juggling around you, avoiding all randomness (like in Chess or Go) is impossible.
Reducing your own randomness is one of the key aspects of being good at three club combat, and avoiding the randomness of other people is another big step. However, creating randomness that the other players can't fathom is a really great tactic, as long as it is only random for the other person and not you.
And then sometimes, when you are playing with 300 other jugglers, the randomness is overwhelming no matter how good you are. This is offset at the biggest events by having four rounds, and the winners of each (out of 300 players) goes through to a four person final. It's no coincidence that for the past three years at the EJC, I've been through to the final three times, and won once, and Jochen (other Berlin juggler) got through twice and won once too. But last year we both got through to the four person final and knocked each other out, leaving someone else to win. Not the best player, by any means, but luck fell their way.
You place a bet on a game in which you are about to participate. That's unethical.
if you place a bet on yourself to LOSE and lose intentionally I would agree. What is the argument for placing a bet on yourself to win being unethical?
Depends on the nature of the game you're betting on. The classic example is Pete Rose in baseball. He often bet on his own team to win. Now, this sounds like it's not that bad, but in this case he may end up making short term decisions to win games that may have longer term repercussions on the season.
For example, let's say you're a baseball team's manager (like Rose), it's towards the end of the season, and you've already clinched first place and home field throughout the league playoff rounds (as opposed to the World Series, in which the results of that year's All Star game determines home field). At this point, if you didn't have anything else on the line, winning is nice but not necessary as it won't help you at all in the upcoming playoffs. Most managers without any bets riding on the game would play their regulars just enough to keep them in game shape and then substitute in minor-league call-ups, other backup players, etc. to check out the younger players and try to minimize the chances of their regulars wearing out or getting injured. However, if you had money riding on winning the game, you may end up keeping the regulars in longer, putting risky plays on that may increase the chance of injury, etc. If you're lucky this won't have any affect and you should be able to go into the playoffs without any issues. However, if you're unlucky, your star pitcher will blow out his elbow and be lost throughout the playoffs, thereby severely hurting your chances of winning the overall championship.
What if he limits his wagers to only games that are do or die? Does that change the situation?
I suppose that yeah, if it's a case where you're putting everything on the line anyway, then it doesn't matter as much. Still, given all the history of problems with betting and sports, I still say the carpet ban on any sort of betting in sports by the active participants is still a good idea. This is probably a bit outside the realm of the immediate "win or lose" thing, but let's suppose you wager a bunch of money, more than you can afford to lose, on your team to win in a do-or-die situation and lose. Your bookie may then make you throw games in the future in order to pay off a debt you can't otherwise pay off or he'll have his goon squad break your kneecaps.
Granted, a scenario like this is probably only likely in the framework of a major professional sport -- making a bet that "loser buys dinner for everyone" with your buddies just before a pickup game with them is just fine. I guess it's all in the context of the betting and the game/spot itself.
I want to clarify where people stand on the utility of relative vs absolute winning. To that end, I'd like to hear how people would act in the following situation.
In a 4 player game of Catan, you are in last place. There is a path to victory, but it requires that 12s be rolled 10 turns in a row. Any other roll will let somebody else win. Let's say for the sake of argument the person in 1ST place has an 80% chance of winning, 2ND place has a 19% chance, and 3RD has just under 1%. The person in first place offers a trade that will put you into second place, but you know for a fact that making the trade will let the person in first place win.
I see no ethical or gaming problem with making this trade. Once winning is realistically impossible, the player in last place has an obligation to finish the game, but no obligation to care (edit) about winning. (/edit)
In a board game where I am doomed to lose, my enemies are ranked according to how well they are doing. The winner is the greatest threat, and 2nd place in a board game is still a loss. I will do anything possible to deny him a win.
In a board game where I am doomed to lose, my enemies are ranked according to how well they are doing. The winner is the greatest threat, and 2nd place in a board game is still a loss. I will do anything possible to deny him a win.
This is the right way to be as bringing down the top player usually maximizes your chances of winning, if any are left. The problem is you can't go sacrificing your own score to bring down #1. It's ok to go and shoot at the guy in first place with a blue shell. It's not cool to kamikaze into him thus giving the game to the second place guy.
In a board game where I am doomed to lose, my enemies are ranked according to how well they are doing. The winner is the greatest threat, and 2nd place in a board game is still a loss. I will do anything possible to deny him a win.
This is the right way to be as bringing down the top player usually maximizes your chances of winning, if any are left. The problem is you can't go sacrificing your own score to bring down #1. It's ok to go and shoot at the guy in first place with a blue shell. It's not cool to kamikaze into him thus giving the game to the second place guy.
Right. In the end, it's all cost-benefit analysis.
I want to clarify where people stand on the utility of relative vs absolute winning. To that end, I'd like to hear how people would act in the following situation.
In a 4 player game of Catan, you are in last place. There is a path to victory, but it requires that 12s be rolled 10 turns in a row. Any other roll will let somebody else win. Let's say for the sake of argument the person in 1ST place has an 80% chance of winning, 2ND place has a 19% chance, and 3RD has just under 1%. The person in first place offers a trade that will put you into second place, but you know for a fact that making the trade will let the person in first place win.
I see no ethical or gaming problem with making this trade. Once winning is realistically impossible, the player in last place has an obligation to finish the game, but no obligation to care
Don't make the trade until something that isn't a 12 is rolled, at least.
Comments
Last summer I took part in the european juggling convention fight night contest, an event where I've been beaten in the final (and never won) for 5 out of the previous 6 times I took part. 5 second places and never winning? Kinda stings a bit. But I expected that last year would be the same, as I would be up against Jochen Pfeiffer in the final, and he beats me every time.
Except in the semi-final, against a friend from Berlin who I know I can beat, I messed about too much, playing things for the audience (about 1000 people). And then when I played to win, Alex pulled out some crazy moves and beat me. It was the real upset of the tournament, as everyone (including me and Alex) expected me to cruise through to the final to face Jochen, and then lose there.
And you know what? I had more fun being beaten by Alex and watching someone new face Jochen in the final than beating him. Even though I let him have two points in a first to five points game.
Winning isn't the most important part of gaming. Really not. It's part of the fun, but so often in my life I can have more meaningful experiences by taking part in other ways.
In Go, you put down stones, and they all come off the board. You won't be able to to take any stones from the opponent at all. You're just constantly devastated. Like you are the general of an army, and every single one of your soldiers is dying and not even stabbing an enemy soldier even once. You feel like you've lost from the time you place your second stone.
Reducing your own randomness is one of the key aspects of being good at three club combat, and avoiding the randomness of other people is another big step. However, creating randomness that the other players can't fathom is a really great tactic, as long as it is only random for the other person and not you.
And then sometimes, when you are playing with 300 other jugglers, the randomness is overwhelming no matter how good you are. This is offset at the biggest events by having four rounds, and the winners of each (out of 300 players) goes through to a four person final. It's no coincidence that for the past three years at the EJC, I've been through to the final three times, and won once, and Jochen (other Berlin juggler) got through twice and won once too. But last year we both got through to the four person final and knocked each other out, leaving someone else to win. Not the best player, by any means, but luck fell their way.
For example, let's say you're a baseball team's manager (like Rose), it's towards the end of the season, and you've already clinched first place and home field throughout the league playoff rounds (as opposed to the World Series, in which the results of that year's All Star game determines home field). At this point, if you didn't have anything else on the line, winning is nice but not necessary as it won't help you at all in the upcoming playoffs. Most managers without any bets riding on the game would play their regulars just enough to keep them in game shape and then substitute in minor-league call-ups, other backup players, etc. to check out the younger players and try to minimize the chances of their regulars wearing out or getting injured. However, if you had money riding on winning the game, you may end up keeping the regulars in longer, putting risky plays on that may increase the chance of injury, etc. If you're lucky this won't have any affect and you should be able to go into the playoffs without any issues. However, if you're unlucky, your star pitcher will blow out his elbow and be lost throughout the playoffs, thereby severely hurting your chances of winning the overall championship.
Granted, a scenario like this is probably only likely in the framework of a major professional sport -- making a bet that "loser buys dinner for everyone" with your buddies just before a pickup game with them is just fine. I guess it's all in the context of the betting and the game/spot itself.
In a 4 player game of Catan, you are in last place. There is a path to victory, but it requires that 12s be rolled 10 turns in a row. Any other roll will let somebody else win. Let's say for the sake of argument the person in 1ST place has an 80% chance of winning, 2ND place has a 19% chance, and 3RD has just under 1%. The person in first place offers a trade that will put you into second place, but you know for a fact that making the trade will let the person in first place win.
I see no ethical or gaming problem with making this trade. Once winning is realistically impossible, the player in last place has an obligation to finish the game, but no obligation to care (edit) about winning. (/edit)