Concerning PTW

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.

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.

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.

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.