Concerning PTW

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?

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".

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.