Forum
roll off for chance to fight
|
ImbettathanAnish wrote
at 8:33 AM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST
A relatively uncommon roll off situation happened that resulted (predictably)in another player getting very upset. I'm all but positive my play was acceptable but I'm not in an completely objective position to assess the events given my interest in its outcome at the time. Based on how angry this guy was I felt compelled to make my first forum post and see if my intuition is in alignment with the take you all have on the situation. So here was the setup:
Three players left in game. 4 stack map. The territory breakdown was approximately 10 for me, 7 for X and 12 Z. X was completely sandwiched between me and Z and so flags to Z. This flag is accepted but with Z's comment that the fight "will take forever." X and I then immediately agree to roll of rather than fight each other. I win the roll off and X flags out. At this point I tell Z good luck in the 1/2 fight. This notion was not received well at all and an unproductive conversation on the matter ensued. The cliffnotes were that I was told several times I'm a "newbie" and "retarded" as I asked him why it's so far fetched to roll off for 3rd place if I lost and the chance to fight 1/2 if I won given that I had not flagged to him. The events of X's flag, the agreed roll off between X and me and my notifying Z that we were fighting 1/2 occurred quickly. I had never given the impression I would flag or was content with 2nd. I did not use the roll off to stack up or otherwise gain some unfair advantage. My goal was first from the start and I was disappointed X chose to flag to Z and fight me. When X proposed a roll off I saw that as a way to still fight for first place since I had not flagged. Is Z right? Was my play wildly unfair and "retarded" of me? Isn't the lack of my flag nearly dispositive in this situation that I'm not committing some honor breach in going for 1st? Or does agreeing to a roll off with someone who flagged to the slim leader necessarily obligate me to subordinate myself to that slim leader as well? Am I wrong to thinking a rolloff can be for 3rd if I lose and a chance to fight for 1/2 if I win? |
|
Balthazard wrote
at 9:17 AM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST I will give u my humble opinion, In the rules doesn’t say otherwise, so really u can do it, but I truly believe that Z was right. Maybe he should have pressed you a little more for you flag him and don’t take it for granted since he had the advantage of X flag in this way would have been whole clearer for everyone, perhaps he thought he was first and for that reason he didn’t ask anything so that is why the problem.
This isn’t any rule but just common sense, and why not say it, honor. Anyway this is a game so no problem. |
|
jurgen wrote
at 10:21 AM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST nobody will agree to such a type of roll off
you are the only one that benefits from such a roll off. X only agreed to a roll off because he tought it was for 2 3. If you wanted to fight Z afterwards , he could have gotten a pretty safe 2nd out of this if he bargained a 1 2 with Z (him taking 2nd in return for both killing you). If people agree to your deal in advance it's ok (but I doubt any smart or experienced player will agree). But if yoy change the rules of the game afterwards (sort of tricking X into flagging out), of course both will yell at you. Basically you "stabbed" the person you rolled off with and you screwed Z by removing the person he could call for help from so his 1st was more secure. If you wanted to fight Z for first, Z would have asked X to fight for him so you would have been severely weakened before you could even start fighting Z for first. Then again, "lieing" has lots of votes in the strategy section. What you did is not illegal but you can't try and make it look like it was a fair thing to do. Do this at a high stakes table and you will be remembered as someone who doesn't keep his word. |
|
deadcode wrote
at 12:31 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST I disagree with Jurgen; I wouldn't consider this lying or stabbing. Z should have expected that any player who has distance and hasn't explicitly flagged is still a threat.
This whole transient flagging thing is bull crap. A flag is a flag; and this is war. Personally I just think Z was angry at not having an easy win; and not protecting his position properly. He should have asked for flags or kept X in the game to fight. The level of his anger is a good indicator of this. |
|
OviloN wrote
at 2:13 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST It's clear that you didn't stab Mr. Z, but still you just behaved wrong.
Right thing to do: "flag Z!" or even better "Z flag!". Then you just kill X, you grow, you pretend to sit out, then you stab while saying "i didn't flag, i asked if you'd flag". "gg lol" |
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 2:53 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST We can discuss about semantics deadcode (I used "stab" and not stab), and I agree that this is not a typical stab after flag situation. But if you agree to a roll of (Imbettathanamish: X and I then immediately agree to roll of rather than fight each other) and then back out of it, it's breaking your word so "sort of a stab".
When you agree to a roll off, I think that implies you flag to the higher placed people that are not rolling off. And I stand by my orginal remark: this is a bad agreement for both Z and X so nobody intelligent would accept it. |
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 2:54 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST Ovilon; I don't get why the "proper" way to play is to tell your opponent what you plan on doing. That seems to be self-defeating. Deception is very important in the game.
For example; if someone asks me if I flag and I don't plan on flagging. I just keep my mouth shut; let them figure it out. |
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 3:01 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST Also isn't it kinda counter intuitive to create all these social rules that encourage flagging while almost the entire community agrees that there is too much flagging.
I say the hell with flagging. Flagging should be a last resort; if it is still possible to win and you decide to flag; I consider that bad play. Not only are you producing less points EV wise; but you are also making everyone at the table including me despise you for early flagging. And I do use these types of notes to influence who I will kill in the future; trust me. All in all; I think it is just silly to have all these made up rules that serve only to make it more difficult for 2nd to fight 1st. 1st should always have a target on his back; otherwise he doesn't deserve 1st. |
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 3:04 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST Tournaments and 5k games are somewhat different in terms of what is best for EV. But on 500 and below; if you aren't going for 1st; then you are using a losing strategy.
|
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 3:22 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST Well, now there is a lot of dission beside the point here imo. ImbettathenAnish asked if Z and X had a point to complain.
I think they had but they were also to blame for letting it happen. and If I had been in Imbetta's shoes, with 10 lands and a smaller middle guy inbetween, I defenitely would have gone for 1st, while trying to secure at least 2nd as well. I'm not gonna go over all better options than this one but even for Imbetta, this deal was a suboptimal one to start with:if you lose the roll off , you are forced to take 3 unless you stab. With a bit of negotiations or even just fighting X and stalling a flag to Z, you can easily get a secure top 2 without having to resort to this bad conditional roll off idea. |
|
|
deadcode wrote
at 3:25 PM, Saturday January 7, 2012 EST Jurgen; I don't see anywhere in his post that he said that X complained. He only states that Z complained. Z had nothing to do with the agreement between X and Anish to roll; therefore claiming after the fact that Anish flagged when he didn't is not only self-serving but incorrect.
|
