Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Losing Gardens split is that bad?  (Read 5195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

diedre91

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Shuffle iT Username: Diedre
  • Respect: +69
    • View Profile
Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« on: April 13, 2016, 08:43:00 am »
+2
I am playing E League-division and I am a noob at Dominion  :-[. Any reply will be appreciated.
But I believe after losing Gardens split at this match I was hopeless.

http://gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?http://dominion-game-logs.s3.amazonaws.com/game_logs/20160413/log.0.1460507177848.txt

Both open Ironworks/Beggar.
I admit I made a mistake buying a Garden on turn 3. But lets suppose I have chosen Ironworks instead.
On my turn 5, I draw both my Ironworks with my opponent with 4 Gardens already.
I think he got really lucky getting double Gardens on turns 4 and 5.

After that I tried to grab some Provinces (actually I just got one) but the game was over at turn 16.
I know I did not play optimally here. My question is if I had any chances to win this match even losing Gardens split.

Any thoughts?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 08:44:16 am by diedre91 »
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2016, 10:01:37 am »
+1
With beggar gardens you do need to contest the gardens and there is an inevitable 3-pile ending on gardens, copper, beggar as well. Once you lose the gardens split you need to compete on duchies and provinces, so that's either rushing duchies directly or spending just a few turns before the next shuffle to strengthen the deck.

In your game I guess spending turns 7 to 12 strengthening is too much and you can't really even afford turns 7 to 10. Your opponent is buying duchies and emptying piles. You should probably gamble on getting beggar-silver-copper-copper-copper hands for provinces so that means adding some silver to the deck (on turns 7 and 9).
Logged

luser

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 447
  • Respect: +353
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2016, 10:46:49 am »
+1
Its just that oponent got bit lucky. Here going gardens on turn 3 was correct as game is decided by winning gardens split. Ironworks on turn 1 is bet that it allows you double gardens turn, otherwise you should buy gardens on turn 1 which is correct play on beggar mirror.

There isnt much point of going provinces once you selected beggar/gardens strategy as with extra coppers getting them would be very slow.
Logged

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +643
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2016, 12:36:45 pm »
+2
Quote from: diedre91 on April 13, 2016, 08:43:00 am
I admit I made a mistake buying a Garden on turn 3. But lets suppose I have chosen Ironworks instead.

I think you should gain Gardens with Ironworks on turn 3.
If you draw Copper you get to $4 for a 2nd Gardens.
If you draw Estate, buy Beggar. (better than Silver).
Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

diedre91

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Shuffle iT Username: Diedre
  • Respect: +69
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2016, 05:29:22 pm »
0
Thank you guys for all the advices. It seems that losing the split is really bad here.

Quote from: Rabid on April 13, 2016, 12:36:45 pm
Quote from: diedre91 on April 13, 2016, 08:43:00 am
I admit I made a mistake buying a Garden on turn 3. But lets suppose I have chosen Ironworks instead.

I think you should gain Gardens with Ironworks on turn 3.
If you draw Copper you get to $4 for a 2nd Gardens.
If you draw Estate, buy Beggar. (better than Silver).

Unfortunely, I only could gain one Gardens on turn 3 (as I did).
And I agree about going beggars with 3 or less (instead of silver). But I think it is not a big mistake.
Logged

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +643
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2016, 05:47:25 pm »
+2
Code: [Select]
diedre91 draws Copper, Copper, Ironworks, Estate, Copper
diedre91: turn 3
diedre91 plays Ironworks
diedre91 gains Silver
diedre91 plays 3 Copper
diedre91 buys Gardens
diedre91 gains Gardens
diedre91 draws Copper, Estate, Copper, Estate, Copper
If you play Ironworks to gain Gardens instead of Silver.
Then if you are lucky get draw copper from the Ironworks draw a card ability.
Then you have $4 to buy a second Gardens.
Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

diedre91

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Shuffle iT Username: Diedre
  • Respect: +69
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2016, 07:28:11 am »
0
You are totally right. I made a crass mistake that (maybe) cost me the game.
Thanks for helping!
Logged

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2016, 01:22:33 pm »
+4
Quote from: luser on April 13, 2016, 10:46:49 am
otherwise you should buy gardens on turn 1 which is correct play on beggar mirror.

Simulator results seem to suggest that opening double Beggar as opposed to opening Beggar/Gardens is actually slightly favored. That is, the following script which opens with two Beggars:

Code: [Select]
<player name="Double Beggar / Gardens"
 author="Infthitbox"
 description="Beggar Gardens opening double beggar. ">
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gardens"/>
   <buy name="Duchy"/>
   <buy name="Beggar"/>
   <buy name="Estate"/>
   <buy name="Copper"/>
</player>

beats this script, which will open Beggar/Gardens:

Code: [Select]
<player name="Beggar/Gardens"
 author="Infthitbox"
 description="Beggar/Gardens">
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Gardens"/>
   <buy name="Duchy"/>
   <buy name="Beggar"/>
   <buy name="Estate"/>
   <buy name="Copper"/>
</player>

The results are close: its 46.54% double beggar, 41.21% beggar/gardens with 12.25% ties.

EDIT:

Both Beggar/Gardens and Double Beggar/Gardens lose this game to Ironworks/Beggar into Gardens, with simulator results showing that opening on Ironworks/Beggar and moving into the "standard" Beggar/Gardens rush wins about 60% compared to either starting strategy of straight Beggar/Gardens.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 01:39:53 pm by Infthitbox »
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3680
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2016, 02:59:57 pm »
0
Isn't double Beggar a bit better than Ironworks/Beggar?
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2016, 03:57:56 pm »
0
Quote from: Seprix on April 20, 2016, 02:59:57 pm
Isn't double Beggar a bit better than Ironworks/Beggar?

Double Beggar / Gardens:
Code: [Select]
<player name="Double Beggar / Gardens"
 author="Infthitbox"
 description="Beggar Gardens opening double beggar. ">
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gardens"/>
   <buy name="Duchy"/>
   <buy name="Beggar"/>
   <buy name="Estate"/>
   <buy name="Copper"/>
</player>

Ironworks/Beggar:

Code: [Select]
<player name="IW/Beggar/Gardens"
 author="Infthitbox"
 description="Ironworks/Beggar with Gardens. ">
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Ironworks">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Ironworks"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gardens"/>
   <buy name="Duchy"/>
   <buy name="Beggar"/>
   <buy name="Estate"/>
   <buy name="Copper"/>
</player>


That results in Double Beggar only winning 35.83% of games, IW/Beggar winning 58.53%, and 5.64% ties. Being able to rip double Gardens turns really turns the match; I imagine that IW/Beggar also gets on average only 1-2 less Beggar plays throughout the game, as once the Gardens are out, it will IW a Beggar until they are gone, which allows them to play a Beggar they have in hand.
Logged

luser

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 447
  • Respect: +353
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2016, 04:17:00 am »
0
Could you use dominate instead of that unreadable xml?
Logged

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2016, 09:41:44 am »
0
Quote from: luser on April 21, 2016, 04:17:00 am
Could you use dominate instead of that unreadable xml?

Double Beggar opening:

Code: [Select]
{
    name: 'DoubleBeggar/Gardens'
    author: 'Infthitbox'
    requires: ['Beggar', 'Gardens']
    gainPriority: (state, my) -> [
        "Beggar" if my.countInDeck("Beggar") < 2
        "Gardens"
        "Duchy"
        "Beggar"
        "Estate"
        "Copper"
    ]
}
Beggar/Gardens opening:

Code: [Select]
{
    name: 'Beggar/Gardens'
    author: 'Infthitbox'
    requires: ['Beggar', 'Gardens']
    gainPriority: (state, my) -> [
        "Gardens"
        "Duchy"
        "Beggar"
        "Estate"
        "Copper"
    ]
}
Double Beggar wins, although the margins aren't as large in this sim as they were in Gero's sim.

And, for the record:

Ironworks/Beggar opening in Gardens game:

Code: [Select]
{
    name: 'Ironworks/Beggar/Gardens'
    author: 'Infthitbox'
    requires: ['Ironworks', 'Beggar', 'Gardens']
    gainPriority: (state, my) -> [
        "Ironworks" if my.countInDeck("Ironworks") < 1
        "Beggar" if my.countInDeck("Beggar") < 1
        "Gardens"
        "Duchy"
        "Beggar"
        "Estate"
        "Copper"
    ]
}

Double Beggar vs Beggar/Gardens is close, but Double Beggar comes out ahead eventually (I don't think Dominiate does draws). Ironworks/Beggar opening stomps both. 
Logged

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2016, 10:03:02 am »
0
I also just realized that Dominiate has a Beggar/Gardens strategy in it. DoubleBeggar beats that one too (the Beggar/Gardens there is more optimized than my single Beggar/Gardens).
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2016, 10:15:52 am »
+1
Since people seem interested

Code: [Select]
<player name="Beggar/Ironworks/Gardens"
 author="DG"
 description="">
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="SingleCard"/>
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
 <type name="Generated"/>
 <type name="BigMoney"/>
   <buy name="Ironworks">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Ironworks"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="isActionPhase"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInHand" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gardens"/>
   <buy name="Silver">
      <condition>
         <left type="isActionPhase"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countAvailableMoney"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Duchy"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="3.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gold">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Duchy"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="8.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInOpponentsDecks" attribute="Gardens"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Gold"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Duchy"/>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInOpponentsDecks" attribute="Gardens"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="5.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countVP"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="countMAXOpponentVP"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate"/>
   <buy name="Silver"/>
   <buy name="Copper"/>
</player>
Logged

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2016, 10:23:56 am »
+1
Quote from: DG on April 21, 2016, 10:15:52 am
Since people seem interested

Code: [Select]
<player name="Beggar/Ironworks/Gardens"
 author="DG"
 description="">
 <type name="TwoPlayer"/>
 <type name="SingleCard"/>
 <type name="Bot"/>
 <type name="UserCreated"/>
 <type name="Province"/>
 <type name="Generated"/>
 <type name="BigMoney"/>
   <buy name="Ironworks">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Ironworks"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Province"/>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="isActionPhase"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInHand" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gardens"/>
   <buy name="Silver">
      <condition>
         <left type="isActionPhase"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countAvailableMoney"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Duchy"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="3.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gold">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Duchy"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="8.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInOpponentsDecks" attribute="Gardens"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Gold"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Duchy"/>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Beggar"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInOpponentsDecks" attribute="Gardens"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="5.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Beggar">
      <condition>
         <left type="countVP"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="countMAXOpponentVP"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate"/>
   <buy name="Silver"/>
   <buy name="Copper"/>
</player>


For those of you too lazy to read xml, DG's script is an improvement on my IW/Beggar/Gardens in a few ways:

1. If it has both Ironworks and Beggar in hand, it will gain an action (Beggar) so that it can play both
2. It will pick up some treasures if the remaining victory cards make that worthwhile
3. It won't lower the Beggar pile unnecessarily if it is losing
Logged

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2016, 11:07:38 am »
+3
To the OP:

The best way to win a Beggar/Gardens game is to be the first player. All these different openings we're talking about are 3-5% swings over thousands of simulated games. Those same simulations show that no matter which opening both players choose, 1st player wins ~60% of Beggar/Gardens games. You might think this is unhelpful advice, and maybe it is, but that's the reality of this particular situation.
Logged

diedre91

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • Shuffle iT Username: Diedre
  • Respect: +69
    • View Profile
Re: Losing Gardens split is that bad?
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2016, 08:38:10 am »
0
It is nice to have some simulation data to clear things up.
I feel that in some games being the first player is really an advantage (mainly in the fast ones).
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.197 seconds with 20 queries.