51
Help! / Re: How do you play this set of cards?
« on: July 15, 2012, 04:27:22 pm »
I don't think discarding your whole hand on turn 13 is the right move. I would probably gain a couple curses and then discard them
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
52
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Scheme - math
« on: July 15, 2012, 03:54:45 pm »
Another interesting corollary of this is that you don't always want to return the terminal to your deck with the scheme. On the last turn before the reshuffle, not only will returning the terminal not help you play it twice before this reshuffle, but it will also greatly decrease your chances of playing it twice next reshuffle. This also means that the above question has 2 answers - 1 for when you always return the terminal, and a second for when you only return the terminal if it will increase your expected number of total plays.
53
Dominion General Discussion / Scheme - math
« on: July 15, 2012, 03:36:56 pm »
Here is a quote from the scheme-article
"In Big Money type decks which only buy a few actions, Scheme can, essentially, act like a second copy of whatever flavor of terminal action you're using. By getting to top deck your terminal for use in consecutive hands, you reduce your collision chance to zero (or closer to 0 when you have blind draw). This, however, comes at a price. Whenever you draw your Scheme after your terminal, you only get to play the terminal once that reshuffle. Had the scheme been an actual second copy of the action, you'd have gotten two plays. Over the course of a game, the double terminal deck gets more plays of the terminal action than the scheme/terminal deck. So typically, you favor a second terminal over a scheme."
So basically, the effect of buying a scheme is that you can play your terminal more often. My question is, can we quantify this a bit more?
The simplest cases (which don't actually occur in real life) are when your total number of real cards in deck (i.e. excluding virtual cards such as schemes) is a multiple of 5 and your deck size doesn't change.
For example, If you have 15 cards in deck, 1 terminal and no schemes, you will play your terminal once before the reshuffle.
No, suppose you have 16 cards, 1 terminal and one scheme. You will have 3 hands till the reshuffle. If you draw the terminal in the first hand, you will play twice if and only if you also draw the scheme in the first hand, if you draw it in the second hand you will play it twice if and only if you draw the scheme in the first or second hands, if you draw it in the third hand you will play it only once. So you have a (aproximatly) (1/3)*(1/3)+(1/3)*(2/3) = 3/9 chance of playing the terminal twice. Thus the expected number of times you will play the terminal before the reshuffle is equal to 14/9.
The next case would be where you have 21 cards, 1 terminal and 1 scheme. If you...
1. Draw the terminal in the first hand, you will play it twice if and only if you also draw the scheme in the first hand (pr=1/4)
2. Draw it in the second hand, you will play it twice if and only if you draw the scheme in hands 1 or 2 (pr=1/2)
3. Draw it in the third hand, you will play it twice if and only if you draw the scheme in hands 1, 2 or 3 (pr= 3/4)
4. Draw it in the forth hand you will play it only once.
So the chances of playing it twice now equal (1/4)*(1/4)+(1/4)*(1/2)+(1/4)*(3/4)= 6/16. Thus the expected number of times you will play the terminal before the reshuffle is equal to 22/16.
Of course an actual game is much more complicated, and this leads to my question (which I suspect will only be answered with a simulator):
Let n and m be any 2 natural numbers, n>m-1. Consider a game of dominion where on turn 1 you buy a terminal action, and on turns 2 through m you buy scheme (if m=1 you don't buy any schemes). On all other turns you buy copper. What is the expected number of times will you have played the terminal action by turn n?
"In Big Money type decks which only buy a few actions, Scheme can, essentially, act like a second copy of whatever flavor of terminal action you're using. By getting to top deck your terminal for use in consecutive hands, you reduce your collision chance to zero (or closer to 0 when you have blind draw). This, however, comes at a price. Whenever you draw your Scheme after your terminal, you only get to play the terminal once that reshuffle. Had the scheme been an actual second copy of the action, you'd have gotten two plays. Over the course of a game, the double terminal deck gets more plays of the terminal action than the scheme/terminal deck. So typically, you favor a second terminal over a scheme."
So basically, the effect of buying a scheme is that you can play your terminal more often. My question is, can we quantify this a bit more?
The simplest cases (which don't actually occur in real life) are when your total number of real cards in deck (i.e. excluding virtual cards such as schemes) is a multiple of 5 and your deck size doesn't change.
For example, If you have 15 cards in deck, 1 terminal and no schemes, you will play your terminal once before the reshuffle.
No, suppose you have 16 cards, 1 terminal and one scheme. You will have 3 hands till the reshuffle. If you draw the terminal in the first hand, you will play twice if and only if you also draw the scheme in the first hand, if you draw it in the second hand you will play it twice if and only if you draw the scheme in the first or second hands, if you draw it in the third hand you will play it only once. So you have a (aproximatly) (1/3)*(1/3)+(1/3)*(2/3) = 3/9 chance of playing the terminal twice. Thus the expected number of times you will play the terminal before the reshuffle is equal to 14/9.
The next case would be where you have 21 cards, 1 terminal and 1 scheme. If you...
1. Draw the terminal in the first hand, you will play it twice if and only if you also draw the scheme in the first hand (pr=1/4)
2. Draw it in the second hand, you will play it twice if and only if you draw the scheme in hands 1 or 2 (pr=1/2)
3. Draw it in the third hand, you will play it twice if and only if you draw the scheme in hands 1, 2 or 3 (pr= 3/4)
4. Draw it in the forth hand you will play it only once.
So the chances of playing it twice now equal (1/4)*(1/4)+(1/4)*(1/2)+(1/4)*(3/4)= 6/16. Thus the expected number of times you will play the terminal before the reshuffle is equal to 22/16.
Of course an actual game is much more complicated, and this leads to my question (which I suspect will only be answered with a simulator):
Let n and m be any 2 natural numbers, n>m-1. Consider a game of dominion where on turn 1 you buy a terminal action, and on turns 2 through m you buy scheme (if m=1 you don't buy any schemes). On all other turns you buy copper. What is the expected number of times will you have played the terminal action by turn n?
54
Help! / Re: Scrying pool, nobles
« on: July 13, 2012, 12:47:11 am »
I didn't have copper, he militiaed me
55
Help! / Scrying pool, nobles
« on: July 12, 2012, 06:10:05 pm »
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/12/game-20120712-150845-aa1e4e0c.html
Scrying poo game with good trashing in masq, where did I mess up?
Scrying poo game with good trashing in masq, where did I mess up?
56
Help! / grand market, merchant ship
« on: July 09, 2012, 02:04:55 pm »
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/08/game-20120708-113728-d1461e85.html
how did I misplay this game?
how did I misplay this game?
57
Help! / sea hag games are boring
« on: July 04, 2012, 11:14:46 pm »
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/04/game-20120704-200115-55c74cd2.html
Boring sea hag game where both our decks are really clogged up. Most of the game was spent buying hamlets and courtyards since I couldn't afford anything more than 2. I was really unlucky to draw my gold at the very end of the reshuffle, but other than that what should I have done differently. Also, should you ever buy copper in these situations? Long term your deck will probably be able to produce more than 5 per turn, but in the short term copper increases your money density.
Boring sea hag game where both our decks are really clogged up. Most of the game was spent buying hamlets and courtyards since I couldn't afford anything more than 2. I was really unlucky to draw my gold at the very end of the reshuffle, but other than that what should I have done differently. Also, should you ever buy copper in these situations? Long term your deck will probably be able to produce more than 5 per turn, but in the short term copper increases your money density.
58
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 08:55:10 pm »Also, I don't understand what you mean by "by definition". Words are the only things with definitions. What word's definition implies that your interpretation of the phrase non-DQ able is correct?After thinking about this a little more it appears to me that the reason Personman interpreted Theory's "you will not be disqualified" as "its legal" is because he Personman could not understand why he would not be disqualified if it was, in fact, illegal.
Personman, is this correct?
If so, than I would like to offer you another explanation as to why Theory would not disqualify you for the point counter which holds even if its illegal. When you said "and I know what I'd do in this situation: take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically." he interpreted you to mean "I, Personman, will take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically even if doing so is against the rules" He held, in acordance with Donald's rulling, that doing so is against the rules. Since he would rather you cheat without gaining an advantage (by making the point counter publicly available) than cheat with gaining an advantage (by taking meticulous notes by your self) he told you that either way you will not be disqualified.
Now even if you did not think of that explanation as to why Theory said what he said at the time, do you know see that it is probably what he meant and that what you did is in fact wrong? (note that the line "this is the ruling" immediately precedes the phrase "don't use the point counter")
This is kind of right, but it dances around the point. It's not that theory would rather I cheat one way than another, it's that theory chose to change the rules to make a certain action not cheating. Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.
59
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 08:50:46 pm »After thinking about this a little more it appears to me that the reason Personman interpreted Theory's "you will not be disqualified" as "its legal" is because he Personman could not understand why he would not be disqualified if it was, in fact, illegal.
Personman, is this correct?
If so, than I would like to offer you another explanation as to why Theory would not disqualify you for the point counter which holds even if its illegal. When you said "and I know what I'd do in this situation: take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically." he interpreted you to mean "I, Personman, will take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically even if doing so is against the rules" He held, in acordance with Donald's rulling, that doing so is against the rules. Since he would rather you cheat without gaining an advantage (by making the point counter publicly available) than cheat with gaining an advantage (by taking meticulous notes by your self) he told you that either way you will not be disqualified.
Now even if you did not think of that explanation as to why Theory said what he said at the time, do you know see that it is probably what he meant and that what you did is in fact wrong? (note that the line "this is the ruling" immediately precedes the phrase "don't use the point counter")
This is kind of right, but it dances around the point. It's not that theory would rather I cheat one way than another, it's that theory chose to change the rules to make a certain action not cheating. Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.
What's kind of right? My understanding of why you understood Theory the way you did or my understanding of what Theory actually meant?
60
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 07:54:02 pm »Because he held that even after Theory's ruling the spreadsheet was illegal and so didn't want to play with it available since he didn't want to cheat himself (I think)
One thing I'm still a little confused about is why WW decided to ultimately withdraw, after theory's final ruling.
61
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 07:50:32 pm »
After thinking about this a little more it appears to me that the reason Personman interpreted Theory's "you will not be disqualified" as "its legal" is because he Personman could not understand why he would not be disqualified if it was, in fact, illegal.
Personman, is this correct?
If so, than I would like to offer you another explanation as to why Theory would not disqualify you for the point counter which holds even if its illegal. When you said "and I know what I'd do in this situation: take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically." he interpreted you to mean "I, Personman, will take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically even if doing so is against the rules" He held, in acordance with Donald's rulling, that doing so is against the rules. Since he would rather you cheat without gaining an advantage (by making the point counter publicly available) than cheat with gaining an advantage (by taking meticulous notes by your self) he told you that either way you will not be disqualified.
Now even if you did not think of that explanation as to why Theory said what he said at the time, do you know see that it is probably what he meant and that what you did is in fact wrong? (note that the line "this is the ruling" immediately precedes the phrase "don't use the point counter")
Personman, is this correct?
If so, than I would like to offer you another explanation as to why Theory would not disqualify you for the point counter which holds even if its illegal. When you said "and I know what I'd do in this situation: take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically." he interpreted you to mean "I, Personman, will take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically even if doing so is against the rules" He held, in acordance with Donald's rulling, that doing so is against the rules. Since he would rather you cheat without gaining an advantage (by making the point counter publicly available) than cheat with gaining an advantage (by taking meticulous notes by your self) he told you that either way you will not be disqualified.
Now even if you did not think of that explanation as to why Theory said what he said at the time, do you know see that it is probably what he meant and that what you did is in fact wrong? (note that the line "this is the ruling" immediately precedes the phrase "don't use the point counter")
62
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 06:27:31 pm »Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?
I can't wait to see what Donald says, but here are my thoughts:
On isotropic, yes, you are allowed to talk to yourself. I was talking about the game (and sometimes the score) into my microphone the whole time, and I had announced my intention to do commentary on the games as they happened before, and no one took any issue.
In an in-person tournament, I think most people would interpret talking about the score as helping your opponents, and thus would not say anything. However, there is potential for abuse via lying about the score out loud. In Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play). Dominion could come up with similar rules, or it could just allow talking and lying in general. Trying to enforce silence seems like a pretty bad idea, since decisions need to be made for cards, and point totals could be indicated with hand gestures, etc. You could try to have a judge determine whether any player was doing something suspiciously like trying to communicate point totals, but that outlaws what I think is a pretty common thing: on the last turn, when you don't mind giving away information anymore, talking through your memory of the game to try to reconstruct who bought what and make sure you are safe to end it. I've done that in an actual paper Dominion tournament before (a private one) and everyone thought it was normal.
Helping your opponents, in anything but a 2 player game, does not have to be allowed.
63
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 06:13:14 pm »
Personman, to answer your question if note taking is illegal that definitely includes the chat box and your own blood - it is still notes! So I don't think its undefinable. (Well in a philosophical rigorous sense, it is but then again what isn't) Still waiting on the ruling from Donald about verbal point tracking though.
64
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 06:06:19 pm »
Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?
65
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 06:02:56 pm »
Why would you refuse to play with someone just because they have nonstandard beliefs about language?
66
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 04:48:13 pm »
Also, a rules question: often when playing on iso i count points or cards not on paper but verbally. Is this allowed? It is not explicitly permitted and is more than just using your mind. Though if this is illegal than ww has cheated since in all his videos he is talking about the game which I assume will sometimes help him remember stuff. Also this means that you rarely have a game of rl dominion without cheating since people are constantly talking about the game while playing it
67
Dominion World Masters / Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 04, 2012, 04:36:56 pm »
Consider the following scenario:
There is a monopoly tournament. A participant asks the organizer "can I steal money from the bank assuming that don't get caught"
The organizer says "you may not do so, but if you do so I will not disqualify you" (he won't, of course, since he wouldn't have caught him.)
I think in this case I think everyone will agree that stealing is still against the rules. Since it's very hard to imagine that the organizer can change the facts by saying a virtual tautology ('I will not disqualify those whom I don't catch').
Now what I don't understand is why is this case any different from the one we are discussing?
The obvious answer is that once the phrase "I Will not disqualify you for x" is no longer a tautology it has the extra implied meaning of "it is legal to do x"
But I guess my point is that obviously people can be disqualified without cheating (because they are not US residents, in this case) and they can cheat without being disqualified (if they don't get caught) so why would we think that when someone says the words "you will not be disqualified for x" he means anything other than what he said that you will not be disqualified for x? not because x is legal but because
a) the organizer is to lazy to disqualify you
b) the organizer just doesn't like disqualifying people
c) the organizer will assume you only did x by mistake
d) the organizer believes that the world will end tomorrow so he wont get around to disqualifying you.
And even if you think that the phrase "I will not disqualify you for x" does sometimes have certain implications other than what it literally means, if those implications are explicitly contradicted the one who uttered the phrase (as they were in this case) than clearly the phrase should not take on its implied meaning
There is a monopoly tournament. A participant asks the organizer "can I steal money from the bank assuming that don't get caught"
The organizer says "you may not do so, but if you do so I will not disqualify you" (he won't, of course, since he wouldn't have caught him.)
I think in this case I think everyone will agree that stealing is still against the rules. Since it's very hard to imagine that the organizer can change the facts by saying a virtual tautology ('I will not disqualify those whom I don't catch').
Now what I don't understand is why is this case any different from the one we are discussing?
The obvious answer is that once the phrase "I Will not disqualify you for x" is no longer a tautology it has the extra implied meaning of "it is legal to do x"
But I guess my point is that obviously people can be disqualified without cheating (because they are not US residents, in this case) and they can cheat without being disqualified (if they don't get caught) so why would we think that when someone says the words "you will not be disqualified for x" he means anything other than what he said that you will not be disqualified for x? not because x is legal but because
a) the organizer is to lazy to disqualify you
b) the organizer just doesn't like disqualifying people
c) the organizer will assume you only did x by mistake
d) the organizer believes that the world will end tomorrow so he wont get around to disqualifying you.
And even if you think that the phrase "I will not disqualify you for x" does sometimes have certain implications other than what it literally means, if those implications are explicitly contradicted the one who uttered the phrase (as they were in this case) than clearly the phrase should not take on its implied meaning
68
Help! / wharf engine with curser
« on: July 03, 2012, 09:41:49 pm »
Games where you have to transition from cursing to engine are really interesting.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/03/game-20120703-183030-84473f90.html
They lead to interesting decisions. Like in this game I open silver/silver even though normally smithy would be better for the engine, since I don't want to draw mountebank with the smithy.
One thing witch I think was definitely a mistake on my part was buying a late duchy instead of a province, was thinking bout dukes...
What other mistakes do you think I made here? Also how do you approach these types of games in general?
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/03/game-20120703-183030-84473f90.html
They lead to interesting decisions. Like in this game I open silver/silver even though normally smithy would be better for the engine, since I don't want to draw mountebank with the smithy.
One thing witch I think was definitely a mistake on my part was buying a late duchy instead of a province, was thinking bout dukes...
What other mistakes do you think I made here? Also how do you approach these types of games in general?
69
GokoDom / Re: A Brief Note on Point Counters
« on: July 03, 2012, 06:02:33 am »
well, people could just open new accounts under aliases
70
GokoDom / Re: A Brief Note on Point Counters
« on: July 03, 2012, 03:32:56 am »
Some people do want to participate in your tournaments and are thus unlikely to argue for point counters now that they will be banned. Thus what you have effectively done is to censor comments arguing for point counters. I am no psychologist, but this may backfire...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00678.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00678.x/abstract
71
Help! / Wharves and young witches
« on: July 01, 2012, 06:32:11 pm »
game with wharf, and young witch, oasis was the bane. I started 5 - 2 and bought young witch on turn 3 but only managed to hit once. (There was moat as well) Other than that, I was doing bm wharf as I didn't see much engine potential. Where did I go wrong?
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/01/game-20120701-123303-cb5d0c1d.html
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/01/game-20120701-123303-cb5d0c1d.html
72
Help! / Great Hall, Island, Silk Road, Trade Route, O my!
« on: June 29, 2012, 12:45:43 am »
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201206/28/game-20120628-213900-91701f1c.html
I went more for straight Island - silk roads, my opponent bought some provinces too
what pointers do you have on how I could have played better?
I went more for straight Island - silk roads, my opponent bought some provinces too
what pointers do you have on how I could have played better?
73
Help! / Militia, Watchtower
« on: June 26, 2012, 06:02:20 pm »
Interesting game where I didn't buy militia due to the presence of watchtower. Was this the wrong move? What other mistakes did I make here?
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201206/25/game-20120625-183712-3789bf0f.html
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201206/25/game-20120625-183712-3789bf0f.html
74
Help! / Tactician/Vault
« on: June 24, 2012, 07:40:52 pm »
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201206/24/game-20120624-160750-61887488.html
This was a mirror match were I lost by 1 since I had to buy an embargoed tactician.
What thoughts have you on how I could have played better?
This was a mirror match were I lost by 1 since I had to buy an embargoed tactician.
What thoughts have you on how I could have played better?
75
GokoDom / Re: IsoDom 5: Round 2 Results Thread
« on: June 22, 2012, 02:19:16 pm »
Interesting idea shark bait! you would need a 7 card had but with apothecaries and cache, I don't think that would be too hard.