Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[yuma]

So the argument against this is this:

Given there's either 3 or 4 Ts and not 2 Ms, by my calculations (and I can't guarantee they're correct, but I can walk you through what I did if you want), there is a 35.3% chance that there is either 1 or 3 Ms.

I would have thought this % to be much higher. If it is what you say then I will concede it would be much more worthwhile to look at...

I am sorry I am not good enough at stats to even think about verifying what you did was correct (I know it is all basic math, but when I attempt to do it I get totally confused and end up making a bunch of mistakes).

Also i am wondering if you removed the 2 Ms from the equation because a confirmed IC would have been known at start of day and faking-mason mafia would have been made aware of this (I don't know if this increases their percentage or not... But just wanted to make sure it was included)

[yuma]

We already know it can't be 1 M, there was a UB who flipped.

I'm talking about what a scum team with a 1-Shot Strongman and a Roleblocker would know at the start of the game.

Right but when making the decision mafia would have probably stated something along the lines of "if there is an IC immediately abort this plan" and so it shouldn't be included in probability calculations...

[yuma]

Ok. Here is my attempt....

TTTTXX 50% chance

For 1M there is a 10% chance for each individual role. I think you add those up so that there is a 20% chance there is at least 1 M being rolled.

If this was the case there would have been no UB. However, if there was there would have been an immediate counterclaim so the ship would have sunk.

For 2M: doesn't need to be calculated because there would have been an IC, so Mafia would have calculated this out separately... and mafia probably would have aborted any plan here... as Masons + IC would be MMMM (long shot)

total of 20% chance

TTTXXX 50% chance

For 1M there is a 10% chance for each individual role. I think you add those up so that there is a 30% chance there is at least 1M.

If this was the case there would have been no UB. However, if there was there would have been an immediate counterclaim so the ship would have sunk.

For 2M: doesn't need to be calculated

For 3M: 0.1%... is that right 10%*10%*10%=0.1% Ok, so that is really low percentage.

Total of 30.1%+20%/2=25.05%

So got an even lower amount than Jimmmmmm.... If right then I think we really need to look at this closer....

(Am i even doing this right?)

[yuma]

However, we need to keep in mind that this (if correct) is just looking purely at statistics of being counterclaimed.

The problem with masons is that the claim gets awfully suspicious as the masons stay alive longer and longer... (which they have) due to PoE.

If their partner gets lynched along the way (totally plausible) then there are even more nights where they aren't getting NKed.

So while the statistical number is important there are some "incalculables" that need to be accounted for as well.

[Jimmmmm]

We already know it can't be 1 M, there was a UB who flipped.

I'm talking about what a scum team with a 1-Shot Strongman and a Roleblocker would know at the start of the game.

Right but when making the decision mafia would have probably stated something along the lines of "if there is an IC immediately abort this plan" and so it shouldn't be included in probability calculations...

Yeah I was assuming they knew no IC, but obviously they could have easily planned for it.

[ashersky]

I'm crazy busy today, so I won't be around much, but will try to keep up.

I don't know if I'm supposed to be flattered you'd think I'd lie about masons, but I'm not.  If you believe I'd do it, you are insulting me pretty badly.  You seem to forget who invented the setup we are playing.

But let me break down what you aren't considering, and what I know because I designed.

If scum fakeclaim a role that requires more letters in a setup than actually exist, their chances of being caught increase more than you are accounting for.

Take your specific example, that the masons are lying.

This game is DMMMBT.  That's a Doctor, 2 Masons, Roleblocker, UB vs. Strongman, Godfather, Goon or Strongman, Godfather, 1-Shot BP.

Now, take out the masons.  We don't add letters, specifically, because there are no other PRs.  We have:

DBTTTT or EEEBTT.  That gives you a scumteam of 1-Shot Strongman, Godfather for the first one and Strongman, Godfather in the second.  You need to use that information to decide if a scumteam is willing to fakeclaim masons.

DBTTTT -- scum knows it is 3T or 4T, but do not know if masons, UB, IC exist.  Remember that scum can only add MMM to a setup, because they can't account for the UB existing or not and it will flip or claim eventually.  So, if they are adding MMM, they are changing the # of Ts, which means if the wrong scum flips the entire team is caught. 

EEEBTT -- scum knows it is 1T or 2T, but do not know if masons, UB, IC exist.  To decide to try to add MMM to a setup that doesn't have enough free letters is stoopid dumb.  They don't know it's EEE, but they can't just assume it.  Anyone single other PR claimed and the setup was screwed up.


That's the way you should be breaking this down.  Not your hypotheticals so far.  Take what we know, apply it to the situation.  I don't know why anyone is wasting their time doing this -- we need to find the two town in 5 players and lynch correctly 3 times in a row.

[ashersky]

I have a few more posts to write -- one about my top scum read, one about players today.

We're still looking for the top town player among the VTs from each player.

[yuma]

I don't know if I'm supposed to be flattered you'd think I'd lie about masons, but I'm not.  If you believe I'd do it, you are insulting me pretty badly.  You seem to forget who invented the setup we are playing.

Don't be insulted... at least not yet. I mean, let us do our due diligence. If it turns out to be as ridiculously risky as you are saying it is we won't consider it. I mean I thought it was to start, but Jimmmmm's numbers made me wonder. And if it turns out to be ridiculously risky and we still suspect you... then sure be offended. But we--I and if you are a mason then the one other VT--need to make sure before we proceed with anything else. So don't be insulted by us making sure...

[Jimmmmm]

I don't know if I'm supposed to be flattered you'd think I'd lie about masons, but I'm not.  If you believe I'd do it, you are insulting me pretty badly.  You seem to forget who invented the setup we are playing.

Don't be insulted... at least not yet. I mean, let us do our due diligence. If it turns out to be as ridiculously risky as you are saying it is we won't consider it. I mean I thought it was to start, but Jimmmmm's numbers made me wonder. And if it turns out to be ridiculously risky and we still suspect you... then sure be offended. But we--I and if you are a mason then the one other VT--need to make sure before we proceed with anything else. So don't be insulted by us making sure...

Hear.

[chairs]

Yeah, I get what ash is saying, but I don't think (as scum) you let two Masons live to D4, which is part of the argument in favor of considering that possibility.

[yuma]

DBTTTT -- scum knows it is 3T or 4T, but do not know if masons, UB, IC exist.  Remember that scum can only add MMM to a setup, because they can't account for the UB existing or not and it will flip or claim eventually.  So, if they are adding MMM, they are changing the # of Ts, which means if the wrong scum flips the entire team is caught. 

I want to make sure I am following what you are saying here.

So if masons fake they are changing what town would expect TTTT to T. So if a 1-shot Strongman flips then town will know that the masons must be lying? Because town would expect a Strongman flip instead?

That is a valid concern. But I don't think it means "the entire scum team is caught" necessarily. What scum would need to do is make sure that the 1-shot Strongman be one of the masons claiming, as well as the Goon.

So in this case ash/gkierg would be the 1-shot Strongman/Goon and then the other player would be the Godfather, so that if that player were lynched along the way it wouldn't implicate the the claimed masons in this manner (there are other concerns about PoE that I discussed earlier if a partner is lynched, but that is separate from this point)

and yes, ash, we know that EEEBTT would be stoooopid for scum to claim in. That is why absolutely no one has been considering it and removed it from the possibility completely in our "attempted" calculations. Plus EEE is just much more less likely than a single D.

[yuma]

two more incalculables:

1. ash came out of the gates day1 saying masons should claim. If he is thinking about fakeclaiming mason this could be a way of "testing the water." If masons claim then the plan is immediately aborted. But if a little while goes by and no masons claim... then maybe it is a good idea?

2. when gkierg claimed mason he refused to name his partner. If he had been counter claimed at this time by another set of masons ashersky would not have been implicated as it was not obvious until a little bit later in the game that ash was his mason co-claimer, in fact most players at that time could have been mason partners. It was still risky, but it wasn't as risky as fake claiming two masons.

However both of these things have perfectly valid reasons and rationale behind them if ash/gkierg are town.

[yuma]

What do you think about this Awaclus? I am assuming you are indeed thinking about these things and would like to know your thoughts

and more importantly have them documented here, on the forum, where we play this game we call mafia

[Awaclus]

Yeah, I get what ash is saying, but I don't think (as scum) you let two Masons live to D4, which is part of the argument in favor of considering that possibility.

Well, each NK has been on another PR so far, and there's an advantage to not confirming the other mason, and the advantage is precisely that then you can point out that the masons are still alive and mislynch them based on that.

I don't really want to lynch a mason today. Scum!ash might come up with the idea, but he wouldn't do the math. I could maybe see ash/gkrieg/UoS, but otherwise it just seems pretty unlikely and the town narrative for the masons seems consistent.

[yuma]

Yeah, I get what ash is saying, but I don't think (as scum) you let two Masons live to D4, which is part of the argument in favor of considering that possibility.

Well, each NK has been on another PR so far, and there's an advantage to not confirming the other mason, and the advantage is precisely that then you can point out that the masons are still alive and mislynch them based on that.

I don't really want to lynch a mason today. Scum!ash might come up with the idea, but he wouldn't do the math. I could maybe see ash/gkrieg/UoS, but otherwise it just seems pretty unlikely and the town narrative for the masons seems consistent.

I actually think I agree. But every time I think I get settled on this idea something comes up.

Such as: hydrad not being known to be a PR kill.

Ok if ash/gkierg are masons then the setup was DBMMMT. At that point mafia would know Strongman/Roleblocker but wouldn't know if they were at XXXXXT or XXXXTT. But they knew there would be at least one more X, so one more PR maybe two out of the following players: hydrad, ta, yuma, jimmmm, awaclus, chairs, UoS (taking away three from mafia) so out of 4 players. So it was either a 1/4 shot or a 2/4 shot depending on the setup. Well take away me as well, cause I had claimed VT by that point. so it would have been a 1/3 shot or a 2/3 shot depending on the setup.

Compared to a 1/1 shot to take out a mason, but that would then create an auto-IC in the surviving mason.

But more importantly, I think, they would be killing players from their potential mislynch pool where now it is 3 mafia in 5 town (if ash/gkierg) are confirmed.

Ugh. I still fee like it is a toss up.

[yuma]

I guess part of my question is this:

Do we think mafia (if ash and gkierg are masons) would have been able to get a mislynch onto hydrad easier than they could have onto the masons?

No... that doesn't work as well because at the time mafia didn't know what role hydrad had. He could have been a cop or a vig. So that kill makes sense and works.

But the question still works for TA.

Do we think mafia (if ash and gkierg are masons) would have been able to get a mislynch onto TA easier than they could have onto the masons?

Because, in my mind, if they thought they could have lynched TA today, it would have been worth creating an IC for a day because all they needed was one mislynch for the win.

For example: if ash had been killed and flipped mason then gkierg would have been an IC. But TA still would have been a mislynch candidate.

I know I was pretty against lynching TA, but I think I was about the only player around that felt that way. So I think that could have been a plausible course of action.

Unless mafia thought it would be easier to try and get us to lynch the masons (which is obviously semi-being discussed here...) because I don't think counting on mislynching one of the VTs 3/5 is enough to bank on. Especially because if we do get a correct lynch today on one of the claimed VTs mafia will once again be forced to decide whether or not to NK masons or not tonight...

[chairs]

Well, assuming today we lynch a VT, I'm eliminating Jimmm from my lynch pool.

[chairs]

And also Yuma.

[chairs]

So I guess for me that leaves UoS/Awaclus.

This is a difficult choice.

[yuma]

I am kinda coming to the conclusion that we should be lynching VT today regardless of whether we think ash/gkierg are lying or not. As if we do hit mafia, like I said, that will force mafia to make a decision about whether or not to kill masons (and I want them to make that decision instead of us so that we can then analyze it or use it for our benefit)

I think what I am trying to figure out right now is whether or not we should be taking interactions with the claimed mason pair when trying to decide which VT to lynch.... and then go from there figuring out which one to actually lynch.

[chairs]

Good point.

[gkrieg13]

busy today.  Will get to this tomorrow.

[silverspawn]

Vote Count 4.1

Not Voting (7): Awaclus, ashersky, yuma, gkrieg13, UmbrageOfSnow, chairs, Jimmmmm

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch. Day 4 ends at Oct 11, 05 PM forum time. That is in 6 days and 2+ hours.

[yuma]

Ok I'm back and I don't see any mason claims.  I'm not super keen on lynching PPS because he is one of my null reads, but I will change my vote so it's not no lynch if I have to.  I think his flip will give us a lot of good information going into D2.

This is an interesting post...

I think if gkierg is indeed a mason he wouldn't be anticipating any other mason claims (other than his partner who he would already know). So this post stating that he didn't see any other mason claims kinda looks like "I didn't see any other masons claim, so I must be the real deal right?? Right?"

Because for there to be another mason pair that would require MMMMMM (crazy long odds).

And mafia isn't going to counter claim a claimed mason. That would just be suicidal...

Is there a town narrative (awaclus' is getting to me) for this statement? Other than just kinda a weird thing to be thinking?

[yuma]

I think scum team is awaclus/ash/gkrieg.

everything fits too perfectly. Calling it now.

(Now you can be offended ash)