|
|
Post by 10k on Aug 15, 2013 19:58:51 GMT
Freih and I decided to keep our discussion public for your entertainment.
(Messages are between 10k and Freih unless noted; all times GMT)
(Setup phase ends)
The end of the first target phase was Aug 15th, 6:32PM
Sorry Freih, but I had to wear socks at the last minute. For the same reason we're not starting out at 75, I'm not sure I should entirely trust you to the point I blindly agree to one of two specific numbers.
In fact, I sort of suspect you might have 15 as your target for a similar reason you might suspect me to have 75. I imagine it something like this:
-If 10k picks 85, then I accuse him of trying to cheat pre-game and call for a mulligan.
-If 10k picks 15, well, that's my target. I take the win and scram. Even if his target isn't 75, why give him the rest of the shots (85, 75) I proposed?
Zero risk for me? Yes plz.
Based on how our prior correspondence went, I can't think of any other good explanations for what you're doing. Thus I think it'll be best if we just redo the setup phase. On that note...
I feel winning 6 times will take forever since we can just quit during the target phase if we feel like things won't go our way (I mean, there's a reason why we have blinds/antes in poker, right?). The game as written only seems to work if we share equal risk tolerance, meaning I don't really feel like haggling over a month to agree on the next shot. Therefore, I want to propose a rule, effective next set-up phase.
During setup phase, both players also submit a dummy shot. These two shots get averaged into the first "real" shot (".5" included, but target still must be whole number). Players have the next target phase to confirm/reject. If both confirm, it's treated as a normal shot and gameplay continues. If only one confirms, he takes $5 from the other. And if at least one person rejects, we also redo the setup phase (and both numbers are kept hidden).
Also, based on the rules, either us should be able to go into the main thread, post "Pass" and nothing else, and we conclude the targeting phases then and there (which of course means we reveal our targets and update the score).
|
|
Freih
Observer 
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Aug 15, 2013 21:51:30 GMT
Not only was I not forcing 15, but I wasn't forcing one of the two either. If you wanted, you could have suggested yet another number, and would have either agreed, or suggested something in the middle. And I am still willing to do so. Of course, if you prefer, we can end the round now.
As for the change you propose, I cannot agree with it. The poing of the game is to negotiate the shots, and we shouldn't add a rule which allows to profit by circumventing the negotiation. But I have some other proposals instead:
1. Instead of four targetting phases per round, we could make it last until one of the players decided to end it (your last proposal, but removing the upper limit on the length as well). I think it makes more sense that way.
2. We could fire multishots. Each player sends in several shots. The orser doesn't matter, but if the number of shots or some of the shots differ, none are processed. Else, all are processed.
To prevent firing pairs of multishots, exchanging a win, once a multishot has been processed in the same round, no more multishpts are allowed.
3. Instead of 2, we could allow general contracts that would last until the end of the round, but I feel this could prove dangerously empowering.
PS. I will be flying tomorrow. I think there will be internet at the airports, but if there isn't, I won't be able to login.
|
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Aug 16, 2013 1:23:02 GMT
I'm going to try convincing you again after this round...if we continue it, that is. It'll probably help to have an example, I guess.
For example's sake, I'm willing to do your original 15-85-75...even IF your target is 15. Or if you want to speed it up, I'm willing to multishot 15-85-75 and end this round's target phases. And of course, the numbers are always open to renegotiation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Liar Game on Aug 16, 2013 3:51:24 GMT
If you'll allow me, I have another suggestion to offer. Keep the single shots (or do multi, if you want), but get rid of the "4 Targeting Phases per Round" rule. Instead, players send in shots until they match. The player whose target is closer to the matching shot wins that round. We then go to a new Round and Setup Phase, and the previous targets were revealed. For speedup purposes (and more fakeouts  ), we can do something like what Freih and I did in Russian Roulette and send in multiple shots at once (but not the multi-shot that Freih's suggesting). Basically, each person sends in "Shot 1 = A, Shot 2 = B, Shot 3 = C, etc." for however many shots you decide. They're matched up in order, and the first one that matches gets used as the shot. Or just keep the "one shot per Targeting Phase" rule. This would mean there's only $5 won per set of Targets, and you get to see how well you can fake out and convince the other. Still, this is your game, and I'll go with whatever you decide on (including stopping it, if you don't think you'll ever come to an agreement). I just wanted to offer my two cents and see what you thought. Carry on. ...though, I will say that contracts pretty much get rid of the point of this entire game. So don't do those. That's what talking's for.  |
|
Freih
Observer
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Aug 18, 2013 0:54:29 GMT
Sorry for the inactivity recently.
10k, there is no way to convinve me of averaging shots, because this would result in a fundamentally different game. I still don't see why it would not work the way it is now - but if it indeed doesn't, we either need to alter the rules in such a way which doesn't allow players to circumvent the negotiation part, or we need a third player.
As for shooting 15-85-75, I would have agreed if there was anadditional fourth round after that but now that we only have three shots left, I can't do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Aug 18, 2013 6:24:33 GMT
And why do you need a fourth round? First time I'm hearing it.
Edit: 10k, there is no way to convinve me of averaging shots, because this would result in a fundamentally different game. I still don't see why it would not work the way it is now - but if it indeed doesn't, we either need to alter the rules in such a way which doesn't allow players to circumvent the negotiation part, or we need a third player. I should clarify that I only want to change things for a strict 1v1 2p game. Dynamics of 2p differ from 3p, therefore, it is reasonable to make modifications. |
|
Freih
Observer
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Aug 18, 2013 11:42:51 GMT
Why so I need a fourth round? I can't talk about that without revealing my target, but... 15-85-75 is in your favor (I'm even more convinced in that now after you blew the 15). I needed a fourth shot to make it balanced (I mean, in my favor). If you hadn't agreed, I wouls have called off the 75 as well. If you had, but then walked away - well, I would have made it clear I would find that a serious betrayal that could affect further negotiations and taken my chances (I couldn't have done that if you backed out after a first shot 75, as we never actually agreed to have any other shots). Now that there is no fourth shot, I don't mind calling off the 75 and doing 15-85. But I guess you'd prefer it 85-15? Well, it most probably means swapping a win, but we're not in a hurry and seeing whether you'll break the agreement would be helpful for the future.
OK, I may be convinced. But I have questions:
Is there any case when it's better to decline the averaged shot that to accept it? I don't see such.
How do you prevent the scenario where one player (or both) always chooses targets 50 or 51, which have a large advantage for the averaged shot, and then declines any negotiations and ends the round right away?
|
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Aug 19, 2013 9:14:34 GMT
In consideration of your comment, I am considering the following amendment to the proposal:
-Permit betting, where both players must send in a "$" with their shot (to a certain limit), and if the shots match (including Accept in first target phase), the higher "$" becomes the bet.
Now, because 50/51 are all-powerful in the game of averaged shots, it's reasonable to assume that players are going to pick one of the sides during the set-up phase, and if you aren't forced to redo it, then you would expect the other guy to do something similar (so pick 50, expect the other guy to have 51, vice-versa). But of course, having an expectation like that means we can play mindgames. The game becomes a contest to pick up on your opponent's tendencies and throw them off your own. Sort of like poker, I guess.
Like in any other version, negotiations really only takes place when the two numbers are close. So if your target is 51 and I offer 52-53, you have to figure out if it's a trap or not. If he's such a nit the only thing he ever offers is his target at this stage, oh well, but at least he can't be a nit for the entire game under the ruleset of averages. If both players share non-nit tendencies, then negotiation is possible and the game could well be decided in one shot. Under the betting amendment, it's best for driving up to stake, and could well decide the game then and there.
I already said I was willing to do 15-85-75 one at a time, in that order, regardless of what I think your target is, for the sake of making an example. So, we can still do 15-85 or 85-15.
|
|
Freih
Observer
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Aug 19, 2013 13:36:31 GMT
That becomes the bet for the entire round, or only for the averaged shot?
In general, I don't like games which could be decided in one shot, as luck will always be a significant factor in such case. Instead of permitting betting, I would reduce the penalty for declining.
As for the rest, I'll reply later.
|
|
Freih
Observer
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Aug 20, 2013 14:17:48 GMT
For the 85-15, I most definitely don't want it done for the sake of an example; if you want to do it, it should be because of strategy.
Anyway, I'm shooting at 85 again, if you go along I'll take it as an agreement on 15 next.
|
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Aug 21, 2013 2:22:11 GMT
A bet covers one shot. As for luck (and it's not really "luck" but a hand-reading mistake), that's why I mentioned a limit. You won't necessarily win every round, but you should win often enough that in the long run you come out ahead. Betting, stake raising is only meant to discourage blind Accepting just because you "probably" won (because shots won't always be a nice 50.5 due to 50/51 mindgames), and takes into account that if two people are going to agree on a shot, they must feel really, really good about it anyway, especially since procuring an agreement is gonna be hard in the first place. Of course, I'll fine with your suggestion of "reducing" the initial penalty (in proportion against the limit), but these proposed mechanics basically call for an overhaul, so number adjustments will be done as necessary once we agree on a set of revisions.
I'm also thinking of separating targeting phases into "shot" and "raising" sub-phases, where a shot is first confirmed, and then each player has the opportunity to raise/call/fold (exact mechanic TBD, but likely something like limit poker). Yes, I recognize I'm turning this into poker, but only because the "agreement" mechanic is similar to poker's "hole card" mechanic; just as agreements likely take place when shots are close to both targets, gamblers only start wagering serious chips when both sides have cards they like.
If I'm not agreeing for the sake of an example, then I guess I can just play normally for an example:
1. I really didn't feel like choosing 85 (I mean, I DID pick 15--at first--for a reason). I'm strongly considering just letting the last target phase drift by as well.
2. This game will stall out and die, because the only real winning strategy is to minimize the range you're willing to agree for a shot, which then escalates into a deadlock.
3. Even if I have decent confidence about my read on you this round, there's no need for me to take a risk here in this marginal situation...the real problem with this game as it is for 2p that we want to fix is that there is nothing forcing me to play if I don't think it'll go my way. It is impossible to punish the opponent for not agreeing and thus item #2 becomes a major thorn.
|
|
Freih
Observer
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Aug 21, 2013 14:17:15 GMT
So far, we are missing the strategy element in games we play here, which is always present in Liar Game, so my intention for this game was to be more strategy-heavy. But, well, I can't figure out how to get around the rule you propose in a way that would satisfy you, so I'll accept it. I won't agree about choosing bets for the averaged shot, but I like the rise/call/fold idea.
My idea was that, while one can't punish the opponent for not agreeing, the opponent can't win without agreeing, so while there's no loss, there's no real benefit in disagreeing unless you screwed up the negotiation and realized your mistake afterwards but before the end of the phase.
OK, so, initial variant of the rule changes:
1) Each round last until one pf the players decides to end it, instead of for a fixed four phases).
2) In the setup phase, each player sends a dummy shot, which are averaged into a first shot.
3) Each player can decline said shot for $3 paid to the opponent; if not, it is processed normally. No need to force-restart setup phase, as each player can end the round anyway due to rule 1.
4) In each targeting phase, if the shots, if the shots match, each player places an initial $3 bet on the shot. Then, exactly as in poker, they can rise the bet by any amount between $1 and $3, call, check, or fold. I'm putting an upper limit, because without it, it would become exactly poker - we can just play poker instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Liar Game on Aug 22, 2013 0:07:44 GMT
*cough* suggestion*cough* Say, we could do something like this? 1) Each round, players send in a number. This is their target. 2) During the next phase (which lasts an indeterminate amount of time), the players debate on which number should be chosen. When they both agree on a number, that number is the shot. The round doesn't end until a shot has been determined. 3) The shot and targets are revealed, and the player whose target is closer to the shot wins the round. 4) Rinse and repeat (1-3) until a winner is determined. There's exactly one shot per pair of targets, meaning players HAVE to come to a decision. You get into the idea of bluffs and double bluffs, since players can be adamant about one number which isn't close and then accept a different number that the opponent chooses. Or fake the opponent out into thinking they're doing it when they're not. Or do whatever. But since there's only one number per set of targets, there's no "we'll go on my number then yours next," which could be a pro or con. Also, since a number has to be agreed upon in order to pick a new target, there's no reason to get into a forever-stalemate. Well, unless you want to basically make the game go on forever, which you guys seem to be doing. What I'm seeing is both sides going "This is what I want, and that's final. Agree with me or not, I won't pick anything else." There's no negotiation going on. At all. You're planting your feet and staying still. No compromising, no alternatives, no nothing. So if we want to dissuade that, we could, say, impose a "3 strikes, you're out" rule, where basically each negotiation phase has a X day time limit, and if you meet it, that's one strike. After 3 strikes, both players lose, and the LGT wins. Decisions can be sent in publicly or privately. I actually think public negotiations would be nice: Someone starts off going, "I want number A." Then the other says, "That doesn't work, how about B?" "No, would you accept something in between, like C?" "Not quite, how about a little higher. D?" "I had wished you'd gone the other way. What'd you say about E?" "No, I still like D." "Well, then. Closer to C? How about F?" "Sure, I can accept F." "F it is." So F is chosen. Or whatever. It's an example... Also, it's currently set up as a "first to X more wins than the opponent." Alternatively, it can be "first to X wins" (best X out of 2X-1). And X can change from the 6 that we have now. Just some thoughts.
As to why I'm bringing up my own changes, it's because I'm not sure I like the suggestions that were given. They still kinda have problems (not that mine doesn't...) For example: 1) 10k's averaging - Averages are a whole different beast than linear. They make some numbers immediately more advantageous than others. That doesn't seem like this type of game. I mean, there are definitely strategies, but they're more in what you choose for the averaging than what you choose as the numbers. ...and players still have to agree on a number. 2) 10k's/Freih's betting - Betting just adds more stalemate. You guys are not coming to an agreement because neither of you wants to lose. If you start betting, unless BOTH of you are pretty confident in the numbers, the one who's not confident will call early. Basically, you have "Raise Max" vs. "Call" and get nowhere. It changes nothing... OR, if you're both confident, it just makes that one round the determining round. Seriously, I don't think that fixes anything... 3) Freih's "end rounds when a player chooses" - ...seriously? If you guys can't come to a decision now, the same thing will happen. One person pushes for a number, the other person wimps out and delays until a re-target. In this situation, they just don't have to wait. They end the round right then and there and re-target. Alternatively, you have one player win a round, and they end it there. Or they think the other person thinks they won as well and just go for the same number over and over. That determines the game. I'm pretty sure you guys can see where I'm getting this from...
Alright, I've had my rules fix rant. Go on and talk it out. Do you think any of these fixes would make you guys more likely to come to a consensus? Do you think you're too hesitant about losing that you're willing to get into a stalemate (the current situation) and should just quit the game now? I'm fine with whatever, but it's your game. I just don't see much of a reason to continue if all rounds will work out like this one... |
|
Freih
Observer
Posts: 347
|
Post by Freih on Aug 22, 2013 4:30:53 GMT
*cough* suggestion*cough* Say, we could do something like this? 1) Each round, players send in a number. This is their target. 2) During the next phase (which lasts an indeterminate amount of time), the players debate on which number should be chosen. When they both agree on a number, that number is the shot. The round doesn't end until a shot has been determined. 3) The shot and targets are revealed, and the player whose target is closer to the shot wins the round. 4) Rinse and repeat (1-3) until a winner is determined. I misunderstood you the first time... Well, unless you want to basically make the game go on forever, which you guys seem to be doing. Well, the same was what I was hoping would prevent a stalemate in the original version (and still think would, but 10k seems to disagree). But, well, the reason I finally decided to agree with 10k's rules was because forced negotiation (i.e. a rule like "If you fail to come to an agreement, you'll both lose") would result in the player less willing to compromise winning. What I'm seeing is both sides going "This is what I want, and that's final. I've been open to negotiation this whole round. It didn't happen, because 10k offered no suggestions for shots at all. Also, it's currently set up as a "first to X more wins than the opponent." Alternatively, it can be "first to X wins" (best X out of 2X-1). And X can change from the 6 that we have now. Just some thoughts. That's a good point. I'd think it would be better that way. 1) 10k's averaging - Averages are a whole different beast than linear. They make some numbers immediately more advantageous than others. That doesn't seem like this type of game. I mean, there are definitely strategies, but they're more in what you choose for the averaging than what you choose as the numbers. ...and players still have to agree on a number. I know. I was considering replacing the average with a random, but...random is random. 2) 10k's/Freih's betting - Betting just adds more stalemate. You guys are not coming to an agreement because neither of you wants to lose. If you start betting, unless BOTH of you are pretty confident in the numbers, the one who's not confident will call early. Basically, you have "Raise Max" vs. "Call" and get nowhere. It changes nothing... OR, if you're both confident, it just makes that one round the determining round. Seriously, I don't think that fixes anything... 3) Freih's "end rounds when a player chooses" - ...seriously? If you guys can't come to a decision now, the same thing will happen. One person pushes for a number, the other person wimps out and delays until a re-target. In this situation, they just don't have to wait. They end the round right then and there and re-target. Alternatively, you have one player win a round, and they end it there. Or they think the other person thinks they won as well and just go for the same number over and over. That determines the game. I'm pretty sure you guys can see where I'm getting this from... Well, when a player can anyway sabotage the rest of the round by refusing negotiation, there's no harm in making a speedy way to do so. Alright, I've had my rules fix rant. Go on and talk it out. Do you think any of these fixes would make you guys more likely to come to a consensus? Do you think you're too hesitant about losing that you're willing to get into a stalemate (the current situation) and should just quit the game now? I'm fine with whatever, but it's your game. I just don't see much of a reason to continue if all rounds will work out like this one... I personally think that the reasons this round went into a stalemate are specific to this round, and wouldn't end up repeating over. If I'm wrong on that, and the same thing does end up happening over and over again, a rule change stating that "Once we publicly aree on a shot, it gets fired without us having to send it to the dealer in a PM" should be enough to fix it. 10k seems to disagree, and thinks we should have a mechanic to decide the game even in a total absence of negotiations. Anyway, Alydar, it seems you like the rules as they are - if you want, we can start a second parallel game that would be played with the original rules. |
|
|
|
Post by 10k on Aug 22, 2013 5:27:04 GMT
So the first shot is worth $5 (pay $3 to fold), then the targeting phases begins, if I read that right.
After thinking about it, for raise/call/fold I'm considering the system: Agree-->Bet I-->Bet II, so that we can carry out actions simultaneously and not dawdle.
Agree: Both sides agree to a shot
Bet I: Both sides may either check/raise...
--Both check: shot is worth $3
--Both raise: shot is worth $7
--Check+raise: proceed to Bet II
Bet II: the player who checked in Bet I can call/fold...
--Call: shot is worth $5
--Fold: pay opponent $1
This makes $7 the absolute limit of any shot.
I guess I'm fine with your "initial variant" changes, but I want to add something because knowing how a player wants to act in a given situation is valuable information.
1. If no shots are confirmed in a round OR
2. If all the non-averaged shots resulted in a fold that round...
That is, calculating shots and targets is not necessary to calculate changes in $...
...Targets are not revealed, but a player can post his own target if he so chooses and ask the Dealer to confirm the information.
Edit: I woke up mid-post, finished it and hit send; I need to go over the new replies.
|
|
), we can do something like what Freih and I did in Russian Roulette and send in multiple shots at once (but not the multi-shot that Freih's suggesting). Basically, each person sends in "Shot 1 = A, Shot 2 = B, Shot 3 = C, etc." for however many shots you decide. They're matched up in order, and the first one that matches gets used as the shot. Or just keep the "one shot per Targeting Phase" rule.