no way going for australia first bonus is a good strategy long term" yeah it is a very good strategy long term (mostly) it is bad short term.

I didn't mean long term as in round 15. I meant long term as in over 1,000 games. It's better to go for fast bonuses in most cases imo. If he had been unable to break scandinavia I would have won in turn 5 or 6, because I knew that he had australia when he showed up with a 10 bonus in turn 3, just by process of elimination. If you have a 5 bonus in turn 3 and the other guy knows where it is - you are basically dead.

i suck at 1v1 idk

that's just it with this template. there is a certain "form" of playing straight up that takes less skill. pick. grab 2 bonuses. then EITHER bullrush if you got intel or a hunch OR grab your third bonus and begin expanding and/or reconnoitring. there are quite a few guys with best ever rank of 10 or better with holes in their games but did the above well. zaeban was easy to outplayed. but he had the "form." usually "form" is enough to win. if not, "form" and a little luck can sometimes make up for being short in skill. i beat billy twice as an alt. he has pretty good "form."

Problem was you started 4. but tried to get india aswell which was too slow because you strated at one end of it and you didnt have the income to efficiently take 2 bonuses.

ok ok something clicked. thanks. now i understand some of the odd play i see in the early turns from top players. they are answering this question. time to go watch some more games!

i beat billy twice as an alt.

i let u win because i thought i thought you were a chinese girl. my other weakness: yellow fever.

I don't think thats playing smart I think it is avoiding risk, but if you want to pick in such a way that the game wont be short simple and brutal look to pick like zibik and sze. As in go right now and look at their ladder games, there are plenty where there is a first turn bonus and they avoid it like the plague. In this case neither of them would have made 1 and 2 scand and gland, those are the picks someone like me or dunga would use because we are not "smart" players. I win plenty of games in turn 0,1,2,3. I win few in the 5 turns after that because maiming someone in picks so effective.

What viable picks are you saying would counter his nicely? I think what you went for gave you a very fine chance and other than you going 345 ant aus indo I dont see a huge flaw in his picks.

What viable picks are you saying would counter his nicely?

I'm not really looking for a way to counter his picks, I'm looking for a way to play the picks I chose differently so I can defend against somebody who picked like he did - as well as somebody who picked normal.

I don't think thats playing smart I think it is avoiding risk

Avoiding risk = smart. Taking on a bunch of risk in the hopes of winning quickly but having little chance to win if the game lasts longer than 5 turns = stupid.

Billy, why are you so stupid? It was fun around 500 posts ago, now it's only annoying... Avoiding risk = avoiding risk, calculating and managing risk = skill, that's why best poker players do not play super tight. Also cluster picking concentrates a risk aruond a certain area, so you contradict yourself... One more thing:

I'm not really looking for a way to counter his picks

If that was the right way to go, you should always pick in a way that'd allow fastest long-term expansion and would let you conquer the board fastest. Calculating how opponents' picks come into play with your picks is a vital part of the game...

avoiding risk = skill

you can't compare it to poker. in poker the top players know how to play loose and tight and they alternate between the two depending on the situation. because poker is about playing your opponent much more than it is about playing the cards in your hand. and the way you form an opponent dependent strategy is having a lot of history playing against them. in warlight there is much less history, at least for me, at this stage. maybe after i've been on the ladder awhile i will have played 50 games each against the top players. then it becomes much more like poker - and there is a lot of meta-game and misinformation and adjustments you are making, based upon past history. right now there is no history between me and my opponents and i have no way of knowing how they are likely to play and vice versa. in that scenario, i think avoiding risk is the best strategy, assuming i'm better than they are. if i know that they are better than me, then making risky picks in hopes of winning fast is probably the way to go for that one game.

essentially making 'aggressive' picks is an admission that you are unable to beat people by playing a low risk game and must resort to high risk tactics to have a chance. if you are sufficiently skilled at playing a long game, there is no need to take such risks.

Avoiding early risky play is a great way to rack up win streaks against people worse than you, but you will suffer playing it against someone as good or better. I dont understand why you are against a strategy of turn 2 australia, why wont it pay off? cant you see any virtue to it? when you say fast bonuses do you mean first turn like the one you went for that game or do you mean lots of seperate bonuses of 4 territories?

Avoiding early risky play is a great way to rack up win streaks against people worse than you, but you will suffer playing it against someone as good or better.

Agree. That's basically what I just said. If you play a risky strategy you are basically admitting your opponent is better than you are. However instead of resorting to taking risks to beat people better than me I would rather improve my game so that I am better than them, instead of resorting to cheap tricks as my only way to beat good players.

To each his own, I guess.

I dont understand why you are against a strategy of turn 2 australia, why wont it pay off?

For the same reason you told me triple picking is bad. It's easily broken and once broken you are basically dead.

I don't think you understand what are "aggressive picks"... For example a cluster pick of any kind should be considered aggressive meaning it opts for an early income edge giving up some positional stability. If it is not, you should redefine specifically which are aggressive picks and which are not... On the other hand maybe I am the crazy one trying to argue with a moron... If you know a bit about game theory and mixed strategies try viewing picking "aggressively" and "not aggressively" in that context, maybe that'll help...

szeweningen,

you seem mad. you should relax.

my 1vs1 is suck then hell blender. and why this post got 27 pages? why?

Your last post is a gem, so Im going to quote it

"the top players know how to play loose and tight and they alternate between the two depending on the situation" "playing your opponent" "there is a lot of meta-game and misinformation"


Yeah I dont know a lot about poker but that sounds exactly like what I do. It was fun for a bit, its getting extremely boring.

"i think avoiding risk is the best strategy, assuming i'm better than they are."

this is exactly what i find myself being railroaded into doing, trying to get towards the top of the ladder. If thats what you like to play the ladder will be kind to you. My 'philosphy' is to play the position and not the player and I get crucified for it ='(. It seems very un-proactive to sit back and give the other guy concessions and hope he screws up. Its arrogant too (and im sure noone would accuse me of that =P) to say that youre so much better you dont even need to bother threatening the first turn bonus, showboating.

The "need to take such risks" comes when you play someone who will take the risks and hoover up all the advantages you disdain. Because that person will beat you 51%+ of games you 2 play, which I guess is what its all about?

see that is what legitimate broken english looks like

juggernaut, not u piggy :D

indeed billy walsh, my english is really bad, i don't use it.