His number 2 was East US and his number 4 was South Africa. On top of that, as mentioned above he left himself almost no access to Asia. Most picking strategies can win against a guy who essentially gives up one of his picks.

omniscient you sad excuse for a human being, i have 3 suggestions:

1. don't listen to anything dead piggy says. he talks a lot but nobody knows what he is saying unless he speaks in specifics
2. watch dead piggy's ladder games. he is the greatest thing since sliced bread was put in little baggies. if he wins that frequently he must be doing something right.
3. watch every ladder game sze won, because when he wins he is the greatest player ever. don't look at the games he lost. those are computer errors (his brain is like a solar calculator: when there is no light he counts with his fingers instead).

Oh stop it you.

Omniscient, in my opinion, you probably should have picked India first, and Antarctica 4th. Consider if you do not get your 3rd pick (India), and you get your 4th (Greenland). What are you possibly going to do? Getting W China (too risky) or Greenland (too time consuming). Looking at the map setup, it's unlikely your opponent will pick W China or E China. However, India is a fast and well protected bonus (which I guess you got lucky in this game that your opponent did not pick it). Thus you stand a better chance to get your triple pick if you pick India first.

Hmm, gotten first pick in all 4 ladder games so far.

That's...unexpected.

Aaand, I've done it again. Lost a game I had no business losing. Game was completely within the palm of my hand and I blew it by making an incredibly stupid move.

I love the ego of the some of the members who posted.
Anyways

1. If there is something considered a "safe choice" and you are playing a top opponent, then he will have noticed it too. Then the question depending on the map becomes is it worth taking the spot knowing your opponent will probably know your location. As discussed before, it is sometimes good to make a safe pick your third pick and a counter to the safe spot your fourth pick.

2. I would only do so if you think you are going to get all 3 spots for sure, you don't think your opponent will have a spot nearby, and you will lock in a bonus after turn 1. And with all of that, I still probably wouldn't do it. If you've seen someone do it, they're probably lucky their oppnonent didnt have a counter spot nearby, you really have to bank on uncurbed expansion for a few turns. It can only really be done in west russia area or in africa, america and australia dont really work well with it, perhaps india china area could work.

3. Impaller used to occasionally use that strategy (and also to pick in crappy bonuses purely as a counter). Its a huge gamble, if youre playing someone much better than you you might want to use it, but its never really worth it.

4. Generally it depends how good the opponent you are playing against is to how unconventional your strategy becomes. Its kind of like poker, if you are playing an okay player, he will be pretty predictable so you can be pretty predictable yourself, since you have a good chance at guessing some of his picks and using the information (also against players you play frequently). If your opponent is good he will realize you are analyzing his likely spots and plan accordingly against your plans for his potential spots if that makes sense (i.e. he knows where you expect him to go so he might go elsewhere but might not causing him to be way more unpredictable).

Hope that helps

my personal theory is that when behind or playing against someone better than you you should definitely gamble as much as possible, try to get the upper hand, but if you're against someone you should be able to beat you should play safe, one example of this was a game i played against szew, he was playing extremely safely taking no risks and i took a risk which did not pay off at the start which put me behind, but i still nearly came back by taking a ton of risks. nearly. :P
as for advanced picking i'm not sure how much this will help you but you could try my guide, search "the art of war" in the forums and it should be the top result.
I can also do some practice games with you if you want, if you invite me.

btw, i'm guessing you're nauz? or am i mistaken?

"my personal theory is that when behind or playing against someone better than you you should definitely gamble as much as possible,"

That might make you win the specific game, but it's counter-productive long-term.

The goal in my eyes is to improve to the point that it isn't necessary to "steal" games against players better than you. ie. Get good enough that you legitimately beat them, not gamble and win occasionally despite being outclassed.

i mean if you're playing an important game you want to win, the best chance you have is doing that. as long as it's not cheating i don't really care what strategy i use. i hardly ever take risks tbh because there're only a handful of players i think can beat me consistently when i'm really focussed

There's an argument to be made that all high level play is an excercise in risk management. There are no 100% strategies or decisions in high level 1v1 play. That doesn't mean it's all luck, either. Instead, you look for necessary decisions verses optional decisions. Necessary decisions require either very high success rates (90%+) or appropriate backup plans ("If he attacks this bonus with all his troops, I can break this bonus of his elsewhere."). Optional plans take a long view on the stats, and pick a plan that generally will work out to your advantage. Making four 3v2 attacks to complete two bonuses is generally better than making three 4v2 attacks and only completing one bonus. Chances are good that you will have one bonus with the 3v2s, and if you do get that second bonus you can get ahead. I think that's the kind of moves Warlightvet might be advocating. The 4v2 attacks are sure things, but guarantee a slower start than a plan that completes two bonuses. An alternate, which may be the type of move that Warlightvet is actually advocating, is to make all 3v2 attacks during expansion in an attempt at getting way ahead, with the potential to be far behind.

Making all 3v2 attacks is riskier than making a mix of 3v2 and 4v2 attacks, but if you only ever made 4v2 attacks you could not win in high level play. Therefore it's obvious to see that the requirement to make some 3v2 attacks becomes risk management, whereas risk aversion is sub-optimal play.

I use 3v2 to expand and 4v2 to finish to the last bonus territory.

"2. I would only do so if you think you are going to get all 3 spots for sure, you don't think your opponent will have a spot nearby, and you will lock in a bonus after turn 1. And with all of that, I still probably wouldn't do it."

That seems off.

Typically the reason to triple-pick is because they WILL have a spot nearby. You get an early surge of income, but your long-term expansion is hindered, as such you need to be able to shove that early income down their throat ASAP before they have a chance to pass you in income.

I think he meant a spot too close for you to complete your bonus before they were able to attack you. A first turn bonus in W Africa works better if they are in Bolivia than Brazil.