Card Counting

[RisingPhoenix]

I think I just realized why there is a divide in this thread, I think peoples view on what Card Counting is are different. That would certainly explain a lot. I know I'm viewing it as something some what different from what a few people are seeing it as.

But there is little point to continuing this argument.

Argh! There is only ONE definition of Card Counting. Card counting is a defined as a memory system for what cards have been revealed from a deck, used to calculate probabilities of card flips.

Anything else is just nonsense. Stacking your deck is cheating, you alter probabilities. You alter NOTHING by card counting. You just learn what the actual probabilities are.

[Peterdita]

Rrrrraaarr!

[Hogwart]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents here, and I am in no way intending to flame anyone.

1. If I caught someone blatantly cheating in a game I was playing (mark cards, stacking the deck), they may have walked to the game table but they'd be limping away from it.

2. While it is not technically cheating, keeping written tallies or I-pod tallies of cards is not only ridiculous but a sign of a poor player and I would ask that they stop or request their disqualification.

3. If a person wants to try to keep track of cards in their head or use a probability system in their head that's fine by me, but I think they are missing some simple math: Game = Fun.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents here, and I am in no way intending to flaming anyone.

1. If I caught someone blatantly cheating in a game I was playing (mark cards, stacking the deck), they may have walked to the game table but they'd be limping away from it.

2. While it is not technically cheating, keeping written tallies or I-pod tallies of cards is not only ridiculous but a sign of a poor player and I would ask that they stop or request their disqualification.

3. If a person wants to try to keep track of cards in their head or use a probability system in their head that's fine by me, but I think they are missing some simple math: Game = Fun.

Well said.

All except the possible physical violence part.

[Hogwart]

Sorry, I have anger issues. But, the doctors say the new meds are helping...lol:fisheye:

[Whatsicle]

@Hogwart

Yes.

I think that sums it up.

-

While card counting (defined as the deliberate system of + / - in your head to determine probability after each flipped card, and not as 'I've flipped a lot of high/low cards this turn I'll probably start doing poorly/better now') may not technically be against the rules, it could definitely be considered poor sportsmanship for casual play. That said, I think it'll probably happen quite a bit at tourneys.. just not out loud.

On the other hand, if someone is going to the effort of writing down each and every card as it occurs... that is blatant cheating. Page 34 of the original book states you may not look through your or your opponent's discard pile - what is writing down cards as you play them but looking through your discard pile, albeit without actually touching the cards?

[Zethal]

3. If a person wants to try to keep track of cards in their head or use a probability system in their head that's fine by me, but I think they are missing some simple math: Game = Fun.

I think you are unaware that people have different feelings on what fun means then you do.

I enjoy being good at a game, I enjoy thinking about strategy and tactics, mastering the game-play and really engrossing myself in the skills of the game. I enjoy playing my best game and playings against the best opponents I can find.

Fun for me != limiting my ability or my opponents because I'm lazy/inept/apathetic.

[quotemyname]

Zethal, thank you for using the correct "does not equal" operator ("!=" and not "=/="). My inner programmer cringes every time someone screws that up.

Hogwart says that "Game=Fun". Zethal argues that "fun" means different things to different people. I think the bottom line here is that you should be having fun. No matter what your own personal definition of fun is. If each player is not having fun, something needs to change.

[Zethal]

Zethal, thank you for using the correct "does not equal" operator ("!=" and not "=/="). My inner programmer cringes every time someone screws that up.

Quite welcome.

No matter what your own personal definition of fun is. If each player is not having fun, something needs to change.

Aye, it's just becomes difficult when the two are mutually exclusive.

[AvatarForm]

I cant believe you guys are still whipping this horse... the Marshal stepped in pages ago.

[Justin]

... the Marshal stepped in pages ago.

And gave his opinion like everyone else...

This isn't the kind of thing a ruling is any real good for.

That said, I doubt there's much to say that hasn't been discussed, but whatevs.

[Q'iq'el]

Zethal, thank you for using the correct "does not equal" operator ("!=" and not "=/="). My inner programmer cringes every time someone screws that up.

It's called different notation. Nothing incorrect about it.

[Hogwart]

@ Zethal

I too very much enjoy mastering the game including thinking up new strategy, synergy, and tactics for dealing with each other crew. I think this is time better spent than learning to count cards or figuring up a porbability system. And while you are right that fun is not always the same thing for everyone, most will agree that card counting and proabability calculation in your head is a sign of a poor player and that usually means their opponent is not going to have fun. To paraphrase Quotemyname, if both players are not having fun then there is a problem. While it's fine to be competitive ( believe me I am), it's not fun to play a power gaming, poor sport. Everyone knows the guy I'm talking about. He always brings the cheese list to the tourney and argues every rule. If you do something cool and amazing, he wants to see the rule that lets you and pouts and complains when you show him your right. That's the same guy that would count cards.

BTW, I am gonna ignore the "lazy/inept/apathetic" comment cause you don't know me so I am gonna assume that it wasn't directed at me.

[Ciaran]

Hogwart: I disagree with part of what you're saying. "Rules lawyers" and "card counters" are NOT always the same people. I keep a rudimentary idea of what I've flipped. I don't forget every card in my discard pile. I am performing a basic form of card counting. I'm also an incredibly gracious player (and I'm quite humble too!) who would rather lose than take advantage of another player's unfamiliarity with the rules. I'm the guy that does an after action with his opponents to let them know what he saw during their game to help them improve their game over time.

Being lumped in with a cheesy, nasty player is unfair to my mind.

[quotemyname]

It's called different notation. Nothing incorrect about it.

Tell that to my SYNTAX ERROR AT TOKEN "/" REMOVE THIS TOKEN *Ahem* Sorry about that...

I cant believe you guys are still whipping this horse... the Marshal stepped in pages ago.

I think AvatarForm has a point, people. We're just arguing back and forth now. I don't know that there are really any other opinions to be discussed here. We've covered both sides of the morality issue, and whether it should or should not be allowed, etc. If you have something NEW to bring to the table, that's fine. But if not, maybe we should call it /thread?

Edited September 24, 2010 by quotemyname
improperly submitted

[Zethal]

I too very much enjoy mastering the game including thinking up new strategy, synergy, and tactics for dealing with each other crew. I think this is time better spent than learning to count cards or figuring up a porbability system.

And the people who want to spend time doing both, the competitive players, are so how at fault because their opponents do not invest that time?

And while you are right that fun is not always the same thing for everyone, most will agree that card counting and proabability calculation in your head is a sign of a poor player and that usually means their opponent is not going to have fun.

Besides that appeals to popularity are fallacious arguments I think this thread sufficiently shows that your assumption of what most people will agree its a sign of a '*poor player' is wrong.

*I assume by poor play you mean one that you consider to be a bad sport, not one that is bad at the game. As then we have to debate your definition of poor player.

To paraphrase Quotemyname, if both players are not having fun then there is a problem. While it's fine to be competitive ( believe me I am), it's not fun to play a power gaming, poor sport. Everyone knows the guy I'm talking about. He always brings the cheese list to the tourney and argues every rule. If you do something cool and amazing, he wants to see the rule that lets you and pouts and complains when you show him your right. That's the same guy that would count cards.

Straw Men aren't going to get you anywhere either.

We are talking about card counting, not people who conveniently only remember the rules when the rules help them.

Beyond that I'll again refer to the Playing to Win article. That you use the terms 'cheesy lists' and 'power gaming' suggests that you don't understand the arguments from my side of this issue at all. And knowing the rules of the game is not something to be looking down upon.

BTW, I am gonna ignore the "lazy/inept/apathetic" comment cause you don't know me so I am gonna assume that it wasn't directed at me.

It wasn't an attack on anyone. I was just stating the realistic reasons why people don't get good at games.

I'm learning Go but I'm not great at it and I'm certainly not putting a lot of time into mastering it. Which is due to my own apathy and laziness towards Go.

I'm a mediocre poker player, again largely due to laziness and apathy, but I don't go to poker leagues and poker tournaments and then complain that I come against against players who actually care about learning the game at it's highest level and being great at it. And doing so with Malifaux or any other game is just as absurd.

[Daniele]

I think as it is still a game: Have fun or else dunp it.

[Ciaran]

Daniele: That raises a question. Do you consider someone that plays to win someone that doesn't also play for fun?

[Daniele]

Nope, I think when you can't have fun without winning, it's time to stop gaming

There are people who can only feel fun when they win. But i actually do not. Having a good time while playing should be the goal. When you win it should be an addition but not the only reason for playing at all.

I'm in tabletopping since 1997 and I met lots of people in this time. Some really great matches with whom you could have the greatest time, even when losing, others who were so fixed on winning that you could only feel pity for them.

Out there are all the kinds of players imaginable, so as i play it as a game to relax and have a good time prefer players from that mental area over those winning junkies, you see?

What i meant with my post originally:

Play with the guys or girls that prefer the same aspects of the game.

Although i'd say that counting cards kinda brings the game to a level that can't be fun (or neccessary).

My opinion, only

As everyone can imagine it is impossible to bring this discussion to an end that everyone will be pleased with. It's as old as gaming itself.

[RisingPhoenix]

Nope, I think when you can't have fun without winning, it's time to stop gaming

There are people who can only feel fun when they win. But i actually do not. Having a good time while playing should be the goal. When you win it should be an addition but not the only reason for playing at all.

I'm in tabletopping since 1997 and I met lots of people in this time. Some really great matches with whom you could have the greatest time, even when losing, others who were so fixed on winning that you could only feel pity for them.

I play to win. Period. I test what I'm doing. I develop strategies to win the game. I think up ways to eliminate my opponents models and reduce their strategic options. I find ways to counter their strategies.

I have a great time when I'm losing. A battle between two people who have pushed themselves to the max is a thousand times more intricate and interesting than one between two players who barely understand the system. There's interactions and plays that I haven't found yet. They'll be really, really cool when I do. And probably pretty powerful. And seeing something that hits you out of left field is cool to.

I'll turn this around: You don't like the game. You like having a drink with friends while having nice painted minis to look at. Maybe you should just go to an art gallery with a flask?

Or maybe you should stop setting yourself up as some arrogant gatekeeper who thinks they have the right to tell others that they can or can't play the game?

[nilus]

Or maybe you should stop setting yourself up as some arrogant gatekeeper who thinks they have the right to tell others that they can or can't play the game?

Man do I need to point to this thread again

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15598

Your argument, no matter how clear and concise, loses almost its whole value when you start calling people names.

[Ciaran]

Whoa, that might have been a bit harsh at the end. Being able to have an honest conversation is far more informative than slinging insults around to my mind...

I started gaming in 1983. I picked up table top stuff sometimes around 1991. As I'm 34 that means I've a significant portion of my life wrapped up in gaming of all sorts. I've seen people that are happiest when the win, happiest when they're challenged win or lose, just happy to play.

The ones I don't like are the ones that are the ones that get nasty to people when they either lose or otherwise feel threatened. Some people end up wrapping up a lot of their egos in their games, and that just seems dangerous to me.

[Zethal]

Man do I need to point to this thread again

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15598

Your argument, no matter how clear and concise, loses almost its whole value when you start calling people names.

It doesn't actually. Not that its ok to be name calling, but that doesn't make an argument invalid. And suggesting so is disingenuous.

And its not like his reaction was entirely unprovoked. Calling a category of people pitiful and suggesting that people who play competitively have some sort of fetish for winning is often going to get a strong emotional retort from that category. I think Daniele meant to state something other than was is easy to infer from her words, but the post was not very articulate either so...

[Ciaran]

Zethal, from an emotional standpoint the delivery of a message is every bit as important as its content. When the delivery is emotionally charged it tends to cause the recipient to ignore the message entirely.

Perhaps a bit of leeway might be afforded someone whose first language doesn't appear to be English yet is trying pretty diligently to be a contributing voice in what is unfortunately often getting pulled into the trite and tired despite its potential for being a great discussion.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Ciaran
I REALLY tried to clean that sentence up, maybe even break into two, no luck though

[Zethal]

Zethal, from an emotional standpoint the delivery of a message is every bit as important as its content. When the delivery is emotionally charged it tends to cause the recipient to ignore the message entirely.

We are getting way off topic here as we aren't discussing the nature of discourse...but simply because a rhetorical device prevents some people from reading it, due letting their emotions overrule their critical thinking, does not devalue nor create a lack of validity in a argument. It simply has a negative rhetorical effect on the audience.

If Nilus had stated "Your argument, no matter how clear and concise, is much harder to respect or care about for me when you start calling people names" he would of been logically true while also getting his point across. It is also more likely to influence someone's behavior as it is logically consistent; as humans have a tendency to find arguments that are logically invalid but phrased as valid to be an attempt to control us. Which we don't like and generally react very poorly to.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Zethal