|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I don't ID because I play to win, and if I take a draw then I am not winning. I don't care if I gain literally nothing material from winning I'll still play to win, because that's what I do. Would you ID if it meant guaranteeing a spot in a GP top 8?
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
ChromiumCrush posted:Your potential pay out is tied directly to the resources you use to win or lose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
I legitimately dont understand how you are struggling with this so much. No ones saying its the same game when gambling or not gambling, all Im saying is that its very possible to enjoy it as a social activity rather than it as a gambling activity. Even really lovely games can make for good social activities. Stop being upset that people enjoy things for different reasons than you do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
poo poo is weak posted:Would you ID if it meant guaranteeing a spot in a GP top 8? What part of "play to win" is hard to understand? Besides, since my opponent probably wasn't expecting to play, as there'd be no benefit to it, they're preemptively tilted, even before I offer a handshake. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Tell that to the World Series of Poker, which has payouts based on final rank in the tournament rather than how many chips you possess. And standing is determined by?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
I'm going to start signaling passing priority by offering handshakes, which will tilt my opponents so hard they'll play lands-in-front by accident, earning instant game losses. When the play goes to Arena for streaming I'm basically hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Tell that to the World Series of Poker, which has payouts based on final rank in the tournament rather than how many chips you possess. And having what exactly determines final ranking? (The answer is chips) MURPHAGATOR! posted:I legitimately dont understand how you are struggling with this so much. No ones saying its the same game when gambling or not gambling, all Im saying is that its very possible to enjoy it as a social activity rather than it as a gambling activity. Even really lovely games can make for good social activities. Stop being upset that people enjoy things for different reasons than you do. Nobody is arguing that people can't come together, do something, and enjoy it. It's just that unlike Magic, or basically any other game, wagering something tangible and assessing risk/reward determines how you play. You can play magic without a life total but it doesn't really make sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
ItBreathes posted:And standing is determined by? quote:The rules are very similar to any other poker tournament. In exchange for their $10K buy-in, each player starts with a fixed amount of chips. Note that the chips are tournament chips and at this point do not have any cash value, even though they are often referred to in monetary terms. It's more correct to say a player has 30,000 chips (sometimes denoted T30K), rather than "30,000 dollars in chips". So it doesn't matter if you have a million chips or a billion at the end, what matters is that you have chips and everyone else doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Same thing that is "on the line" in any game of kitchen table magic: the knowledge that you played the game well and the intrinsic rewards that a job well done gives you. LOL I like how people are acting like I just don't UNDERSTAND the concept of playing for imaginary points, as though I haven't addressed it multiple times
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say you and I agree t play Monopoly using real bills in place of Monopoly money. Now tell me how you'll play exactly the same as you would if we were playing with fake money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
I would play exactly the same way, which is to say I would flip the table rather than having to play monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
admanb posted:That's... not even remotely accurate. You can't pay more in to get more things to bet. You can't cash out of a game. Your pay out at the end isn't based on how many chips you have. Your buy in and your potential pay out are entirely disconnected from the resources you use to win or lose the event. Dude, I just lurk this thread but I was moved to post by your idiocy. Do you fancy yourself a sharp minded individual? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Like, if this how you are normally then you either have no friends who are willing to break the news to you that you're really loving dumb or your friends are actually dumber than you are and in the land of the mentally deficient the amoeba-brained man is king. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:I would play exactly the same way, which is to say I would flip the table rather than having to play monopoly. This is the right answer
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say you and I agree t play Monopoly using real bills in place of Monopoly money. Now tell me how you'll play exactly the same as you would if we were playing with fake money. I grab the weird monopoly box that is full of real bills and run away with it, because the money comes with the game  Edit: This is the worst derail since the last one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
ItBreathes posted:And standing is determined by? order of elimination
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Lone Goat posted:order of elimination And losing what valueless, not tied to money at all object determines when you are eliminated?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:LOL I like how people are acting like I just don't UNDERSTAND the concept of playing for imaginary points, as though I haven't addressed it multiple times You clearly don't. Your point is that wagering is meaningless without there being value behind it, but you're unable to grasp the idea that both extrinsic reward and intrinsic reward are just forms of reward (and value), and if the reward is high enough you play as optimally as you can to get it. A $500 dollar cash game is just as meaningless for a billionaire as one with purely abstract chips. An abstract chip game can be just as intense for someone who cares a whole lot about winning. In that case they are wagering their chance to win the game, they're wagering their bragging rights. If your point is that for many people winning in and of itself isn't enough reward, sure, w/e. But it doesn't change anything about the nature of the game, it just adds to the reward function. It's no different from MTG or any other game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Wait are you saying people could play for imaginary points?!?!?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Gambling addicts should just get one of those little computer blackjack or roulette handheld games, it's the same thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Why even play poker if your life isn't at stake? If the chips are just worth money, who cares? If there is nothing of value on the line, there's no reason to not play almost every hand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
I mean most f2p mobile games share the same Skinner box design as slot machines
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:
Wagering does change the nature of the game. Wagering determines how you play every hand. It's tied to the strategic element of the game. The billionaire in your example isn't going to be playing the same game as most other people. It's like playing a Legacy deck against a Standard deck - are you really even going to try? Tom Clancy is Dead posted:If there is nothing of value on the line, there's no reason to not play almost every hand. I know you are being sarcastic but, you're starting to get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:Why even play poker if your life isn't at stake? If the chips are just worth money, who cares? Doo doo doo just keep saying the same thing and ignore the points I made re: this ChromiumCrush posted:I know you are being sarcastic but, you're starting to get it. I said it a while back, they are deliberately ignoring this
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Again, you're just telling other people what they should value. That is always a losing proposition. I've been in free games that have had way better play than games with $50 buy-in. Ate My Balls Redux posted:Doo doo doo just keep saying the same thing and ignore the points I made re: this You have made no coherent points because you're unable to grasp that people can value winning or prestige or doing better than their friends, and can wager chips that represent fractional values of those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Fiery Cannonade and Star of Extinction are the only red sweepers in Standard, correct? I want something to do early in Temur Reclamation, and Cannonade doesn't always get the job done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Somehow the guy above me gets itTom Clancy is Dead posted:You have made no coherent points because you're unable to grasp that people can value winning or prestige or doing better than their friends, and can wager chips that represent fractional values of those. Wait wait, are you saying people can play for NOTHING?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
ChromiumCrush posted:And losing what valueless, not tied to money at all object determines when you are eliminated? uh i think they're called chips?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:If you're not betting SOMETHING of value, you're not playing poker. People play completely differently when nothing is at stake because the wagering is a key factor. They play hands they shouldn't play, they stay in when they should cut "losses", etc. This is a very good post that seems to have been lost in the shuffle because Tom Clancy keeps acting like it doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
So what do y'all think of rare redrafting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Shadow225 posted:Fiery Cannonade and Star of Extinction are the only red sweepers in Standard, correct? I want something to do early in Temur Reclamation, and Cannonade doesn't always get the job done. If you are running guild gates Gates Ablaze is another one
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Well I won 5$ in store credit for going 3-1 at modern night tonight. Clearly all games were played for this glorious reward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
If one cannonade isn't enough, Expansion on Fiery Cannonade is a better answer than trying to run Gates Ablaze. Being sorcery speed is agony in a Reclamation deck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
This is the dumbest derail yet. Hoogland twitter talk was better than this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Is 1 round of magic worth giving up like $200? If people would pay me to not play Magic I'd definitely do that. Like no matter how much you like magic, thats a stupid amount to gamble and if you play a lot of tournaments and understand how drawing works, you're pretty much just being obtuse to refuse it. Edit: pre-emptive gently caress you, why not try paying me not to post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:If you're not betting SOMETHING of value, you're not playing poker. People play completely differently when nothing is at stake because the wagering is a key factor. They play hands they shouldn't play, they stay in when they should cut "losses", etc. Tom Clancy is Dead posted:people can value winning or prestige or doing better than their friends, and can wager chips that represent fractional values of those. Edit: If you're trying to say that on average people play tighter when there are stakes, sure, that's true of any game. That isn't anything inherent to poker or it's wagering system. Most people play kitchen table Magic with genuinely dreadful decks. People playing Magic for monetary stakes, even without much success, are incredibly far towards the optimal by comparison. You can also represent any decision making in anything as a wager. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:So what do y'all think of rare redrafting? Why don't I get to bet more rare picks or rare pick order when rare redrafting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:Edit: If you're trying to say that on average people play tighter when there are stakes, sure, that's true of any game. That isn't anything inherent to poker or it's wagering system. Most people play kitchen table Magic with genuinely dreadful decks. People playing Magic for monetary stakes, even without much success, are incredibly far towards the optimal by comparison. Yes, you could represent any decision making in anything as a wager if you didn't know what words mean
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Laopooh posted:Dude, I just lurk this thread but I was moved to post by your idiocy. Do you fancy yourself a sharp minded individual? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Like, if this how you are normally then you either have no friends who are willing to break the news to you that you're really loving dumb or your friends are actually dumber than you are and in the land of the mentally deficient the amoeba-brained man is king. Jesus. You seem cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
what do u guys think about intentional draws to split prizes during tournaments
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
Sickening posted:This is the dumbest derail yet. Wow you're right, because this is literally just "Spike is the only true way to play" chat but somehow put on poker and complaining about money. It should have ended with: Owlbear Camus posted:this derail feels like a rejected bit from a tng episode where commander data asks riker why they play poker if there's no money anymore because they do space socialism and he chuckles and tries to explain feelings and the thrill of trying to read someone else's tells and stuff to the computer man. Because if you can't understand why to play with no money you're a dumb robot man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 23:41
|
|
