Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Oct-19 3:19 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-03 2:02 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
There is a pretty big difference between 20 billion and infinite from any scientific perspective.

I can do something 10 times, demonstrate a clear discrete change in the environment and then extrapolate that change out to 20 billion. That can't be said for something that only works at the point of infinity because you can't demonstrate a small measurable change that is being built on.

Legal loops are linear, non-legal loops are chaotic. I understand why someone might use a probabilistic function to claim they have won, but I also appreciate the counterpoint, that even though it is "theoretically probable" it is not realistically possible, and I don't concede to "probably going to lose".

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-03 3:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jan-25 4:50 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
So Sid you think you should be able to use Theoretical Probability to win the game, but...
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Where in the rules does it say this? I have found nothing in either the comp rules or the rules on this website to support this claim.

_________________
Kuro, Pitlord (Life gain)
Derevi (Manlands)
Marchesa (Modular)
Retired:
Krenko, Mob Boss (Goblins)
Zedruu the Christmas Goat (group hug)
Ramses Overdark (Assassin Deck)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-03 10:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
We're looping back; we already covered that on pages 2 and 3. Shortcuts based on random events are categorically not allowed because they do not fit how shortcut works. Shortcuts are a specific set of actions, optionally repeated some specific number of times (e.g. “I clone the cat and flicker Saheeli, fifty times”). Random events (coin flips, shuffles, dice rolls) cannot be shortcut past because after any specific number of repeats of those actions we don't know what the game state will be, therefore we must manually play it out to find out. Shortcuts simply don't allow you to specify end conditions, so “until X random thing is true” is not a valid shortcut. By the rules even Chance Encounter + infinite coin flips must be played out, although we have the option to choose to handle that scenario differently in casual play, such as agreeing “yep, you win”.

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 1:12 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
spacemonaut wrote:
We're looping back;

Not quite. Bruticus is throwing Sid's words from another thread back at him, as Sid is showing bias between the two threads and not being consistent. In one he's saying "This logically follows so it should be allowed" while the other he's saying it's not written down in the rules, so he's questioning what was said. Bruticus isn't letting him have it both ways.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 1:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
spacemonaut wrote:
We're looping back;

Not quite. Bruticus is throwing Sid's words from another thread back at him, as Sid is showing bias between the two threads and not being consistent. In one he's saying "This logically follows so it should be allowed" while the other he's saying it's not written down in the rules, so he's questioning what was said. Bruticus isn't letting him have it both ways.

Ok, I see.

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 1:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
My 2c is that appealing to hypocrisy doesn't make Sid any less correct. The argumentation here is like that old chestnut about Serra Angel not being strictly worse than Baneslayer Angel. This is true, but when an individual dislodges their head from their anal cavity, it simply becomes clear that trying to over-correct like that is not effective communication. If you can't participate in effective communication, how the hell are you going to play a game like EDH, and not be an absolute drag to everyone else at the table?

What Sid was getting at, is that EDH often approaches a critical mass situation. In these situations, you can stick to your guns about playing it out as much as you like. But a playgroup will pick up on when you're just grinding out the game, even though you're out of outs, lack any significant source of CA, and just want to make a scene.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 2:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Carthain wrote:
spacemonaut wrote:
We're looping back;

Not quite. Bruticus is throwing Sid's words from another thread back at him, as Sid is showing bias between the two threads and not being consistent. In one he's saying "This logically follows so it should be allowed" while the other he's saying it's not written down in the rules, so he's questioning what was said. Bruticus isn't letting him have it both ways.

Not quite. In this thread I have clearly acknowledged that what I am stating is not supported by the rules, and stated a case for why I think some slack should be cut. In the other thread, Bruticus asserted that something was a rule, but cannot show it to be.

specter404 wrote:
Honestly, I've gone through everything you've said several times in this thread, so if you care to see what I have to say about it, you can go back and look... or not. Clearly this is one of those issues people can't see eye-to-eye on, so whatever.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 2:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Nov-27 2:39 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr Degradation wrote:
My 2c is that appealing to hypocrisy doesn't make Sid any less correct. The argumentation here is like that old chestnut about Serra Angel not being strictly worse than Baneslayer Angel. This is true, but when an individual dislodges their head from their anal cavity, it simply becomes clear that trying to over-correct like that is not effective communication. If you can't participate in effective communication, how the hell are you going to play a game like EDH, and not be an absolute drag to everyone else at the table?

What Sid was getting at, is that EDH often approaches a critical mass situation. In these situations, you can stick to your guns about playing it out as much as you like. But a playgroup will pick up on when you're just grinding out the game, even though you're out of outs, lack any significant source of CA, and just want to make a scene.


Sorry, what?

Wanting to follow the rules of the game and not allowing someone to cheat* is not having my head up my anal cavity, being over-correct, or failing communication. It's wanting to play the game I signed up for. I am not obliged to let anyone cheat, even if there's some kind of “critical mass situation”, whatever that means.

(* here by cheating I mean: do something not allowed by the rules of the game, in this case for the very significant advantage of arbitrarily stacking some portion of their deck.)

You're also saying it like the person insisting on playing it out, and the person using the combo, would be the same person (“you can stick to your guns about playing it out” ... “a playgroup will pick up on when you're just grinding out the game”). They'd of course be different people: the person using the combo would want to shortcut it and not play it out. I'd be the one saying “you can't do that” to the other person who wants to shuffle their deck into an arbitrary state, and provided the table agrees, it'd be on that other person to find a legitimate tactic that doesn't waste time.

I hope I misunderstood something.

_________________
Decks: Chaos colored dragons, Mathas, the Instigator (politics and mayhem).
Beloved precons: Atraxa, Praetors' Voice; Saskia the Unyielding; Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury.


Last edited by spacemonaut on 2019-Mar-04 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 2:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Not quite. In this thread I have clearly acknowledged that what I am stating is not supported by the rules, and stated a case for why I think some slack should be cut.

Fine -- but, as you noted, this format should not be ruled by forum posts. So, either you're asking them to put in an exception in the format rules for this -- or your point is moot.

So, what is your point in this?

Personally, I don't like someone saying "eventually this will do what I want it to, so just let it happen" as a way to win. So I fall back on the rules (which you admit are clear that it can't be done that way.) And we've covered that.

So why are you pushing your "won't you just give this to me?" point, I'm confused what it will benefit if people give up and say 'ok fine'?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 3:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2017-Mar-11 6:43 am
Age: Dragon
spacemonaut wrote:
Sorry, what?

Wanting to follow the rules of the game and not allowing someone to cheat* is not having my head up my anal cavity, being over-correct, or failing communication. It's wanting to play the game I signed up for. I am not obliged to let anyone cheat, even if there's some kind of “critical mass situation”, whatever that means.


The first bit was in reference to Brut dredging up another older discussion, in attempt to discredit Sid's point. That's over-correcting in the extreme, and attempting to use an appeal to hypocrisy to discredit the opposition. It's simply dysfunctional communication, on a very basic level.

spacemonaut wrote:
I hope I misunderstood something.


I probably am too, but for clarification...

Example 1:
I'm player A, playing my Ink-Eyes deck, in a commanding (har har) situation. I can produce over 40 mana, and I cast Demonic Tutor, searching for my Gray Merchant of Asphodel. My current devotion to black on board is 15. I have Phyrexian Reclamation and Ashnod's Altar in play. I play Gary, it happens.

Player B, loses 17 life- he has 2 cards in hand, 60 life, nothing of note in their graveyard, and 2 Islands open.

I demonstrate that I have enough mana, and life to continue playing Gray Merchant from my hand this turn.

In this hypothetical, even if player B has Counterspell- the sheer amount of resource lead should reasonably lead them to understand that if they have an answer, they should show it, or scoop. It isn't worth the time involved to force me to count my total mana and continue running Garys until the gamestate dictates their loss. If player B consistently forces me to track my total mana the entire time, and replay every Gary- regardless of the rules; the playgroup is likely to take umbrage- and I wouldn't say they were wrong for doing so.


Example 2:
I'm player A, this time in the worse position. I have 3 cards, 8 mana open with my Kefnet, the Mindful deck. I have 20 life.

Player B, this time is far, far ahead in the Battlecruiser game- playing Roon, of the Hidden Realm. His win is a little less obvious than a Gary loop- consisting of 26 damage that I cannot block on the field. The game has gone on for half an hour. Player B says "I have a Tooth and Nail, do you have an out?"

What this means to me, is not that my opponent is being arrogant- but that the game has gone, and if I have a Cyclonic Rift, now is the time to show it. In many playgroups, this is the moment the game should end for the sake of getting in another game. So, I concede. I could pretend that I have a Cyclonic Rift up until the combat damage step. Usually, how this situation plays out is that because we exit the game in the information exchange- if I had the Rift, he would concede, and if he didn't, I would. This isn't about breaking rules, it's about the reality of battlecruiser Magic requiring some level of shortcutting, because we are on 4 people's clocks. Even if I had the Rift, in this hypothetical, it's insanely hard to build enough reach with Roon or Kefnet to make the game end in a timely fashion. If I made him play out the T&N, declare combat, turn his guys sideways (except for the vigilant ones), and then count the total damage, I would be within the rules to do so. However, at that point- I'd be pushing for a technicality in casual Magic, and wasting the time of everyone in the playgroup waiting for another game.

This thread started from an accusatory positon of people taking these shortcuts; but the basis of these shortcuts is in the reality of the situations that play out. Hypothetically, I could come back from that losing situation, but my opponent demonstrating that he can T&N with their overwhelming boardstate is a good social call. While there ARE situations where a player projects inevitability far before it's established, and it is appropriate to say "play it out"; the reality of EDH, is that these shortcuts come up when the outcome is pretty clear to both players. Through effective communication, they truncate the sheer time sink for the sake of the group's play experience.

_________________
niheloim wrote:
Wall of Chat. 2U
Creature- Wall

Defender
Wall of chat exceeds at using a lot of words to mischaracterize opposing view points.

Warp Riders (Ephara Solar Flare)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 5:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr Degradation wrote:
The first bit was in reference to Brut dredging up another older discussion
It's not an older discussion -- it's from a thread that is often just above or just below this one.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 10:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Carthain wrote:
So, what is your point in this?

My point is that I am not being hypocritical. Since you have read both threads, you should be able to recognize the difference between "I understand this is against the rules, but in my opinion it should work" and "this is the rule". I did the former. Bruticus did the latter.

Carthain wrote:
So why are you pushing your "won't you just give this to me?" point, I'm confused what it will benefit if people give up and say 'ok fine'?

For the record I have no current decks that are capable of something like this. I did at one point, but that will probably not happen again anytime soon, as my local meta has moved away from combo decks. So there is no direct benefit to me. I simply feel that such combos are really not any better, more powerful or more robust than the myriad of existing ways to combo a table in EDH, and if anything it at least adds a little variety. I will acknowledge the difficulties that can arise, as Spacemonaut did a good job of laying out, but I also think reasonable people can come to a reasonable solution.

My big frustration with this thread is how many times the same 2 points are brought up; ITZ THA RULZ, and "There's a non-zero chance of failure". The first point I have acknowledged - repeatedly. It's irritating to have the current rule quoted back at me like I don't know it exists.

The people that harp on the non-zero chance of failure are technically correct but realistically dead wrong. If WW3 broke out tomorrow, you'd be technically correct that there is a non-zero chance that all the warheads might be duds and fail to detonate. The realistic people will be in the bomb shelters.

Anyways, the TL;DR here is that Bruticus's snark is misplaced and no one's opinion on the actual topic of this thread seems likely to change.

EDIT: I had something to say here, but perhaps PM would be more appropriate.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 1:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jan-25 4:50 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I think this conversion was pretty much wrapped up and completed on page 4, with most topics having been thoroughly explored. I don't think there's much more that can be teased out of this that hasn't already been said or remarked on.

_________________
Kuro, Pitlord (Life gain)
Derevi (Manlands)
Marchesa (Modular)
Retired:
Krenko, Mob Boss (Goblins)
Zedruu the Christmas Goat (group hug)
Ramses Overdark (Assassin Deck)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-04 1:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Carthain wrote:
So, what is your point in this?

My point is that I am not being hypocritical.
Sorry, I meant "What is your point in continuing to push your stance in this thread" -- which you answered anyways :)
Sid the Chicken wrote:
The people that harp on the non-zero chance of failure are technically correct but realistically dead wrong. If WW3 broke out tomorrow, you'd be technically correct that there is a non-zero chance that all the warheads might be duds and fail to detonate. The realistic people will be in the bomb shelters.
This is a horrible comparison. In magic land, it's based on the assumption that if it doesn't work out, you can redo it and try again. In your comparison, any combination other than 1 specific one is a failure -- and there's no "redoing" WW3. (same goes for your lotto ticket/quitting example -- there's no allowance for the 'redo' in that one.) Being able to "try again" is key to what is going on in this magic "combo".


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Theoretical Probability as Win Condition
AgePosted: 2019-Mar-05 12:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Carthain wrote:
Stuff

I'm simply going to point back to the end of my last post - no one's opinion is going to change (mine included), and we are just re-hashing the same thing in an endless loop. I'm going to break that loop now.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: