Re: Stakes match with reality

From: Kevin Rose <vladt_at_interaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 00:07:37 -0500 (CDT)


The problem with the model you describe below is that is the opposite of what I saw and did. If you are able to comfortable beat someone there is no reason to stake anything big. If you do and are really unlucky you are in a lot of trouble. But if you are patient you will almost certainly win.

The times it makes sense to throw everything into the attempt is when you are overmatched. If you use small stakes he will just grind you down, as you wll lose a very high percentage of the matches. So what you do is stake enough points on it to defeat him in one success. You have to be willing to lose big time to do this, but you are basically hoping that you will get a lucky shot in that defeats him instantly.

The odds are never that good that you can take for granted that you can beat someone that you can afford to throw a pile of points into blowing away someone really fast unless you have two levels of mastery on them. If you fail and they critical you lose twice (or more) the points you staked and they win a lot of them.

I'm not saying this is bad or good, but it is sort of different than you seem to be thinking.

Kevin

Steve Renel wrote:
<<That actually sounds like it matches the way I think when I'm doing SCA combat. If someone is much worse than me, I go for quick kills, and I'm prepared to take risks because I'm likely to get away with it (I've been beaten because of it on occasion too) and fights are usually over quickly. Against someone much better, you charge in and try and stay close to them throwing lots of blows, because most of the good people are better at range than really close up - in effect, it means that a mistake on their part is much harder for them to recover from. Against people somewhere near your skill level you be very careful, and hope they open up a gap.>>


Powered by hypermail