Dave your stab was some lucky ass shit! If either of those moves had bounced you would have been toast and you know it. You betrayed a great sealion for a cheap two way. Lucky Shit! Mostly my fault but still.

I like what MarekP has to say and Flashman for that matter. Im with MM on this one and if he thinks, like LG that the effort deserves a result, i think thats fair enough. Its down to the individual after all.

The difficulty arises when a player that is truly very good like, Sir Babak finds himslef on the receiving end of that kind of game, its hard to stomach, especially after some tactically lacking moves.

MM certainly wont be metagaming :)

@otto lol, maybe so, but I'd argue that it was so good because I found out, without mentioning anything specific that you weren't moving to either of those territories.

i cant help myself... i have to comment (surprise surprise!)

1. I NMR'd on a turn when I could have taken bul and held my home SCs... its my fault I lost the game... nothing short of that... i'm not bitching about losing, i've had 3 eliminates this past month, two solos, and 2 3way draws (i think 2)... so i don't bitch simply because I lost... (besides, i'm used to it with MM)

2. what pisses me off is that I DO consider this meta-gaming... when from the half-way point, they DECIDE and STICK TO a 2-way draw, that is meta gaming. now you can do some logical gymnastics, or make some Ayn Randian argument about "everyone can play the game they want", I disagree.... When you choose to sign up for a game with an established set of 'rules' ... if you play OUTSIDE of those rules - then you are cheating. we call Cheating "Meta Gaming" in this community.

3. If this was PPSC, then fine... thats the rules... 18/16 vs 17/17 not a big deal... that's why I don't play PPSC anymore... in a WTA... when the players involved have ALL, in various threads, talked about why WTA is superior to PPSC... they JOIN a WTA game which is established exactly BECAUSE of the problems with PPSC... then this is simply an afront to the idea of differentiating... if you want to pull this crap, go play high point PPSC games (to BOTH MM and dave) done F*** up a perfectly good WTA game.


in the end... my disappointment... or disgust... is that the WORST elements of PPSC play have now not only made there way into a WTA game... but also by the #1 BEST player on this site... when Mad Marx does it... and plays the WTA game with some newbie PPSC player's mentality... then that is a real real real REAL shame...

THAT is what makes me disgusted.

</2nd rant>

Babak, thanks for your latest comments, here are a few of my thoughts on them:

1. I don't equate cheating with metagaming, I thought metagaming was playing across games, a specific kind of cheating.
2. I don't get what's wrong with a two-way draw. Up until the very end, you had the power to force a three-way draw or to help either dave or myself solo. Dave and I had to be very careful to not let you mess up our two-way draw, which is a better result than a three-way draw. Sure, it was a bit contrived in that I gave dave StP at the end, but dave gave me Tunis shortly before that and even three-way draws are a bit contrived to insure everyone stays happy and actually votes for the three-way draw. This game is all about negotiations, give and take, agreeing to get while you give, etc., etc.
3. I don't agree that WTA is superior to PPSC. I think they both have positives and negatives. I think WTA encourages way to may draws and way too many people to be involved in draws. It's not perfect. I also think PPSC is likely a more accurate representation of face to face play, at least if I think about playing with six friends, I know when a couple of the guys start getting down to one or two centers that they'd want to at least have some bragging rights over some of the people at the table and would sell out to help someone solo so that they could take out a couple of their friends along the way.
4. I don't get this whole #1 BEST player comment... There are many, MANY people on this site that know much more about the game of diplomacy than I do. I often have no clue as to what I'm doing and am literally making things up as I go along. Nobody should judge what I'm doing as something representative of anything other than my personal ignorant ways of doing something. Points and GR are fun and all, but they don't translate into knowledge of the game, at least not in my case.
5. I don't even get what a "newbie PPSC player's mentality" is. I know people that help another win a WTA game just so they can survive rather than be eliminated, is that the mentality you are talking about? I don't think a two-way draw is inherently this mentality... but, what the hell do I know?
6. I don't like to be the source of so much disgust, Babak, and I'd like to understand it more, just not sure my brain can do it... A little disgust, yes. Some disgust, yes. As much disgust as you are expressing, well, that makes me feel a little bad... which is probably what you hate so much about me! ;-)

I think the only thing that was wrong with that game was the way Turkey was attacked from all corners right at the beginning of the game. So MadMarx or Babak - I put you both no notice - If I see either of you in any my games in future you're both dead meat ;)

*on notice.

Babak I agree with you in principle that players should try to win. I don't think agree with you that this was metagaming.

"when from the half-way point, they DECIDE and STICK TO a 2-way draw, that is meta gaming. "

I think if they had *entered* the game with the goal of a two way draw from the outset (that is before the game had started) then that most certainly would be metagaming and would be wrong. Such a tactic could be used to harvest points and would ruin games for people not involved in the scam.

However the fact that they agreed to a two-way draw during the game is okay because neither knew for certain that the other would be true to his word. In fact Dave Bishop was very lucky to get a draw... and he did not know for sure that MadMarx would grant him one. But MadMarx was feeling generous and that was his perogative. And it had no affect on the outcome of the game for any other players than the final two remaining. So I don't think Babak's game was ruined the way it would be in a genuine case of metagaming as described above.
I do agree with those who say that this would be MadMarx's action would be wrong in tournament play though... unless we view the GR as a never ending tournament (then maybe... I don't know... I think I could be changing my view as I write).

I don't equate this problem to "PPSC mentality", I think Babak is wrong there, and that is probably why he's been taking a lot on criticism, on top of the fact that he's rabid and it shows too much (take a chill pill, it's a game in the end). As a matter of fact, if it was a matter of "PPSC mentality", then dave would have told MM to take the 18th SC and be happy with the 16 SC survive, wich he didn't, he clearly negotiated to the end to get the draw.

I do, however, feel that MM's actions are probably against the implied "social contract" of a WTA game. When we start a WTA game, specially amongst veteran site players, we all agree that each of us will play to better his result no matter what. And MM had the win in his hand, and decided to turn it's back on it. I think dave's actions were an honest mistake, but after that honest mistake, the social contract says that MM should have taken the win, and he shouldn't feel bad about it.

Having said all this, I don't think there's been any "metagaming" or "cheating" here, just an action that I think is against the spirit of the game, but since it's a victimless crime (or at most, the victim is the perpetrator), I don't think such a fuss should be made about it.

If a make a good ally, who is reliable and dependable and who made some sacrifices for me in the game, then even if I had the possibility of a total victory by stabbing him I wouldn't. Not all alliances must fail.

Thing is, I wouldn't consider it a stab, and it doesn't have to be a stab. MM could have simply said: "No, I won't give StP to you, because with StP I will win the game."

It's hardly a PPSC thing, though. In PPSC, I'm less inclined for a draw, since I can give my allies points even if I take the lead and win.

Although I disagree with Babak's feelings on this, I'd like him give us a definition of what he *does* consider acceptable behavior to be.

Since he's flatly stated he's never going to play another game with me it's not like I'm going to be able to use this against him, but the only thing I've been able to gather is that his viewpoint is "You must go for the win, every time, no matter what. Even if you risk getting a worse result than you could get if you didn't go for the solo, you *must* go for the win."

I'm hoping it's a little more.... nuanced than that.

For the sake of argument: There are four countries left, with an arbitrary number of SCs. The three largest have agreed to strive for a three way draw (once the game started, it should be noted, not ahead of time), and have systematically eliminated three of the four nations. The largest nation is biding his time while nations #2 and #3 work to finish off #4, who has a decent defensive position built up.

Now, is #1 *obligated* to stab, if he has a, say, 20% chance of victory? If he tries and fails, the others will surely unite against him - resulting in, at best, a four way draw, or possibly elimination.

I don't know what happened between Babak and you strat, but that description has nothing to do with the game we're talking about here.

I understand that, Xapi, and the example I give is just something I pulled out of the air, but I would like clarification from Babak on where he draws the line. He obviously has some very strong feelings on what is acceptable in a game, and I would like to know what those views are. His use of the term 'metagame' as an epithet is not unique to this situation, for example, and I am curious what his view of 'metagaming' is.

I know what I *think* his views are - that each game should be self contained and you should ignore what you know (or think you know) about the other players (playstyle, propensity for stabs, etc) - but what I *think* I know and what he actually *believes* may be wildly at odds.

I'm not just trying to throw him off the bridge here, but I simply don't grok, and would like to know where he's coming from.

To further clarify why I care: Babak is not unique in his views, either, but he appears to be fairly intelligent, and some of the incoherent explanations I've heard from others make my head spin. I think he has a decent chance of at least laying out his views in a consistent fashion

strat, I know you say you just pulled that example out of the air, but I thought your example had everything to do with the situation, I'm disappointed it never got answered because it would shed a little more light into the dark recesses of Babak's Brain...

Babak, if you're not too hungover when you read this, feel free to respond, inquiring minds want to know! :-P

@Babak is just a bitter cry baby. Nothing new there. He got beat and then whines because the victor decided to share the victory rather than solo. What does it matter to him? He is either defeated or just survives. Either way, he gets no point sna dhis GR rating is negatively affected. It make no signifcant difference.

Oh, and it isn't metagaming as nothing about it was outside the game. Meta means "beyond the scope of" and this was not beyond the scope of the game. So Babak, your worng on your definition of metagaming.

I'd really like to hear a mod chime in and tell Babak nothing was done against the rules and the rules define the game, not some lofty concept a rabid few seem to have in their heads.

I can't understand why people criticise other people's play. I play a little poker and all the time I get comments like, "wtf you doing calling my raise with K7o?" it's usually after i have hit two pair and snapped their aces. Whilst I rarely respond, unless I think titling them helps me take more money, my thought process is (a) it's a game and meant to be fun and (b) if everyone played by the book, there really would be no point in playing.

Imagine if every player played their moves the exact way you predicted them too, every move of every game. At first that would be cool, you would think you have mastered the game, but would you still be playing after a month or two? I think not, the variety make sthe game unpridictable and enjoyable, embrace it even when you think people are being knobs.

Maniac +1

Speaking of Poker, Tues and Thurs nights at Hollywood Casino in Lawrenceburg, IN, they are having tournies where top price is a guaranteed seat at their WPT event in Mar. I'm gonna be playing a lot of poker trying to win one of those seats...

*prize, not price

Indeed, you shouldn't criticize someone for calling out of position a big raise with K7o. You shouldn't rant too much about bad beats either. Be nice and just have faith that you suck the money of those eventually for their unsound play.

I don't think that Babak rants too much about everyone playing by the book, but ranting about some moves in it. Not ranting about the whole game. People complain because they care, maybe because they care about the game as they see it. Criticizing other moves as well as ones own is also a vital part of self reflection and work to get better. Otoh, it is also a good method for creating scape goats. Humans tend to like that.

Let me know how you get on...one day I'll see you at the final table, if they master the longevity gene sometime soon :)

Last post was @Draugnar

@Maniac - my biggest problem is the endurance aspect of torunament play. Cash games I play until I'm well ahead (about 2 hours) then I get up and walk away. Large tournaments (more than 50 or 60 people) require you to be on your game for hours on end. But if I can win a seat at a WPT event, I'll solve the longevity issue. Of that I promise.

@Draugnar - I tend to play the 50-80 people tornaments live and treat it like a night out so I'm OK if i stumble in at 4am. I prefer cash games when I play online as I have more distractions at home (wife, kids, etc).

If you have a pokerstars account let me know and we'll play heads up sometime.

Pokerstars - same name as here! I only play fun money online. If I'm playing real money, I'm at the casino. I used to play at Grand Victoria when they had poker, but they stopped having any poker so now I play at Hollywood or at local Catholic churches or St. Rita's School for the Deaf when they have charity tournaments.

But I'm a cash game player most of the time. 1-3 No-Limit is a great game. You can buy in from $100 to $300 so you aren't risking a huge chunk of change, but can still have pots with thousands in them once a table has being going an hour or so.

Oh, and the wife plays too, so there is no concern about "stumbling in at 4AM" as she is stumbling in with me. :-)