Mini 188: Texas Holdem Mafia - GAME OVER!

[EmpTyger]

[If I post and it doesn’t go through, and I have to repost, can I get 2 chips?]

Aelyn:
If your experiments were successful, you would have innocently gained a high chip total. And I don’t see how your most recent experiment differed from any previous doubleposting. You didn’t reveal that your first experiment was even deliberate until I questioned you about it. The desire to find out “rapidly” makes me think that *you* wanted to be the one to do the experimenting and thus pad your chipcount; had you been patient, it might have been revealed naturally and you would have lost your chance. Moreover, I still don’t see any advantage for innocents to have a high chip total, because it’s useless for scum to all-in. Perhaps there’s another mechanic involving chips, but I can’t think of anything obvious and I don’t feel like positing one. So, with the best use of chips I can see being to allow scum to protect themselves,

vote: Aelyn

.


Thesp:
I had noted that Maximus’s [14-15] doublepost earned 2 chips, while Aelyn’s [20-21] earned 1. I was trying to find out why the chip totals weren’t matching the postcounts. I thought there might be a role that imposed a chip restriction or bonus or something, or it might be inherent to a role. In any case, the mod’s explanation seems to have cleared it up.

Just to clarify- I think the only details about roles which should be revealed are those which would be apparent from chipcounts (or votecounts or posting habits, as it happens). In other words, stuff the town would be figuring out soon enough anyhow.

(And compare how I investigated this question to Aelyn’s method...)


kristocker:
I was thinking that the chip mechanic might naturally guard against lurking?


Thok:
Not only do I think it makes sense for Iammars to reveal his postrestriction immediately, but I think it would have been quite suspicious had he revealed it later. Why do you not think Iammars could be the big blind?
And if there is a second blind with a similar mechanic, I’m not sure why they would not have come forward already.

[Bamboomancer]

Thok: They ARE mechanics of hold'em, but then what do you think big blind and dealer represent? I can't really discern anything.

A thought occurred to me. As SOON as someone is nearing folding due to votes, PLEASE give them a chance to go all in with reasonable time frame. Scum won't do it at all.

Also, this is kinda an asthetic thing, but doesn't this make it seem like the mafia is the worst hands in poker? I mean, We've already seen a K/J go down, and if someone went all in against 2/7 offsuit, then they'd probably win, right?

And 2/7 offsuit is pretty evil in my book. Mabye we need to look for whichever hand Phil Hellmuth was playing because that's a pretty scummy hand too. So far the best I can come up with is Iammars mentioning all in in his role PM though that could easily make him a vig within the game mechanic.

Finally, a plea. I am still winning in the vote count (If you can call that winning) And I've tried to explain myself so are there any serious accusations against me?

[Bamboomancer]

Thok: They ARE mechanics of hold'em, but then what do you think big blind and dealer represent? I can't really discern anything.

A thought occurred to me. As SOON as someone is nearing folding due to votes, PLEASE give them a chance to go all in with reasonable time frame. Scum won't do it at all.

Also, this is kinda an asthetic thing, but doesn't this make it seem like the mafia is the worst hands in poker? I mean, We've already seen a K/J go down, and if someone went all in against 2/7 offsuit, then they'd probably win, right?

And 2/7 offsuit is pretty evil in my book. Mabye we need to look for whichever hand Phil Hellmuth was playing because that's a pretty scummy hand too. So far the best I can come up with is Iammars mentioning all in in his role PM though that could easily make him a vig within the game mechanic.

Finally, a plea. I am still winning in the vote count (If you can call that winning) And I've tried to explain myself so are there any serious accusations against me?

[Thok]

unvote

Can't believe I forgot to do that when I voted kristocker. But since he's posted, no need to lurker hunt. Feel better Bamboomancer?

The reason I think Iammars is small blind and not big blind is for aesetic reasons, but I could see the argument going either way. I think big blind also gets a post restriction (I suspect 5 posts for small blind, 10 votes for big blind, possibly going up every few days). I think dealer gets some bonus, but I'm not sure what it is.

However, this is all speculation on my part and I could be horribly wrong.

Finally,

vote Quagmire

as a bit of a lurker hunt (he hasn't posted since randomly voting Aelyn at the beginning of the game, and I'd like to hear what he has to say).

[EmpTyger]

Just realized I forgot to unvote Bamboomancer before voting Aelyn. No multiple votes for me, just forgetfulness. Just to clarify:

unvote: Aelyn
unvote: Bamboomancer

vote: Aelyn

Sorry mod.
[This is intended as an edit, FWIW- no chip expected]

[Quagmire]

Finally,

vote Quagmire

as a bit of a lurker hunt (he hasn't posted since randomly voting Aelyn at the beginning of the game, and I'd like to hear what he has to say).

Hey, I'm sorry. I haven't been able to get on much the past few days with tennis matches and an event at school that's requiring undivided attention. I won't be able to participate much in this for the next few days.

[Thok]

OK, thanks for letting us know.

unvote Quagmire

Well, I think we should start playing mafia.

vote Maximus

partially to have a bandwagon, and partially for not realizing what Aelyn was doing-it's important to understand the mechanics of chip count.

Finally, one experiment, just to see if something cool happens. If there is a cocktail waitress near by, I'd like to give her one chip and ask for some scotch. (I don't expect anything to happen, but you have to admit it would be cool if something did happen).

[Maximus]

I agree with whoever brought up the idea of small blind and big blind. The posting restriction most likely is imposed on small blind BECAUSE in Hold 'Em, small blind is always obligated, assuming noone raises, to complete the blind. And all the big blind has to do is check it. So, I assume that whoever is big blind has no posting restrictions or can trigger (which would represent raising) an event.

The dealer? I don't see what bonus they could get. Because all they do decide is who is going to be small blind and big blind.

But I'm not sure how the mod has the "table" set. There is no way to verify I guess, unless the person who is supposed to be big blind, gets killed the accomdating night, and next day, nobody has any posting restriction. Maybe, then we can figure out who might be dealer. But how important all of this is? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Unvote: Aelyn

Sounds like a reasonable explanation although, at the time I had no clue why he was testing those experiments.

[Dranko20]

more chips, i want more chips (is this looked down upon?)

[kristocker]

EmpTyger, there is an advantage for people who are pro-town to have high chip counts: they can't go all in unless they have the same or more chips than the scum they are going all in against. So yes, the chip mechanic should guard against lurking, but I see no reason to go after someone simply because they post a lot.

But there should be consequences of not posting content. THIS IS NOT AN OMGUS VOTE. Dranko20 has basically said nothing over the course of three posts in order to get his chip count up. I don't think it is bad for people to post frequently, but to post only for chips is not good - especially when you say that is why you are posting. Say

something

when you post Dranko. You will get your chips and we will all be happy that you shared your insight and wisdom with us.

Vote: Dranko20.

[Dranko20]

the reason i am posting to get chips up is because we use to chips to go all in against scum, right?

thats why im doing it, to get chips. thats not a bad thing, is it? anyways, i can understand your vote.

I wasn't sure if it was looked down upon to vote alot of nuttin to get high chip count, cause if i think someone is scum, im willing to risk myself, to kill them. although, i probably will not risk myself unless i'm certain.

is that enough? i don't know what to say, i guess if you want to know who i think is suspcious, i'm most suspcious of emptyger right now. just a gut feeling, actually, no real reason, so im not gonna vote.

unvote if i was voting

[Thesp]

Aelyn:
If your experiments were successful, you would have innocently gained a high chip total. And I don’t see how your most recent experiment differed from any previous doubleposting. You didn’t reveal that your first experiment was even deliberate until I questioned you about it. The desire to find out “rapidly” makes me think that *you* wanted to be the one to do the experimenting and thus pad your chipcount; had you been patient, it might have been revealed naturally and you would have lost your chance. Moreover,

I still don’t see any advantage for innocents to have a high chip total, because it’s useless for scum to all-in.

Perhaps there’s another mechanic involving chips, but I can’t think of anything obvious and I don’t feel like positing one. So, with the best use of chips I can see being to allow scum to protect themselves, vote: Aelyn.

Umm...actually, the ideal scenario would be for everyone to have the same number of chips. It would be ideal if innocents all had the highest chip counts, so that any innocent could go all in against a potential scum. There are corresponding tactical disadvantages to having a higher chip count than anyone else, but I don't think it is necessarily the case that scum are the only ones who benefit from a high chip count. Also, if someone pro-town is worried that someone else would explore avenues of gaining extra chips, would it be bad for them to beat them to the punch? This is not to say that his chip count exploraton makes him innocent, but I don't think it's a scum tell.

I also concur with bamboomancer's idea that someone who is to be lynched (when 1-2 votes away with the needed votes promised) should have the opportunity to go all in against someone. Can't hurt. The only possible drawback I can conceive of is dead already (we'd get fewer cop investigations if we all-in once a day every day), but we're going to have fewer cop investigations anyway, most likely.

Still happy with my vote on EmpTyger at the moment.

[LoudmouthLee]

Vote Count:

Aelyn- 2 (Quagmire, EmpTyger)
Maximus- 2 (rajrhcpfreak, Thok)
Dranko20- 1 (Kristocker)
Bamboomancer- 1 (Iammars)
EmpTyger- 1 (Thesp)
Iammars- 1 (Aelyn)
Kristocker- 1 (rajrhcpfreak)

Not voting (3): Dranko20, Bamboomancer, Maximus

7 to lynch.

[LoudmouthLee]

Chip Count:

Bamboo - 6
Maximus - 5
Aelyn - 5
Thok - 5
Emptyger - 4
Dranko - 4
rajrhcpfreak - 3
Thesp - 3
Iammars - 2
Quagmire - 2
Kristocker - 2

FWIW: If I continue to see spam posts as per chip count. I will be happy to modkill. The dealer doesn't like people doping stuff like that.

[Dranko20]

Well I guess that answers my question, sorry LML.

Also, I see what you are saying Thesp, about how both the innocent and the scum want to have a high chip count. The scum want it so no body can go all in against then, and the innocent want it so they can go all in against the scum. Either way, you want to have the chip lead, just like in hold'em tournaments

[Bamboomancer]

Here's the deal. I'm not scum. I will prove that by going all in in a second if that's the town's wish. I'm just trying to stay on top of the chip count to keep the scum from getting out of that range. As of right now the scummiest people I can come up with are dranko and iammars and neither for good reasons.

I'd like to point out that apparently LmL is the dealer, which means the SB/BB/Dealer theory might be defunct, though i'm not sure. I think if there was going to be some kind of "fold" by now then it'd have happened, so I don't think we should expect any events.

[EmpTyger]

I think I’m a little confused about chip strategy, and want to rethink before I do further analysis based on it.

Unvote: Aelyn

in the meantime.


Bamboo:

Here's the deal. I'm not scum. I will prove that by going all in in a second if that's the town's wish.

You seem to be overemphasizing some guilty appearance held of you. I hadn’t thought you had anything [more than any other as yet] to prove, but you seem to think otherwise.

<snip>As of right now the scummiest people I can come up with are dranko and iammars and neither for good reasons.

What are the “bad” reasons, if I might ask?

<snip>I think if there was going to be some kind of "fold" by now then it'd have happened, so I don't think we should expect any events.

Isn't folding the equivalent of death?

[Bamboomancer]

Okay, all good points. I kinda got signals crossed between this and Old West where i'm currently being ridden, but the general consensus of the group seems to, up to this point, imply that only scum would do such a thing. I'm doing this in order to freeze scum out. Folding I was referring to as the "event" that the big blind would cause, but yes, semantics is bad because I didn't mean death. As for reasons, Dranko for posting to get his chip count up and Iammars for having mentioned the "all in" in his role right after the other person said only town would do it.

[Thok]

And suddenly the thread goes quiet.

Bamboomancer, the "dealer" refers to the position before the small blind, even if somebody else deals the cards. This position is important because he doesn't have to ante, but does get to see what all of the non-blinds get to do. In Vegas, you aren't allowed to join a table at the dealer position unless you choose to pay an extra ante. It wouldn't surprise me if ralphjfreak's double vote comes from him being today's dealer. (Of course, I'm just speculating, he doesn't need to comment on that for now).

Also, Bamboomancer, a better test for checking if you are town is if you'd be willing to let somebody go all in on you. Otherwise you might be scum sacrificing a scum buddy. You seem to be protesting a bit too much, but it's not quite worth a vote right now.

Apparently LML has ignored my request for scotch. Oh well.

I'll

unvote Maximus, vote Dranko

for general spamminess.

[LoudmouthLee]

(gives Thoth a scotch, but takes a chip as a tip.)

Be careful what you wish for.

[rajrhcpfreak]

unvote: Maximus

unvote: Kristocker

i will be away for the weekend, so ill removes my votes and catch up sunday night when i get back.

[EmpTyger]

I've heard several say that it's advantageous for a townsperson to have a high chip count, but I'm still not following why. Here's the way I'd been reasoning regarding chip counts:

The best use of the all-in mechanic is that the first person about to be lynched can all-in another, as I outlined in [12] and Bamboo repeated [51], which no one has presented any objection to. But this strategy doesn't depend on chip counts. Let's say A is the most suspicious, and B is the second most suspicious. If A has more chips than B, the town can lynch A unless they challenge B; if A has less than B, vice versa. The chip totals don't really matter.

So the only uses I could see for accumulating chips were to "daytime vigilante" (in a manner independent of the above strategy), for scum trying somehow to protect themselves, or for some role-based reason which could be protown or antitown. I think the first reason unlikely, especially with the cop dead, and it's pointless to speculate about the third. I saw scum as having the most to lose with a low chip count, and the town not really gaining much with a high count.

Could someone explain some town benefit to a high chip count that I've been missing in my analysis?

[Bamboomancer]

I've actually seen it, for the most part, as daytime vigilante. It's not so much as not needing to have it but keeping scum from freezing the town out from having that ability if needed. There could also be another cop, keep that in mind, and in later days I'll go by cop's investigation.

[Thesp]

The best use of the all-in mechanic is that the first person about to be lynched can all-in another, as I outlined in [12] and Bamboo repeated [51], which no one has presented any objection to.

But this strategy doesn't depend on chip counts.

I've italicized the part of your statement with which I take issue. The strategy

does

depend on chip counts, unless you plan on only going after people with high chip counts. This is, in what you mention in the second paragraph, a sort of "daytime vig", albeit not a voluntary one. Again, the ideal scenario is one where everyone has a similar (or equal) number of chips. This not withstanding, if townies are the ones who have the most chips, then if they are ever pressured to be lynched, they can have a greater range of targets to choose from. I'm also loathe to dissuade people from posting, as people's posts are the best way to catch scum. That being said, I do think that judging quality in people's posts is

more

important in this mafia game than in most. Contentless posts won't do.

Also, Bamboomancer, a better test for checking if you are town is if you'd be willing to let somebody go all in on you. Otherwise you might be scum sacrificing a scum buddy.

Also worth noting, this is totally, insatiably, horribly wrong. There are several reasons, but most notably, hooray for making the power roles all appear scummy. You get a

FOS: Thok

for that. Also, rereading your latest posts, it appears that you're happy to vote for practically anyone.

I'm still happy with my vote at the moment, but it would be resting just as comfortably on Thok.

Addendum

: My wife (kristocker) will be graduating law school Saturday (practically today), then after having family over we're headed to Houston Monday to fly to New York for a week. Our hotel has internet access (I believe), but please forgive us both if our posting will not be as frequent as otherwise would allow. Thanks.

[Thok]

Thesp, the way we plan to use the "make guilty-looking people go all-in" strategy is if the town has two guilty looking people (A and B), we will tell the person with the higher chip count to go all-in on the person with the lower chip count. If A wins, then B was scum (but nothing is known about A). If B wins, then B is innocent (but unfortunately A is dead).

If A delibarately chooses to all-in somebody other than B, or refuses to go all-in, he's probably scum, and we lynch him.

Do you just not see that in this case a person willing to be person B is more likely to be pro-town than the person willing to be person A?
----------------------
You've suggested another use for all-in, which lets a cop be a day-vig. But in that case, the cop is acting on his own volition, and we can recognize the action as not being forced. They are different situations!

(Takes a sip of scotch, then continues)

For your other comment, I've made five votes, but one was random, and two were lurker prodding (although I unfortunately lurker voted your wife immedaitely right after she posted.) When the lurkers I voted posted, I stopped voting them. Right now I'm happy with my Dranko vote though.