Kiron Conqueror - Abuse or Legal play?

[jsnyder748]

Sadly many posts are offtopic. So I will answer two quentions

1) Is it possible for other players to win Kiron and Xiang?

Yes it is but they have to play really well. For example playing early in any critical round is like suiciding. See game
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=12056017
On round 16 xiang who was the strongest by far played early. After 24 hours and several pages of deplomacy and after we blackmailed pink we made a coordinate attack and elliminate him at this very round. His final comment (he was there trying to convinse us otherwise)
2012-12-27 00:36:12 - xiangwang: waah, you guys are so mean!!

So if you do not know how to play, yes your chances are really close to 0%

I won one Game Game 12246204, but I see what your saying.

KiIIface as well Game Game 12190942

there was no deal making like what they did earlier in these 2 games. Just good play from other freestyle specialists. They aren't unbeatable.

[xiangwang]

are u saying it's impolite

I think it's impolite to invite seven people round a dinner table and you don't let on to six of them that you're best friends with the other one. It's deceitful.

For a better analogy make it a poker table where two players are in cahoots - for CC is really not that different to Texas Hold'Em in that one winner takes all. You and xiangwang never bet against each other. On the contrary you assist each other's victories.

I'm fairly sure the six other players would not have sat at the table had they known in advance there were two players working together. When the game starts it's too late however to stand up and take one's chips away.

Slightly flawed analogy, if it's winner takes all then K and I MUST bet against each other. I think you tried this analogy already in another post awhile back and it failed because best friends do play poker with each other (never done poker night with ur best friend?), we both try to win, of course we bet against each other, there are many times i attacked him (only after making sure he CANNOT retaliate, and vice versa). It's pointless for either of us to make half hearted attacks bc it doesn't do anything but entrenches in some useless battle while other players get stronger, half hearted attacks may work on less experienced players who don't know how to recover, but against kiron is pointless unless i have allies that will help me.

Regarding the dinner example, it's not deceitful, you want to be formal at first, it's called being polite.

Well duh! Of course you would bet against each other if you happen to be the last two players at the table. But prior to that....no. Eight players sit around the table, each putting up his or her stake (which on CC is the points they stand to lose). The two players with an unwritten alliance do not bet against each other. On the contrary they help each other, esp in the last round to be dealt when the player with the better hand (of the two protagonists) will take the pot. Net loss to Player 1 = 20pts. Net gain to Player 2 = 140pts. Do this long enough and systematically enough at different tables and the shared earnings could earn one the title King of Poker. Or in this case, Conqueror (cough cough)

I think we already said, our win rates are relatively the same when we play alone or with each other. If I don't win a game it is LIKELY the next or more experienced player wins (usually it's Kiron) and vice versa. Our win rates are about 50%-60% alone and with each other. It's not like we had 20% win rates alone and suddenly jumped to 50-60% when playing together. You're just trying to make something out of nothing regarding our games together. Heck even MC said his win rates are higher than mine on 8 player games, which may be true (not going to bother checking). How about looking how many games I win playing WITHOUT Kiron. Then look at how many I win playing WITH Kiron. If there is a more than a 20% difference then you may have a point. You can't double count games as EITHER Kiron OR I win, just count kiron for kiron, and mine for mine. Afterall, it naturally follows that if the most experienced player doesn't win, it is likely the 2nd most experienced player that wins (none of this i throw games conspiracy minus that last game due to rule misunderstanding which Kiron already admitted was a mistake).

Even using your poker example, if we already win tables at a 50% playing alone compared to your average 18.5% player in an 8 man table, it is likely that if I don't win, Kiron will win since he has the next highest percentage to win. We play enough tables, it is likely that Kiron and I will win the majority of the tables, not because we are in cahoots, but because we are both independently good. That's not conspiracy, that's simple logic!

Afterall, if Kiron wins 50% of the games against 7 random players, and I win 50% of the games against 7 random players. But both of us together in a game vs. 6 random players, are you going to bet on the 6 random players (assuming each player has the same average skill level as each player in the prior games) or either kiron OR i would win?

[xiangwang]

Actually I did the numbers for myself (give or take 2 games).

I have completed 150 games (lets say 140 since first 10 I didn't know what I was doing)

Out of 140 games, I played 130-8 player freestyle games

I have won a total of 67 games (65-8 play freestyle wins)

I played a total of 53-8 player freestyle game with kiron, which I only won 15 (28%)

So out of my 77 freestyle games without Kiron, I won 38 (49%).

Heck, if anything playing with Kiron hurt my odds lol! I play better without him! Playing with Kiron almost halved my odds, which makes perfect sense considering I have a stronger challenger!

Also looked, between the 53 8 man freestyle games we played together (from my last 140 games), 33 of them won by kiron or me. Since I won 15, Kiron was 18 giving Kiron a win rate of 34%. I'm not going to go through Kiron's win rate, but lets say it's waay higher than 34% (I would predict low 50s). If anything, playing with each other hurts our individual chances of winning.

[josko.ri]

Actually I did the numbers for myself (give or take 2 games).

I have completed 150 games (lets say 140 since first 10 I didn't know what I was doing)

Out of 140 games, I played 130-8 player freestyle games

I have won a total of 67 games (65-8 play freestyle wins)

I played a total of 53-8 player freestyle game with kiron, which I only won 15 (28%)

So out of my 77 freestyle games without Kiron, I won 38 (49%).

Heck, if anything playing with Kiron hurt my odds lol! I play better without him! Playing with Kiron almost halved my odds, which makes perfect sense considering I have a stronger challenger!

I am about to give my opinion on this today, but here opinion only about this (wrong presented and non comparable on this way) statistics:

When you play alone and Kiron plays alone, then theoretically You both can have maximal 100% wins.
When you play together, you both can have maximal 50% wins (or one played can have 40, other one 60, or some other numbers which will give median of 50%). You can also look at this, when you play alone, you both can achieve 200% wins (each player can achieve 100%). When you play together, you both can achieve 100% wins, so maximum is different.

So if you gona compare your success together and you success alone, then you need to divide success alone with 2, because theoretical maximum is halved when you are playing together in comparing when you are playing alone.

That said, real comparing of those 2 odds would be:
Xianwang playing alone: 49% out of 100% maximum = 49%
Xiangwang plus Kiron: 28% of 50% maximum = 56%
This statistics works when in consideration are also added Kiron's win rate with/without Xiangwang.

[xiangwang]

Also looked, between the 53 8 man freestyle games we played together (from my last 140 games), 33 of them won by kiron or me. Since I won 15, Kiron was 18 giving Kiron a win rate of 34%. I'm not going to go through Kiron's win rate, but lets say it's waay higher than 34% (I would predict mid 50s). If anything, playing with each other hurts our individual chances of winning. Our combined win rate is about 62%, well yeah, take two 50% players together (usually you expect 75%), but accounting for errors, you get 62%, well within normal reasoning.

[xiangwang]

Actually I did the numbers for myself (give or take 2 games).

I have completed 150 games (lets say 140 since first 10 I didn't know what I was doing)

Out of 140 games, I played 130-8 player freestyle games

I have won a total of 67 games (65-8 play freestyle wins)

I played a total of 53-8 player freestyle game with kiron, which I only won 15 (28%)

So out of my 77 freestyle games without Kiron, I won 38 (49%).

Heck, if anything playing with Kiron hurt my odds lol! I play better without him! Playing with Kiron almost halved my odds, which makes perfect sense considering I have a stronger challenger!

I am about to give my opinion on this today, but here opinion only about this (wrong presented and non comparable on this way) statistics:

When you play alone and Kiron plays alone, then theoretically You both can have maximal 100% wins.
When you play together, you both can have maximal 50% wins (or one played can have 40, other one 60, or some other numbers which will give median of 50%). You can also look at this, when you play alone, you both can achieve 200% wins (each player can achieve 100%). When you play together, you both can achieve 100% wins, so maximum is different.

So if you gona compare your success together and you success alone, then you need to divide success alone with 2, because theoretical maximum is halved when you are playing together in comparing when you are playing alone.

That said, real comparing of those 2 odds would be:
Xianwang playing alone: 49% out of 100% maximum = 49%
Xiangwang plus Kiron: 28% of 50% maximum = 56%
This statistics works when in consideration are also added Kiron's win rate with/without Xiangwang.

Not sure if I agree with the math, but either way, it's within 10% error margin which means it's insignificant (my count has give or take 1-2 games).

[josko.ri]

Also looked, between the 53 8 man freestyle games we played together (from my last 140 games), 33 of them won by kiron or me. Since I won 15, Kiron was 18 giving Kiron a win rate of 34%. I'm not going to go through Kiron's win rate, but lets say it's waay higher than 34% (I would predict mid 50s). If anything, playing with each other hurts our individual chances of winning. Our combined win rate is about 62%, well yeah, take two 50% players together (usually you expect 75%), but accounting for errors, you get 62%, well within normal reasoning.

This is now good way of math. When playing together you together have 62% (out of maximal 100%). When playing alone, Xingwang has 49% (out of maximal 100%). How much has Kiron? That will give good numbers for comparison if you benefited from games together.

[xiangwang]

Also looked, between the 53 8 man freestyle games we played together (from my last 140 games), 33 of them won by kiron or me. Since I won 15, Kiron was 18 giving Kiron a win rate of 34%. I'm not going to go through Kiron's win rate, but lets say it's waay higher than 34% (I would predict mid 50s). If anything, playing with each other hurts our individual chances of winning. Our combined win rate is about 62%, well yeah, take two 50% players together (usually you expect 75%), but accounting for errors, you get 62%, well within normal reasoning.

This is now good way of math. When playing together you together have 62% (out of maximal 100%). When playing alone, Xingwang has 49% (out of maximal 100%). How much has Kiron? That will give good numbers for comparison if you benefited from games together.

I predict about 53-56%. Also that's no completely correct because we can't both win, you are assuming we both win and also there is 1 less random player since you are making sound like it's 2 vs. 6 players.

edit: doing quick count (off up to 3 games)
Kiron played 183 8 freestyle man games (though he did get DQed from 4 when we pulled the multi prank) so 179 for its sake.

126 games without me and 53 with me.

kiron got 94 wins in 8 player.

He played 53 games with me and had 18 wins or 34%

Kiron played 126 games without me and had 76 wins or 60%.

[Donelladan]

I'd like to propose a question regarding a similar case. The question, in advance, is "at which moment is the rule broken?"

The case

Moment 1 - 8-player standard freestyle flat rate Third Crusade game starts
Moment 2 - red and green get considerably weaker than the others
Moment 3 - in a given turn, red and green are the only two players left to make their moves
Moment 4 - they both conclude their individual odds of winning the game is about 5%
Moment 5 - they realize that, should one of them take the objective this very turn and not have it broken by the other, they will win regardless of how strong the other 6 players are
Moment 6 - red proposes the following deal: he will roll a 30v33 (50.5% roughly) attack against Antiochia (owned by, say, blue). Should red win, he will take the objectives and green will promise not to break it. Should red lose, green will take the objectives and red will promise not to break it. Red makes the offer because 50.5% is better than 5%.
Moment 7 - green accepts the offer because 49.5% is better than 5%.
Moment 8 - the 30v33 is rolled and red wins. Red takes all objectives. Red ends the turn.
Moment 9 - green, who could probably take Antiochia and keep the game alive, prefers to honour his word and ends the turn without attacking.
Moment 10 - red presses "b" and wins the game.

*Moment 6 has a difference regarding the actual case. Instead of taking the 50/50 odds to an outside "tiebreaker" game, the deal never has to "leave" that particular game (for the record, Xiangwang originally offered exactly that with his "taking Granada" bet, but that changed to the 3 outside games deal)

I will give you the answer for me.

Moment 4 - they both conclude their individual odds of winning the game is about 5%

First, 5% chance of winning in a 8 player freestyle games ? I think things change really fast in that kind of games, and you cannot say at one point you have 5% of winning a game.
But if you have like almost no chance of winning the game otherwise, I think in your example, no rules have been broken.
Both players played only to win. And I would have keep my word too.

The rules is broken in the case of the game of the topic because of the friendship. ( and there is game throwing, I think because none of them had no chance to win otherwise so they played unfair).

If your case happens with 2 random players in a game with unknown people I think it is totally fair.
But one could argue that if they are friend they made the deal because they are friends, so from the beginning this friendship give them an advantage and give no chance for the other players. That is the problem.
Because let's say Kiron could win the game in the next 2 turns, would Xiangwang propose this kind of gamble to another random player at the turn before?


And one remark from everyone saying that nobody should have play early in a freestyle game. Maybe those player who played early were assuming that 2 remaining player would try to avoid a win of each other? Assuming everyone play alone and to win himself, I would make this kind of assumption myself. Problem is they didnt know the 2 players playing last were friends......... friendship IS definitely the pb.

[xiangwang]

I'd like to propose a question regarding a similar case. The question, in advance, is "at which moment is the rule broken?"

The case

Moment 1 - 8-player standard freestyle flat rate Third Crusade game starts
Moment 2 - red and green get considerably weaker than the others
Moment 3 - in a given turn, red and green are the only two players left to make their moves
Moment 4 - they both conclude their individual odds of winning the game is about 5%
Moment 5 - they realize that, should one of them take the objective this very turn and not have it broken by the other, they will win regardless of how strong the other 6 players are
Moment 6 - red proposes the following deal: he will roll a 30v33 (50.5% roughly) attack against Antiochia (owned by, say, blue). Should red win, he will take the objectives and green will promise not to break it. Should red lose, green will take the objectives and red will promise not to break it. Red makes the offer because 50.5% is better than 5%.
Moment 7 - green accepts the offer because 49.5% is better than 5%.
Moment 8 - the 30v33 is rolled and red wins. Red takes all objectives. Red ends the turn.
Moment 9 - green, who could probably take Antiochia and keep the game alive, prefers to honour his word and ends the turn without attacking.
Moment 10 - red presses "b" and wins the game.

*Moment 6 has a difference regarding the actual case. Instead of taking the 50/50 odds to an outside "tiebreaker" game, the deal never has to "leave" that particular game (for the record, Xiangwang originally offered exactly that with his "taking Granada" bet, but that changed to the 3 outside games deal)

I will give you the answer for me.

Moment 4 - they both conclude their individual odds of winning the game is about 5%

First, 5% chance of winning in a 8 player freestyle games ? I think things change really fast in that kind of games, and you cannot say at one point you have 5% of winning a game.
But if you have like almost no chance of winning the game otherwise, I think in your example, no rules have been broken.
Both players played only to win. And I would have keep my word too.

The rules is broken in the case of the game of the topic because of the friendship. ( and there is game throwing, I think because none of them had no chance to win otherwise so they played unfair).

If your case happens with 2 random players in a game with unknown people I think it is totally fair.
But one could argue that if they are friend they made the deal because they are friends, so from the beginning this friendship give them an advantage and give no chance for the other players. That is the problem.
Because let's say Kiron could win the game in the next 2 turns, would Xiangwang propose this kind of gamble to another random player at the turn before?


And one remark from everyone saying that nobody should have play early in a freestyle game. Maybe those player who played early were assuming that 2 remaining player would try to avoid a win of each other? Assuming everyone play alone and to win himself, I would make this kind of assumption myself. Problem is they didnt know the 2 players playing last were friends......... friendship IS definitely the pb.

I disagree with the statement we had no way to win otherwise. Ask any of the players in the game, I was in the commanding lead of the game...

[Donelladan]

Maybe I put to many negation and get lost with the english.

I meant, you had a way to win otherwise, that is why you should not have made the deal. ( and being in the lead of game is even worse....making your case totally undefendable)

I consider this kind of deal could be OK if it is your only chance of winning. ( for both of the players).

[josko.ri]

Also looked, between the 53 8 man freestyle games we played together (from my last 140 games), 33 of them won by kiron or me. Since I won 15, Kiron was 18 giving Kiron a win rate of 34%. I'm not going to go through Kiron's win rate, but lets say it's waay higher than 34% (I would predict mid 50s). If anything, playing with each other hurts our individual chances of winning. Our combined win rate is about 62%, well yeah, take two 50% players together (usually you expect 75%), but accounting for errors, you get 62%, well within normal reasoning.

This is now good way of math. When playing together you together have 62% (out of maximal 100%). When playing alone, Xingwang has 49% (out of maximal 100%). How much has Kiron? That will give good numbers for comparison if you benefited from games together.

I predict about 53-56%. Also that's no completely correct because we can't both win, you are assuming we both win and also there is 1 less random player since you are making sound like it's 2 vs. 6 players.

edit: doing quick count (off up to 3 games)
Kiron played 183 8 freestyle man games (though he did get DQed from 4 when we pulled the multi prank) so 179 for its sake.

126 games without me and 53 with me.

kiron got 94 wins in 8 player.

He played 53 games with me and had 18 wins or 34%

Kiron played 126 games without me and had 76 wins or 60%.

So in total, when playing together, you both have 33 of 53 62% vs 6 players.
When playing alone, you both have (38+76)/(77+126)=114/203= 56%.

As I counted your success in games together, then you are right about 7 opponents comparing to 6 opponents, so 33/53 can be multiplied by 6/7 and result is 53%.

Ok, numbers (if they are correct) say you do not benefit by playing together in comparing with not playing together.

[Crazyirishman]

This is an outrage, where's the 'I don't give a f*ck, but of course they use some type of point manipulation strategy,' option in the poll?

[Chariot of Fire]

[KoolBak]

Since rank is sooooo important to these punks, I suggest their accounts simply be frozen so they can enjoy their stinking badges forever

(disgusting)

[Rodion]

Chariot's report is another thing. There are some fishy games in there that warrant a deeper look, yes, but others were added simply because Chariot doesn't understand the map well enough (like the one where Kiron took Malta, then Krak des Chevaliers and, before he could advance all to hit Antiochia, Xiangwang pressed "b" and won - Chariot mentioned something about harmlessly taking Malta and letting Xiangwang win)

A rather belittling comment to say I don't understand the map well enough. Do you really think I could have compiled my report if this was was the case? You interpret my remark to mean Kiron only went to Malta and ended his turn. My inference was that he only got as far as Malta with his stack. This was always likely to happen as he opted to take his turn immediately after xiangwang had taken the objective. Now why would he do that, knowing xiangwang was still online? And if you care to look at the timestamps you'll see that he took 1" + 4" + 6" + 4" between each territory gain. Here's not a guy who studied the map prior to clicking Start and thought "Right, all on Vatican and get to Antioch asap via X, Y & Z" (a move that would take any freestyle specialist a matter of seconds) or "Red has the Objective, I am capable of breaking it and taking it for myself, but he has just played and is still online". Oh no, neither of those (logical) scenarios entered his head. Instead he starts his turn, takes his first territory in 1 second and then starts to slow down as he progresses.

"Hey Superwang, I'm almost at the door of Antioch. You'd better click Start soon!" is the line I would use if I was to write a screenplay based on the events and the evidence.

"Hey Superwang, get me a Molson from the fridge would ya?" is what I would write if I thought for one moment that Player K had every intention of breaking Player X.

I'm sorry if you saw that as belittling, it was just my attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than assume you were ill-intentioned. I assumed that after the "Dako invited Cha and Chariot blamed KORT" fiasco you would not make ill-intentioned attacks anymore. Consequently, when I saw something that seemed wrong in your accusation, I had to assume it was due to lack of understanding.

Maybe you think that taking 6 seconds to complete an attack (advancing from the previous attack and attacking) is outrageous (by the way, first attack tends to be faster because there's no previous advancing to do). It could very well be outrageous for a speed freestyler and it might be for Kiron. I do think, however, that King Achilles would have a hard time riding the "he took a few more seconds than what he should have needed" line into a guilty verdict. By the way, saying he "harmlessly took Malta" implies that he stopped taking things after that, which he didn't. Saying he "harmlessly took Krak des Chevaliers" would be a more accurate way of presenting the facts and one that would be less likely to undermine your credibility.

As I said, there are some games there that do seem fishy (as freakns pointed out in the other thread, the one where everything around Vatican was taken, but not Vatican itself). I think you should trim the accusation so it only has strong cases that don't undermine your own argument, that's all.

Back to the topic now.

[Chariot of Fire]

Perhaps if you expended your time on the case rather than on me......

[Rodion]

I did. My opinion can be seen above.

[Rodion]

In order to answer that you should think what intentionaly throwing a game means.

This case is not completely clear as I have mentioned. There is a theory saying that in each individual game any player should do whatever possible in order to win. This is a very strict translation of the rule about 'throwing a game' and it is not used in general because this a gaming site that in general people do not play that competitive.

So if you consider throwing a game any strategy that does not have just one purpose, to maximize the posibilities of winning the game, but have other purposes (including punishing a player because he left you no real chanses to win, maintain a name of a trustfull player that doesn't backstab people) then step 9 is were the rules are broken.

But in this theory, any A player that have an alliance with B player, if player B is about to win then player A is forced to backstab him if he wants to play according to the rules.

In general I do not like this theory and so I do not beleive that this case is against the rules at any point. I beleive that it is funny to consider the other players feelings (for example I always leave at least a really small chance to any player to win because I am afraid that they will be desperate and attack me just to punish me) and play like robots with the only purpose to win the game. In addition in a site like that there can not be a rule so strict because people will just not going to follow it.

Spot on.

I only disagree with the last phrase: you can make strict rules as long as you're willing to punish the ones who break them.

[xiangwang]

Why is this topic still going?

Regarding that one game it's been established by mods, kiron and i that it was a misunderstanding of the rules and a warning has already been issued. Also, it's just 1 game for goodness sakes, it's as though Kiron cheated his entire way EVERY game to conqueror, which everyone knows is wrong.

[xiangwang]

Maybe I put to many negation and get lost with the english.

I meant, you had a way to win otherwise, that is why you should not have made the deal. ( and being in the lead of game is even worse....making your case totally undefendable)

I consider this kind of deal could be OK if it is your only chance of winning. ( for both of the players).

I made the deal because i had about 87.5% odds of winning right on the spot! The deal originally was using 15 on castile to take out 5 on granada or win any 3 of 1v1 games. It was not a 50/50 odds deal. If I didn't, I would still have to slog it out, would u not take 15v5 odds or win any game out of 3 1v1 games? How was it not defendable? Again the deal was made with misunderstanding of the rules and we already admitted it was wrong.

Also looked, between the 53 8 man freestyle games we played together (from my last 140 games), 33 of them won by kiron or me. Since I won 15, Kiron was 18 giving Kiron a win rate of 34%. I'm not going to go through Kiron's win rate, but lets say it's waay higher than 34% (I would predict mid 50s). If anything, playing with each other hurts our individual chances of winning. Our combined win rate is about 62%, well yeah, take two 50% players together (usually you expect 75%), but accounting for errors, you get 62%, well within normal reasoning.

This is now good way of math. When playing together you together have 62% (out of maximal 100%). When playing alone, Xingwang has 49% (out of maximal 100%). How much has Kiron? That will give good numbers for comparison if you benefited from games together.

I predict about 53-56%. Also that's no completely correct because we can't both win, you are assuming we both win and also there is 1 less random player since you are making sound like it's 2 vs. 6 players.

edit: doing quick count (off up to 3 games)
Kiron played 183 8 freestyle man games (though he did get DQed from 4 when we pulled the multi prank) so 179 for its sake.

126 games without me and 53 with me.

kiron got 94 wins in 8 player.

He played 53 games with me and had 18 wins or 34%

Kiron played 126 games without me and had 76 wins or 60%.

So in total, when playing together, you both have 33 of 53 62% vs 6 players.
When playing alone, you both have (38+76)/(77+126)=114/203= 56%.

As I counted your success in games together, then you are right about 7 opponents comparing to 6 opponents, so 33/53 can be multiplied by 6/7 and result is 53%.

Ok, numbers (if they are correct) say you do not benefit by playing together in comparing with not playing together.

Not sure if agree with your math, but either way (my way or yours), Chariot's argument that we benefit from playing in the same game is false!

[Qwert]

actually KIron and xiangwang have 66% of wins on Third crusade, when they play together. (39 games play together win 26 games).
These will be great score for double team.

[xiangwang]

actually KIron and xiangwang have 66% of wins on Third crusade, when they play together. (39 games play together win 26 games).
These will be great score for double team.

Okay if you are going to count, then take that 66% and multiply by 6/7 since there is 1 less player to play against and you get 56%, in between kiron (60%) and my own win rates (49%). Nothing suspicious. This is not a case of players winning 10-20% games by themselves and then suddenly winning 30% more than alone because they play with a buddy for secret diplomacy!

[AslanTheKing]

Why is this topic still going?

Regarding that one game it's been established by mods, kiron and i that it was a misunderstanding of the rules and a warning has already been issued. Also, it's just 1 game for goodness sakes, it's as though Kiron cheated his entire way EVERY game to conqueror, which everyone knows is wrong.

its just 1 game????
from January 2011 until March 2013 was really just 1 game???
sure

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=117940&start=45
read at page 4 what AslantheKing had to say long time ago


Postby AslanTheKing on Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:26 pm
Well, my opinion to this is straight forward,
the rules above seem logical , thats fine, but why dont you mention the real strategy to get to the top quickly?

Every game to play with kiron, him or you win , isnt it possible that you two have a silent deal?
its possible, that way, no matter which strategy u use, you both can manipulate the game accordingly, simple mathematics,
in a game of 8 guys, 6 mind their own business, one of you can always change the game, and interestingly its mostly the other ones turn, as soon one of you has finished.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

guys , its just obvious, it went good long enough
and now the heat is on
file is closed, guilty

but good news is, you guys have practiced long enough, youre talented ?
now play it fair
and try doubles - maybe ure unbeatable then

and by the way start a new account , since kiron and xiangwang will stay in our memorys
kiron can be chop, and xiangwang can be suey
good luck for your future career at CC

[betiko]

funny twist in the C&A thread