Metsfanmax wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:@72o, Mets, and whoevs:
I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...
Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.
But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.
I agree that the sample group is rather small at this point.
Right. I don't necessarily doubt the method, I'm just being properly skeptical since all we have is fairly anecdotal evidence at this point.
As I pointed out, it is hard to properly extricate the main variable here from other relevant factors, such as inherent skill of the player. Still, I imagine that if you found some equally high rated players who used this method and lost their 6-8 player games most of the time, that would be better proof. But the fact that no one at high levels uses the method would not necessarily be proof, even if it's strong circumstantial evidence.
Since the costs of collecting this data would likely fail to offset the benefits, then the only way we can ascertain the truth is to...
hold a poll!!!
for the truth is decided by the majority!