Always a titanic struggle ...
This year there were only 24 matches completed in the preliminary
rounds compared to last year's 38. Unlike last year's need to
enter multiple heats to guarantee advancement, the qualifiers
only had to win one heat to advance in this year's tournament.
Like last year, the winners from each table of five players (only
one table had 4 players) again had to survive a campaign of two
consecutive games with the winner determined by the combined
ducat score from both games. In an improvement over last year,
the players randomly determined seating order at the beginning
of each game.
Since all winners of the preliminary heats advanced, with
the semi-final tables being power-seeded with the first table
having the 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th and 21st seeds playing, etc.,
there was a need for a different set of tie-breakers than last
year. This year, all winners were sorted on the basis of the
point-differential over the second-place finisher and then by
their percentage of the total table points. Second place finishers
were sorted by closest to the first place finisher, and then
by their percentage of the total table points. This seemed to
result in better seeding as evidenced by the 13th seed being
the lowest to advance into the finals. For the semi's, we had
all but one qualifier show for the elimination rounds and were
able to fill the slots with two runner-ups who finished tied
with first-place, Paul Weintraub and Mike Hazel. Since I wanted
to remain a neutral GM during the playoffs, my slot was taken
by the next available player, John Chung.
The highest score during the tournament was recorded by Ewan
McNay with 29 chips followed by Winston Forrest and Joshua Githens
with 28 chips each. Battling for "futility" honors
was John Emery with three chips in the qualifiers and Brian Barwick
in a strange semi-finals match.
Alan Witte, the 13th seed, emerged victorious over the top
seed, Ewan McNay, from the first SF table by scoring 12 points
in both games with Troll and Unicorn secret bets. Sue Ellsworth,
Gerald Lientz and Eric Eshelman also played at this table. Josh
Githens, the third seed, was a winner in the strange SF match
where all players had scored six points in the first game except
Brian Barwick with zero points. The second game broke the four-way
tie when Joshua scored 12 points while the others scored six
again (except Brian who got only three more points). Josh had
Troll and Hydra as his secret bids. Paul Weintraub, Trevor Bender
and Winston Forrest were in this game. In the third SF game,
Bruce Monnin (ninth seed) came from next to last place in the
first game to defeat Justin Veazey, the fourth seed, by making
sure that Justin blanked in scoring during the second game. Bruce
went with the double Hydra secret wagers to win his match to
advance. Bruce also defeated Bill Beckman, Mike Ellsworth
In the first game of the Final, Buddy went into the lead early
with 14 points and a secret bet on the Unicorn. Bruce (12 points)
and Eric (8 points) joined Buddy in betting on the Unicorn. This
game seemed to be somewhat driven by group-think on these secret
bets. Alan remained within striking distance with 12 points and
a secret bid on the Troll. Josh had his secret bet on the Warlock
who bought the farm and came in last in the first game with only
three points. In the second game, the players again managed a
"triple" with secret bets on the Cyclops by Buddy,
Bruce and Alan. The secret bids by Josh (Troll) and Eric (Dragon)
both took a dirt bath during the course of the game and eliminated
their chances at TTA glory. Josh came in last with seven total
ducats, and Eric placed fourth with 13 points. Placing second
was Buddy with 22 points and then Bruce Monnin was third with
22 points also. The new TTA Champion was Alan Witte with 26 points
total. All hail the new Titan!
Stats
One of the nice things that we did during this 2000 WBC TTA
Tournament was to fill out a relatively extensive data sheet
that recorded secret bets and creature kills for each campaign.
I thank those people who took the time to complete these charts
during their games. Their efforts are what I used to derive the
following analyses.
There were 30 campaigns played resulting in 60 total games.
Of those, only 55 games were evaluated because the rest of the
games had incomplete or non-legible records. 53 games were five-player
versions; only two games were four-players. Please note that
this evaluation is limited by three major factors. First, we
assumed that secret bets, creature kills and player diplomacy,
which happened in the first game, would not unduly influence
the second game. I did try to look into evaluating only the first
games played, but that resulted in only 28 games available for
evaluation and the results were not dramatically different from
this complete analysis. Second, we assumed that the likelihood
of creature kills and placement of secret bets for each of the
different creatures would result in the same expected value.
Of course, the differences are what's interesting about this
analysis. Finally, these analyses are based upon a rather small
sample of less than 60 games and "your mileage may vary".
We looked first at the secret bets that were placed on the
different creatures for the evaluated games (here, only 54 games
had available records). If we assume that all creatures are just
as worthy of secret bets and that initial card play and open
bets did not overly influence the choice of subsequent secret
bets, we can expect 33.5 bets placed on each creature (52 games
with five-players and two games with four-players) and considering
a no-secret bet as a mistake.
Secret Bets Placed |
Number |
Variance |
Cyclops |
27 |
-6.5 |
Warlock |
30 |
-3.5 |
Dragon |
32 |
-1.5 |
Titan |
32 |
-1.5 |
Troll |
32 |
-1.5 |
Hydra |
33 |
-0.5 |
Ranger |
37 |
+3.5 |
Unicorn |
38 |
+4.5 |
None (expected should be 0) |
7 |
+7.0 |
What this data suggest is a definite bias against betting
on the Cyclops, which is later reinforced by the fact that it
is one of the creatures that is killed early. As to whether the
lack of secret support dooms the Cyclops to being in the early
kill group or whether players just don't like the Cyclops' power,
it's unclear from this data (but perhaps the multiple-bid data
suggest that the lack of support dooms the Cyclops). However,
I would tend to agree with those players who see the Cyclops'
as having the most annoying power to the non-backers. I was a
bit surprised to see that the powers that I tend to prefer and
think of being useful (Dragon, Titan, Troll and Hydra) did not
significantly vary from the expected. I would have expected higher
positive variance rather than the relatively neutral deviation.
I was perplexed somewhat by the positive variance on the Ranger
and the Unicorn, since I only find these powers to be helpful
in specific situations.
Next, I took a look at which creatures got eliminated first.
With 55 games being evaluated, we would expect each creature
to be the "First Kill" 6.9 times in this data. As noted,
Cyclops got clobbered first rather resoundingly. Also, the Titan
was the first creature killed nearly as often. This seems to
suggest that these two "annoying" powers that can affect
another player's hand tend to bring unfriendly attention rather
rapidly. I would suggest from this data that you should not put
any secret wagers on these creatures unless you have some additional
support and ability to keep them alive.
First Killed |
Number |
Variance |
Cyclops |
12 |
-5.1 |
Titan |
10 |
-3.1 |
Ranger |
6 |
+0.9 |
Troll |
6 |
+0.9 |
Warlock |
6 |
+0.9 |
Dragon |
5 |
+1.9 |
Hydra |
5 |
+1.9 |
Unicorn |
5 |
+1.9 |
Looking further along the continuum at the first three creatures
killed in a game, we see that it confirms the "loser"
nature of the Cyclops. However, the Titan appears to do much
better, once it survives the initial assault for the first kill.
Surprisingly, the Troll emerges as an increasingly likely target
to be killed when looking at the first three eliminations. Later
we will look at a "survivor"-analysis which may suggest
that this switch for the Titan and the Troll may be just an anomaly.
Based on 55 games evaluated, if this was random, we would expect
each creature to be one of the first three creatures eliminated
about 20.6 times.
First Three Killed |
Number |
Variance |
Cyclops |
31 |
-10.4 |
Troll |
26 |
-5.4 |
Titan |
22 |
-1.4 |
Ranger |
20 |
+0.6 |
Hydra |
19 |
+1.6 |
Unicorn |
16 |
+4.6 |
Warlock |
16 |
+4.6 |
Dragon |
15 |
+5.6 |
Next, we attempted to determine whom among the TTA creatures
would be considered "survivors" and not likely to get
"voted" off the arena. With 55 games, we would expect
each creature to be one of the three survivors 20.6 times if
due to chance only. This analysis merely confirmed that the Cyclops
and the Titan were the least likely candidates to remain standing
at the end. Also, the Warlock appeared to be slightly vulnerable.
The most likely survivors appear to be what I consider to be
the two most powerful creatures, the Hydra and the Dragon. In
games that I play, I try to convince people that the Hydra and
the Dragon must be killed because of their powers, but perhaps
I should be looking into betting on them more often.
Survivor |
Number |
Variance |
Titan |
14 |
-6.6 |
Cyclops |
16 |
-4.6 |
Warlock |
18 |
-2.6 |
Troll |
22 |
+1.4 |
Ranger |
23 |
+2.4 |
Unicorn |
23 |
+2.4 |
Hydra |
24 |
+3.4 |
Dragon |
25 |
+4.4 |
As an aside, it should be noted that in most of the games
played, the five eliminated creatures were killed by three or
four different players. Only in a handful of cases were all the
killings done by two different players. In no cases were there
the extremes of only one or all five players being involved with
the creature eliminations.
Finally, further analyses were done to reflect some of the
player interactions that are so important in the dynamics of
a multi-player card game such as TTA. Since we don't have actual
after-action reports that capture the thoughts, exact bets and
card play for this tournament, I attempted to use multiple secret
bets on creatures to serve as proxy for some of the player interactions
and its effect on creature survival. There were no games with
four or five secret bets on the same creature (this would be
likely limited by general card distribution at the beginning
of the game). However, there were 42 instances of double-secret-bids
on one creature and 12 instances of triple-bids on one creature.
Creature |
Double Bets |
Deaths |
Triple Bets |
Deaths |
Unicorn |
5 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
Ranger |
9 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
Troll |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
Titan |
4 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Dragon |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Cyclops |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Warlock |
5 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Hydra |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
With this analysis, it appears that having multiple-bids on
the Unicorn and the Ranger weakens the ability of these creatures
to survive. Even with several players interested in the survival
of these creatures, they appear to be very vulnerable to elimination.
In contrast, while the Cyclops and Warlock may be easily eliminated
when backed by only one or no players, they appear to be stronger
when backed by several supporters. As expected, the Hydra and
the Dragon appear to be generally good bets based on this information.
In summary, there are many limitations to this analyses of
TTA and this information should be recognized as only providing
general thoughts on creature survivability and some ideas about
placing secret bets based upon some actual data. I have already
noted some of the caveats earlier, and certainly there are many
other strategies that have been discussed about betting and card
play for TTA in other forums. This analysis is not meant to be
a substitute for good game play, understanding of the game, opponent
psychology, card counting, etc., that occurs in any good card
game involving bidding. From this data, the two general rules
appear to be: 1) be very wary of placing secret bets or bids
on the Cyclops and the Titan, and 2) secret bets and bids on
the Dragon and the Hydra may be worthwhile and defendable.
TTA 2000 WBC Semi-finalists seeds:
1. Ewan McNay +11
2. Robert Sohn +10 - 4-player board; GM did not play in
SF
3. Josh Githens +7
4. Justin Veazey +6 .299
5. Christina Hancock +6 .274
6. Eric Gorr +5
7. Gerald Lientz +4 .347
8. Trevor Bender +4 .319
9. Bruce Monnin +4 .269
10. Buddy Sinigaglio +4 .244
11. Kaarin Englemann +3 .271
12. Mark Love +3 .241 - did not show for SF
13. Alan Witte +2
14. Winston Forrest +1 .326
15. Michael Ellsworth +1 .274
16. David Platnick +1 .267
17. Jon Shambeda +1 .264
18. Todd Surgoine +1 .248
19. Eric Eshleman +1 .240
20. Brian Barwick +1 .238
21. Bill Beckman +1 .223
22. Louis Gehring +0 .259
23. Justin Broessel +0 .253
24. Susan Ellsworth +0 .222
25. Paul Weintraub 2nd 1.000 .259
26. Phil Bradley 2nd 1.000 .253 - did not show for SF
27. Mike Hazel 2nd 1.000 .222
28. John Chung 3rd place finish was highest - needed to fill
25 slots
TITAN THE ARENA JUNIOR
The
first round of play at the Junior Titan: The Arena tournament
drew 15 entrants. An additional three players later joined in
the fun as substitute players for the second and third games.
Many of the kids learned how to play the card game for the first
time from Assistant GM Kaarin Engelmann (the highly qualified
defending WBC Champ of Titan: The Arena). In no time these kids
were wheeling and dealing the fate of fantasy beasts in the combat
arena, with a few diplomatic skills unlikely to be found in an
adult game (though I may yet try tears of anguish for the beautiful
Unicorn some day).
The event was run as a three-table, three-game, rotating final
"much like the final round of the Galaxy tournament.
Each player was assigned a unique table rotation identity and
played three times. The pre-set rotation sequence maximized the
number of finalists each player would face in the course of the
three games, while minimizing the number of repeat opponents.
Each player
carted around a scorecard to their next game, while the table
scores were reported to the GM. Each player was allowed to inspect
his opponents scorecard prior to playing each game. Furthermore,
the room "leader" after each round was an open fact
for all to use as they saw fit.
The first round of games saw the table victors earning 13-14
points, with Rebecca Hebner leading the pack, closely followed
by Chrissey Frattali and Joseph Sposito. Despite earning few
or no points, most low-scoring players opted to stick around
to play a second game.
When the rotation put Rebecca at a table with four boys, she
called for the GMs to prevent gender discrimination in the play
of the game. However, on casual observation, she was more than
equal to the task of managing the would-be colluders without
aid. Indeed, she ended up scoring the day's high game score of
18. Table 2 was a tough battle among players who had done well
in the first round. Joseph managed to keep ahead of Chrissey,
while fighting off the strong challenge of Mark Wilson. Table
3 was won by Jordan Flawd, but more significantly, Erica Kirchner
scored a close second, which combined with her good first-round
showing to put her in strong contention for the wood.
The final round began with Rebecca Hebner holding a five-point
lead over Joseph Sposito, with Erica Kirchner, Mark Wilson, Lee
Rodrigues and Alex Bell with outside shots of catching the leader
if her point total could be kept low. Late substitutes Alex Henning
and Rebecca Dunn enriched the final round's pool of competitive
players. Rebecca Hebner scored her worst of the
day, but still managed to win her table with 12 points, locking
up the championship with a whopping 44 points. Joseph Sposito
slipped a bit in the face of the new competition, but managed
to get ten points for a three-round total of 37 to secure second
place. Lee Rodrigues thumped his competition royally (including
Erica Kirchner and Alex Bell) at Table 3 to add 15 points
to his total, falling just one point shy of Joseph. Mark Wilson,
despite playing in two games against the eventual champ, managed
to pull in a total of 33 points to secure fourth.
With Rebecca Hebner about to graduate to the adult tournaments,
I foresee a bidding war for her services in the team tournament.
Hmmm, I see she's Kaarin Engelmann's niece, raising the tough
question of who would make the better TTA baton holder for a
team. I understand, though, that Rebecca's tourney skills have
already been tested with great success in a number of adult events,
as she used the adult events this year to test out strategies
and learn new ones from adults before she dove into several Juniors
events.
|