Strategy Lose Then Demand to Play Again for More

April 23, 2022 Post a Comment

Introduction

Howdy guys, today I accept a short commodity to share with you. I'm going to try to teach y'all what "Playing to Win" and what "Playing to not Lose" mean as phrases (examples included).

As e'er; likes, comments, questions, etc are welcome. 🙂

Note: This article is aimed at new and intermediate players.

'Playing to Win'

The phrase 'Playing to win' basically has two singled-out meanings:

Meaning One: The concept explored in David Sirlin'southward volume 'Playing to Win'.
Meaning 2: Making a play that gives you a chance (whoever small) at winning the game.

Meaning One is all nigh 'Game Psychology'; sometimes people hamstring themselves by insisting on playing with fictitious rules (e.m. some lawmaking of honour prevents them from playing a 'cheap'/'skill-less' deck like Face Hunter). If you play the game just impose upon yourself a ready of fabricated-upward rules then you lot simply impairment your progress. This is — in essense — what Sirlin meant by the term 'playing to win'.

Sirlin'south original work was on fighting games, but I personally wrote an article (a very contentious article, I should add) a while back that applied Sirlin's ideas to Hearthstone (see references for link).

So that is the first definition of 'playing to win' out of the mode. We tin can now talk about the more common/interesting meaning of the term.

The term 'Playing to Win' (second pregnant) is easy to describe just in practise can be profoundly difficult to perform and sympathise. Only hither'south the gist of information technology:

You are in a difficult position.
If things stay as they are, you do not expect to win (in the 'long-term').
You place a 'dynamic play': if it works you stand a decent chance at winning the game. But are completely lost if information technology fails.
You make the 'dynamic play'.

Of all those 4 bullet points, signal 2 is the nearly important: there is no point making a high risk "all-in" play if yous can play safe and win the 'long-game'.

Sometimes, when trying to explicate something it is good to come at the discipline from different angles. So hither's some other way of stating the problem:

The little orange brawl (his proper name: 'Large Dave') is rolling down a hill. At the moment there is a raised drawbridge, to lower it Large Dave needs to hit the Brown lever . At that place is also a Green Lever , merely this lever only works some percentage of the time (its rusty!). But when it does piece of work, information technology drops a ramp from the sky that volition permit Big Dave to jump over that punji pit of doom, and he may even country onto the 2nd platform.

Big Dave cannot activate both levers, thus he must choose one or the other.

And then, Big Dave sees the big pit in front of him and realises that if he falls into those spikes he will burst (dice). And then, at first glance it looks similar he should pull the Brownish lever, which will lower the drawbridge and allow him to cantankerous the pit in safety; I mean, why have a risk on a ramp when the drawbridge always works?

Well, the problem the little ball has is that he cannot see the whole movie:

When you see the whole picture, you realise that if Large Dave drops the drawbridge it doesn't really assist him; sure, it saves him from the deadly spikes but between those spikes and the finishing line (Pink Flags) is a behemothic ball of fire. Whereas, the 2nd platform leads to a little ramp that might permit him to bound over the flames without getting too toasty. Then now nosotros realise that Big Dave should always pull the Green Lever; even if it only works a tiny fraction of the time.

So, the 'play to win' strategy for the little orangish ball is to hit the Green Lever, and its pretty easy to understand why (when nosotros run across the whole picture).

Merely in Hearthstone, 'playing to win' is oft really hard. And why is that? Well, to carry on with our trivial brawl analogy: In Hearthstone, sometimes it is actually hard to see the massive ball of fire that awaits you lot downward a detail path.

In summary, 'playing to win' is well-nigh asking yourself the question: "What needs to happen for me to win this game?" In hard circumstances the answer often involves a high degree of gamble and a bunch of lucky dice rolls. Our Ball needs to take a hazard on the Green Ramp, you might need to accept a risk on Listen Control Tech stealing their best shit.

Playing to non Lose

'Playing to not lose' is the opposite strategy of 'Playing to Win'. Here the thought is that y'all make a set of 'prophylactic plays' in social club to minimise the number of 'outs' your opponent could have in hand and/or describe into.

In 'Large Dave's' universe, 'Playing to not lose' looks a chip like this:

Big Dave can just win the game past gingerly rolling toward the terminate line: OR he could equip the Goblin-made Jet-pack, fly though the sky and reach the finish line is half the time and in fashion. Sounds pretty absurd right? Why wouldn't we want to take a rocket ride to victory? Well, the central selling point of the 'slow and boring route' is that this path has considerably less floating spiky thing-ies of doom for u.s. to crash into!

A common mistake…

Before nosotros get onto some actual Hearthstone examples of these concepts in activity, I thought it would be worth mentioning that a common mistake that beginners make is confusing which strategy they should utilize in a given state of affairs.

They may make the mistake of taking risks (E.k. taking the Jet-pack) when they ought not to. They may also brand the fault of making 'safe-looking plays' (e.thousand. 'lowering the drawbridge') when they should be taking huge risks (due east.g 'taking the ramp').

Alright. enough talk of spiky balls, jet-packs and punji pits! Allow's instead talk near Hearthstone, shall we?

Example #1

In the screenshot below, we have a game vs an Aggro Hunter deck. You take 8 mana. Likewise assume that the Hunter has iii cards in hand.

In this position:

The 'Condom Play': Shieldmaiden + Hero Power.
The 'to win' play: Face up with Death'south Bite (enraging Mr. Hellscream).

So there is a mode to 'play to not lose' and there is a style to 'play to win'. The question at hand is; "What strategy is the right 1 to use?"

The problem with making the 'rubber play' is that, baring some excellent top-decks (due east.g. Alexstrasza), you are probably going to lose the game if it drags out. This is basically because:

You are you behind on cards,
The Aggro Face-Hunter deck is packed full of damage that you are unlikely to be able to withstand.

And then for example, suppose nosotros make the safety play, armour up and pass the turn, we now have 10 constructive health. Now permit'due south assume that the Hunter has a fairly minor amount of damage, He uses Huffer + Hero Power.

It is at present your turn again and you lot are at 4 wellness, and we volition assume you elevation-decked something a bit rubbish (e.thousand a Brawl). Because you are at nine mana (not ten) you lot must at present choose between using your Hero Power or playing Mr. Hellscream. If yous chose Hero ability and and so kill the four/ii Huffer with your 5/five minion y'all go up to 6 health. But despite your all-time defensive efforts, the Hunter only needs to draw 4 harm to win the game.

Simply suppose the Hunter doesn't get that four impairment and only Hero Powers. On your turn you Hero Ability. And now, just as before, the Hunter only needs to depict iv damage to win the game.

The important thing to discover about this sequence of moves is that yous are finding ways to survive each turn but you are non finding ways to win the game. Meanwhile, the Hunter perpetually remains a elevation-deck abroad from winning.

Okay and so allow's back-peddle a little bit: What if instead of Hero Power you play Mr. Hellscream and then Kill the 4/ii with the 5/5? Well, if you compare this situation to Playing Hellscream direct away (I volition analyse this play in a jiffy) y'all get 1 extra health at the cost of giving the Hunter an actress draw. In my opinion, following up Shieldmaiden with Mr. Hellscream is strategically inconsistent: It is often better to follow through with a bad programme than it is to play without a plan altogether! In short; play condom or play high-gamble, don't try to mix the two (this though, is a lesson for a unlike day). 🙂

Only now let's consider our alternative: the 'play to win' strategy.

We play Mr. Hellscream and enrage him. Considering this is 14 damage and we will have x damage next turn. Thus, we accept put the Hunter on a '1-turn clock' (fourteen + ten =24) and this means that the Hunter must either protect himself from Hellscream (e.chiliad Freezing Trap, Taunt, etc) or impale usa on his/her turn.

This play is high risk because at 3 health all the Hunter needs is one harm to win the game (and the Face-Hunter is very expert at finding one damage). Basically, for this loftier-gamble play to work nosotros would demand the Hunter to accept a terrible hand, such as one (or ii) Mad Scientist'southward, possibly an Explosive Trap and/or Hunter's Mark then on. If he has Animate being Companion, then he must not role Huffer.

I mentioned before that beginners struggle to piece of work out what strategy to utilise. Well, us Legend ranked players sometimes struggle with it too!

For example, notice that with the 'rubber play' I assumed that on the following turn nosotros would get a rubbish top-deck. But what if we got a bright one (such every bit Alexstrasza, or Shield Block, or Sludge Belcher), might we win the game then? Well, maybe.

And so every bit you tin perhaps begin to appreciate , information technology is not always piece of cake to work out which of the ii strategies you should follow, and I deliberately chose an example with a degree of ambiguity to illustrate that point.

Because of the possibility of a great top-deck information technology's not that like shooting fish in a barrel to know which play to go for, but if we presume that all the great cards have been used (e.g. in that location is no life-gain left in the deck for us to describe into) and then I recall the 'play to win' strategy is all-time here.

Okay, how virtually another example?

Instance #2

In the position beneath, assume that the Shaman has ii cards in hand:

The 'safe play': Fireball the Fire Elemental + Acolyte of Hurting.
The 'to win' play: Fireball + Hero Ability (both to the face).

If nosotros Fireball face + Hero Power nosotros put the Shaman at ane wellness, which means that Hero Power next turn is lethal (i.e. we set up a 1-turn clock). Simply just like near 'play to win' plays, this is a loftier risk option; not only are we banking on the Shaman not having a unmarried point of healing in his manus (Voodoo Doctor FTW!!!) nosotros are also praying that he/she does not have lethal either! Windfury wins Shaman the game, as would Bloodlust. Notice that the Shaman himself has a 2 Turn clock, significant that should the Shaman take simply one point of heal we would and so next an first-class summit-deck to win/survive.

Just at present let'south consider the merits of the 'to non lose' play:

With this we clear the board and drop the acolyte. Next turn we can ping the Acolyte for menu draw and driblet the Water Elemental. With card reward and a higher health full we are in a better position to win 'the long game'.

In my opinion, Fireball to face represents a take chances that we do non need to take. This is a position where the 'play to not lose' strategy should be preferred.

Example #3

In the position, you are playing 'Grim Patron Combo Warrior'. So what's the play hither? Should nosotros 'play to win' or should we 'play to not lose'? And once you have made your listen up about what strategy needs to be followed, the second question is; "What bill of fare(s) do we play in order to enact that chosen strategy".

I shall non tell you what I call up about this position here, mostly because you can read this instead. Also, after reading that commodity, make sure you check out the comments section; not anybody agrees with my line of play and skillful arguments accept been made. 🙂

In-depth Plow Analysis

Before wrapping this article up I would similar to straight your attention to a Serial we have at HSP called 'In-depth Turn Analysis' (come across references section for link). This series features the analysis of complex positions taken from real games.

And every bit you can see from example #three to a higher place, this serial does end up covering the concepts of playing to win/not lose. Indeed, those ii concepts are oft integral to understanding any specific position.

Here's one and hither is another one I have written which is relevant to today's give-and-take. Enjoy. 🙂

Conclusion

And that concludes this brusk piddling commodity about playing to win/not lose. Hopefully this has helped you lot understand what is meant by those concepts.

Every bit always; likes, comments, questions, etc are welcome. 🙂

Smasthings out! 🙂

Walker Oplace56