Query: Do you think there is a lack of consensus about Basic Propositions In T1?

[Elric]

Yes, and I've been saying knowing the best deck ahead of time requires prescience this whole time.  That doesn't mean it does not exist, nor does it negate the theoretical importance of its existence; just as my not knowing what tomorrow entails does not mean tomorrow does not exist, nor negate the importance of its existence.

What knowing the existence of the best deck means, as I have stated, is that it is worth your time to metagame, and to select the best deck you can find to play in a tournament based on your best guess of what people will be playing.  In this fashion you are attempting to make a deck choice that is as close to the best deck as you are capable of getting.  If the best deck did not exist, such an excersize would be pointless, because all decks would be equally good (ignoring, of course, the remote possibility that some small subset of decks, say 2, are equally good).

I'll change your above to a similar quote to show why it doesn't mean anything: "Yes, and I've been saying knowing the heads/tails outcome of flipping a coin ahead of time requires prescience this whole time.  That doesn't mean the result of the flip of the coin does not exist, nor does it negate the theoretical importance of its existence."  The correct thing to do is assume that the coin will come up 50% heads and 50% tails and that’s it.  Based on the definition of the problem you can’t do any better than that because you don't know the outcome of a coin flip that will happen tomorrow.

I’m tempted to use an example where you are playing 2-person Rock-Paper-Scissors where you play once and the result is either a win, loss, or tie (in which case you flip a fair coin to determine the winner) to get my point about mixed strategy equilibrium across.  There is a best strategy if you know what your opponent is going to do.  Your opponent has a best strategy if he knows what you are going to do.  If either of you really picks each of Rock/Paper/Scissors with probability 1/3 the other person has no best option- that’s the whole point of mixed strategy equilibrium (make it so your opponent has no good options).

If everyone else in the metagame chose their decks according mixed strategy equilibrium then every deck that you would ever consider playing would have an equal expected payoff.  You can "cleave the probabilities" to see what everyone else is playing and figure out a best deck but if you can do that by definition you're not in a mixed strategy equilibrium. 

The reason why you should try to find a best deck is that Magic doesn't follow mixed strategy equilibrium and thus even ex ante (before you know opponent’s exact deck choices) some decks that you can pick will have higher expected payoff for you than others. 

[Klep]

I'll change your above to a similar quote to show why it doesn't mean anything: "Yes, and I've been saying knowing the heads/tails outcome of flipping a coin ahead of time requires prescience this whole time.  That doesn't mean the result of the flip of the coin does not exist, nor does it negate the theoretical importance of its existence."  The correct thing to do is assume that the coin will come up 50% heads and 50% tails and that’s it.  Based on the definition of the problem you can’t do any better than that because you don't know the outcome of a coin flip that will happen tomorrow.

Right, and that means that the coin will always come up either heads or tails (although you neglect the remote possibility of edge).  And you know it will come up heads or tails.  It won't dissapear, it won't fail to give a result, it won't osscilate between the two.  And because you know this you can do certain things with flipping a coin.  Like using it to randomly determine who gets the choice in a match.  Similarly, knowing that the best deck exists the way I described it allows you to metagame.  It's a very simple thing, but very critical.  If you should somehow be able to determine ahead of time whether the coin will come up heads or whether it will come up tails, then you have a great advantage very similar to if you are able to determine what deck everyone will be playing in a tournament.  You say that it doesn't mean anything.  I say that it means a great deal.  Some of the most important things are exceedingly simple.

[Dozer]

Which takes us back to basic propositions and what's not "clicking."  Until we figure out what a real "ideal" and fully advanced meta should look like with the cards we have available, we don't know what's still true.  Without clear data about "right and wrong," there are two ways to be wrong about basic propositions:
-It was never true.
-It's no longer true. (Synonymous with it *should* no longer be true)

We all agree that a lot of the traditional wisdom about mana bases went out the window with the fetchlands.  We all agree that the printing of the Judgment wish cycle affected the traditional wisdom about sideboards.  I think we can all agree that we're not omniscient and we're missing similar cards that should be changing our traditional wisdom.  The question is what a basic proposition is and what kind of card is necessary to break it. Or conversely, whether traditional wisdom gets broken while "basic propositions" cannot be.

Metagames, or environments, as they should be accurately called, have nothing to do with the question of basic propositions, unless you are talking about easy stuff like "combo beats aggro". Even that is debatable. But if you look back at Smmenen's starting question, you'll see that the first level of disagreement is with deck construction.

It's not about making a perfect environment, because you can't. As long as we all play the metagame (deck choice and sideboard construction, mostly), the environments will be changing and never "perfect". You cannot improve an environment, because there is no standard to measure it up to. It's just a matter of subjective view. Decks, on the other hand, can be improved because there are standards which decks have to compete against. It might be interesting to list the basic propositions (of deckbuilding and/ or Vintage) and see which are highly contested and which are readily accepted by the forum members. Those that go uncontested would be the basic guidelines, and expected principles. Deviations from these guidelines would require explanation when formulating a decklist.

Probably the best way to see if people agree on basic propositions is to just throw some basic ideas out there and see how people react. For example:

-> Card numbers should always be maximized in decklists (4-of's unless restricted)
-> Brainstorms should never be run without Fetchlands.
-> Cards at four mana and up either must be artifacts or win you the game* to be playable.
-> The first four counterspells are always Force of Wills.
-> There is no reason not to play Tinker/ Colossus.
-> Fetchland-heavy mana bases are better than Dual-heavy mana bases.

...and so forth. Every one of us has these inherent assumptions s/he uses for Vintage deck construction. Take your time and reflect on how you build decks, and then write those assumptions down (the above is just a small, general sample). How you build your decks? Are there some that apply to combo decks only? Are there some that apply to Control decks only? Is there a set of instructions for aggro decks, or is that the most free-floating form?

I do not think that these "basic principles" can be clearly distinguished from "traditional wisdom", because they have been shaped over time and by trial and error, and both are generally the same. Only when you go to a higher theoretical level will this be relevant. Questions like "does the deck with more tempo usually win?" or "is card advantage as a major strategy outdated?" touch basic principles of how to play the game (in a very true sense: the meta-game). Deckbuilding assumptions and Magic theory assumptions should probably be discussed separately, however. Both deserve discussion, but since the theoretical dispute is carried out on other websites, going for deckbuilding basics is the better route for a forum. Ideas?

Dozer

*Interesting side-shot to the "win conditions"-thread: What does "win the game" mean? Take the discussion over there, if need be.

[Jacob Orlove]

      -> Card numbers should always be maximized in decklists (4-of's unless restricted)
      -> Brainstorms should never be run without Fetchlands.
      -> Cards at four mana and up either must be artifacts or win you the game* to be playable.
      -> The first four counterspells are always Force of Wills.
      -> There is no reason not to play Tinker/ Colossus.
      -> Fetchland-heavy mana bases are better than Dual-heavy mana bases.

Those propositions could use some clarification. For example, no one is going to run 4x Recoup in a decklist, even though it is not restricted. Likewise for Akroma, or Darksteel Colossus. There are a lot of cards that naturally lend themselves to being singletons, even though they're not restricted.

Likewise, there are a few cards where neither 1 nor 4 is usually the right number. The most enduring example is the 3x Necromancy that shows up in every dragon list. 4 would be too many, since 6 mana to double animate is often too much, but you want to have at least one available in a lot of situations. Similarly, by examining sideboards, we can see that less than four copies of a given card is often enough to ensure that it shows up in a given match. By that logic, less than four of a given card can be acceptable, depending on what that card is for.

For the second statement, one has only to look at a GrimLong list to see Brainstorms and no fetchlands. Brainstorm is one of the most powerful unrestricted cards in that deck, too.

The four mana and up rule is just shorthand for how much Tempo you can afford to invest in a given card--artifacts are the exception because of Shop and Welder, but a lot of expensive artifacts are still unplayable.

Forces are generally the go-to counterspell in any deck that can run them, but that's not every deck.

Tinker/Colossus is really good in certain decks, but not all of them. No one runs it in Dragon, for example. A better statement would probably examine the other win conditions of the decks that do and don't run Tinker/DSC and come to some conclusion about them.

Fetchlands are good, no doubt about that. But most decks run more duals/basics than Fetchlands, which calls your statement into question.

[Elric]

If you should somehow be able to determine ahead of time whether the coin will come up heads or whether it will come up tails, then you have a great advantage very similar to if you are able to determine what deck everyone will be playing in a tournament.  You say that it doesn't mean anything.  I say that it means a great deal.  Some of the most important things are exceedingly simple.

If you can determine ahead of time how a random process that your opponent is using to pick his strategy will end up then either:
A) The process isn't random because he has a 100% chance to pick a specific deck
B) You aren't picking your deck at the same time as your opponent- your opponent has to pick his deck before you have to pick yours.

Either of these conditions rules out mixed strategy equilibrium.  I don't believe that mixed strategy equilibrium really holds in Magic, so I have no problem with either A or B holding in practice.  But if mixed strategy equilibrium did hold, neither A nor B could be true.

[Methuselahn]

I am wondering: should the player base try and do better about articulating the arguments behind cards/deck choices and the like and less just posting decklists?  I think so.  I think we should see more cost/benefit analysis and less here is decklist and brief sketch of whether a card is good or not.

Sadly, I think no.  The average poster/lurker on these boards has no incentive to explain their deck choice reasoning and show the cost/benefit analysis of each of their slots.  Why?  The benefit of posting isn't worth the cost, in my opinion. 

Investing precious time creating a post that follows the rules of TMD is often too laborious for the majority of it's members, especially since a deck needs to win something big in order to be accepted as valid.  So then, if it wins something, why try to argue the slots/theory when you can just say "hey, it won though."  Coupled with team boards and the fact that people may fear rejection of their ideas, or worse - little response to their ideas, it is easy to see why such a small percentage of TMD members (who are actually a very small percentage of Vintage tournaments) actually post what Steve is asking for.  So, to me, it is perfectly logical that we have the amount of discussion that we have. 

There is also the necessity of arguing the slots you choose in the context of your own metagame.  It's just not practical unless you can fully elaborate as to what you expect to face.  This just does not happen.

My fear is that if you ask for more articulation, you will probably receive it at the expense of extra moderation duties and fewer posts that meet this criteria.  This isn't what I would like to see.  Personally, I'd rather see more unrefined brainstorming between members who are talking with each other than refined, sculpted posts where people present arguments and counter arguments at each other.  It seems that this is the position that TMD takes because as I see it, the Vintage Adepts are inclined or directed to lead by example with the latter.  Which is fair enough, being a privately owned site and all.

Is there a lack of consensus about the basic propositions in Vintage?  Of course.  TMD has a small percentage of people in a game (format) of a very small population to begin with.  I think that people don't realize this fully.  Vintage itself is so very random and broken.  Because of this broken randomness, there is no reason to spend needless time coming to a concise consensus.  The cost/benefit for the Vintage tournament player is greatest when they can just netdeck and win.  The average netdecker profits far more from winning a Mox than someone who has analyzed the meta, built a deck, and tuned it for a specific tournament simply because of time investment.

[Brutha]

Just to set something straight, there is in fact always a 'best deck.'  The best deck for a tournament is the deck that has the greatest probability of winning the tournament.

The question is is the best deck for Player A the same as for Player B? If it is not it is only a subjective term.

Player A may have enough strategic understanding of the decks in question to have a 60% win chance with deck C and a 65% win chance with Deck D.
Player B may have enough strategic understanding of the decks in question to have a 65% win chance with deck C and a 60% win chance with Deck D.

The point is that game theory says that their is a best strategy in a given field. But strategy is more than just the deckchoice.

[jpmeyer]

Just to set something straight, there is in fact always a 'best deck.'  The best deck for a tournament is the deck that has the greatest probability of winning the tournament.

The question is is the best deck for Player A the same as for Player B? If it is not it is only a subjective term.

Player A may have enough strategic understanding of the decks in question to have a 60% win chance with deck C and a 65% win chance with Deck D.
Player B may have enough strategic understanding of the decks in question to have a 65% win chance with deck C and a 60% win chance with Deck D.

The point is that game theory says that their is a best strategy in a given field. But strategy is more than just the deckchoice.

Since there is always going to be incomplete knowledge and varying interpretations what is known, whichever deck is the "best deck" will vary from person to person so yes, you are correct in this statement that the best deck could be deck C or deck D.

[Klep]

The question is is the best deck for Player A the same as for Player B? If it is not it is only a subjective term.

Player A may have enough strategic understanding of the decks in question to have a 60% win chance with deck C and a 65% win chance with Deck D.
Player B may have enough strategic understanding of the decks in question to have a 65% win chance with deck C and a 60% win chance with Deck D.

The point is that game theory says that their is a best strategy in a given field. But strategy is more than just the deckchoice.

Since there is always going to be incomplete knowledge and varying interpretations what is known, whichever deck is the "best deck" will vary from person to person so yes, you are correct in this statement that the best deck could be deck C or deck D.

That said, there is an objective best deck given complete knowledge.  The definition of the best deck does not require that any given player be able to exploit it properly, and specifically allows for it to lose as a result of things like insufficient playskill or plain dumb luck.  In practice, different people will come to different conclusions as to what is the best deck, but that doesn't mean the entire concept is subjective.

[Brutha]

Since there is always going to be incomplete knowledge and varying interpretations what is known, whichever deck is the "best deck" will vary from person to person so yes, you are correct in this statement that the best deck could be deck C or deck D.

My statement is that it could be deck C for Player B and deck D for player A.
This is not about incomplete knowledge. If we only look at the decklist, we have to assume that the other factors that determine who wins the game are fixed.
Even when we do not know the factors, they are those factors. A chess player can't calculate all variants, but he can assume that there are all variants that results from the game rules. Their is nobody who throw a ball on the board when the player does a certain move.
There are variants that have a higher win chance and those that have a lesser win chance.
He tries to find one of the higher win chance variants.
But he has to assume that the rest of the game is theorethicly predictable for making good moves.

If you assume that there is a specific result of a decision you can't drop the factor of the player just because you want to.
To quote Sun Zi: If you know the enemy (the metagame) and know yourself (you, the player) , you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. 

The decisions that are made by a player are a huge factor which determines how good a deck performs.
From the perspective of having to make the choice which deck to play at a given moment having perfect knowledge would mean knowing the metagame and yourself and how the two interact with a given deck.

The definition of the best deck does not require that any given player be able to exploit it properly, and specifically allows for it to lose as a result of things like insufficient playskill or plain dumb luck.

Their is a mayor difference between insufficent playskill and plain dumb luck. Insufficent playskill partly predictable. All theoreticly predictable data has to be taken into account to get a objective result.

I am not saying that making tactical (those that depend on a specific situation) mistakes is predicable and a lot of mistakes come from general strategic misunderstanding of the perfect game plan of a deck.
If someone realy likes to play his deck as fast as possible, he just follows blindly the concept of getting your opponent to 0 life as fast as possible, he is better of with playing Belcher than playing a slow control deck and not using the strategic control ressources of the control deck.

Conclusion: The gameplan of a deck is just as important as the cards in the deck. It can't be left out when it gets to chosing the best decklist.

[Klep]

The decisions that are made by a player are a huge factor which determines how good a deck performs.
From the perspective of having to make the choice which deck to play at a given moment having perfect knowledge would mean knowing the metagame and yourself and how the two interact with a given deck.

The best deck is defined independently of its performance.  To find the best deck you would look at all of the other decks that will be in a tournament and determine the list that has the greatest possibility of winning the tournament.  No account is taken for things independent of the deck itself, such as playskill, luck, or random gamelosses for illegal decklists.

In practice things get much muddier.  In practice you have to worry about things like the competency of the players.  Much the way that other forms of theory work slightly different in the real world, so does this.  However, the fact that a real-life wire doesn't have zero resistance doesn't mean that we can't use the concept of an ideal wire in discussing electrical theory. This is why...

Their is a mayor difference between insufficent playskill and plain dumb luck. Insufficent playskill partly predictable. All theoreticly predictable data has to be taken into account to get a objective result.

...is wrong.  When we are merely considering factors internal to the deck itself for theoretical purposes, all other factors are irrelevant.  This is the difference between theory and practice.  You apply the theory to the real world, taking into account the imperfections that the theory doesn't address.  Man can't create a perfect sphere, but that doesn't mean the concept of a sphere isn't of great importance, or that it isn't valid.

In theory we talk about the metagame and the decks in it and what decks could beat the metagame.  In practice we wonder whether Jonathan is going to bring his pet Mono-U deck or some new deck he isn't very familiar with yet.

[Brutha]

The best deck is defined independently of its performance.  To find the best deck you would look at all of the other decks that will be in a tournament and determine the list that has the greatest possibility of winning the tournament.  No account is taken for things independent of the deck itself, such as playskill, luck, or random gamelosses for illegal decklists.

I can make a better prediction which list has the greatest possibility of winning the tournament when I have the same of the player on the decklists.

And the metagame, the decks that are played by other people are depenedent on the deck itself?
They are external factor that are independent of your decklist. They are the same category as things like your gameplans for your matchups.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Metagames, or environments, as they should be accurately called, have nothing to do with the question of basic propositions, unless you are talking about easy stuff like "combo beats aggro". Even that is debatable. But if you look back at Smmenen's starting question, you'll see that the first level of disagreement is with deck construction.

An "expert" writes an article on Starcity explaining that fetchlands are crap.  I mean really, who would want to pay life just to thin your land and have more consistency?  Clearly fetchlands are crap because you can just build a better mana base, you don't need to pay life for it.  Same thing with Tinker.  Card disadvantage, rampant card disadvantage.  The meta now shifts because fetchlands and Tinker dissappear.  While decks on the whole could become more powerful by defying this conventional "wisdom," this imaginary metagame remains unevolved.

Similarly, we might be missing something.  Maybe Grey Ogre is sitting there screaming, "break me, break me" and we're too dense to see past the fact that he's a vanilla 2/2 for 2R.  All I'm saying is that until we have a truly "perfect" way of sticking each of the game's thousands of cards under a magnifying glass and asking if he should be playing it, we don't know what portions of our traditional wisdom are still true.  Think Donate-Illusions: new crap rares combined with old crap rares can shake formats.

I do not think that these "basic principles" can be clearly distinguished from "traditional wisdom", because they have been shaped over time and by trial and error, and both are generally the same. Only when you go to a higher theoretical level will this be relevant. Questions like "does the deck with more tempo usually win?" or "is card advantage as a major strategy outdated?" touch basic principles of how to play the game (in a very true sense: the meta-game). Deckbuilding assumptions and Magic theory assumptions should probably be discussed separately, however. Both deserve discussion, but since the theoretical dispute is carried out on other websites, going for deckbuilding basics is the better route for a forum. Ideas?

Dozer

Deckbuilding basics are almost certainly traditional wisdom.  While it's impossible to construct a deck that's not strictly better for the inclusion of Black Lotus, almost every other rule is waiting for a chance to be broken.  On the other hand, I think that this post really illustrated my point.

Broken Mana Well
0
Artifact
You may pay 1 life instead of paying the mana cost of spells you play.

{Snip}

Since this thread is already sidetrack city, I might as well explain what the theoretical impact of that card is (see Putting it all Together for the framework I'm using). First of all, it's clearly a Tempo card, because it effectively generates mana. Now, what effect does it have on your four turn-limited resources? It makes land drops much worse, since you no longer need lands for mana. It makes draw steps much better, since the cards you see can all be cast immediately. Attacks and untaps are only indirectly affected, because this shortens the game (making attacks weaker) and places the emphasis on casting spells, rather than utilizing permanents (making untaps weaker). Essentially, decks that could reliably get this card out would seek almost exclusively to draw more cards, because every card you draw is an immediate Tempo gain.

I don't see how this card violates any kind of basic understanding. Sure, it makes otherwise powerful Moxes irrelevant, because extra land drops have near-zero value, but it doesn't change the theoretical framework I proposed.

Broken Mana Well would make "otherwise powerful Moxes irrelevent."  There goes plenty of traditional wisdom.  At the same time, the ways in which it fundamentally interacts with the rules of the game are immediately understood.  It is, after all, only a ridiculous extension of something already available.  Therefore, "Putting it all Together" might contain some propositions that cannot change and are therefore basic.  The notion of turn limited resources can only be disrupted by some sort of fundamental change in the resource structure of the game.

[Klep]

I can make a better prediction which list has the greatest possibility of winning the tournament when I have the same of the player on the decklists.

All I can do is once again point out to you that there is a difference between theory and practical application of theory.

[Elric]

If we define the “best deck for individual A� as “the deck that gives individual A the highest chance to win the tournament� then it’s clearly dependent on the characteristics of individual A (and this can be true whether you are having A select the deck without hindsight or if you are looking after the tournament has finished to select the best deck). 

We can assume that all individuals are completely identical in which case the best deck is the same across individuals.  However, if you also assume perfect information, rational players, and simultaneous action without the benefit of hindsight (the usually mixed strategy equilibrium assumptions) this leads to the conclusion that there is no best deck- only a number of equal decks.

If we define the “best deck for tournament X with hindsight� as “the deck that you would have wanted to play to have the highest chance to win a tournament with the exact same metagame as tournament X� then it could still depend on individual characteristics.  If we also assume that individuals are completely identical then there will almost certainly be a single “best deck for tournament X with hindsight.�

I don’t believe that it’s at all valuable to be consider what would happen if you could predict the exact outcome of a given truly random process.  This is because if it is truly random, it is impossible for you to have any ability to predict the exact outcome—complete knowledge consists only in knowing the distribution among outcomes.

This reminds me of ELD’s thread:

Mana Crypt - Making the right call: With mana crypt making a much larger impact as of late, the more skilled players find ways to call odds/evens with uncanny accuracy.  My question to the type 1 community, is what strategy do you use when faced with an opposing crypt.

And later on:

TheAdvantage wins the prize.  Of course I was not serious.  There is no strategy for coin flipping or die rolling.  It's random.  It's luck.  No skill.  I wonder if anyone read the original post.  Sorry for the joke, but I wanted to see just what would happen if I started a retarded thread.  It got more of a response than anything else I've ever posted which is pretty amusing.  Please, someone end the madness.  I really was hoping for some responses in the vain of "It doesn't matter what you call"

Note that no one suggested “If the flip is going to come up heads, call heads.  If it’s going to come up tails, call tails.�  By definition you can't do it.  There's also no advantage to knowing the outcome of previous flips (if it is a truly fair coin) because the trials are independent: hindsight doesn't help your future predictions at all. 

Knowing the “best deck for tournament X with hindsight� is only valuable in magic because magic tournaments are not independent events (and you didn’t have perfect information to start with).  There’s a lot of “stickiness� to them.   

[Klep]

If we define the “best deck for individual Aâ€? as “the deck that gives individual A the highest chance to win the tournamentâ€? then it’s clearly dependent on the characteristics of individual A (and this can be true whether you are having A select the deck without hindsight or if you are looking after the tournament has finished to select the best deck). 

We don't define it that way.  We define the "best deck," period.

We can assume that all individuals are completely identical in which case the best deck is the same across individuals.  However, if you also assume perfect information, rational players, and simultaneous action without the benefit of hindsight (the usually mixed strategy equilibrium assumptions) this leads to the conclusion that there is no best deck- only a number of equal decks.

The best deck theory requires that players be held to be of equal and sufficient skill to properly play their decks.  This does by no means result in all decks being equal.  A deck with a mana curve that starts at 5 and doesn't run Force of Will is going to lose to White Weenie no matter how good the relevent players are.

If we define the “best deck for tournament X with hindsightâ€? as “the deck that you would have wanted to play to have the highest chance to win a tournament with the exact same metagame as tournament Xâ€? then it could still depend on individual characteristics.  If we also assume that individuals are completely identical then there will almost certainly be a single “best deck for tournament X with hindsight.â€?

The best deck after the tournament is no different from the deck that was the best deck as soon as all players chose which deck they would play.  The identity of the best deck is independent of performance.  How many times do I have to repeat that?

I don’t believe that it’s at all valuable to be consider what would happen if you could predict the exact outcome of a given truly random process.  This is because if it is truly random, it is impossible for you to have any ability to predict the exact outcome—complete knowledge consists only in knowing the distribution among outcomes.

Like I said with the coin flip example.  You know that it will turn up heads or it will turn up tails.  This means there are certain things you can use a coin flip to do, and if you somehow had the prescience to know ahead of time the result of a flip, that would give you an advantage.  What isn't valuable about having an advantage?  The difference between a coin flip and a Magic tournament is that where the result of a coin flip is truly random, the result of a Magic tournament is greatly influenced by the contents of each deck.  If you know ahead of time the contents of each deck in the tournament, you could theoretically choose a deck that has the best chance of all to win the tournament.  In practice you do not usually have all of that information, so you must make guesses based on what you know of the participants and past history of the area.  Nonetheless, the fact that you know that such analysis would be possible if you had that complete information is of great value because it means as a result of your guesses you can attempt to approximate that analysis and thereby give yourself a greater chance of winning.

[jpmeyer]

This thread is just going around in circles at this point.  If someone thinks of something new to say, start a new thread.[/color]