Story Time with Forcefieldyou; Don't despair... Get there!

[The Atog Lord]

Steve,

While I don't think that I've spent as much time ruminating over our matches as you have, the fact remains that you have beaten me the majority of our most recent games. This I would contribute not to mind games, but rather to the fact that you won over half of them on the first turn.

Even so, if you think I was bothered by your clever mindgames, then perhaps you saw something I missed. Should that be the case, it is a solid reminder that letting the opponent get into our head is a thing best avoid, and avoided only through constant application of focus and discipline. Perhaps Brassman would have some advice for me.

[forests failed you]

How is telling someone to 'shut up' any more mature?

Is this a concession that there is an inherent lack of maturity with those who use verbal tactics to distract their opponent? 

No.  It is suggesting that telling somebody to shut up is extremely innappropriate.

I am just extremely confused as to your line of arguementation.  Nowhere in this article did I suggest antagonizing my opponent, or putting him on tilt.  The discussion of the article was about offering up information with the intent of constructing a bluff; and also about using gained information to analyze the situation to figure out what your opponent has.  I'm not sure why you are argueing against me so vehemently, or even what I did that you object so strongly to in this article.

You seem to be objecting to players antagonizing opponents.  I agree with you, that isn't nice.  However, I didn't do that in this game.  Nor, am I saying that others should employ such tactics in this article.  

Table talk does not necessarily = trying to put an opponent on tilt.

You can use table talk both proactively and reactively; proactively to give information about your hand, or the hand you are trying to bluff.  Reactively, to gain information about their hand.  Putting somebody on tilt implies antagonizing them into a mental state where they are not thinking logically or rationally.  Being on tilt also implies that  your opponent is upset or distressed about things that have happened.  Although the intention of revealing information about what may or may not be in your hand is ultimately done to cause your opponent to make a particular play; it wasn't done necessarily by putting your opponent in a distressed mental state.

I appreciate that you feel there is a line that should not be crossed, and I respect that your decision to play and to conduct yourself in the way that you do.  However, the actual line is the DCI floor rules.  

I do not advocate breaking the floor rules ever.  I advocate playing the game to the best of one's abilities within the rules.  However, I think that it is unfair to set up an additional 'gentlemenly code' for Vintage that exists outside of the rules that requires everybody to observe the same ethics as anybody else.  

It doesn't bother me when my opponents talk to me.  Not at all.  My opponent can sit in his chair and babble on about how many insane plays he has until the cows come home.  How is that unethical?  And furthermore, who cares?  At the end of the day I'm worried about whether or not I'm going to cast my EOT Thirst for Knowledge, and whether or not it resolves.  However, the moment my opponent calls me a nasty or abusive name because I had a clutch counterspell or bomb, I'm calling the judge.  

As long as people observe the rules, who cares what they do?  Some people might conduct themselves in a manner different from you, oh well.  To each his own.  But suggesting that everybody should play the same way, feel the same way, or else be somehow subject to criticism on some morale basis is absurd.  

It is a game, there are a set of rules to follow, and the object is to win the game by making plays that are within the rules and to have fun doing so.  The point of playing the game is to have fun, battling your wits against somebody elses.  

[Methuselahn]

Besides the fact that I think this 'article' severly lacks the how-to of bluffing, something Brian cited as being one of the major motivations of this piece, I find the use of these verbal tactics inappropriate, especially for someone who is a self titled venerable saint.

I adore Magic Online for the fact that banter tactics cannot really be employed.  I consider my opponent's banter as infringement on my half, my 25 minutes of match time.

However, I think that it is unfair to set up an additional 'gentlemenly code' for Vintage that exists outside of the rules that requires everybody to observe the same ethics as anybody else.

 

However, I think that it is unfair to set up an additional 'gentlemenly code' for Vintage cohabitation that exists outside of the rules game that requires everybody to observe the same ethics as anybody else.

[forests failed you]

I was very glad to have watched this game. Doug Linn and I spent a good deal of time discussing it on the car ride home. our major point of interest is why you did not drain the second merchant scroll? This seemed like a better play at the time. If you had done so, wouldn't he not have resolved ancestral and you would have been in a much better position? the playing of a his second scroll (to me at least) signifies that he wants double backup, and thus I would put him on not being able to resolve ancestral right there. You also correctly put him on holding the drain, so he probably wouldn't have shot AR in your face anyway. If he did, you would have forced, and he would have lost.

Enlighten me, Brian. Also, congrats on the split. It was a fun day, and I will gladly serve as witness for your law suit.

JR.

The hope was that he would Merchant Scroll for Force of Will or Misdirection and then cast the Ancestral Recall right way on his turn.  Had he of made this play I would have responded by Force of Willing his Recall and he would have responded by Mana Draining his Force of WIll.  I would then be able to untap and hardcast my Sundering Titan while leaving up Mana Drain to ensure he can't make any plays. 

That was the thought process.  Because he Scrolled during that turn, taking him off Mana Drain I did not necessarily think that he had Drain in his hand.  And was hoping to blow him out right on the spot.  Of course it did not go to plan at that point.

However, I think that it is unfair to set up an additional 'gentlemenly code' for Vintage cohabitation that exists outside of the rules game that requires everybody to observe the same ethics as anybody else.

I couldn't agree more.  Having a cohesive set of DCI floor rules is a great way to ensure that everybody is subject to the same standard of conduct.

[UR]

If you take a look at many of the "pros" who attempt to put opponents on tilt, they do not have long term success.

Marcel Luske anyone? Or Tony G.? Mike Matusow? I could go on... but I think you get the point.

Just so long as you know what you are doing, you can have a valuable edge by trying to have your opponent go on 'tilt'. I know that I have lost games and matches by not playing my own game... but getting sucked into the opponent's game. Ofcourse I'm not happy about it, but I let it happen. So all I can say is; "Well played, I'll try again next time.".

[Implacable]

If you can put the other guy on the tilt, you gain an advantage.  That is obvious.  I just don't think that it should be done.  I'll chat with the other guy during my match, but going after him seems low.  Holding yourself to a higher standard than you hold other people to is, in my opinion, part of being a good person.  I don't care if the other guy if being obnoxious; I don't want to be seen that way.

[seer]

Mike Matusow is broke and a lifetime loser at poker. He is a reasonably good tournament player which is why he can get staked. He has a share of Full Tilt Poker which is where he gets his money from. Also, there are a variety of people who will stake him. I don't think he's a good example of a winning "put people on tilt" player.

[erictehfatz0r]

But I think for a moment and slyly say as though I had just thought of the possibility "Ah, you have a Drain!" and play my Shaman and pass.  Here is why I said that.  The goal here is for him to put me on a particular hand, and I 100% believe he put me on it.

That's what Brian said.

Eld, you said:

I played the land and duressed.  Seeing two counters and a duress.  I take a counter and ask, with just Will in my hand, have I played a land yet?  My opponent informs me that I have.  I pass the turn.  He passes back, choosing not to duress my "land" and sitting on his counter.

How are these not the exact same situation? Eld, you seem to hold some grudge or something against ffy, since what he and you did are pretty much equal in every way, yet you seem to think what he did was wrong.

Going on about the strength of their hand, exclaiming how good each card they draw is, it is just not a gentlemanly way to conduct oneself.

Oh, but saying your hand is a land and not Yawgmoth's Will is gentlemanly? Pah-lease.

Grats on an insane game and day, Brian. It's a shame I wasn't there to witness it, being 2 hours away and all  .

[ELD]

How are these not the exact same situation? Eld, you seem to hold some grudge or something against ffy, since what he and you did are pretty much equal in every way, yet you seem to think what he did was wrong.

If you read my posts, I am not specifically talking about FFY or the match in question.  I don't think I've ever even met him, and I certainly have no issue with him.  I am not saying what he did was wrong either.  I do not care to discuss specific events (especially ones I wasn't even at), as they do not lend themselves to defining what is ideal.  No real life situation is perfect, but we can structure what we believe is optimum and strive for it.  The concepts I've been addressing are much larger than the actions in a single game.  My posts attempt to deal with the concept of purposely putting someone on tilt.  There is a great deal of table talk with a clear intent on rattling opponents.  I feel it is bad for the game, and an ungentlemanly way to conduct oneself.  I honestly could not care less about the game in question, as it does not affect me.  The conduct of Magic players at large, however, does.   

However, I think that it is unfair to set up an additional 'gentlemenly code' for Vintage that exists outside of the rules that requires everybody to observe the same ethics as anybody else. 

We play with Proxies.  Right off the bat that makes us different.  We certainly can and do create our own rules.  That is of course, different from etiquette.   Etiquette is about respect for your opponent and the game.  It is not about penalties and game losses.  It is a code that is set up to show the proper way to conduct oneself.  Does there have to be a penalty?  Not necessarily.  Should one expect to be able to break etiquette and not be criticized by their peers?  Of course not.  If one acts like a donkey, they are certainly open to repercussions. 

My opponent can sit in his chair and babble on about how many insane plays he has until the cows come home.  How is that unethical?  And furthermore, who cares? 

We play with timed rounds.  That kind of behavior is certainly cheating.  10 minute brainstorms are certainly an abuse of the clock. 

Going on about the strength of their hand, exclaiming how good each card they draw is, it is just not a gentlemanly way to conduct oneself.

Oh, but saying your hand is a land and not Yawgmoth's Will is gentlemanly? Pah-lease.

It would seem to me that most people can make the distinction between those two examples.  A bluff is a bluff.  It does not take very much time, and does not affect your opponent's ability to make good decisions.  It attempts to give incorrect information to an opponent, who then uses that information to come to an sub-optimal conclusion.  I don't think anyone is going to claim that bluffing is ungentlemanly.  Is that the intent of that post? 

Going on and on about how amazing your hand is certainly an issue.  It wastes a significant amount of time.  It also has the tendency to put people on tilt.  While the person ranting and raving about their hand may be having a good time, the opponent is usually not having anywhere near as much fun.  I believe it is in the games best interest to have your opponent feel good having played against you, win or lose. 

But suggesting that everybody should play the same way, feel the same way, or else be somehow subject to criticism on some morale basis is absurd. 

This is not a moral issue.  There is certainly a code of conduct for how to behave at a Magic tournament, and it is not in the DCI floor rules.  It is something that (hopefully) people learn when they are growing up.  It is how to behave in a way that you can be proud of at the end of the day.  Does everyone have to try and be a pleasant opponent?  No.  Does a player who tries to put an opponent on tilt open themselves up to criticism?  Yes they do.  That said, we are all open to criticism, regardless of our actions.  They can't make a rule that will prevent people from feeling how they do about issues and voicing them when no involved in a match. 

I'm will not be responding to this thread again unless someone directs something directly at me.  I have attempted to make my point as clearly as I know how.  I feel bluffing is a great thing to do, and is good for the game.  It simply gives your opponent information that leads to them making sub-optimal plays.  They do this with full mental capacity, and feel it is the right play at the time.

I do not feel it is acceptable to try and undermine your opponent's ability to make choices because they are on tilt.  This type of behavior is bad for everyone involved, the tournament scene and the health of the game in general. 

[forests failed you]

Anyways, getting things back on track and to the discussion at hand.

This thread was designed to give players examples where in game psychology, bluffing, et cetera have been a means to overcome a situation where it would have been otherwise impossible to win.  There was a time when I believed that a player could aspire to such a point where the only thing that would matter is what cards they drew.  If two players were playing against each other, and they were both masters at the game, both players would consequently make statistically perfect plays, and the player with the best hand would win at the end.  I don't believe that anymore:

While it is true that the elaborate bluffs and traps I laid might not have worked on a masterful player such as DicemanX or Eric Becker;  I would have tried to have put myself in a position nonetheless.  Part of setting up a bluff (or a semi-bluff for that matter) is evaluating an opponent and trying to determine based upon their skill level, board postion and any other number of relevent factors; how they are going to interpret the information that you present them.  However, in a situation where you are in very, very, poor shape, it never hurts to plant that seed of doubt in your opponent's mind. 

I'll site two more examples of trap setting and discuss them in hopes of moving this coversation from a debate about the ethics of playing, into a discussion about how to actually manipulate in game psychology into game wins.

This event happened at a PTQ in Columbus last year.  It was team Standard and I was playing Firemane Angel Control alongside Justin Droba playing Heartbeat, and Phil "the human beating" Cape playing BW Jitte.  In round four we found ourselves in a situation where Phil had already won his match and Justin had lost his match and it was I in seat B playing for the Match against a Heartbeat deck that had sideboarded into an aggro deck.  I was at 10 life facing off against a Meloku, the Clouded Mirror that had slipped into play when I had been caught without a counterspell.  I needed to draw a Wrath of God as my only out to my opponents Meloku and board of 8 lands.  I draw for the turn and pull a Rewind. My board is now a bunch of lands, and my hand is 2 Counterspells and a land.  I am officially dead on board if my opponent picks up his board on my end step and swings for lethal.  I have one bluff that I can run, and because Phil and I are both fairly saavy players we are immediately aware of what needs to be done.  He looks at me and quietly enough for our opponent to hear says, "you know what needs to be done, right?"  I respond by whispering back, "Yeah, I can go up to 3 if he runs it."  The bluff is a Lightning Helix in hand.  That way if my opponent picks up all of his land, and I stay alive by Helixing one of his guys, then he will be in extremely poor position if I do topdeck a Wrath of God.  Since he will have no lands in play.  As a result he only makes four tokens on my end step (instead of going all in and killing me), and puts me on a two turn clock instead.  Luckily for me, I topdecked Compulsive Reaseach into a Wrath of God and cleared away his Meloku.  Granted my opponent was no John Finkle, and whereas a better player might have played around the Helix had I have said nothing... I wasn't sure that this particular opponent would have even considered the possibility of Lightning Helix had I not planted that seed in his mind.  A big part of bluffing is also figuring out what bluffs will work on which players. 

A weaker player is far less likely to try and bluff you by using a semi-bluff.  For instance, if I peg my opponent as a fairly weak player from in game evidence.  Ie.  They are cracking fetch lands at the end of turn for no reason taking themselves off UU for Mana Drain, or running mainphase Brainstorms for no reason:  I would be far more likely to interpret a statement such as "Leave up Drain Mana, pass." As a bluff rather than a semi-bluff.  That being said, I would think it more likely that they did not have Drain than them actually having Drain.  However, that isn't to say that I would simply leave myself open to be Drained.  It simply means that I would entertain the notion that they do not have a Drain.  Even so, even from a weak player, can you see what has happened by suggesting this entire string of events?  It is placing heightened emphasis upon future events that may or may not happen.  I am thinking about whether or not he has Drain, and perhaps am not worried about the Extripate, Intution, or Thirst For Knowledge that he has.  Rather, it is possible to divert attention away from what is actually important, onto something else that isn't important, or rather is nonexistent.

In a conversation I once had with Mark Herberholtz, he told me that wherever you want your opponent's attention to be focused... Try and put his attention somewhere else.  If your hand is full of counterspells... Look at your graveyard.  If you are worried about Yawgmoth's Will question an opponent about how many cards in your hand...  If you have Yawgmoth's Will... Don't pick up your grave yard during your opponents turn and start adding up storm.  However, if you have Tinker, maybe counting storm out of the grave is a saucy trick.

Another story:

A standard UR Tron V UR Tron mirror from Regionals last year.  (ELD might not like this story so much).  Game one I call out all of my opponents plays before hand.  "OOOh, don't play Compulsive here, its just going to get remanded."  "You are behind in mana, if you tap out for Tidings you leave yourself open to Wildfire..."  and "I wouldn't run a Signet here unless I had Spell Snare, because it leaves you really vulnerable to a Mana Leak followed up by a Draw spell from me.  You'd fall way behind in tempo."  The guy actually heeds all of my in game advice in game one, doesn't do anything to advance his board position and gets completely destroyed.  We sideboard up for game two, and the wheels in his mind start to turn... "My opponent just made me play exactly how he wanted me to and blew me out.  I'm not falling for that nonsense again..."

This is how game two unfolds.
 
He plays a Tron piece and passes.
I play Island and pass.
He plays a land and plays a signet.  I spell snare it.
I untap and play a signet and pass.
On his turn he plays a land and thinks.  I say "Ah, the old dilema:  Play a signet and leave up Mana Leak or run the Compulsive Research while I am tapped out and try to complete Tron!  Epic, but don't be greedy or I'll untap and Annex you!"  He thinks back to game one, and how every time I planted a seed of doubt in his mind and scared him off the right play."  He promptly runs the Compulsive Reseach and passes.  I untap and start the Annex his land and have Annex /Contermagic back up for the next three turns (with Copy Enchantment).

This is an example of bluffing and then semi-bluffing.  At first I used a straight up bluff to push my opponent around, into not making the correct plays.  Then, when he realizes that I am bluffing I switch and semi-bluff in the same tone and style that I had been bluffing with.  He interprets the semi-bluff as a bluff and walks right into the trap that I have set for him.  It is important to have a wide variety of different tricks available to you when you are playing these kinds of in game games.  The key, like poker, is to be diverse and difficult to read, and also to divert and distract attention away from where your opponent should be focusing attention.

The key is that if I am causing my opponent to stress and focus on something that doesn't actually matter (for instance cards that may or may not be in my hand), I can focus on the board and making statistically correct plays based upon pure knowledge of the board and the game state.  Anytime that you cause your opponent to make decision based upon something that he or she should not, you are gaining a subtle advantage.  And, as you all know it is extremely dangerous to give a very strong player even a subtle advantage. 

When I am playing against an opponent I don't worry about being his best buddy, I'm not worried about anything other than trying to reduce his life total to 0.  Some of you may disagree and say that Vintage is a format about kinship and community; and it is to an extent.  Some of you have expressed that you don't like diversion, and excessive in-game talk because it takes away from the 'sport.'  Cool, don't do it... You will be at a disadvantage.  This article isn't designed to convince people to do anything, or play in any way that they don't feel comfortable.  However, it is designed to prepare newer players for a facet of the game they may otherwise not have come into contact with.

If a particular player is easily riled, or takes offense to something as simple as "I have so many insane plays," or "OMG my hand is so ridic... Oh, my god how lucky I drew THAT!"  Why wouldn't you say it every single time you draw a card?  If you are actually concerned about winning those last few Moxes at the SCG events this spring, consider that for yourselves.  And, decide whether or not a morale criticism from a very scant few would keep you from playing your game, and taking them off theirs?   I'm not advocating cheating, I'm advocating playing the game to the best of your ability.  I see nothing objectionable about playing the game within the game, as long as you are to an extent respectful and within the rules.  Apparently, if you play a certain way some people won't like you, which is a consequence you have to consider when you decide to engage in playing this style of game.  But I will tell you one thing:  If you ever win by bluffing me in a game, I would never be angry or say that I thought you were a poor character;  Every single time I would shake your hand and say that was a solid play... Then I would go outside, have a smoke, shake my head, and try and figure out what I could learn from that game and where my plans went wrong.

Happy bluffing.

[andrewpate]

You should have let this thread with that post.  It's mad better than your original one.