Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Ill just add in a comment of why 5 is suboptimal. Since only one person revotes, there has to be switches to even out the runoff which imo were the most mafia manipulation occurs
Ill just add in a comment of why 5 is suboptimal. Since only one person revotes, there has to be switches to even out the runoff which imo were the most mafia manipulation occurs
Yeah 4 is solid enough, I just wanted to make sure before I did something that wouldn't be good
Ill just add in a comment of why 5 is suboptimal. Since only one person revotes, there has to be switches to even out the runoff which imo were the most mafia manipulation occurs
Wouldn't that manipulation become valuable evidence later on? I guess its not worth lowering the chances of lynching mafia in day 1, but how often does that happen anyways? I know you guys have had this talk plenty of times before but I'm curious.
Ill just add in a comment of why 5 is suboptimal. Since only one person revotes, there has to be switches to even out the runoff which imo were the most mafia manipulation occurs
Wouldn't that manipulation become valuable evidence later on? I guess its not worth lowering the chances of lynching mafia in day 1, but how often does that happen anyways? I know you guys have had this talk plenty of times before but I'm curious.
Yes it would be, and that’s an interesting argument for 5 I haven’t entertained myself. The counterpoint would be, if there’s 1 mafia in a 4 person runoff, they are more likely to be lynched than in a 5 person.
4 people in a runoff forces 3 people to vote again. With 5 people in a runoff it forces some awkward movement that would be hard to read later on, IMO.
For instance, say Adam, Bill, Chad, David, and Eric are in a runoff. Now only Frank has to vote. He votes Adam. Now it's a 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 split. Someone is going to move their vote to create another runoff, but it's a forced move, so a vote drops off Eric, the person left on Eric needs to revote. I don't feel like these moves are helpful, unless the last person is revealed as mafia.
Okay, I can't explain it well, but I feel like 3 people needing to vote out of the D1R2 gate is easier to read later on than the shuffle of reducing a 5 way.
I don't mind you asking. I don't have a real answer, just you were at the top of the people with 1 vote on the recent tally. I can make something up if you want...
Post by Silver Surfer on Jan 30, 2019 14:24:17 GMT -5
Kanye>danbob>carini
Voted for me after I suggested voting for him since he had no votes. I think he could be nervous that I might be inspector so he's throwing me in runoff in effort to get rid of me
Wouldn't that manipulation become valuable evidence later on? I guess its not worth lowering the chances of lynching mafia in day 1, but how often does that happen anyways? I know you guys have had this talk plenty of times before but I'm curious.
Yes it would be, and that’s an interesting argument for 5 I haven’t entertained myself. The counterpoint would be, if there’s 1 mafia in a 4 person runoff, they are more likely to be lynched than in a 5 person.
Just went through the last 10 games. Mafia was lynched on Day 1 twice, but one of those required a Day 1 inspector reveal. So really 1/10. IDK if the chances of lynching mafia is really a winning argument for a 4 person runoff, but I do see what JR is saying about the data being possibly less valuable because the switches were forced.
Doesn't matter to me though. I just wanted to go through that exercise once for myself.
Yes it would be, and that’s an interesting argument for 5 I haven’t entertained myself. The counterpoint would be, if there’s 1 mafia in a 4 person runoff, they are more likely to be lynched than in a 5 person.
Just went through the last 10 games. Mafia was lynched on Day 1 twice, but one of those required a Day 1 inspector reveal. So really 1/10. IDK if the chances of lynching mafia is really a winning argument for a 4 person runoff, but I do see what JR is saying about the data being possibly less valuable because the switches were forced.
Doesn't matter to me though. I just wanted to go through that exercise once for myself.
I'm surprised it's that low.
Though I would say it's not the chance of lynching a mafia that makes 4 attractive vs. 5. It's - I don't know if I can explain this adequately - the cost benefit analysis of that .27 extra mafia in the runoff vs. the noise that a 5 person runoff creates.
I also don't know how to explain this next piece, it's a gut feeling, but it feels like a huge advantage for a mafia to slip out of the D1 runoff of 5 people as opposed to 4 people. If someone slipping out of the D1 runoff means something, with only 4 game days to explore it, it's easier for that to be 1 person that gets the examination instead of two.
Yes it would be, and that’s an interesting argument for 5 I haven’t entertained myself. The counterpoint would be, if there’s 1 mafia in a 4 person runoff, they are more likely to be lynched than in a 5 person.
Just went through the last 10 games. Mafia was lynched on Day 1 twice, but one of those required a Day 1 inspector reveal. So really 1/10. IDK if the chances of lynching mafia is really a winning argument for a 4 person runoff, but I do see what JR is saying about the data being possibly less valuable because the switches were forced.
Doesn't matter to me though. I just wanted to go through that exercise once for myself.
Didn’t realize we were that low damn. Were all 10 games a 4 person runoff?
Just went through the last 10 games. Mafia was lynched on Day 1 twice, but one of those required a Day 1 inspector reveal. So really 1/10. IDK if the chances of lynching mafia is really a winning argument for a 4 person runoff, but I do see what JR is saying about the data being possibly less valuable because the switches were forced.
Doesn't matter to me though. I just wanted to go through that exercise once for myself.
Didn’t realize we were that low damn. Were all 10 games a 4 person runoff?
I checked to make sure that the 1 true lynch was in fact a 4 (it was). Didn't check the rest because of how long it was taking me to just find who was mafia and who got lynched first in each game. It'd be nice to have all of the end game stats posted in the OP so people can go back to reference.
Didn’t realize we were that low damn. Were all 10 games a 4 person runoff?
I checked to make sure that the 1 true lynch was in fact a 4 (it was). Didn't check the rest because of how long it was taking me to just find who was mafia and who got lynched first in each game. It'd be nice to have all of the end game stats posted in the OP so people can go back to reference.
Just went through the last 10 games. Mafia was lynched on Day 1 twice, but one of those required a Day 1 inspector reveal. So really 1/10. IDK if the chances of lynching mafia is really a winning argument for a 4 person runoff, but I do see what JR is saying about the data being possibly less valuable because the switches were forced.
Doesn't matter to me though. I just wanted to go through that exercise once for myself.
I'm surprised it's that low.
Though I would say it's not the chance of lynching a mafia that makes 4 attractive vs. 5. It's - I don't know if I can explain this adequately - the cost benefit analysis of that .27 extra mafia in the runoff vs. the noise that a 5 person runoff creates.
I also don't know how to explain this next piece, it's a gut feeling, but it feels like a huge advantage for a mafia to slip out of the D1 runoff of 5 people as opposed to 4 people. If someone slipping out of the D1 runoff means something, with only 4 game days to explore it, it's easier for that to be 1 person that gets the examination instead of two.
It seems like in the same post you are saying that the switching in a 5 runoff is noise, you are also saying that mafia is saving themselves. Can both be true? That seems like useful noise down the line to me.
If town is only lynching mafia 1 out of 10 times on day 1 anyways, I think I'm on the side of the argument that provides us more data on day 1. But idk if 4 or 5 gives us better data.
Though I would say it's not the chance of lynching a mafia that makes 4 attractive vs. 5. It's - I don't know if I can explain this adequately - the cost benefit analysis of that .27 extra mafia in the runoff vs. the noise that a 5 person runoff creates.
I also don't know how to explain this next piece, it's a gut feeling, but it feels like a huge advantage for a mafia to slip out of the D1 runoff of 5 people as opposed to 4 people. If someone slipping out of the D1 runoff means something, with only 4 game days to explore it, it's easier for that to be 1 person that gets the examination instead of two.
It seems like in the same post you are saying that the switching in a 5 runoff is noise, you are also saying that mafia is saving themselves. Can both be true? That seems like useful noise down the line to me.
If town is only lynching mafia 1 out of 10 times on day 1 anyways, I think I'm on the side of the argument that provides us more data on day 1. But idk if 4 or 5 gives us better data.
I think mafia is saving themselves BECAUSE of the noise, or at least hiding in it.
A 5 person runoff isn't really more data, is it? You are moving to a 3 person runoff either way (4 or 5), so it's not another round. If a 5 person runoff is more data, then I ask the same question about the cost-benefit analysis between "more data" and "more cover".
It seems like in the same post you are saying that the switching in a 5 runoff is noise, you are also saying that mafia is saving themselves. Can both be true? That seems like useful noise down the line to me.
If town is only lynching mafia 1 out of 10 times on day 1 anyways, I think I'm on the side of the argument that provides us more data on day 1. But idk if 4 or 5 gives us better data.
I think mafia is saving themselves BECAUSE of the noise, or at least hiding in it.
A 5 person runoff isn't really more data, is it? You are moving to a 3 person runoff either way (4 or 5), so it's not another round. If a 5 person runoff is more data, then I ask the same question about the cost-benefit analysis between "more data" and "more cover".
lol I was thinking there may be a possibility for another round. Stupid.
So when you do a 4 person runoff, there are 3 new votes that must occur. When you do a 5 person runoff, there is one vote and then 2 switches that must occur. It is still 3 decision makers in either scenario. But in the 4 runoff scenario, all 3 voters must vote for someone new. Couldn't the argument be made that the 2 people who chose to be the ones to switch had more of a motive than the 3 involuntary votes? The second of those votes usually is spent to even things up and really tells you nothing.
Went all the way back to 96 and it looks like town may have been successful on Day 1 once more, btw.
Post by Jake Jortles on Jan 30, 2019 16:18:15 GMT -5
Disregard the "evening up" part above. Was thinking of the final round for some reason when I typed that.
I guess I'm asking if a switch is more valuable information than a required vote. Yes, 2 of the town will need to switch, but we don't necessarily know which two.
Voted for me after I suggested voting for him since he had no votes. I think he could be nervous that I might be inspector so he's throwing me in runoff in effort to get rid of me
You suggested voting for me because of Potent's post The question about Potent discussing those without votes is why now? He does it a lot and it is always after the day ends and the runoff is set. Last game he didn't do it at all. Is he trying to steer someone else into the runoff and himself and another out? Alternatively I now have a reason to keep my vote on you instead of playing musical votes. There is a good chance Potent is the innocent one and it is you jumping off an simple meaningless bit and trying to use it.
Voted for me after I suggested voting for him since he had no votes. I think he could be nervous that I might be inspector so he's throwing me in runoff in effort to get rid of me
You suggested voting for me because of Potent's post The question about Potent discussing those without votes is why now? He does it a lot and it is always after the day ends and the runoff is set. Last game he didn't do it at all. Is he trying to steer someone else into the runoff and himself and another out? Alternatively I now have a reason to keep my vote on you instead of playing musical votes. There is a good chance Potent is the innocent one and it is you jumping off an simple meaningless bit and trying to use it.
Oooh this screams of sentient Carini trying not to be silent! JK.
I did mention it last game, on Day 2. I always think about the best time to do it and do think there is some merit in talking about it before the D1 runoff is set. If we are going by groups of 4, and an average of 1.09 mafia in that group, it's usually 3 or 4 people without D1 votes so there's on average .82 and 1.09 mafia in that group. And that's with just a random sample of 4 of 11.
Post by Silver Surfer on Jan 31, 2019 8:23:25 GMT -5
Yes, please throw me into the runoff where I am a revoter. That makes so much sense. Sorry for grabbing onto the really convenient timing of your vote switch onto me. Just seemed strange you would switch to me after I called you out for being possible mafia. Probably just a coincidence since it is Day 1, and I was stretching but you can't deny the timing.
