Anna Demon
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
-
I have a question about how folks deal with this situation: in the last round, the first bidder happens to have the most money left. Since it is the last round, he opens the bid with everything he's got. Since no one can outbid him, everyone is forced to pass in turn. This can result in someone with money losing out to someone without any money, in terms of pecking order. This seems "wrong". I always play with everyone "all-in" on the last round, and handing out the cards in order of the bids, with position being the tie-breaker (when necessary).
Can anyone offer good insight into why one might play with the normal rules? It seems like too much "screwage" for someone who was bidding judiciously but gets stuck out of position.
Example: A opens with $6k; B has $5k left but has to pass, taking the lowest property; C is out of money, but gets the next best property anyway.
-
B L
United States
Apple Valley
Minnesota
-
anna_de wrote: ...I always play with everyone "all-in" on the last round, and handing out the cards in order of the bids, with position being the tie-breaker (when necessary).
If I understand things, by "all-in" you mean everybody turns in their remaining money and then you pass out the cards highest card to the player with the most money and the second highest card to the player with the second most money gets the second highest card and so on. So under your rules the a player could end up having to pay $3 or $4 or more to get the 1 house (cardboard box). Plus they don't have that money for the end of game scoring. Talk about screwage! That is one reason to play with the normal rules.
-
ackmondual
United States
Virginia
-
anna_de wrote: I have a question about how folks deal with this situation: in the last round, the first bidder happens to have the most money left. Since it is the last round, he opens the bid with everything he's got. Since no one can outbid him, everyone is forced to pass in turn. This can result in someone with money losing out to someone without any money, in terms of pecking order. This seems "wrong". I always play with everyone "all-in" on the last round, and handing out the cards in order of the bids, with position being the tie-breaker (when necessary).
Can anyone offer good insight into why one might play with the normal rules? It seems like too much "screwage" for someone who was bidding judiciously but gets stuck out of position.
Example: A opens with $6k; B has $5k left but has to pass, taking the lowest property; C is out of money, but gets the next best property anyway. how often does the player starting out the last round of the first phase have more $$ then everyone else? From my observations, it's not uncommon for that player to NOT have the most money since he just paid full price for a property the turn before. Expanding that point, you can just as well have situations where:
p1 has $6
p2 has $4
p3 has $8
p4 has $5
P3 doesn't have to pass, and that changes p4's situation. Last but not least, we try to play with hidden $$, so player A needs to be able to card count, or anticipate whether or not his $6 is indeed more than everyone else's amount of $$. It's especially due to this uncertainty I think that makes the normal rules better. Since $$ gets added to your check value at game's end, this hidden info creates more tension among players, as opposed to knowing that everyon will indeed have $0 due to your variant.
-
Curt Carpenter
United States
Washington
-
Don't forget that unspent money is still points at the end. All-in as an opening bid is thus a very poor play.
I think the rules are fine as is.
-
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
-
anna_de wrote: This can result in someone with money losing out to someone without any money, in terms of pecking order. This seems "wrong". Here's a different way of still getting to the same conclusion as the others above:
You're playing a card game where luck-of-the-draw has been in effect the whole time and may already have resulted in outcomes that just seem wrong. Why does that aspect suddenly need fixing on the last turn ?
-
S. Turner
United States
New Hampshire
-
anna_de wrote: I always play with everyone "all-in" on the last round, and handing out the cards in order of the bids, with position being the tie-breaker (when necessary).
Can anyone offer good insight into why one might play with the normal rules? It seems like too much "screwage" for someone who was bidding judiciously but gets stuck out of position.
Example: A opens with $6k; B has $5k left but has to pass, taking the lowest property; C is out of money, but gets the next best property anyway.
As another poster pointed out, the money left over counts towards your end of game score, so you must keep that in mind...
Using your example, in most cases, it wouldn't make much sense for 'A' to open with $6k. 'A' could open lower, win the best card for $6k (or less), and still have opponents spend money to get their cards.
Had 'A' been counting the cards, it make make sense for 'A' to force 'B' to pass if 'A' knew that 'B' was close in points and 'C' was not close.
For your modified rules of everyone being all-in, that can also lead to "screwage". Recalling your example of 'A', 'B', and 'C', what if three properties with similar values were drawn (for example 1,2,3 or 14,15,16 or 28,29,30)? 'A' and 'B' get screwed by spending $5k and $6k to get properties only slightly better than 'C'.
-
|
|
