Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Fuchur]

Are "winning" stats really important? So crucial that they warrant forcing the losing player to stay in the game?

Just logically... After you lose, you'd want to study the stats to see what went wrong. But after you win, the stats just confirm what you already knew. Right?

Maybe there are exceptions to this. "Why did I win? I'm shocked. [studying stats] Oh wow, I accidentally made some ingenious moves. That totally explains it."

The value of the end-game stats has been stated and repeated numerous times in the 20+ pages of this thread.

As noted though, this only applies to games that are nearly over when the concession occurs.
If the game is at 50% progression, the stats don't mean much.

Essentially by one person, FrankJones, who wasn't able to produce any single example of a statistic worth all his posts about the huge value of this.

[Fuchur]

I have decided to red thumb opponents that concede on the last move. Fool me once, shame on you; I will not be fooled twice.

Does this happen regularly to you ? In other words, do you red thumb a lot of people for this reason ?

From January 14-January 26, opponents have conceded in 16 games. I'd guess 13 were last move, rather than mid-game.

Thank you for giving some numbers. I've had a rapid glance at your recent games -- i've seen two games which ended probably by concession of your opponent -- out of about 20 games. Does that come close to your observations -- 10 % of all your games (of Space Base) do end like this ?

[FrankJones]

As an example of a game that can be conceded that has mor than 2 players?

Spades is a game of one entity versus another, effectively making it a 2-player game for the intents and purposes discussed in this thread.

One team wins, one team loses, and there is no 3rd (or more) team that would cause complications in that regard.

I get what you mean but often teammates don’t have the same ideology on conceding. It requires both losing teammates to agree on conceding and when there is a conflict it causes for an unpleasant experience for everyone involved. What happens is the person in favor of conceding will intentionally lose (going nil with ace of spade, bidding 13) in hopes that their partner will cave in and accept the concede and there are a lot of stubborn ppl who won’t bend for anything . If you see any spades game in which one team has a lot of negative points this is what most likely happened bc even if you’re the worlds worst player it’s pretty difficult to end games with scores of -hundreds of points. My most lopsided victory I won by over 2000pts because of a situation like this lol

That's the least of my worries in spades, since that game is already a train wreck for so many reasons.

[FrankJones]

Are "winning" stats really important? So crucial that they warrant forcing the losing player to stay in the game?

Just logically... After you lose, you'd want to study the stats to see what went wrong. But after you win, the stats just confirm what you already knew. Right?

Maybe there are exceptions to this. "Why did I win? I'm shocked. [studying stats] Oh wow, I accidentally made some ingenious moves. That totally explains it."

The value of the end-game stats has been stated and repeated numerous times in the 20+ pages of this thread.

As noted though, this only applies to games that are nearly over when the concession occurs.
If the game is at 50% progression, the stats don't mean much.

Essentially by one person, FrankJones, who wasn't able to produce any single example of a statistic worth all his posts about the huge value of this.

I posted dozens of examples.

[MarkSteere]

Essentially by one person, FrankJones, who wasn't able to produce any single example of a statistic worth all his posts about the huge value of [stats].

Yeah, I missed that too, although admittedly I wasn't paying real close attention for most of the discussion.

One thing I definitely missed though was an answer to my question, "Aren't stats a lot less important after you won than after you lost?"

[BarnardsStar]

The value of the end-game stats has been stated and repeated numerous times in the 20+ pages of this thread.

As noted though, this only applies to games that are nearly over when the concession occurs.
If the game is at 50% progression, the stats don't mean much.

Essentially by one person, FrankJones, who wasn't able to produce any single example of a statistic worth all his posts about the huge value of this.

No, you chose not to believe the examples. Instead, you engaged in some rather epic goal-post moving; you tried to make out that Frank’s position was that the statistics were all-important, and that people need only study them to become a master at the game.

Now, I’ve never played a single game of Earth, so I dunno, I certainly don’t know how they’re helpful. But when the current #8 player on the site (and recently was in the top 5) says they’re useful and help, I believe them.

I see you’ve played seven games of Earth and won 2 of them. I’d suggest that (if you want to improve—plenty don’t and just play to have fun, and that’s fine) you could stand to listen to him more instead of making him out to be wrong, because the track record does not suggest he is wrong.

[FrankJones]

Essentially by one person, FrankJones, who wasn't able to produce any single example of a statistic worth all his posts about the huge value of [stats].

Yeah, I missed that too, although admittedly I wasn't paying real close attention for most of the discussion.

One thing I definitely missed though was an answer to my question, "Aren't stats a lot less important after you won than after you lost?"

No.

[MarkSteere]

No.

Isn't it true that stats are inherently cumulative? That they aggregate over many plays and many players, over a long time? And that missing a single game (or a handful of games) has a negligible effect on the overall picture, especially compared with the noise already present in small samples, player skill differences, table conditions, etc?

Is it really worth forcing a player in a clearly lost position to continue, imposing a cost of time, enjoyment, and consent in exchange for a vanishingly small statistical benefit?

Just sayin'. Probably not worthy of a response.

[FrankJones]

No.

Isn't it true that stats are inherently cumulative? That they aggregate over many plays and many players, over a long time? And that missing a single game (or a handful of games) has a negligible effect on the overall picture, especially compared with the noise already present in small samples, player skill differences, table conditions, etc?

Is it really worth forcing a player in a clearly lost position to continue, imposing a cost of time, enjoyment, and consent in exchange for a vanishingly small statistical benefit?

Just sayin'. Probably not worthy of a response.

Nobody is "forced" to do anything. I think you and I use the word "force" differently.

[MarkSteere]

Nobody is "forced" to do anything. I think you and I use the word "force" differently.

This is the only point you're refuting? The precise definition of "forced"? How about the point that a few missed game stats shouldn't matter too much in the long run? Or that there's no reason to "compel" some poor soul, who didn't read the fine print, to keep playing, under some kind of penalty he unwittingly agreed to?

Of the millions of BGA members, is anyone, other than you, all wound up about stats? I don't know. Maybe it goes into the low single digits.