Player 2 advantage

[fb038]

In 2 player games, I notice that more often than not, the 2nd player has a disproportionate advantage, especially when they keep it close or play out the 'stalemate' strategy where you're camped right under the top of the mountain waiting for the other to reach so you can displace them. And that strategy is becoming more common as it just works. Anyone else been feeling this way?

[hueri]

Agreed, and nice call. I think it's structural rather than just a feel thing. The game ends when turn counts equalize after someone empties the third pile (or takes the fourth bonus tile), so the second player always gets the last word. They see the end coming and can respond; the first player has to commit before knowing the reply. I suspect camping works for a related reason -- whoever peaks second gets to answer rather than commit.

The luck of the dice isn't the issue -- that's the game, and making the most of what you're handed is the whole skill. But you opt into that when you sit down. The seat you get is a different thing: it's assigned before anyone rolls, everyone would pick second given the choice, and nothing in the rules evens it out. And it doesn't undercut the skill side either: someone winning 70% overall is probably winning nearer 60% first and 80% second. Both halves are still good play, one is just uphill.

For scale, the first player in chess scores around 54-55%. The edge here feels bigger than that, except it runs the other way, toward whoever moves second. Some games patch this: Go gives the second player komi, a points bonus, precisely because the imbalance was considered too big to leave alone. Plenty of great games just live with it, though.

Worth naming mainly because once you see it you can play around it. When I'm first, I try to be the one deciding when the third pile empties rather than letting the reply land on me.

Good catch. Curious whether people who've played longer feel the same.

[Nils Nils]

Some tactics that are effective when playing second often don't work when you're the one starting the game. Some tactics for playing first often tied to high stakes and high risk, and they don't often work. There are no universal or guaranteed tactics.
The tactic is chosen individually , based on the opponent and the situation. Whether you go first or second only adds minor adjustments.
Playing first is definitely harder and demands more. If you learn to win more than you lose while playing first, playing second becomes easier.

[stikelrw]

Yes I do! So I think in 2 player games, there should be a Competitive option to play back-to-back games with a rotating starting player and the total points counting for the win. They recently added this to Double Seven (which has a first player advantage)

[Nils Nils]

Yes I do! So I think in 2 player games, there should be a Competitive option to play back-to-back games with a rotating starting player and the total points counting for the win. They recently added this to Double Seven (which has a first player advantage)

Agree