titan: the arena [Updated April 2005]

TTA  3 prizes Beginners Swiss Elim Scheduled 
    17  Rnd1 Heat1 21

  Rnd1 Heat2 22

 Rnd1 Heat3 22    Round 2 22  Semi   Round 3 23Final

 

  Cornwall     Ballroom Foyer, Table 4

Devin Flawd, PA

2004 Champion

2nd: Rob Schoenen, PA

3rd: Abigail Cocke, MD

4th: Mark Love, MD

5th: Tracy Graf, MD

6th: Joe Nemet, PA
Event History
1997    Peter Staab       72
1998    Brian Sutton      178
1999    Kaarin Engelmann     115
2000    Alan Witte      97
2001    Rebecca Hebner      56
2002    Joe Sposito      45
2003    Brenden Coomes      47
2004     Devin Flawd      63

AREA Ratings


GM: Greg Crowe

Always a titanic struggle ...

"Eight will enter, three will leave!" Come on, say it with me, "Eight will enter, three will leave!" Dyin' time is nigh.

Welcome to Titan the Arena, the only game where it doesn't matter who dies, as long as you didn't bet on him. Place your bets on who you think will survive, and play your strength cards to make sure they do. Rounds continue until only three live, and whoever has the biggest payoff from their bets wins. What could be more fun?

Again this year I decided to have three preliminary heats leading up to (optimally) a semi-final of 25 players. The winners of each of the five games in the semi will compete in a final to determine who will take home the wood.

To determine the 25 players who will play in the semi-final, I will consider the following criteria in this order of precedence:

1) Most wins. Someone who won games in two heats will get in before someone who won only one. One win should get you in, but that will depend upon the number of games won in all the heats and how many winners elect to continue.

2) First win. Someone who won a game on their first try will get in before someone who lost a game before winning in another heat.

3) Most points. For two people each with one win, the one who scored more points in their game will get in ahead of the other. For two people each with multiple wins, I will compare each of their single game with the highest score, then second highest, etc.

4) Random determination. If two or more players are tied at this point, and they are positioned such that some of them will get in to the semi and some won't, then, God help us, we will see who gets in by means of some random event generator (i.e. a coin or a die) that is acceptable to all involved players.

If for some reason I don't have 25 players who won at least one game, but I have more than 20, I will fill with those who won second in at least one game, using the tie-breakers above. If I have less than 20 but more than 16, I will fill to 20 with 2nd-placers. If I have less than 15 but more than 12, I will fill to 15. You get the idea.

The GM will be playing and will have two AGM's identified.

Note about the New Version: Last year, Fantasy Flight Games re-released this game, entitled Colossal Arena. Having read the rules to the game, I am making the following pronouncement. Usage of this version of the game will be allowed with the following provisos: 1) The eight creatures that will be used are: Amazon, Cyclops, Ettin, Magus, Titan, Troll, Unicorn, and Wyrm. Remove all strength cards for the other 4 creatures from the deck before beginning play. 2) When the deck is exhausted, instead of ending the game immediately, use the 'Original Stalemate Rules' as printed in the Official FAQ (available at Fantasy Flight's website), which are the same as the rules in the orginal game.

In the final, there will be the option to play the new version of the game according to its rules, but only if all five finalists desire it. If a single one wishes to play with the original rules, then that is what will happen. If the new version's rules are used, the eight creatures used will be randomly determined, for time considerations.

In order to make the two versions jive even more, I am instituting this rule, applicible to all games of both versions: The method of determining who begins play may be by strength card auction, or by any random method acceptible to all players in the game.


Stats

One of the nice things that we did during the 2000 WBC TTA Tournament was to fill out a relatively extensive data sheet that recorded secret bets and creature kills for each campaign. I thank those people who took the time to complete these charts during their games. Their efforts are what I used to derive the following analyses.

There were 30 campaigns played resulting in 60 total games. Of those, only 55 games were evaluated because the rest of the games had incomplete or non-legible records. 53 games were five-player versions; only two games were four-players. Please note that this evaluation is limited by three major factors. First, we assumed that secret bets, creature kills and player diplomacy, which happened in the first game, would not unduly influence the second game. I did try to look into evaluating only the first games played, but that resulted in only 28 games available for evaluation and the results were not dramatically different from this complete analysis. Second, we assumed that the likelihood of creature kills and placement of secret bets for each of the different creatures would result in the same expected value. Of course, the differences are what's interesting about this analysis. Finally, these analyses are based upon a rather small sample of less than 60 games and "your mileage may vary".

We looked first at the secret bets that were placed on the different creatures for the evaluated games (here, only 54 games had available records). If we assume that all creatures are just as worthy of secret bets and that initial card play and open bets did not overly influence the choice of subsequent secret bets, we can expect 33.5 bets placed on each creature (52 games with five-players and two games with four-players) and considering a no-secret bet as a mistake.

Secret Bets Placed 

Number

Variance

 Cyclops

27

-6.5

Warlock

30

-3.5

Dragon

32

-1.5

Titan

32

-1.5

Troll

32

-1.5

 Hydra

33

-0.5

Ranger

37

+3.5

Unicorn

38

+4.5

None (expected should be 0)

7

+7.0

What this data suggest is a definite bias against betting on the Cyclops, which is later reinforced by the fact that it is one of the creatures that is killed early. As to whether the lack of secret support dooms the Cyclops to being in the early kill group or whether players just don't like the Cyclops' power, it's unclear from this data (but perhaps the multiple-bid data suggest that the lack of support dooms the Cyclops). However, I would tend to agree with those players who see the Cyclops' as having the most annoying power to the non-backers. I was a bit surprised to see that the powers that I tend to prefer and think of being useful (Dragon, Titan, Troll and Hydra) did not significantly vary from the expected. I would have expected higher positive variance rather than the relatively neutral deviation. I was perplexed somewhat by the positive variance on the Ranger and the Unicorn, since I only find these powers to be helpful in specific situations.

Next, I took a look at which creatures got eliminated first. With 55 games being evaluated, we would expect each creature to be the "First Kill" 6.9 times in this data. As noted, Cyclops got clobbered first rather resoundingly. Also, the Titan was the first creature killed nearly as often. This seems to suggest that these two "annoying" powers that can affect another player's hand tend to bring unfriendly attention rather rapidly. I would suggest from this data that you should not put any secret wagers on these creatures unless you have some additional support and ability to keep them alive.

 First Killed

Number

Variance

Cyclops

12

-5.1

Titan

10

-3.1

Ranger

6

+0.9

Troll

6

+0.9

Warlock

6

+0.9

Dragon

5

+1.9

Hydra

5

+1.9

Unicorn

5

+1.9

Looking further along the continuum at the first three creatures killed in a game, we see that it confirms the "loser" nature of the Cyclops. However, the Titan appears to do much better, once it survives the initial assault for the first kill. Surprisingly, the Troll emerges as an increasingly likely target to be killed when looking at the first three eliminations. Later we will look at a "survivor"-analysis which may suggest that this switch for the Titan and the Troll may be just an anomaly. Based on 55 games evaluated, if this was random, we would expect each creature to be one of the first three creatures eliminated about 20.6 times.

 First Three Killed

Number

Variance

Cyclops

31

-10.4

Troll

26

-5.4

Titan

22

-1.4

Ranger

20

+0.6

Hydra

19

+1.6

Unicorn

16

+4.6

Warlock

16

+4.6

Dragon

15

+5.6

Next, we attempted to determine whom among the TTA creatures would be considered "survivors" and not likely to get "voted" off the arena. With 55 games, we would expect each creature to be one of the three survivors 20.6 times if due to chance only. This analysis merely confirmed that the Cyclops and the Titan were the least likely candidates to remain standing at the end. Also, the Warlock appeared to be slightly vulnerable. The most likely survivors appear to be what I consider to be the two most powerful creatures, the Hydra and the Dragon. In games that I play, I try to convince people that the Hydra and the Dragon must be killed because of their powers, but perhaps I should be looking into betting on them more often.

 Survivor

Number

Variance

Titan

14

-6.6

Cyclops

16

-4.6

Warlock

18

-2.6

Troll

22

+1.4

Ranger

23

+2.4

Unicorn

23

+2.4

Hydra

24

+3.4

Dragon

25

+4.4

As an aside, it should be noted that in most of the games played, the five eliminated creatures were killed by three or four different players. Only in a handful of cases were all the killings done by two different players. In no cases were there the extremes of only one or all five players being involved with the creature eliminations.

Finally, further analyses were done to reflect some of the player interactions that are so important in the dynamics of a multi-player card game such as TTA. Since we don't have actual after-action reports that capture the thoughts, exact bets and card play for this tournament, I attempted to use multiple secret bets on creatures to serve as proxy for some of the player interactions and its effect on creature survival. There were no games with four or five secret bets on the same creature (this would be likely limited by general card distribution at the beginning of the game). However, there were 42 instances of double-secret-bids on one creature and 12 instances of triple-bids on one creature.

 Creature

Double Bets

Deaths

Triple Bets

Deaths

 Unicorn

5

3

4

1

Ranger

9

3

1

0

Troll

3

1

2

0

Titan

4

1

1

0

Dragon

5

1

1

0

Cyclops

3

0

2

0

Warlock

5

0

1

0

Hydra

8

0

0

0

With this analysis, it appears that having multiple-bids on the Unicorn and the Ranger weakens the ability of these creatures to survive. Even with several players interested in the survival of these creatures, they appear to be very vulnerable to elimination. In contrast, while the Cyclops and Warlock may be easily eliminated when backed by only one or no players, they appear to be stronger when backed by several supporters. As expected, the Hydra and the Dragon appear to be generally good bets based on this information.

In summary, there are many limitations to this analyses of TTA and this information should be recognized as only providing general thoughts on creature survivability and some ideas about placing secret bets based upon some actual data. I have already noted some of the caveats earlier, and certainly there are many other strategies that have been discussed about betting and card play for TTA in other forums. This analysis is not meant to be a substitute for good game play, understanding of the game, opponent psychology, card counting, etc., that occurs in any good card game involving bidding. From this data, the two general rules appear to be: 1) be very wary of placing secret bets or bids on the Cyclops and the Titan, and 2) secret bets and bids on the Dragon and the Hydra may be worthwhile and defendable.

 GM     Greg Crowe  (3rd year)   NA
   gregcrowe@mindspring.com   NA 

2004 Results Page | View the Icon Key | Return to main BPA page