the Poker aspect of BB

[James_Probert]

This makes me want to go back to tracking blocking stats, maybe just attempts and results. We did this before one season back in the '90s, and I don't still have the stats. I remember learning this way that there's a strong correlation between the number of blocks made and win rate, even on finesse teams. I think this is in some part a function of the turnover rule (bad teams end their turns earlier, taking fewer actions and therefore making fewer blocks), but part of that is probably just that good risk management means safer die rolls and 2d blocks are usually safer than dodges.

Christer on FUMBBL has done this, and he says that the correlation (admittedly this is LRB 4, but not much in the bashing game changes to CRP) between the two events is remarkably strong.

example: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3005848
and again: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3005846

those were found just looking at the most recently reported games on fumbbl, in EVERY case except the one shown below, the winning team had done more blocks than the losers.

extreme counter example: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3005857


Personally I have found that while the threat of an attack can be as effective as the attack itself in opening up defence/offense, you need to know when to play your hand to best effect, hold on for too long, and it's not as likely to be as effective.

[Carnis]

Christer on FUMBBL has done this, and he says that the correlation (admittedly this is LRB 4, but not much in the bashing game changes to CRP) between the two events is remarkably strong.

example: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3005848
and again: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3005846

those were found just looking at the most recently reported games on fumbbl, in EVERY case except the one shown below, the winning team had done more blocks than the losers.

extreme counter example: http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match&id=3005857

You have to admit though, that the more CAS/KO you make early in the turn the more blocks you are likely to get later in the half. Also a basher team is likely to win the more blocks he does, but the same does simply not hold true for elven team vs basher team matchup. Some individual reports to counter argue (all from same coach/team, though).

http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match ... id=2960965
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match ... id=2892063
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match ... id=2759850
http://fumbbl.com/FUMBBL.php?page=match ... id=2754189

The # of blocks is just an indicator of how many 2die blocks you got that were meaningful enough to try (either you are a bash team getting CAS for it, or a flair team getting a CAS or a positional advantage).

Also it would be very hard to prove that the # of blocks is the reason those games were won/lost and not something else that lead to the # of blocks being increased simultaneously (such as a difference in coaching skill or early heavy attrition on one side).

[Aliboon]

I can see why the stats would say the more blocks, the better the win rate. Good results from blocks means that you will get more knockdowns, more AV breaks, more KOs and CASs. Even if a players is just put prone, he has lost his tackle zone and that makes other blocks likely to be 2ds and therefore more effective, this effect is obviously amplified with stuns, KOs and CASs.

Conversely, when the blocking game isn't going well, there is likely to be less easy blocks, so less blocks made and probably more dodges to keep position.

I had a game not so long ago with woodelfs against skaven and because I started of with a few CASs, I played the rest of a game as a grind because I had the numbers and therefore the favourable blocks, there was no point in me risking any passes or dodges.

[Digger Goreman]

... almost nobody predicates their basic strategy on 75% odds; if it ends up that way, the credit generally goes to the opponent.

That, and the remark on timing the "break-out"/necessary play, sums up most of my failures....

And Nuffle's happy to show me the way of my errors...!

[grampyseer]

This is an interesting topic. I think I've found that the experienced blood bowl player plays a very "safe game." I for one, tend to play very safe. I'll take my time, and try to only leave risky openings for an opponent. (expecting to generate a turn over)

I'd always thought that it was pure dumb luck that allowed for someone to waltz in and do the impossible. Perhaps a savvy player will see the risky openings, recognize that they're being used as a deterrent, and push the odds. In this way, he's forcing the other player out of the "safe game"......and kaput goes the advantage of experience, and risk management style.

.....I mean who expects a ST 4 blodger to be put down on a 1/2 dice block? Not me.....and that's my weakness. The blodger going down, was NOT part of my "safe game." Now I'm playing a very uncomfortable style.

[Grumbledook]

1/2 blocks aren't that unsafe to do tbh

its the equivalent of a semibluff in poker

[Smeborg]

Grampyseer - I don't think the best BB coaches play a "safe" game. They play a "safe" game at times, and a "risky" game at other times, according to circumstance.

A 1/2 die Blitz into a cage with the right player is not risky, especially if you have Wrestle. If you also have a Team Re-roll and skills such as Leap, Tackle, Pro etc., the chances of success are better than 1/3 (somewhere over 40% I think if you throw in Frenzy as well). If the consequences of failure are a small chance that a player will leave the pitch (say 5% to 10%), where's the big risk? Especially if the likely upside is a 2 TD swing in your favour (i.e. a win).

And as Grum points out, if your opponent knows you are never going to do this, it makes the game very easy for him, doesn't it?

All the best.

[grampyseer]

I didn't say the "best" coaches play safe.

[mattgslater]

The best coaches are willing to take reasonable risks, and when they do, they find the safest ways to take them, leaving an effective minimum of contingent actions and getting the best odds they can find.

Truth be told, not taking calculated risks isn't really safe. You have to score to improve, and you have to improve to not get hurt. In particular, light teams have to score to avoid being ground on: losing a player to a failed cagebreak is a small price when never trying probably costs three or four players.