Outguessing your opponent

[idea2go]

When you’re in one of those 50/50 situations where you can guess right and win the center, or guess wrong and lose it, do you try to outthink the opponent by figuring out what they will decide, or flip a coin to be as unpredictable as possible? I usually try to outthink, but having several hours to think about it instead of just a few minutes in a f2f game to decide & go is driving me nuts! https://youtu.be/zQoJOAbAsRM?t=10s

[Cardlinger]

I assume I'm not clever enough to outthink them and just flip to be entirely unpredictable.

Sometimes I actually tell them I'm doing that just to be entirely unexploitable!

Best,
Cardlinger

[mjparrett]

I will usually "leak" something to a 3rd party who I think is actually working for the other player. "I'm going to support with Berlin" etc. Hope the message gets back, and do the opposite.

[DQ]

I will usually "leak" something to a 3rd party who I think is actually working for the other player. "I'm going to support with Berlin" etc. Hope the message gets back, and do the opposite.

That's good strategery no matter the forum. The best person I know at outguessing people says its really about understanding the psychology of the opponent - which is very hard to do when you don't know them, and can't see their body language. Decision squares are helpful for those occasions when you have WAY too much time on your hands but tbh I haven't used one in years - I have a general feel for which outcome I can / can't live with.

[David E. Cohen]

I will usually "leak" something to a 3rd party who I think is actually working for the other player. "I'm going to support with Berlin" etc. Hope the message gets back, and do the opposite.

Which can, of course, backfire. A discerning player will be thinking "How does the conduit know that?" and "Why would the disseminator tell that to the conduit?" If it doesn't smell right, the disinformation will be regarded as what it is, with occasionaly disastrous results if what you are doing is on the risky side. It is best to use this tactic sparingly and with subtlety.

[Justinrs2]

I will usually "leak" something to a 3rd party who I think is actually working for the other player. "I'm going to support with Berlin" etc. Hope the message gets back, and do the opposite.

Which can, of course, backfire. A discerning player will be thinking "How does the conduit know that?" and "Why would the disseminator tell that to the conduit?" If it doesn't smell right, the disinformation will be regarded as what it is, with occasionaly disastrous results if what you are doing is on the risky side. It is best to use this tactic sparingly and with subtlety.

Unless you know that, and are being purposefully clumsy to make your opponent think exactly that. Then you do the opposite. But wait! They may know that, and see through the trap in the trap, going along with what the message says after all. That's why you should do what the message says after all. But wait! They may know that, and see through the trap in the trap in the trap, doing the opposite of what the message says, just as you suggest. That's why you should do the opposite of what the message says. But wait!.......

etc etc

[ColonelApricot]

A coin-toss removes the stress but you may be able to improve the odds from 50%.

Analysis of previous orders by the opponent may reveal whether the player usually chooses the most obvious approach, or by contrast prefers to counter his opponent's (i.e. your) obvious approach. You then need to consider whether your previous orders consistently fall within the first pattern (perhaps by deliberate strategy) or the second, or a mixture of the two. Some opponents consistently choose unpredictable tactics, ignoring their opponents approach altogether.

For example we have the Marseilles dilemma. To keep it open for the build, will France self-bounce (the obvious tactic), or just hold off? Italy should support to Mar if he expects France to play in an unsubtle manner, or if he considers France to be capable of leaving Mar open, move there himself.

Relying on confusion arising from messages being passed on by third parties might work best when the opponent is unpredictable. By creating chaos it at least allows one to feel that the opponent is suffering as much as oneself.

Of course if the guess is successful don't forget to demoralize the opponent, whether it be by insincere commiseration, boastful taunting or suggesting that he is surrounded by traitors.

..CA

[David E. Cohen]

I will usually "leak" something to a 3rd party who I think is actually working for the other player. "I'm going to support with Berlin" etc. Hope the message gets back, and do the opposite.

Which can, of course, backfire. A discerning player will be thinking "How does the conduit know that?" and "Why would the disseminator tell that to the conduit?" If it doesn't smell right, the disinformation will be regarded as what it is, with occasionaly disastrous results if what you are doing is on the risky side. It is best to use this tactic sparingly and with subtlety.

Unless you know that, and are being purposefully clumsy to make your opponent think exactly that. Then you do the opposite. But wait! They may know that, and see through the trap in the trap, going along with what the message says after all. That's why you should do what the message says after all. But wait! They may know that, and see through the trap in the trap in the trap, doing the opposite of what the message says, just as you suggest. That's why you should do the opposite of what the message says. But wait!.......

etc etc

I will skip any false humility. I am afraid appearing to be clumsy is not believable in my case, at least to people who know me!