Starli... Silly ratings guide quibling

Secondly, you and I have only played in three leagues together, and you did so with help from a ratings guide and I did so without using one. So, such a comparison would be both premature and inapt.

I'm curious about this statement. I believe this was a topic somewhere in the past. Are you saying that those that use a ratings guide have an unfair advantage over those that don't?

Secondly, you and I have only played in three leagues together, and you did so with help from a ratings guide and I did so without using one. So, such a comparison would be both premature and inapt.

I'm curious about this statement. I believe this was a topic somewhere in the past. Are you saying that those that use a ratings guide have an unfair advantage over those that don't?

Nothing I said about Radagast's using a ratings guide suggested it was "unfair." However, using a ratings guide certainly gives a manager an edge over managers who don't; it gives them inside information on the actual probabilities on the card. If it didn't give managers an extra edge, the managers paying money for those ratings guides would be pretty stupid for buying them. I think we can agree they're not.

There is no "inside" information in the ratings guide. The actual probabilities are there on the cards. Some people choose to count the cards themselves, some like having this information summarized.

How you use this information is what makes you a better manager.

it gives them inside information on the actual probabilities on the card.

"Inside information" is something known only to a limited number and which the general public has no way of accessing. I don't believe the ratings book contains any such information.

Secondly, you and I have only played in three leagues together, and you did so with help from a ratings guide and I did so without using one. So, such a comparison would be both premature and inapt.

I'm curious about this statement. I believe this was a topic somewhere in the past. Are you saying that those that use a ratings guide have an unfair advantage over those that don't?

The rating guide is just a time saver.

There is no "inside" information in the ratings guide. The actual probabilities are there on the cards. Some people choose to count the cards themselves, some like having this information summarized.

How you use this information is what makes you a better manager.

There absolutely is inside information on the ratings guides. The probabilities are not there on the cards, they are there in a different symbolic form that requires interpretation. Very few people can look at the cards and immediately know how many of each type of result are out there.

Evaluating cards and their probabilities is part of being a better manager, not just using the information itself. So, the ratings guides do help in the manager/general manager process. As I said before, if they didn't, people wouldn't buy them and would be stupid to do so.

"Inside information" is something known only to a limited number and which the general public has no way of accessing. I don't believe the ratings book contains any such information.

I won't quibble with you over the phrase "inside information." It does, however, provide information one would not be able to easily get without an excruciatingly lengthy process one could still possibly do incorrectly. So, it does provide special information not readily available to the regular player.

Just because you said it doesn't make it true. It's just your opinion.

Like Scumby said, it's a time saver. I can count the cards and record the information on them and many players do. I don't have that time so I buy the ratings disk.

The rating guide is just a time saver.

"Time savers" are those that save time on mundane activities of workable time lengths. Ratings guides do much more than that. Considering almost none of us, including myself, have even close to the time necessary to actually count out every card on the set. So, the ratings guides give their user information they most likely never would have gotten without them. And, as I said before, counting out the cards doesn't guarantee one would count them out correctly.

So, the ratings guide do give helpful, vital information that give their users an edge they most likely wouldn't have had without them. I don't know why people who actually pay for that edge try to say they didn't. I'm not saying it's unfair in any way.

Just because you said it doesn't make it true. It's just your opinion.

That goes for you, too, Stoney...which makes everything you said just your opinion. However, I backed up my arguments pretty well.

Like Scumby said, it's a time saver. I can count the cards and record the information on them and many players do. I don't have that time so I buy the ratings disk.

As I said above, it's not just a time saver. Maybe you can and maybe you can't count them all correctly. However, the ratings guide still did that work for you you didn't do. And if you can't--or most likely wouldn't have had the time to--count the cards correctly, then the ratings guide definitely provided you with a significant edge.

Anyway, there's no reason for debate. As I said above, ratings guides are perfectly fair and legal, and I haven't said otherwise.