My favourite bluff story is the GOAT format guy who bluffed his opponent into attacking headfirst into Mirror Force by reaching for his pencil and paper as if he was ready to calculate the damage.
@@jackweitzman6697 I don't remember where I saw it; it was just used an example of the slower kind of bluffing that's slightly less prevalent nowadays.
@@EthanKironus8067 it is less prevalent because it is probably illegal. This is very similar to saying how many summons imo, using outside of game things to trick your opponent is not like the example in this video where you wait to use your card to make them think it actually does something.
@@beegyoshi1685 ? The reaching for pen and paper is perfectly legal; the guy in the anecdote didn't actually write anything as part of the bluff he literally just reached for it like he about to.
Being a Japanese game, the philosophy of what sort of bluffing is allowed is, spiritually, similar to a game such as mahjong. In mahjong, bluffing is allowed but not in the same style as poker bluffs - the bluff needs to be mechanical. Suppose you have a wait on a 4-pin, if you discard all the 1 and 7 pins you draw to make your opponents assume that 4 is a safe discard that's perfectly legal, but if you say, "Damn, I keep drawing into 1-4-7 pin" for the same bluff but with it not being conveyed mechanically that's not allowed. Basically imagine the entire duel playing out as a Master Duel replay. If a move that a player makes is something that seems nonsensical and the only reason it occurred was because of some out-of-game action, it's safe to say it's an illegal bluff. Every aspect of Kotton's analysis is talking about what someone would think based on the actual game state, not based on something like body language or conversation. In brief, using out-of-game actions to try and influence in-game decisions is no good, at the very least it should be considered poor sportsmanship. A lot of the gray area is just that proving the intent to cheat is extremely difficult so most judges probably would prefer to just say "anything that is expressly legal is allowed unless the person has sufficiently proven the intent to cheat."
suji trap is not bluffing. bluffing in mahjong would be calling pon for dora with no yaku or riichi for furiten wait to pressure your opponnents into folding their hand.
@@OlgaZuccati I mean to say that you're allowed to do it, but you aren't allowed to make some action like looking at the pool and saying, "Ah, I already discarded the 1-pin." then immediately discarding the 7-pin to imply that you don't want any of the 1-4-7 line. You can make the discards and let the others draw the conclusion, but not use your words to lead them to that conclusion.
i love when yugituber starts a video with buzz words like schrodinger and cat, but then struggles to explain the duel and how it was a coinflip choice between nibiru or bluffed backjack.
Honestly doesn't even feel like it fits the definition of a bluff. Bluffing is far closer to the bannable offense of faking a nibiru because you're deceiving someone that you can do something, which is the bare definition of bluffing. The 50:50 split situation is closer to mind gaming your opponent.
his use of buzzwords were good enough though, were they not ? Your opponent doesn't know whether your backjack is a hit or miss until you show it, just like how you don't know whether your non-backrow deck opponent set called by or imperm in master duel. Also there was no coinflip choice, only different thing using backjack later could've ended up in is not losing the game on spot which is a %100 correct play since the alternative is that you explode
My favorite bluff is just going straight to battle phase against snake eyes and watching them out their own board just for me to go to main phase 2 or best case is they do it during end of main 1
Interesting. As someone who’s unfamiliar with the deck (stopped playing MD when Ruler got banned) why wouldn’t they just chain it to (the assumed)evenly?
@@kingofgrim4761 snake eyes is more of a response deck where they respond to your actions and a lot of the time they don't end their turn with a negate on board but they have an IP or something else to make a board on your turn. When you act like you have evenly then they usually just put up an apollusa and don't even trigger their grave effects because they think they'll just get banished face down anyways
There's one problem with trying to bluff with Back Jack: He already attempted to shuffle the deck with Big Welcome and was met with an Ash. So Cameron already knows that whatever is at the top of Jack's deck was something he was okay with shuffling away.
Not really because of how turn player priority. If he attempted to shuffle his deck with big welcome he would have prio after cam is given priority to respond to welcome, so then Z can chain backjack to his own welcome. It's still not known it's a bluff or not by that point.
I mean in theory it could be 2 cards traps that deal with different situations, and he had it set up for the 1st, so if you take jack and link it off you could be fallung into the second situation which could he worse. Like maybe A Virus vs Dharuma, the Virus dealing with the early board state while Cannon deals with the later
Ugh, Schrodinger's whole point with the thought experiment is that it is completely ridiculous to believe that something could be in mutually exclusive states at the same time. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics (the prevailing view that takes the thought experiment seriously) has gotten us basically nowhere in the last 100 years. Thank you, Yugioh players, for coming to my TED Talk.
Back in Mythic Ruler format, around 2014 ish, I was still playing Evilswarm at locals, and this dude, who was considered the best player at locals, would side in Ice and Fire hand against me, to out Ophion, to which I began siding in Chivalry, so the first tournament with Chivalry, we're at finals, 1-1 simplified gamestate, he has Stardust + Skill Drain, I have a set Chivalry and Kerykeion, which is dead due to skill drain. I draw MST for turn and I just see the play, normal Kerykeion, go BP, swing into Stardust, activate MST to skill drain, he tributes Stardust to negate, and I chain Chivalry, the dude is like wtf why are you playing that, the store owner takes my Chivaly and reads it as if trying to find a way to stop me (they were best friends), but its over, perfectly legal play, Stardust is negated, Skill drain destroyed, 0 cards in hand, he scoops, both of them are omega madge lmao
Had a similar thing with Memory Loss. Went to time, opponent tried to out my board with Castel to then attack with both, but also summoned Cairngorgon to protect himself. He used Castel, I flipped memory loss, he tried to use Cairngorgon and I explained that wouldn't work. Judge was called, read Memory Loss (for what looked like the first time in his life) gave a short "HA!" and told my opponent he'd lost.
This is a great example of applied Game Theory: From Jack's POV, he knows that Cameron can extend through Nibiru with OSS anyway, so with a dead Backjack using Nibiru early will lose him the game on the spot, nothing he can do. Taking the gamble of baiting Apo with Backjack and chaining Nibiru is the objectively correct play here, because however slim it is, it's his only chance to come out of this. Cameron on the other hand has to consider Backjack as additional interruption, he doesn't know it's a bluff. The odds of Backjack hitting a Trap are quite high, so targeting Backjack with Dharc from Cameron's POV will only get the trap out a little earlier, while also denying him a link material, that's why targeting Chandra is the correct move here. Additionally, given that Jack only set two cards in a Backjack Lab deck telegraphes handtraps to consider. Given that Jack already opened Imperm the odds of the other interruption being exactly Nibiru is rather small, about 9%, but any Handtrap in general is very likely. A held Ash for OSS would be another threat to consider for example. Since OSS at this point is his only way to extend though further interruption, going into Apo is the correct move. If Nibiru exists, he still has OSS, if it's Ash, he has the Apo set up to insulate, and if Backjack was actually a threat, it would also be forced out before Apo hits the board. So if Jack didn't use Backjack before he goes into Apo, Cameron should know that any attempt to use Backjack from then on would likely be a bluff as most traps it could hit would likely have had more value before then already. Assuming perfect strategy from both players, Jack trying to bluff Backjack would always happen, but Cameron would let it go through, calling out the bluff.
As a primarily MTG player, the thought of an "illegal bluff" is super lame. Mind games are very important when pieces can be played or used at just about any time. You're supposed to misrepresent your hand, very much like a poker face, and it's up to your opponent to discern what's a lie. Yugioh is a good game when it isn't shooting itself in the foot with rulings that make the game more deterministic seeming than it actually is.
Nah, bluffing through game mechanic takes a lot more skill rather just acting like you own a card that doesn't exist in your deck IMO, after PSCT, YGO philosophy change to become "Chess but with RNG" with how much they are transparent with card effect to a tee.
You can misrepresent your hand, by playing your cards certain ways. Gonna heavily depend on archetype, some are a lot more linear than others, but in general you can. Trying to metagame is lame imo.
My favourite bluff story is the GOAT format guy who bluffed his opponent into attacking headfirst into Mirror Force by reaching for his pencil and paper as if he was ready to calculate the damage.
Wait what
@@jackweitzman6697 I don't remember where I saw it; it was just used an example of the slower kind of bluffing that's slightly less prevalent nowadays.
@@EthanKironus8067 it is less prevalent because it is probably illegal. This is very similar to saying how many summons imo, using outside of game things to trick your opponent is not like the example in this video where you wait to use your card to make them think it actually does something.
@@beegyoshi1685 ? The reaching for pen and paper is perfectly legal; the guy in the anecdote didn't actually write anything as part of the bluff he literally just reached for it like he about to.
This one time, I activated Honest, and my opponent died.
Being a Japanese game, the philosophy of what sort of bluffing is allowed is, spiritually, similar to a game such as mahjong. In mahjong, bluffing is allowed but not in the same style as poker bluffs - the bluff needs to be mechanical. Suppose you have a wait on a 4-pin, if you discard all the 1 and 7 pins you draw to make your opponents assume that 4 is a safe discard that's perfectly legal, but if you say, "Damn, I keep drawing into 1-4-7 pin" for the same bluff but with it not being conveyed mechanically that's not allowed.
Basically imagine the entire duel playing out as a Master Duel replay. If a move that a player makes is something that seems nonsensical and the only reason it occurred was because of some out-of-game action, it's safe to say it's an illegal bluff. Every aspect of Kotton's analysis is talking about what someone would think based on the actual game state, not based on something like body language or conversation. In brief, using out-of-game actions to try and influence in-game decisions is no good, at the very least it should be considered poor sportsmanship.
A lot of the gray area is just that proving the intent to cheat is extremely difficult so most judges probably would prefer to just say "anything that is expressly legal is allowed unless the person has sufficiently proven the intent to cheat."
suji trap is not bluffing. bluffing in mahjong would be calling pon for dora with no yaku or riichi for furiten wait to pressure your opponnents into folding their hand.
@@OlgaZuccati I mean to say that you're allowed to do it, but you aren't allowed to make some action like looking at the pool and saying, "Ah, I already discarded the 1-pin." then immediately discarding the 7-pin to imply that you don't want any of the 1-4-7 line. You can make the discards and let the others draw the conclusion, but not use your words to lead them to that conclusion.
This is a big debate in MTG iirc. There are rules to prevent external bluffs, but sometimes it's really hard to figure out.
i love when yugituber starts a video with buzz words like schrodinger and cat, but then struggles to explain the duel and how it was a coinflip choice between nibiru or bluffed backjack.
Honestly doesn't even feel like it fits the definition of a bluff. Bluffing is far closer to the bannable offense of faking a nibiru because you're deceiving someone that you can do something, which is the bare definition of bluffing. The 50:50 split situation is closer to mind gaming your opponent.
his use of buzzwords were good enough though, were they not ? Your opponent doesn't know whether your backjack is a hit or miss until you show it, just like how you don't know whether your non-backrow deck opponent set called by or imperm in master duel. Also there was no coinflip choice, only different thing using backjack later could've ended up in is not losing the game on spot which is a %100 correct play since the alternative is that you explode
My favorite bluff is just going straight to battle phase against snake eyes and watching them out their own board just for me to go to main phase 2 or best case is they do it during end of main 1
LMAO def gotta try this one day
Interesting. As someone who’s unfamiliar with the deck (stopped playing MD when Ruler got banned) why wouldn’t they just chain it to (the assumed)evenly?
@@4Dprinterrthey cant because I:P only works in the main phase
@@kingofgrim4761 snake eyes is more of a response deck where they respond to your actions and a lot of the time they don't end their turn with a negate on board but they have an IP or something else to make a board on your turn. When you act like you have evenly then they usually just put up an apollusa and don't even trigger their grave effects because they think they'll just get banished face down anyways
@@Lukav1 they could at the end of the main phase
There's one problem with trying to bluff with Back Jack: He already attempted to shuffle the deck with Big Welcome and was met with an Ash. So Cameron already knows that whatever is at the top of Jack's deck was something he was okay with shuffling away.
Couldnt he chain Back Jack to Welcome, so if it gets ashed you dont have to do anything but if your opponent passes priority you could just chain it
Blackjack could have been chained to an un-negated big welcome.
Not really because of how turn player priority. If he attempted to shuffle his deck with big welcome he would have prio after cam is given priority to respond to welcome, so then Z can chain backjack to his own welcome. It's still not known it's a bluff or not by that point.
@@FarfaHighlights Shit you right
@@FarfaHighlightsthis is the knowledge that only being a judge can grant
I mean in theory it could be 2 cards traps that deal with different situations, and he had it set up for the 1st, so if you take jack and link it off you could be fallung into the second situation which could he worse. Like maybe A Virus vs Dharuma, the Virus dealing with the early board state while Cannon deals with the later
"YOUCHEWB........ it's time for Fartfa to react to another person on the internet"
Ugh, Schrodinger's whole point with the thought experiment is that it is completely ridiculous to believe that something could be in mutually exclusive states at the same time. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics (the prevailing view that takes the thought experiment seriously) has gotten us basically nowhere in the last 100 years.
Thank you, Yugioh players, for coming to my TED Talk.
No shot the brittish man just talked about YCS SYDNEY in AUSTRIA.
British and sarcasm
4:22 as a player since 2002 I fall into this tray still to often
Ah yes, have card use card phenomenon
16:54 it more baiting then bluffing
Back in Mythic Ruler format, around 2014 ish, I was still playing Evilswarm at locals, and this dude, who was considered the best player at locals, would side in Ice and Fire hand against me, to out Ophion, to which I began siding in Chivalry, so the first tournament with Chivalry, we're at finals, 1-1 simplified gamestate, he has Stardust + Skill Drain, I have a set Chivalry and Kerykeion, which is dead due to skill drain. I draw MST for turn and I just see the play, normal Kerykeion, go BP, swing into Stardust, activate MST to skill drain, he tributes Stardust to negate, and I chain Chivalry, the dude is like wtf why are you playing that, the store owner takes my Chivaly and reads it as if trying to find a way to stop me (they were best friends), but its over, perfectly legal play, Stardust is negated, Skill drain destroyed, 0 cards in hand, he scoops, both of them are omega madge lmao
Had a similar thing with Memory Loss. Went to time, opponent tried to out my board with Castel to then attack with both, but also summoned Cairngorgon to protect himself. He used Castel, I flipped memory loss, he tried to use Cairngorgon and I explained that wouldn't work.
Judge was called, read Memory Loss (for what looked like the first time in his life) gave a short "HA!" and told my opponent he'd lost.
This won't work in MD. You heavily overestimate the extent to which people think at Master 1!
This is a great example of applied Game Theory:
From Jack's POV, he knows that Cameron can extend through Nibiru with OSS anyway, so with a dead Backjack using Nibiru early will lose him the game on the spot, nothing he can do. Taking the gamble of baiting Apo with Backjack and chaining Nibiru is the objectively correct play here, because however slim it is, it's his only chance to come out of this.
Cameron on the other hand has to consider Backjack as additional interruption, he doesn't know it's a bluff. The odds of Backjack hitting a Trap are quite high, so targeting Backjack with Dharc from Cameron's POV will only get the trap out a little earlier, while also denying him a link material, that's why targeting Chandra is the correct move here.
Additionally, given that Jack only set two cards in a Backjack Lab deck telegraphes handtraps to consider. Given that Jack already opened Imperm the odds of the other interruption being exactly Nibiru is rather small, about 9%, but any Handtrap in general is very likely. A held Ash for OSS would be another threat to consider for example. Since OSS at this point is his only way to extend though further interruption, going into Apo is the correct move. If Nibiru exists, he still has OSS, if it's Ash, he has the Apo set up to insulate, and if Backjack was actually a threat, it would also be forced out before Apo hits the board. So if Jack didn't use Backjack before he goes into Apo, Cameron should know that any attempt to use Backjack from then on would likely be a bluff as most traps it could hit would likely have had more value before then already.
Assuming perfect strategy from both players, Jack trying to bluff Backjack would always happen, but Cameron would let it go through, calling out the bluff.
did he just say that Sydney is in Austria? 😂😂
Yes, where would it be else?
@@Jaddas its Australia, not Austria😂😂 Austria borders Germany
@@therealfrank6393 Not shit sherlock... You missed the joke. I thought i give you a second chance and you missed it again.
American moment
@@Jaddas Brother, in a completely different country than where you think it is KEK
I think it should count as "legal bluffing" when you can do it on Master Duel/games with no chat.
We need BKC but for yugioh
we need BKC style rants for yugioh
Good bluffs are bluffs that involve stratigecally outwitting your opponent rather than pretending you have something that you don't.
You know how to play Geography jokes.
Play a burn deck. Your entire deck is a bluff.
i hate that bluffing isnt allowed it makes no sense
Sometimes I forget just how dumb farfa really is 14:00
Omg be quiet farfa, I’m trying to watch the video
As a primarily MTG player, the thought of an "illegal bluff" is super lame. Mind games are very important when pieces can be played or used at just about any time. You're supposed to misrepresent your hand, very much like a poker face, and it's up to your opponent to discern what's a lie. Yugioh is a good game when it isn't shooting itself in the foot with rulings that make the game more deterministic seeming than it actually is.
Nah, bluffing through game mechanic takes a lot more skill rather just acting like you own a card that doesn't exist in your deck
IMO, after PSCT, YGO philosophy change to become "Chess but with RNG" with how much they are transparent with card effect to a tee.
You can misrepresent your hand, by playing your cards certain ways. Gonna heavily depend on archetype, some are a lot more linear than others, but in general you can.
Trying to metagame is lame imo.
How skillful is it to just lie anyway? Legal bluffs take a lot more skill.
Mtg players are even more sweaty than yugioh players
I stand by the fact that jesse is a fraud, and that he's suggesting to tiptoe into cheating kind of backs that up.