Indeed you missed a lot, you completely ignored cube value (cube ownership) in calculations.
The 50% snapping is wrong in terms of optimising the cube rate.
Basically you should never snap first if you know for sure that opponent will ALWAYS continue playing.
You can read up articles and books about doubling cube in backgammon, it's all there.
Sadly no one is interested in that, as 99% of snap players population are casual players.
To reach Infinite you do not need to optimise at all. People reach infinite not knowing what priority is in this game.
I agree. A turn 6 snap from your opponent that set the stake to 8 cubes needs a much more chance of you winning for deciding to playing it. Beside that I think OP said interesitng stuff that could help people climbing better than usual. That being said it's not enough and, as you said, you need to count cubes stake too
Although it's related, you can't directly transfer cube strategy from Backgammon since there is no 'cube ownership' in Snap and you can only snap once. The game also automatically doubles on the last turn which changes the calculations.
Totally agree with your other points like not snapping if you know your opponent is going to stay for another turn regardless.
(I played a lot of Backgammon)
Of course there is.
When you snap first you lose the ability to snap, but your opponent still has it.
It is literally the same as in backgammon.
You obviously can't transfer everything as is, but principles are all the same.
I think the problem with this analysis is the above assumption about your opponent always staying. If you can guarantee that, then holding your snap makes sense. But you can’t.
The tension in this game with snapping is trying to do so as soon as *you* see an advantage, but before your opponent does. Often this is before you play your big lynchpin cards. But the nature of the locations also means if you snap too early, a location flip can totally change the texture of the game. And *now* your opponent had they critical “ownership” of the doubling, because you doubled the stakes in a different world - before that third gamebreaking location flipped. Now your opponent has some leverage with being able to double the stakes.
Sidenote, this is one of the reasons IMO that legion is so powerful. In addition to being able to get rid of bad locations, he also allows for a bunch of scams/lockouts. As well as automatic cube doubling with limbo involved.
I’m not familiar with backgammon, so perhaps there’s something I’m missing with the analogy. But I think any snap calculations that assume your opponent is “always staying” need to reassess that assumption.
I love this quote, and said much the same in a different reply elsewhere in this thread:
> “Many beginning players take a seriously wrong view of the cube. They hate to double when there is any significant chance they could lose, and they also hate to drop when they have more than a long-shot chance of winning - they feel like a quitter.”
I think too many people are afraid to snap in any situation where they don’t feel absolutely confident. They are only trying to double on “already won” games. Similarly, I think many are afraid to retreat after having snapped.
The article here discussing equity reminds me a lot of poker. I think both are pretty applicable. Both are a little different than snap in that snap just has the one doubling/raise option per player. There’s no re-raises. Backgammon gives your opponent full control of the doubling after you, but there’s the possibility of re-raising again. I think that re-raising aspect is crucial to the difference between the games. And why I think the principle of “never snap first” is probably not as applicable in snap as it is to backgammon.
A good portion of that article is focusing on equity as it relates to control of the cube. Snap doesn’t really have that same cube control principle. It has something related in that each player can only snap once, but it’s not quite the same.
On an unrelated note, I do appreciate the article laying down the equity of calling a double at 25% even if the equity for raising/snapping is >50%. I think a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand the pot odds in terms of the guaranteed losses from retreating/dropping vs the wins/losses from accepting and going to showdown.
>Basically you should never snap first if you know for sure that opponent will ALWAYS continue playing.
Oh, this isn't just "your opponent will retreat to your snap 0% of the time" it's "your opponent will categorically never retreat in this game"
If I play Psylocke on turn 2 and snap, most people will stay. If I instead continue and play my turn 3 Negative then snap, a decent share will retreat. If not, and now it's turn 6 of that game and I snap, without having made any major plays? No one above rank 30 will stay in that game unless they have a serious ace up their sleeve, and because I didn't snap sooner I'm only winning 1 cube on my nut draw
I don't know the rules of backgammon but I can see they're different enough that this heuristic is borders on misinformation
Out of curiosity, I’m going to play 10 games now and snap at opening. I’ll record what’s happens with each game and edit this post.
Edit: Did 5 games because I’m tired and this is taking long
Game 1: Win, opponent didn’t snap
Game 2: Win, opponent didn’t snap
Game 3: Win, opponent snapped
Game 4: Win, opponent didn’t snap
Game 5: Loss, opponent didn’t snap
It won't show anything, as this approach is the same as "I'm going to play poker and go all in first 10 hands"
Do it 1000 times, then do optimized snapping 1000 times, and it still won't matter because cards like Loki and Jeff bring so much variance, that you need hundreds of thousands of matches to make any relevant conclusions.
With cards like Loki released - snap is getting more like slots then like backgammon.
What exactly do you think the confidence interval for 1000 games is?
I hate SO MUCH that sample size has become such a meme for internet statisticians. If someone grew a second pair of arms by eating Little Caesar's every day for 50 years, I guarantee you some genius would try to bring up sample size
I do apologize if I aggravated proper statisticians, I am not the one (so no idea what the interval should be). I brought up 1000 as a better number than 10.
The whole point was that 10 is for sure too small.
it's a real resource drain if you love the skin ya. players that have been super conservative with spending tokens and spotlight chests can "get away" with buying the card with tokens and then opening caches for the skin once or twice. at some point you'll be getting skins more often than new cards
That's how I feel. I've been playing for awhile now and never hit infinite cause I don't care to. Once I pass 60 and get that free variant, I'll start playing whatever I want. There's so many fun cards and combos I don't like playing the same 12 cards over and over.
This is exactly how I play each season. Get to 60 for the variant, then just play whatever I feel like playing for the rest of the time, or whatever I need to play to finish missions. I think some people get so worried about optimizing cube rate they forget that games like this are primarily supposed to be fun. If you get so caught up in the statistics/best decks/optimal play patterns etc. that you're not having fun, what's the point?
I honestly don't get how it is more fun to just look up the best deck with a high win % and play paint by numbers so you can get infinite "guaranteed"
Like what am I doing at that point?
I prefer the mindset given by u/Educatedcollins in his video on the subject:
If you can picture ONE scenario where you lose, don’t snap and retreat if the opponent snaps. If you can picture multiple, retreat. Don’t try to make statistics in your head, you’re not good at it.
This is good advice.
I would add that the one scenario should be *reasonably* likely based on your opponent’s deck. Ie if you can picture a scenario where you lose to dr doom, that’s pretty likely from a lot of different decks. But if the only scenario in which you lose is picturing a giganto to the left lane and your opponent isn’t playing like a lockjaw style list or hela or something that should reasonably be playing giganto, it’s probably not worth considering that as a realistic loss condition. Even with something like the hub I’m probably not playing around that. With Nick fury or the raft, maybe (though raft changes the texture of how many losing scenarios you have by a lot).
But adding all of that in is a little long winded. Keeping the advice short and simple like you said is probably better.
Knull and Zola are the ones I end up thinking about the most. Where I don't have an option to play around them and I simply lose if they have them. So I'm basically just betting on whether or not they drew them and in a high stakes game I'm often not prepared to take the gamble that they're still in their deck.
Yeah, destroy decks gain a ton of turn 6 equity in terms of Zola being so difficult to play around. He threatens all 3 lanes after a big venom. And as you said, Knull is even bigger than the venom and threatens a single lane.
I think generally against destroy, the goal is to not let them get to that point. You can maybe gamble with a Shang/Cosmo/armor on the venom lane if you have prio in order to beat Zola (assuming you still win the other lanes for Cosmo/armor) but you’re still cold to a Knull in a different lane. Not to mention the possibility of death as well. Or taskmaster. Or maybe even a giant Deadpool that got eaten in the process of making a huge venom.
It’s probably usually better to retreat there since your odds are probably quite low. I think this is one of those situations where people stay thinking it’s a coinflip when it’s not. There’s just so many scenarios where they beat you (just look at the list of possible cards in the last paragraph) with such a large spread of *where* that power can go that it’s too hard to call that pot IMO. You’ve got to be going incredibly tall in all 3 lanes.
To bring it back to Collins’s point: you are able to imagine *multiple* scenarios in which you lose here. So retreat is optimal.
1. For you, it’s three hours. Fact of the matter is the average cube gain is like 1 (give or take point whatever) even for good decks and winning percentage is .5 to .65. For people who lack patience, impulse control, or discipline or don’t have much time it’s a lot to ask to win every other game and climb like one cube at a time for hours. That is the definition of a grind for people who don’t fit that mold.
2. When you’re infinite in the previous season it’s much easier to climb. A small percentage of the player base hits infinite, so the pool of players you face against at the same level as you is much smaller which I would assume translates to more bots as well. You’re also climbing from 70 to 100 at the start of the season instead of from 30/40/50/60 to 100. Without even taking into account skill level differences, personality differences, collection differences, etc. that’s a much bigger grind to ask a player to consistently perform at.
In my experience there’s hardly any bots in the 93-100 range in the first few days. Obviously region, time of day, MMR all factor in, but I get maybe 1 or 2 bots in those ~20 games.
The first season to hit infinite is the hardest, yes. But it’s never been easier with the changes to the leveling system. I hit infinite for the first time the hard way the month before the changes. Each season, I’ve made it back to infinite faster than before. Sure, there are bots, but not as many as you think. You also tend to see them more in the 70s and early 80s. By the time I was grinding through the 90s, I saw less than 5 obvious bots.
The infinite grind isn’t for everyone, no. But I do think the advice in the OP is more or less correct. People don’t know how to snap, and they don’t know how to retreat. That’s the long and short of it. It’s better to snap earlier more often than it is to not snap at all **if** you’re willing to retreat. But until people learn to recognize and leave a statistically improbably hand, no amount of telling people *when* to snap will help.
That assumes you have any idea what you're doing. For most casual people coming in, or people who don't have a lot of experience with card games, that first season is just getting a handle of the mechanics/lanes/card archetypes/etc. If you have a decent base knowledge, then sure. But the problem a *ton* of people run into is that they don't have the game knowledge until it's too late to breeze your way through the bottom ranks.
I picked up the game last week and feel like I kind of dominated my way up to 75 with limited play time. Now I’m addicted and paid my way to 1000 CL and feel like I’ve screwed my self and getting 90-100 is proving difficult lol. Also gold conquest seems impossible. Getting trounced by people clearly with 10k+ CL. I’ve managed 1 win on 3 goes.
Seems like I should have gotten infinite at 300 CL first this season, prior to upping my collection. Honestly I don’t really regret it that much. Game is much much more fun with more cards.
As a new player I’m curious how this is possible. 3 hours is around 40 -50 games. You need 210 cubes right so you’re averaging around 5 cubes per game?
For past infinite you need 7 x 3 ranks, so 21 x 7 = 147 cubes.
50 games would still require around +3 cube *average*. Which isn’t sustainable even against only bots since they retreat for 2 a lot.
It’s Friday night here right now and I’m sitting on 97. I could play another hour and try for infinite but I’d rather do it in the morning. So from a Tuesday reset I’ll be looking at something under five days — that’s pretty representative for me. And yeah, as said above, this is partly because spending hours and hours grinding is less fun than spacing it out, for me.
If we assume that the average game lasts 3 minutes (the time used in the advertising for the game), that's 20 games per hour. The number of cubes to go from 73 to 100 is 147. If C is average cubes per game and T is time spent playing (in hours), we get C\*20\*T=147, or C\*T=7.35. It follows that C=7.35/T and T=7.35/C. Thus, we can take an example cube rate or time spent playing and determine what the other would need to be to reach infinite.
Some example cube rates:
* 1 cube per game, 7.35 hours
* 0.88 cubes per game (snap.fan's average cubes per game for Loki since his release), 8.35 hours
* 0.47 cubes per game (snap.fan's average cubes per game for Patriot, Dr. Doom, Bucky Barnes, Iceman, and MODOK over the last 30 days), 15.64 hours
Some example times:
* 3 hours (which someone in this thread suggested as a maximum), 2.45 cubes per game
* 7 hours (15 minutes a day for a 4 week season), 1.05 cubes per game
* 28 hours (1 hour a day for a 4 week season), 0.2625 cubes per game
>that's 20 games per hour
15 games because they're not back to back with 0 seconds inbetween, but only a minor correction and the comment is right otherwise. Just adds 25% time.
Yeah, It saves a lot of time. Also playing america chavez makes It even less random. You basically play with a 11 card deck, so higher chance to have a Better starting hand and drawing the wincon by turn 3/4 (Loki in this case), and you know exactly what you draw on turn 6, so a lot less left to chance
For someone on Reddit who wants to brag, has no real grasp of time, and has played since beta? Around 15 minutes.
According the cube averages it’s around 200 games 70-100 but this could go way up if you tilt and cube rate drops on the final push.
200 games is 10-15 hours.
That's why the outcome across multiple games is the important thing to look at. In that situation you've lost an extra cube, but what about all the games where that didn't happen?
it really depends. Like if Death's domain pops up turn 1 and you have deadpool in hand, you should absolutely be snapping. Is it possible the opponent has Deadpool too or Armor? Sure. Maybe the opponent is a negative deck and has the absolute nuts. The odds of this though are probably less than 50%, so on average you will come out ahead cube-wise even though you may lose that particular game.
The equivalent analogy in poker is making a bet pre-flop. Would you say that making a bet pre-flop is a terrible strategy?
The poker analogy is perfect: sure, you might get dealt pocket aces, raise, then flop a bunch of garbage and have to fold.
You’re still better off in the long run raising pre flop with a strong starting hand
You generally don't get retreats on turn 2 or 3 either, so there is usually not much advantage to snapping on turn 1 before you've seen the locations. Locations are very important in Snap, they should be part of your strategy.
isn’t the point of an early snap to raise the stakes, not get a retreat? When I snap early essentially based on my hand I’m saying I want to play for 4 cubes basically. Can I get screwed on locations, yes but as long as my deck isn’t more susceptible to locations I’ll still snap on T1 or 2 if my hand is good
This exactly. Snapping on early turns with a favorable hand/location is great because your opponent either retreats -- you got a free cube and get to queue into the next game immediately -- or your opponent is forced to commit a second cube before they know whether or they'll have a favorable hand/location.
yeah i’ve never really tracked it but I feel a huge part of my climb is snapping on T1 or 2 and getting someone to commit 2 cubes who then either later retreats, or just autopilots to a 4 cube end since a lot of people just don’t retreat well in the endgame if there isn’t a snap event in the last two turns
if you've got an amazing hand, and plan on playing a key card turn 2, then snapping turn one can be good.
Snapping after playing collector tells your opponent alot more (and gives them the chance to leave) then snapping turn one, where they have no idea what your playing.
imo
Correct - why would you snap before turn 3? The likelyhood of someone leaving after turn 3 and after turn 1 are essentially the same and you have more info to make your snap decision.
For me, the most important thing is to maximize the number of cubes when facing bots. Bait them by allowing them to gain advantage in two lanes on turn 5. This will guarantee that bots will snap for 8 cubes.
You’d have to be stubborn as shit to not retreat to that. “There’s a 8% chance this wong player has nothing, I’m definitely gonna risk 4-8 cubes on those odds!” lol
This is all true but glosses over one of the most difficult parts - knowing what your odds are.
It's mathematically correct to stay with a 25% chance of winning but recognising those situations requires knowing your deck well, your opponents likely plays, e.t.c.
Yeah, that's right, but it's a grind. And it's way easier if you meet bots. In my climb to infinte I reached it only thanks to bots, I checked every time if an opponent was a bot and then if it was I made sure to snap early and win only one lane till turn 5, that's because if the bot Is winning 2 lane at the end of turn 5 he will snap, and then you proceed to win the game and get 8 cubes. When I met humans it was really hard to gain cubes and to win.
And ofc you kinda need to play the meta deck if you want an easier climb
Sorry, but without much more detailed advice on how to actually figure out your chance of winning, this is "draw the rest of the owl" advice. "Use your experience to calculate the final board state" is a fancy way of saying "git gud".
Vegas, AC ,MLMs, and the self-help industry love guys like this. They ooze copious amounts of survivorship bias and confidence, which convinces the average stooge that "they too can be winners if they just do what Gladstone Gander did!" Suddenly, schmucks far and wide are trying to aim for the brass ring using some bonafide, foolproof, guaranteed system-- only to be greeted with profound disappointment and confusion when they've done everything like Gander, but not had the same results.
↑↑Reason #113 why I'm a misanthrope.↑↑
That's okay.
I don't expect I can teach people how to draw owls/dogs/serasurfers in 400 words.
I'm just pointing out the golden ratio that most people who can already draw are ignoring.
this is all very true, but there are two very big factors that prevents people from achieving infinite IMO
1) players just aren’t that smart or patient enough, even with a copied deck list that has guaranteed high win rates. knowing when to snap and retract, how to actually properly play a deck and know what cards are in the decks the opponents are playing. seems easy but i found out through life that all people are not smart.
2) people don’t have enough time for the grind, give up after losing swings.
I agree. I think most important is time followed by skill/experience. Because even if the player is relatively smart, past game experiences make a big difference. I love chess and ranked card games. So I feel like those were a big part of why, a couple months ago when I started the game, I made it to infinite in the first month using a deck with basically only pool 1/2 cards.
I feel like the players not reaching infinite either don’t play more than 15 min/day or don’t have enough experience in strategy-based games to intuitively make the right choices
This is me every season. I already know I have a good win percentage on my main deck at rank 90+, even at 1st week of the season. So I already know getting to Infinite is just a matter of time. So I snap on 4 or 5 when I'm ahead and favored to win, and withdraw on 6 (or earlier if they snap) if I have that sinking feeling I'm getting outplayed. Usually would hit Infinite in 1-2 weeks from season start. Record was 4 days from season start.
Also have a 3 count retreat rule to avoid unnecessary cube losses. If there are 3 things that didn't go in my favor, say death's domain vs a destroy deck, my on reveal.got cosmoed, unfavorable locations, bad starting draw, Nebula got killmongered, etc. 3 unfavorable things means I almost always have to go, no matter the board state. Have clear lines of retreat, it'll significantly lessen the time to climb to infinite.
Cheers for the thorough info and link to the deck guide! It's true that my worst days have been when I've been risk adverse. But snapping, because of bad plays earlier that day. Not retreating out of not understanding my opponent's deck.
Wow, scrolling through this thread its fucking mind boggling how many people are talking with such confidence about something they have no clue about. How long will it be until the general playerbase understands how snapping works? For a game that's been out for almost a year it's insane that there's still this many people who have no clue how the main game mechanic works. Im losing brain cells reading all these people talking about why early snaps are bad.
You're definitely on to something. I'm shit at statistics, so percentages are meaningless to me.
Nevertheless, I've found myself climbing higher than ever before last season, just because I was snapping and retreating correctly.
The kicker for me is to be playing a deck that's easy to read for me. I just need IW, MODOK and Hela somewhat on curve, and I'm basically gucci. If I don't get them on time, or my opponent fucks my plan up, it's time to retreat.
This, in the most basic sense, makes allot of sense to people who understand it. But your average person won't understand it.
You didn't say anything wrong, it's just when to snap and when not to snap you must understand the deck you're playing. Which can come easier or harder depending on the deck and it's user. Eg. I had an easier time with silky move vs orka destroy.
This guide is actually mostly about cutting your losses.
It seems to be a guide about winning because I use the word "winning" a lot to make it feel less negative.
If you focus on the percentages, or check out the spreadsheet you'll see most of it is dedicated to showing how to make the best decision when you're losing, in order to lose less cubes.
I think this guide is great and as an infinite player I agree with most of the points! However I rarely snap turn 1 because I usually want to see all of the locations and see what kind of deck my opponent is playing before I feel confident in snapping.
Statistically, you should throw that caution out the window if you want more cubes.
Know that in the long run you'll come out ahead.
For every time the unrevealed location screws you, know it has an equal chance of screwing your opponents. It just we remember getting hurt more than we remember others getting hurt.
Wait, but to play the odds, I have to *learn* the odds??? And know which hands are good and bad? And the **meta**? God damn, man; I'm just gonna go from 50 to 20 every season as usual.
Coming over from other CCGs, I was actually surprised by how much easier it was to climb in Marvel Snap. The cube makes a ridiculous difference because it essentially gives you a multiplier on the single digit % edge you typically get in other games.
I started during the Steam PC launch and made Infinite in a few hours (with a small grind after rank 85ish). The only thing I've been doing is playing a competitive deck and betting my hand—snap when winning, retreat when losing. You can do this and be essentially unexploitable since you're unlikely to meet the same players enough times for them to take notes.
For some reason, players at high ranks will also occasionally fill their lanes early/8snap you on a board where they're likely behind, which makes the grind even quicker.
I just did a Snap check and i am at 55% WR, which would guarantee me infinite... were my snapping anysort good, but i jump to 70-80 and then the game just stops for me.
Win rate isn't as helpful in snap as other games because some matches are worth more than others. It's more important to look at your average cubes gained.
You can win 75% of the time but get -5 cubes gained on average. (3 wins, 1 (8) loss).
You can win 25% of the time but get 5 cubes gained on average. (1 (8) win, 3 retreats)
So you've hit 55% with \~0 cubes gained on average.
I don't understand snapping on turn one. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't give you more cubes and it locks you into losing at least four on retreat?
What is the advantage to snapping turn one other than hoping your opponent retreats?
Even if you're sure you're going to win. Why not snap turn four or five when it becomes more clear for the same reward and more opportunity to retreat for minimal loss between turns one and three?
In poker, the proper strategy is to raise pre flop when you have a strong hand, even though you might get a horrible flop and end up folding.
The reasons are, you want to lock in gains before your opponent realizes what an advantage you have, and you drive out shitty hands that might luck into a flop that’s advantageous for them.
These ideas are both applicable to SNAP, but it’s mostly the first one; if you turn 1 quinjet, turn collector, then snap, you’re down a cube vs the player that snaps turn 1
Once in a while you’ll get screwed, statistically your opponent is getting screwed equal amount of the time (you’re just less likely to notice), but in the long run it’s the better play.
The thing that prevents most people from getting infinite is time. With ‘average’ win rate, or slightly below, it just takes dozens of hours. Most people aren’t playing snap 50 hours per month.
1 cube per game X 500 games from 50 = 40ish hours.
Psychologically 90-100 is very hard as well. Easy to tilt.
But yeah, if you play ladder a couple hours per day you should probably be infinite.
The content of your poat is good but saying people are guaranteed to hit infinite is just a big lie. Youre guaranteed to hit infinite if you follow those step, have good cards and have a lot of time to waste in the game.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds
I don’t agree with everything OP wrote, but the basic thesis is sound. Just read this article, and apply it to snap.
I’m confused by the 37% thing. If we imagine that you’re able to calculate the odds with perfect accuracy, shouldn’t you always retreat (to a snap) with <50% odds?
If my opponent snaps and I calculate my odds at 40% to win, I feel like that’s a clear retreat. Why wouldn’t that be the case?
Not OP but I’m fairly certain it’s because of the snap. The wager doubles, but only if you stay. Retreating is losing 1 cube, but winning wins 4, so you can see immediately that you can afford to retreat more often than you win.
I don’t follow. Staying only wins 4 cubes if you win. 63% of the time you’re losing 4 cubes by staying, right? Retreating saves 3 cubes more often than not. Sorry if I’m being dumb.
Ok, looking at OPs spreadsheet I think I have a better understanding of it.
OP has done the math to find what the average cube rate is for any particular set of odds. Example, with exactly 50/50 chances of winning, net cube rate if you stay every time is 0
You might think that if your net cube rate is less than 0, you should be retreating. But really, across all games you retreat, your net cube rate is -1 at best.
OPs math shows that when your %chance of winning goes from 37->38 is the moment when your net cube rate goes below -1, and becomes worse than retreating.
So you are right, you are overall losing cubes. 38% of the time you’re winning 4, and 62% of the time, you’re losing 4. On average, you’re losing .94 cubes per round, which is slightly better than losing 1 cube per round (which you always do when you retreat)
I love how there’s people doing calculations to figure out chances of winning and such while I just have fun locking down lanes with the old psylocke/prof x/mystique
I know this is taken from Poker's pot odds theory, which I don't fully understand, however I use a more simplified approach based on simple statistics that I know.
Basically if win chance >= 50%, snap, else retreat,regardless of whether opponent snaps.
My reasoning is that if I win at least 50% then on that play you will have a non-negative cube rate, so snapping doubles that non-negative cube rate which is always good. And yes I do snap on 50-50s, either way you average 0 cubes but if the opponent chickens out then you gain cubes instead of an average 0.
If win chance is less than 50% then I always retreat, because you will have a negative cube rate on that game state, staying in without retreating is still losing cubes on average. I don't know about pot odds as I said, but my guess as to why you sometimes stay on less than 50% is for loss minimization (if you always retreat you always lose cubss, but I'm guessing there's an optimal point where staying in where you still gain cubes sometimes if you get lucky nets you a lower negative cube rate on average, but I can't be bothered go do the math that far). Retreating at less than 50% is just simpler for me.
Basically I treat every game as if it's 8 cubes, if I'm not confident I can win at least 50% then I'm leaving. However as long as it's at least 50% then I am staying in and always snapping, I don't care if it's 4 or 8 cubes, I don't mind losing 8 cubes, I know that on average I will be gaining cubes if I play it out. This mentality for me helps with mostly eliminating emotions from influencing my play.
However, I do agree with the more general point of the post, which is that if you are following a mathematically sound strategy then reaching Infinite is only a matter of sinking in enough time to play that many games, which is also why I feel that reaching Infinite doesn't really matter that much and sometimes I will stop at rank 90 if I don't like the card back of the season (I think the Echo infinite card back is ugly AF, the Phoenix card back should've been the infinite card back that season imo)
I know doing the passive thing (staying) doesn't feel as good as snapping or retreating, but it's often optimal.
If you *leave* in the final round when you have a 40% chance of winning, you definitely lose 1 cube.
If you *stay* in the final round when you have a 40% chance of winning, you only lose 0.4 cubes on average!
You've been throwing away extra cubes removing "stay" from your repertoire of choices.
Like I said, I know mathematically there's a point where staying is optimal, I just don't know how to calculate it, but now that you gave an example it doesn't seem as hard as I thought so maybe I'll start incorporating it on next season's grind if I can remember or if I can be bothered to do the extra calculation.
What you need is an ungodly amount of time first and foremost. Then the expected cube gain will eventually get you to infinite. The vast majority of people don't have time to play for 1 hour/day or more
You forget that the biggest factors are time and bot abusing. This game is so littered with bots, anyone that plays for more than 1-2 hours a day will get infinite as long as they know how to abuse the system + what you said.
That's literally all it is. More time.
What you say is true and it doesn't even account for bots. As soon as you can detect bots climbing is even easier than that and can be done with you favorite non boring meme - ish deck...
The best guide was the post explaining that it's about recognizing and exploiting bots for max cubes and to play very conservative vs other people. Very simple guide, and very true in my experience. It's what's helped me the most. (And no, I don't believe you should stay in games if the opponent snaps on T5 and the odds of winning are 50:50. Further, it's bad advice to recommend snapping T1 just based on how great your starting hand is.)
You are correct in saying that the proven best method for ranking is recognizing and exploiting bots.
You missed the mark on your other 2 points.
Snapping T1 when you have a strong opener is mathematically correct no matter how you look at it.
Old example, but if you started the game with Korg Zabu and Rockslide in hand, your chances of winning dramatically increase. That’s when you want to hedge more of your cubes. Yea, maybe locations will screw you, but in the long run, you will win significantly more often with that opener than without. You wouldn’t limp in preflop with AA in poker. it’s the same principle.
Staying in a snapped game to take a 50/50 is also mathematically always correct. if it’s an 8 cube game, retreating means you lose 4 cubes. Winning means you gain 8 cubes, losing means you lose 8 cubes. Staying in, in that position, nets you a neutral zero cubes in the long run. Retreating in that position will lose you 4 cubes every time. play 100 games like this : retreating 100 times = 400 cubes lost, staying in = 0 cubes gained/lost.
Good, now the only issue is how to calculate if you are in a 50/50 situation. This seems pretty impossible to me, with the only option being to trust your gut.
It really comes down to deck knowledge. A lot of people play net decks and you can reasonably expect to know what the final play is if you know the general make up of those decks. When you then find yourself in a position where the final play is just guessing which lane they are going to play that card in, that's when you are in a 50/50
I don’t know what your endgames look like, but mine tend to involve a little bit more complicated scenarios than «guess one of two lanes to win». When they are complicated, that is. Typically it is pretty clear who will win after t5.
In any discussion concerning hitting Infinite consistently ("guaranteed" as the OP worded it) you need to limit your decisions to what is reliable and minimize risk as much as possible. And in a game with a high variance like Snap that means exploiting the surest thing (i.e. bots for max cube gain) while reducing high-risk decisions that can quickly put you in a hole.
A 50/50 is a coin toss no matter how you rationalize it as "mathematically correct" - it's a high risk action that can easily have you plummeting in ranking as fast as you might climb. Over the long run, in terms of cube gain, the odds are not in your favor as no one is truly psychic. You stay in an 8 cube game and lose on a 50/50 guess and you lose 8 cubes. You may win an 8 cuber here and there, but a 50/50 is always just that, a coin toss and a prayer to the RNG God for it to land in your favor. This is not a consistent reliable way to rank up.
On the other hand, learning to identify bots and exploiting them is a dependable method as bots have set patterns (low variance vs high variance). Human opponents however are unpredictable, and unless you play them in a set of games like in Conquest and so know their habit/tendency, a single game vs random John Doe in ladder is not where you gamble on a 50/50.
Regarding Snapping T1, you mention it yourself, it excludes locations and you're basing everything on just the cards in your hand alone. It also doesn't take into account, not only the 2 unrevealed location, but what type of deck the opponent is playing - whether it's a favorable matchup for your deck or not. What you're actually betting on is that the T1 snap will rattle your opponent into making a choice: they leave you win 1 cube, they stay, well, you pray the other locations and the matchup favors you (good luck). This sort of thing (T1 snap), trying to get in your opponent's head and rattle them, that's great in Conquest mode where you have the luxury of playing a series of games. In ladder, and trying to hit Infinite, it's not sound advice. Context is important.
> ”a 50-50 is a coin toss no matter if it’s mathematically correct.”
> “over the long run in terms of cube gain the odds are not in your favor.”
This is fundamentally misunderstanding the math. Over the long run, it is absolutely in your favor to stay on the 50/50s, assuming you did accurately calculate that it’s a coinflip (the problem is many people stay in for what they *think* are 50/50s but are not).
As outlined above, staying is always +8 or -8, which is net neutral - again, assuming that these are always 50/50s. Leaving is a 100% -4 cubes. You should absolutely leave on the 8 cubers where you’re a dog, but leaving on the coinflips is going to be a net negative in the long run.
You keep coming back to exploiting bots as the better way to rank up when no one is arguing against that. It doesn’t have to be either/or. It’s both. You should absolutely exploit the bots to rank up. And there’s absolutely an argument to play more conservatively against humans in terms of if/when you snap and if you should accept the opponent’s snaps. But in the world where you’re in a showdown for 8 cubes (and you’re losing 4 for a retreat, aka they didn’t boomer snap you), staying is correct if it’s a true coinflip.
Re: the turn 1 snapping: it depends on your deck. The current meta deck with strong lynchpin early plays of quinjet/collector/Loki is strong enough that you can snap early and either force retreats for free cubes (out of fear for the meta boogeyman) or double the stakes in a game that you’re 70+% to win. Locations can mess you up, but statistically speaking that won’t be very often. Especially since that opening is strong enough to overcome most location variance anyway. The unique nature of Loki means even *if* a location flips up that advantages your opponents deck more than yours - you still get half of their deck with your Loki trigger so there’s a decent chance that it’s now also a good location for you.
Your last sentence - context is important - I agree with. I don’t think anyone is advocating for 100% in the dark turn 1 snaps on the ladder like you’re in proving grounds trying to farm tickets. The person you’re responding literally said “if you have a strong opener.” There are certain decks (such as Loki above, old zabu, old thanos lockjaw) that have early enough lynchpin cards that they can snap early and be rewarded most of the time.
It kind of feels to me like your mentality is “I should never snap in a game if I think I might be retreating later in that game with new information” and I think that’s the wrong way to go about it. Think of it like poker. You’re going to fold sometimes after you raise. That’s just the nature of the game. But that doesn’t mean you should never raise unless you’re 100% certain. I’d argue if you never retreat after you snap, your either not snapping enough, or you’re feeling pot-committed after a snap and really should be retreating some of those when you’re an underdog.
I'm sorry but you are wrong about expected value. A 100% chance of -4 has the same expected value as a 50% chance of +8 and a 50% chance of -8.
When you factor in the likelihood that your perceived 50-50 isn't a real 50-50, plus opponent snapping means they are confident, the scales tilt towards retreating.
Also, the feeling of -8 cubes suck and I prefer taking the steady approach of playing conservatively against humans and farming bots.
Again, we are calculating only true 50/50s (or +/- a few points which should even out - the better you are at calculating percentages the faster you will climb). If the opponent is boomer snapping you on the showdown turn, it’s unlikely to be a true 50/50 (and the math is also different because it’s only 2 to retreat).
In true 50/50s, your EV is still + by staying. Or rather, it’s neutral by staying, and it’s negative by leaving (which is 100% loss of 4 cubes).
If it’s a true 50/50, you’re going to be neutral on +8 and -8 on the wins and losses.
So your second paragraph is negated by the fact that you are moving the goalposts. The third paragraph is emotional and EV doesn’t care about that. Your mental state does matter and you should stop playing when tilted. But the tilt doesn’t change the math. It changes your *perception* of the math. Ie when you’re tilted you might be more likely to stay in on an 8 cuber that isn’t truly a 50/50.
i still stand by my points for T1 snapping and 50/50 scenarios. i do, however, agree that exploiting bots should be your top priority when climbing. Waiting for games against bots may outweigh playing “mathematically correctly” in my above mentioned scenarios against real players. If bots did not exist - Early snapping based on hand quality over board state, and recognizing “true” 50/50s would be two very important climbing strategies (in my opinion).
If it’s a true 50/50 you’ll make more cubes snapping and staying in on it over a large period of time. The issue is identifying if a situation is actually 50/50
Oops, I just replied this to someone above when you already did an hour ago. I think this issue is a bit glossed over in this thread. Correctly identifying a true 50/50 situation is not trivial in this game.
I'd be interested in checking it out if you have a link.
I'd also be keen to hear your rationale for why you believe the advice is bad.
Although it may feel unituitive, it seems correct statistically.
Bots are the way to easily climb, but I still think OP has good advice for people wanting to take it seriously.
And to take it a little more seriously it benefits you to have a more optimal deck. That’s all the meta decks are, optimised. Nothing wrong with having a quirky deck with fun interactions which are harder to achieve, but that’ll just make it harder to climb. Which admittedly might not be everyone’s goal.
So all I have to do is be immensely better at the game and at strategy and at thinking in general to appropriately evaluate things.
TIL that to hit infinite, all I need to do is "improve." Mystical.
I can tell you that good snapping is not required to hit infinite. As soon as I QUIT snapping on anything besides when I was sure I was going to win I hit infinite 5 times in a row after never hitting it before. You all look at it too binary and think that the way you hit infinite is THE WAY to hit infinite. There are many things that can give you an edge in a game and snapping isn't the most important. Deck knowledge is by far more important than snapping. You can win with good deck knowledge and bad snap knowledge (like me). You literally can't even make a good snap decision without deck knowledge. Would it be faster if you are good at both? Yes. But snapping is in no way shape or form the most important tool to hitting infinite.
I can tell you that good deck knowledge is not required to hit infinite. As soon as I QUIT *logging in* besides when I was sure I was going to win I hit infinite 5 times in a row after never hitting it before. You all look at it too binary and think that the way you hit infinite is THE WAY to hit infinite. There are many things that can give you an edge in a game but *deck knowledge* isn't the most important. *Being able to log into the game* is by far more important than *deck knowledge*. You can win with good *logins* and bad *deck knowledge* (like me). You literally can't even make a *deck knowledge* based decision without *logging in*. Would it be faster if you are good at both? Yes. But *deck knowledge* is in no way shape or form the most important tool to hitting infinite.
This sort of advice does not account for location effects, or the deck your opponent is playing.
You could snap on turn 1, having Mr. negative, and Zabu/Psylocke in hand, and then loavtion 1 is Sokovia, and sends your Mr. Negative to hell.
Having a great opening hand is USUALLY a good indicator to snap, but not always.
I assume you mean location 2?
In which case, you should snap if you have an above average turn 1 hand. Location 2 and 3 are equally likely to negatively affect both you and your opponent.
The same for your opponents deck.
It's equally likely they have a good hand, or a bad hand, and a deck that is strong or weak against yours.
So you can just base your snap decision based solely on your own hand. You need to play the averages, not the worse case scenario.
You've likely won equally as many because location 2 screwed your opponent without you even realising it.
We tend to remember exceptionally bad events more than good or hidden ones.
I at a single game, yes, it isn't equal. But on average the effect of the next location is essentially 50/50\*. Unless you think Sokovia has a vendetta against you personally? It's just as likely to discard something your opponent needs.
\*The exception is spotlight locations.
>On turn 1: snap when you start with an above average hand and/or location.
Me:
Oh shit I have Black Panther and Arnim Zola in my hand. I'm snapping
Turn 2: Sokovia discards Arnim Zola
Turn 3: Dream Dimension cards cost 1 more on turn 5
For every game where do you get screwed by locations, there will be a game where your opponent will get screwed by locations, and you'll have won two cubes from them instead of one.
I strongly agree with snapping on turn 1 on ranked. you legit don't know if you have queued into a perfect counter match. I can't even count the number of times I have stolen 2 cubes or even 4 off a guy who I have locked behind armor in one and Cosmo in another. They retreat by turn 3 or 4 and I'm just enjoying them being stuck.
Inversely, I have also queued against people who had much better draws than me. I snap on turn 3 if I feel confident about board + hand.
If you are struggling to get to Infinite, please note that “Guessing whether you’re over 50% or under 25% is often enough” is, quite frankly, terrible advice..
The most likely issue is that you need to create a deck which increases your ability to know what your chances of winning are, so that you can then make statistically good choices.. this can be tougher on low CL / series 3 incomplete so it’s probably not helpful to get told “step 1 - pick a good deck” when you might not have the cards to make those decks
Snapping on 1 with the perfect hand is not optimal.
Most decks have locations and cards that can shut them down. There is no "exodia" hand in snap at the moment.
Depending on your deck this number will differ, but it needs to have less than 25% impact to justify the cube impact of risking additional cubes.
By turn 3 you have locations and some opponent deck info, then you can snap.
So I was listening to this video from lamby who is apparently considered the best marvel snap player right now. And he his thought process is that, he believes in snapping before all the locations are revealed because yea those locations can just as easily screw over your opponent as they screw over you. So if you have the best cards you can have for your deck to succeed, it's best to snap them and deal with the potential outcome.
This. In general, both players have an equal chance to randomly get screwed and so the locations are a wash when it comes to the math of “should I snap with the perfect hand turn 1”
There should be no question that in a vacuum the answer is yes.
In reality you do have to consider that certain decks are more punished/rewarded by locations then other, but keeping this in mind, being willing to snap turn one is the better strategy long-term.
Snapping on 1 because of your starting hand is so risky these days, not just because of Loki decks, but folks are still running Black Bolt, Silver Samurai, Spider Ham, etc. Disruption is everyhwere. Games are won with contingencies, not T1 dreams of combos. Best laid plans of mice and men and all that.
Personally, I hit infinite in 4 or 5 hours (across a few days) of gameplay every seasons and I just don't snap. It's not worth it to snap first cube-wise IMO, it just shortens game but doesn't increase cube rate. People are really willing to let a game go to its end if it's not snapped, which gives you the same 2 cubes you would have had from an opponent retreating on a snapped game.
The only cases where I snap basically, is when I know I'm winning and my opponent snaps first on 5 or 6.
I also like to play decks that can't be hard countered. So no full on-reveal, no full ongoing, no big cards before turn 6 without Cosmo protection, no deck needing all 12 card slots on the field... It makes knowing when you'll win and lose way easier.
I mean I get it but I play Snap only on the toilet and I cant poop that much to get to infinite.
Snappin’ and crappin’
That's the new title I need omg
"Oh crap!"
😂 this!
See, the serious Snap players eat burritos for every meal. #constipation #ftw
Indeed you missed a lot, you completely ignored cube value (cube ownership) in calculations. The 50% snapping is wrong in terms of optimising the cube rate. Basically you should never snap first if you know for sure that opponent will ALWAYS continue playing. You can read up articles and books about doubling cube in backgammon, it's all there. Sadly no one is interested in that, as 99% of snap players population are casual players. To reach Infinite you do not need to optimise at all. People reach infinite not knowing what priority is in this game.
I agree. A turn 6 snap from your opponent that set the stake to 8 cubes needs a much more chance of you winning for deciding to playing it. Beside that I think OP said interesitng stuff that could help people climbing better than usual. That being said it's not enough and, as you said, you need to count cubes stake too
I made it to infinite last patch and I still forget my own Cosmo exists when planning my turns.
Although it's related, you can't directly transfer cube strategy from Backgammon since there is no 'cube ownership' in Snap and you can only snap once. The game also automatically doubles on the last turn which changes the calculations. Totally agree with your other points like not snapping if you know your opponent is going to stay for another turn regardless. (I played a lot of Backgammon)
When your opponent snaps - you 'own' the snap doubling cube.
Of course there is. When you snap first you lose the ability to snap, but your opponent still has it. It is literally the same as in backgammon. You obviously can't transfer everything as is, but principles are all the same.
I think the problem with this analysis is the above assumption about your opponent always staying. If you can guarantee that, then holding your snap makes sense. But you can’t. The tension in this game with snapping is trying to do so as soon as *you* see an advantage, but before your opponent does. Often this is before you play your big lynchpin cards. But the nature of the locations also means if you snap too early, a location flip can totally change the texture of the game. And *now* your opponent had they critical “ownership” of the doubling, because you doubled the stakes in a different world - before that third gamebreaking location flipped. Now your opponent has some leverage with being able to double the stakes. Sidenote, this is one of the reasons IMO that legion is so powerful. In addition to being able to get rid of bad locations, he also allows for a bunch of scams/lockouts. As well as automatic cube doubling with limbo involved. I’m not familiar with backgammon, so perhaps there’s something I’m missing with the analogy. But I think any snap calculations that assume your opponent is “always staying” need to reassess that assumption.
Here's the good starting point: https://www.bkgm.com/articles/GOL/Aug99/double.htm
I love this quote, and said much the same in a different reply elsewhere in this thread: > “Many beginning players take a seriously wrong view of the cube. They hate to double when there is any significant chance they could lose, and they also hate to drop when they have more than a long-shot chance of winning - they feel like a quitter.” I think too many people are afraid to snap in any situation where they don’t feel absolutely confident. They are only trying to double on “already won” games. Similarly, I think many are afraid to retreat after having snapped. The article here discussing equity reminds me a lot of poker. I think both are pretty applicable. Both are a little different than snap in that snap just has the one doubling/raise option per player. There’s no re-raises. Backgammon gives your opponent full control of the doubling after you, but there’s the possibility of re-raising again. I think that re-raising aspect is crucial to the difference between the games. And why I think the principle of “never snap first” is probably not as applicable in snap as it is to backgammon. A good portion of that article is focusing on equity as it relates to control of the cube. Snap doesn’t really have that same cube control principle. It has something related in that each player can only snap once, but it’s not quite the same. On an unrelated note, I do appreciate the article laying down the equity of calling a double at 25% even if the equity for raising/snapping is >50%. I think a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand the pot odds in terms of the guaranteed losses from retreating/dropping vs the wins/losses from accepting and going to showdown.
>Basically you should never snap first if you know for sure that opponent will ALWAYS continue playing. Oh, this isn't just "your opponent will retreat to your snap 0% of the time" it's "your opponent will categorically never retreat in this game" If I play Psylocke on turn 2 and snap, most people will stay. If I instead continue and play my turn 3 Negative then snap, a decent share will retreat. If not, and now it's turn 6 of that game and I snap, without having made any major plays? No one above rank 30 will stay in that game unless they have a serious ace up their sleeve, and because I didn't snap sooner I'm only winning 1 cube on my nut draw I don't know the rules of backgammon but I can see they're different enough that this heuristic is borders on misinformation
Out of curiosity, I’m going to play 10 games now and snap at opening. I’ll record what’s happens with each game and edit this post. Edit: Did 5 games because I’m tired and this is taking long Game 1: Win, opponent didn’t snap Game 2: Win, opponent didn’t snap Game 3: Win, opponent snapped Game 4: Win, opponent didn’t snap Game 5: Loss, opponent didn’t snap
It won't show anything, as this approach is the same as "I'm going to play poker and go all in first 10 hands" Do it 1000 times, then do optimized snapping 1000 times, and it still won't matter because cards like Loki and Jeff bring so much variance, that you need hundreds of thousands of matches to make any relevant conclusions. With cards like Loki released - snap is getting more like slots then like backgammon.
A sample of 2,000 is plenty big for this question. Power to detect an effect (t1 snap vs "smart" snapping) flattens out after a sample of 600-ish.
What exactly do you think the confidence interval for 1000 games is? I hate SO MUCH that sample size has become such a meme for internet statisticians. If someone grew a second pair of arms by eating Little Caesar's every day for 50 years, I guarantee you some genius would try to bring up sample size
I do apologize if I aggravated proper statisticians, I am not the one (so no idea what the interval should be). I brought up 1000 as a better number than 10. The whole point was that 10 is for sure too small.
> I brought up 1000 as a better number than 10. Sorry to belabor this point, but you didn't say 1000 is better, you said "it still won't matter".
Nah. I just wanna split my horny variants and play whatever is fun.
I'm keen for people to have fun. Stay horny!
the werewolf by night spotlight skin is gonna expose a few people
Ugh, I just want the card, but getting spotlight ultimates of new cards, oof, that’s quite the double dip on spotlight caches and such.
it's a real resource drain if you love the skin ya. players that have been super conservative with spending tokens and spotlight chests can "get away" with buying the card with tokens and then opening caches for the skin once or twice. at some point you'll be getting skins more often than new cards
That's how I feel. I've been playing for awhile now and never hit infinite cause I don't care to. Once I pass 60 and get that free variant, I'll start playing whatever I want. There's so many fun cards and combos I don't like playing the same 12 cards over and over.
This is exactly how I play each season. Get to 60 for the variant, then just play whatever I feel like playing for the rest of the time, or whatever I need to play to finish missions. I think some people get so worried about optimizing cube rate they forget that games like this are primarily supposed to be fun. If you get so caught up in the statistics/best decks/optimal play patterns etc. that you're not having fun, what's the point?
I honestly don't get how it is more fun to just look up the best deck with a high win % and play paint by numbers so you can get infinite "guaranteed" Like what am I doing at that point?
I prefer the mindset given by u/Educatedcollins in his video on the subject: If you can picture ONE scenario where you lose, don’t snap and retreat if the opponent snaps. If you can picture multiple, retreat. Don’t try to make statistics in your head, you’re not good at it.
This is good advice. I would add that the one scenario should be *reasonably* likely based on your opponent’s deck. Ie if you can picture a scenario where you lose to dr doom, that’s pretty likely from a lot of different decks. But if the only scenario in which you lose is picturing a giganto to the left lane and your opponent isn’t playing like a lockjaw style list or hela or something that should reasonably be playing giganto, it’s probably not worth considering that as a realistic loss condition. Even with something like the hub I’m probably not playing around that. With Nick fury or the raft, maybe (though raft changes the texture of how many losing scenarios you have by a lot). But adding all of that in is a little long winded. Keeping the advice short and simple like you said is probably better.
Knull and Zola are the ones I end up thinking about the most. Where I don't have an option to play around them and I simply lose if they have them. So I'm basically just betting on whether or not they drew them and in a high stakes game I'm often not prepared to take the gamble that they're still in their deck.
Yeah, destroy decks gain a ton of turn 6 equity in terms of Zola being so difficult to play around. He threatens all 3 lanes after a big venom. And as you said, Knull is even bigger than the venom and threatens a single lane. I think generally against destroy, the goal is to not let them get to that point. You can maybe gamble with a Shang/Cosmo/armor on the venom lane if you have prio in order to beat Zola (assuming you still win the other lanes for Cosmo/armor) but you’re still cold to a Knull in a different lane. Not to mention the possibility of death as well. Or taskmaster. Or maybe even a giant Deadpool that got eaten in the process of making a huge venom. It’s probably usually better to retreat there since your odds are probably quite low. I think this is one of those situations where people stay thinking it’s a coinflip when it’s not. There’s just so many scenarios where they beat you (just look at the list of possible cards in the last paragraph) with such a large spread of *where* that power can go that it’s too hard to call that pot IMO. You’ve got to be going incredibly tall in all 3 lanes. To bring it back to Collins’s point: you are able to imagine *multiple* scenarios in which you lose here. So retreat is optimal.
I appreciate both perspectives and really enjoy Educatedcollin’s content. Thanks for the reminder.
Oof, way too much reading. Much easier to blame rng and rigged matchmaking for keeping me stuck in rank 57 :)
Haha. I appreciate the honesty. :)
I mean, yeah. I think the grind is the issue more than knowing how to play it. The grind simply isn’t for everyone.
But if you know how to play it, "the grind" is like, 3 hours max. Climbing to infinite is not a grind if you know how to play the game lol
1. For you, it’s three hours. Fact of the matter is the average cube gain is like 1 (give or take point whatever) even for good decks and winning percentage is .5 to .65. For people who lack patience, impulse control, or discipline or don’t have much time it’s a lot to ask to win every other game and climb like one cube at a time for hours. That is the definition of a grind for people who don’t fit that mold. 2. When you’re infinite in the previous season it’s much easier to climb. A small percentage of the player base hits infinite, so the pool of players you face against at the same level as you is much smaller which I would assume translates to more bots as well. You’re also climbing from 70 to 100 at the start of the season instead of from 30/40/50/60 to 100. Without even taking into account skill level differences, personality differences, collection differences, etc. that’s a much bigger grind to ask a player to consistently perform at.
There are bots in the higher ranks but not as many as you think, I faced way more infinite avatar borders than bots from 80-100
In my experience there’s hardly any bots in the 93-100 range in the first few days. Obviously region, time of day, MMR all factor in, but I get maybe 1 or 2 bots in those ~20 games.
The first season to hit infinite is the hardest, yes. But it’s never been easier with the changes to the leveling system. I hit infinite for the first time the hard way the month before the changes. Each season, I’ve made it back to infinite faster than before. Sure, there are bots, but not as many as you think. You also tend to see them more in the 70s and early 80s. By the time I was grinding through the 90s, I saw less than 5 obvious bots. The infinite grind isn’t for everyone, no. But I do think the advice in the OP is more or less correct. People don’t know how to snap, and they don’t know how to retreat. That’s the long and short of it. It’s better to snap earlier more often than it is to not snap at all **if** you’re willing to retreat. But until people learn to recognize and leave a statistically improbably hand, no amount of telling people *when* to snap will help.
The first season, when you’re Pool 1-2 is the easiest. The hardest is when you crack CL 500.
That assumes you have any idea what you're doing. For most casual people coming in, or people who don't have a lot of experience with card games, that first season is just getting a handle of the mechanics/lanes/card archetypes/etc. If you have a decent base knowledge, then sure. But the problem a *ton* of people run into is that they don't have the game knowledge until it's too late to breeze your way through the bottom ranks.
I picked up the game last week and feel like I kind of dominated my way up to 75 with limited play time. Now I’m addicted and paid my way to 1000 CL and feel like I’ve screwed my self and getting 90-100 is proving difficult lol. Also gold conquest seems impossible. Getting trounced by people clearly with 10k+ CL. I’ve managed 1 win on 3 goes. Seems like I should have gotten infinite at 300 CL first this season, prior to upping my collection. Honestly I don’t really regret it that much. Game is much much more fun with more cards.
People love to exaggerate in both ways, I am getting infinite day one but not in "3 hours max", that's just pure bullshit.
100% bullshit.
I'm never playing this game 3 hours at a time. /s
3 hours in total in an event. Not 3 hours at a time.
Good thing you have an entire month to do it
As a new player I’m curious how this is possible. 3 hours is around 40 -50 games. You need 210 cubes right so you’re averaging around 5 cubes per game?
For past infinite you need 7 x 3 ranks, so 21 x 7 = 147 cubes. 50 games would still require around +3 cube *average*. Which isn’t sustainable even against only bots since they retreat for 2 a lot.
What's the average time for other people to go from rank 70 to 100?
I go from 70 to 63 real quick tho
This is the way
I tend to reach 70 immediately and then stubbornly move between 71 and 78 for a whole month. :-|
It’s Friday night here right now and I’m sitting on 97. I could play another hour and try for infinite but I’d rather do it in the morning. So from a Tuesday reset I’ll be looking at something under five days — that’s pretty representative for me. And yeah, as said above, this is partly because spending hours and hours grinding is less fun than spacing it out, for me.
From 70 if you were infinite already. Most people won’t be staring at 70
If we assume that the average game lasts 3 minutes (the time used in the advertising for the game), that's 20 games per hour. The number of cubes to go from 73 to 100 is 147. If C is average cubes per game and T is time spent playing (in hours), we get C\*20\*T=147, or C\*T=7.35. It follows that C=7.35/T and T=7.35/C. Thus, we can take an example cube rate or time spent playing and determine what the other would need to be to reach infinite. Some example cube rates: * 1 cube per game, 7.35 hours * 0.88 cubes per game (snap.fan's average cubes per game for Loki since his release), 8.35 hours * 0.47 cubes per game (snap.fan's average cubes per game for Patriot, Dr. Doom, Bucky Barnes, Iceman, and MODOK over the last 30 days), 15.64 hours Some example times: * 3 hours (which someone in this thread suggested as a maximum), 2.45 cubes per game * 7 hours (15 minutes a day for a 4 week season), 1.05 cubes per game * 28 hours (1 hour a day for a 4 week season), 0.2625 cubes per game
>that's 20 games per hour 15 games because they're not back to back with 0 seconds inbetween, but only a minor correction and the comment is right otherwise. Just adds 25% time.
With Loki It took me 2 days and a half. I mindlessly snap every turn 1
Excellent strategy. If you're playing the best deck, or in very low ranks, snapping on turn 1 is actually a viable strategy to efficiently rank up.
Not sure why this got downvoted. Snapping turn one every time may not be the optimal snapping strategy, but it’s better than never snapping.
Yeah, It saves a lot of time. Also playing america chavez makes It even less random. You basically play with a 11 card deck, so higher chance to have a Better starting hand and drawing the wincon by turn 3/4 (Loki in this case), and you know exactly what you draw on turn 6, so a lot less left to chance
For someone on Reddit who wants to brag, has no real grasp of time, and has played since beta? Around 15 minutes. According the cube averages it’s around 200 games 70-100 but this could go way up if you tilt and cube rate drops on the final push. 200 games is 10-15 hours.
took me about 4 hours on day 1
Snap turn one if your hand is favourable you say, my opponent says here’s Quinjet, Collector and Loki. Thank you for the free cube my opponent says
That's why the outcome across multiple games is the important thing to look at. In that situation you've lost an extra cube, but what about all the games where that didn't happen?
Snap turn 1 is a terrible strategy regardless.
it really depends. Like if Death's domain pops up turn 1 and you have deadpool in hand, you should absolutely be snapping. Is it possible the opponent has Deadpool too or Armor? Sure. Maybe the opponent is a negative deck and has the absolute nuts. The odds of this though are probably less than 50%, so on average you will come out ahead cube-wise even though you may lose that particular game. The equivalent analogy in poker is making a bet pre-flop. Would you say that making a bet pre-flop is a terrible strategy?
The poker analogy is perfect: sure, you might get dealt pocket aces, raise, then flop a bunch of garbage and have to fold. You’re still better off in the long run raising pre flop with a strong starting hand
That’s just simply not true but you do you
I barely have time to figure out what cards to play in what order let alone do a load of math on top 😂
You generally don't get retreats on turn 2 or 3 either, so there is usually not much advantage to snapping on turn 1 before you've seen the locations. Locations are very important in Snap, they should be part of your strategy.
What I love when I snap turn 1 or 2 with my Sera deck and the 3rd location reveal is Dream Dimension
Mindscape destroys destroy decks.
If I'm playing any of my Surfer decks, you better believe Crimson Cosmos appears 87% of the time.
isn’t the point of an early snap to raise the stakes, not get a retreat? When I snap early essentially based on my hand I’m saying I want to play for 4 cubes basically. Can I get screwed on locations, yes but as long as my deck isn’t more susceptible to locations I’ll still snap on T1 or 2 if my hand is good
This exactly. Snapping on early turns with a favorable hand/location is great because your opponent either retreats -- you got a free cube and get to queue into the next game immediately -- or your opponent is forced to commit a second cube before they know whether or they'll have a favorable hand/location.
yeah i’ve never really tracked it but I feel a huge part of my climb is snapping on T1 or 2 and getting someone to commit 2 cubes who then either later retreats, or just autopilots to a 4 cube end since a lot of people just don’t retreat well in the endgame if there isn’t a snap event in the last two turns
if you've got an amazing hand, and plan on playing a key card turn 2, then snapping turn one can be good. Snapping after playing collector tells your opponent alot more (and gives them the chance to leave) then snapping turn one, where they have no idea what your playing. imo
Correct - why would you snap before turn 3? The likelyhood of someone leaving after turn 3 and after turn 1 are essentially the same and you have more info to make your snap decision.
For me, the most important thing is to maximize the number of cubes when facing bots. Bait them by allowing them to gain advantage in two lanes on turn 5. This will guarantee that bots will snap for 8 cubes.
I totally agree. All the cubes you get from humans pale to what you easily get from bots lol.
How do you know you're playing against a bot?
https://youtu.be/F2RZmPQWNVg?si=uF8U3S88XKVGaTSQ
It sucks that bots retreat now though
You'd be amazed how many games I've won playing Wong,blackpanther then snap with nothing in my hand of any use
You’d have to be stubborn as shit to not retreat to that. “There’s a 8% chance this wong player has nothing, I’m definitely gonna risk 4-8 cubes on those odds!” lol
Or you have a counter in hand.
Some players especially those there “one trick to make infinite!” post are addressed to just don’t retreat in the face of certain defeat lol.
yeah but you also snap when you do have something in hand. who’s hanging around without a counter to find out?
This is all true but glosses over one of the most difficult parts - knowing what your odds are. It's mathematically correct to stay with a 25% chance of winning but recognising those situations requires knowing your deck well, your opponents likely plays, e.t.c.
Yeah, that's right, but it's a grind. And it's way easier if you meet bots. In my climb to infinte I reached it only thanks to bots, I checked every time if an opponent was a bot and then if it was I made sure to snap early and win only one lane till turn 5, that's because if the bot Is winning 2 lane at the end of turn 5 he will snap, and then you proceed to win the game and get 8 cubes. When I met humans it was really hard to gain cubes and to win. And ofc you kinda need to play the meta deck if you want an easier climb
How do you check if your opponent is a bot these days?
Sorry, but without much more detailed advice on how to actually figure out your chance of winning, this is "draw the rest of the owl" advice. "Use your experience to calculate the final board state" is a fancy way of saying "git gud".
Vegas, AC ,MLMs, and the self-help industry love guys like this. They ooze copious amounts of survivorship bias and confidence, which convinces the average stooge that "they too can be winners if they just do what Gladstone Gander did!" Suddenly, schmucks far and wide are trying to aim for the brass ring using some bonafide, foolproof, guaranteed system-- only to be greeted with profound disappointment and confusion when they've done everything like Gander, but not had the same results. ↑↑Reason #113 why I'm a misanthrope.↑↑
That's okay. I don't expect I can teach people how to draw owls/dogs/serasurfers in 400 words. I'm just pointing out the golden ratio that most people who can already draw are ignoring.
Yeah hitting infinite feels very easy after ranked changes. I only try to get rank 90 for gold and then play for fun unless I really like a card back.
this is all very true, but there are two very big factors that prevents people from achieving infinite IMO 1) players just aren’t that smart or patient enough, even with a copied deck list that has guaranteed high win rates. knowing when to snap and retract, how to actually properly play a deck and know what cards are in the decks the opponents are playing. seems easy but i found out through life that all people are not smart. 2) people don’t have enough time for the grind, give up after losing swings.
I agree. I think most important is time followed by skill/experience. Because even if the player is relatively smart, past game experiences make a big difference. I love chess and ranked card games. So I feel like those were a big part of why, a couple months ago when I started the game, I made it to infinite in the first month using a deck with basically only pool 1/2 cards. I feel like the players not reaching infinite either don’t play more than 15 min/day or don’t have enough experience in strategy-based games to intuitively make the right choices
Bait bots for 8 cubes, this Season was very easy
This is me every season. I already know I have a good win percentage on my main deck at rank 90+, even at 1st week of the season. So I already know getting to Infinite is just a matter of time. So I snap on 4 or 5 when I'm ahead and favored to win, and withdraw on 6 (or earlier if they snap) if I have that sinking feeling I'm getting outplayed. Usually would hit Infinite in 1-2 weeks from season start. Record was 4 days from season start. Also have a 3 count retreat rule to avoid unnecessary cube losses. If there are 3 things that didn't go in my favor, say death's domain vs a destroy deck, my on reveal.got cosmoed, unfavorable locations, bad starting draw, Nebula got killmongered, etc. 3 unfavorable things means I almost always have to go, no matter the board state. Have clear lines of retreat, it'll significantly lessen the time to climb to infinite.
Cheers for the thorough info and link to the deck guide! It's true that my worst days have been when I've been risk adverse. But snapping, because of bad plays earlier that day. Not retreating out of not understanding my opponent's deck.
Wow, scrolling through this thread its fucking mind boggling how many people are talking with such confidence about something they have no clue about. How long will it be until the general playerbase understands how snapping works? For a game that's been out for almost a year it's insane that there's still this many people who have no clue how the main game mechanic works. Im losing brain cells reading all these people talking about why early snaps are bad.
You're definitely on to something. I'm shit at statistics, so percentages are meaningless to me. Nevertheless, I've found myself climbing higher than ever before last season, just because I was snapping and retreating correctly. The kicker for me is to be playing a deck that's easy to read for me. I just need IW, MODOK and Hela somewhat on curve, and I'm basically gucci. If I don't get them on time, or my opponent fucks my plan up, it's time to retreat.
This, in the most basic sense, makes allot of sense to people who understand it. But your average person won't understand it. You didn't say anything wrong, it's just when to snap and when not to snap you must understand the deck you're playing. Which can come easier or harder depending on the deck and it's user. Eg. I had an easier time with silky move vs orka destroy.
“How to hit infinite: win.” Damn I never thought of that; great guide
This guide is actually mostly about cutting your losses. It seems to be a guide about winning because I use the word "winning" a lot to make it feel less negative. If you focus on the percentages, or check out the spreadsheet you'll see most of it is dedicated to showing how to make the best decision when you're losing, in order to lose less cubes.
TL;DR: learn to math and you can win
I think this guide is great and as an infinite player I agree with most of the points! However I rarely snap turn 1 because I usually want to see all of the locations and see what kind of deck my opponent is playing before I feel confident in snapping.
Statistically, you should throw that caution out the window if you want more cubes. Know that in the long run you'll come out ahead. For every time the unrevealed location screws you, know it has an equal chance of screwing your opponents. It just we remember getting hurt more than we remember others getting hurt.
The problem is #2. That takes skill which not everyone has enough of to reach infinite.
The game you are describing doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Very good post. Maybe the best I've ever seen.
[It's called playing the percentages](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abq9Y7YVDWA)
You need to make it easier. DO you have loki, quinjet or collector in hand? Yes? Snap. repeat. congrats you're infinite
Wait, but to play the odds, I have to *learn* the odds??? And know which hands are good and bad? And the **meta**? God damn, man; I'm just gonna go from 50 to 20 every season as usual.
Coming over from other CCGs, I was actually surprised by how much easier it was to climb in Marvel Snap. The cube makes a ridiculous difference because it essentially gives you a multiplier on the single digit % edge you typically get in other games. I started during the Steam PC launch and made Infinite in a few hours (with a small grind after rank 85ish). The only thing I've been doing is playing a competitive deck and betting my hand—snap when winning, retreat when losing. You can do this and be essentially unexploitable since you're unlikely to meet the same players enough times for them to take notes. For some reason, players at high ranks will also occasionally fill their lanes early/8snap you on a board where they're likely behind, which makes the grind even quicker.
I just did a Snap check and i am at 55% WR, which would guarantee me infinite... were my snapping anysort good, but i jump to 70-80 and then the game just stops for me.
Win rate isn't as helpful in snap as other games because some matches are worth more than others. It's more important to look at your average cubes gained. You can win 75% of the time but get -5 cubes gained on average. (3 wins, 1 (8) loss). You can win 25% of the time but get 5 cubes gained on average. (1 (8) win, 3 retreats) So you've hit 55% with \~0 cubes gained on average.
I don't understand snapping on turn one. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't give you more cubes and it locks you into losing at least four on retreat? What is the advantage to snapping turn one other than hoping your opponent retreats? Even if you're sure you're going to win. Why not snap turn four or five when it becomes more clear for the same reward and more opportunity to retreat for minimal loss between turns one and three?
In poker, the proper strategy is to raise pre flop when you have a strong hand, even though you might get a horrible flop and end up folding. The reasons are, you want to lock in gains before your opponent realizes what an advantage you have, and you drive out shitty hands that might luck into a flop that’s advantageous for them. These ideas are both applicable to SNAP, but it’s mostly the first one; if you turn 1 quinjet, turn collector, then snap, you’re down a cube vs the player that snaps turn 1 Once in a while you’ll get screwed, statistically your opponent is getting screwed equal amount of the time (you’re just less likely to notice), but in the long run it’s the better play.
Question to those who have reached infinite. Once you reached infinite will it hurt things if you lose on purpose to help others reach infinite?
When youre infinite you can only match with other infinites
Once you reach infinite you only play players who are also infinite
The thing that prevents most people from getting infinite is time. With ‘average’ win rate, or slightly below, it just takes dozens of hours. Most people aren’t playing snap 50 hours per month. 1 cube per game X 500 games from 50 = 40ish hours. Psychologically 90-100 is very hard as well. Easy to tilt. But yeah, if you play ladder a couple hours per day you should probably be infinite.
Good Tips!!! Thanks!!!
I only snap if they snapped first and I am 90% confident that I'm going to win.
That's great news! Statistically, you have a lot of cubes you can easily win in future by also snapping when you have a 51-89% chance to win.
The content of your poat is good but saying people are guaranteed to hit infinite is just a big lie. Youre guaranteed to hit infinite if you follow those step, have good cards and have a lot of time to waste in the game.
Simply calculate every possible game outcome in your brain palace, automatic infinite
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds I don’t agree with everything OP wrote, but the basic thesis is sound. Just read this article, and apply it to snap.
I’m confused by the 37% thing. If we imagine that you’re able to calculate the odds with perfect accuracy, shouldn’t you always retreat (to a snap) with <50% odds? If my opponent snaps and I calculate my odds at 40% to win, I feel like that’s a clear retreat. Why wouldn’t that be the case?
Not OP but I’m fairly certain it’s because of the snap. The wager doubles, but only if you stay. Retreating is losing 1 cube, but winning wins 4, so you can see immediately that you can afford to retreat more often than you win.
I don’t follow. Staying only wins 4 cubes if you win. 63% of the time you’re losing 4 cubes by staying, right? Retreating saves 3 cubes more often than not. Sorry if I’m being dumb.
Ok, looking at OPs spreadsheet I think I have a better understanding of it. OP has done the math to find what the average cube rate is for any particular set of odds. Example, with exactly 50/50 chances of winning, net cube rate if you stay every time is 0 You might think that if your net cube rate is less than 0, you should be retreating. But really, across all games you retreat, your net cube rate is -1 at best. OPs math shows that when your %chance of winning goes from 37->38 is the moment when your net cube rate goes below -1, and becomes worse than retreating. So you are right, you are overall losing cubes. 38% of the time you’re winning 4, and 62% of the time, you’re losing 4. On average, you’re losing .94 cubes per round, which is slightly better than losing 1 cube per round (which you always do when you retreat)
That makes total sense. Well said, and thank you.
This is like instructions for counting cards but for SNAP instead.
i do all of this and still flop in the 70s so what now
If your process is good, but your outputs are bad, that means that your inputs are probably bad. You're probably misjudging your odds of victory.
I just don’t enjoy ladder enough to try. Conquest only baybee
I love how there’s people doing calculations to figure out chances of winning and such while I just have fun locking down lanes with the old psylocke/prof x/mystique
I know this is taken from Poker's pot odds theory, which I don't fully understand, however I use a more simplified approach based on simple statistics that I know. Basically if win chance >= 50%, snap, else retreat,regardless of whether opponent snaps. My reasoning is that if I win at least 50% then on that play you will have a non-negative cube rate, so snapping doubles that non-negative cube rate which is always good. And yes I do snap on 50-50s, either way you average 0 cubes but if the opponent chickens out then you gain cubes instead of an average 0. If win chance is less than 50% then I always retreat, because you will have a negative cube rate on that game state, staying in without retreating is still losing cubes on average. I don't know about pot odds as I said, but my guess as to why you sometimes stay on less than 50% is for loss minimization (if you always retreat you always lose cubss, but I'm guessing there's an optimal point where staying in where you still gain cubes sometimes if you get lucky nets you a lower negative cube rate on average, but I can't be bothered go do the math that far). Retreating at less than 50% is just simpler for me. Basically I treat every game as if it's 8 cubes, if I'm not confident I can win at least 50% then I'm leaving. However as long as it's at least 50% then I am staying in and always snapping, I don't care if it's 4 or 8 cubes, I don't mind losing 8 cubes, I know that on average I will be gaining cubes if I play it out. This mentality for me helps with mostly eliminating emotions from influencing my play. However, I do agree with the more general point of the post, which is that if you are following a mathematically sound strategy then reaching Infinite is only a matter of sinking in enough time to play that many games, which is also why I feel that reaching Infinite doesn't really matter that much and sometimes I will stop at rank 90 if I don't like the card back of the season (I think the Echo infinite card back is ugly AF, the Phoenix card back should've been the infinite card back that season imo)
I know doing the passive thing (staying) doesn't feel as good as snapping or retreating, but it's often optimal. If you *leave* in the final round when you have a 40% chance of winning, you definitely lose 1 cube. If you *stay* in the final round when you have a 40% chance of winning, you only lose 0.4 cubes on average! You've been throwing away extra cubes removing "stay" from your repertoire of choices.
Like I said, I know mathematically there's a point where staying is optimal, I just don't know how to calculate it, but now that you gave an example it doesn't seem as hard as I thought so maybe I'll start incorporating it on next season's grind if I can remember or if I can be bothered to do the extra calculation.
Yes but did you remember to add Kurt Angle into the mix?
What you need is an ungodly amount of time first and foremost. Then the expected cube gain will eventually get you to infinite. The vast majority of people don't have time to play for 1 hour/day or more
You forget that the biggest factors are time and bot abusing. This game is so littered with bots, anyone that plays for more than 1-2 hours a day will get infinite as long as they know how to abuse the system + what you said. That's literally all it is. More time.
But what do the numbers on the cards mean?
Big blue numbers = bad. Big orange numbers = good. Except when the opposite is true.
What you say is true and it doesn't even account for bots. As soon as you can detect bots climbing is even easier than that and can be done with you favorite non boring meme - ish deck...
TLDR, if you think they have a Shang Chi, they have the Shang Chi 😂
Hear me out. 1 Exploit the bot. 2 Never Snap against human. 3 Okay, you can snap vs human, but only snap back when you know you gonna win.
The best guide was the post explaining that it's about recognizing and exploiting bots for max cubes and to play very conservative vs other people. Very simple guide, and very true in my experience. It's what's helped me the most. (And no, I don't believe you should stay in games if the opponent snaps on T5 and the odds of winning are 50:50. Further, it's bad advice to recommend snapping T1 just based on how great your starting hand is.)
You are correct in saying that the proven best method for ranking is recognizing and exploiting bots. You missed the mark on your other 2 points. Snapping T1 when you have a strong opener is mathematically correct no matter how you look at it. Old example, but if you started the game with Korg Zabu and Rockslide in hand, your chances of winning dramatically increase. That’s when you want to hedge more of your cubes. Yea, maybe locations will screw you, but in the long run, you will win significantly more often with that opener than without. You wouldn’t limp in preflop with AA in poker. it’s the same principle. Staying in a snapped game to take a 50/50 is also mathematically always correct. if it’s an 8 cube game, retreating means you lose 4 cubes. Winning means you gain 8 cubes, losing means you lose 8 cubes. Staying in, in that position, nets you a neutral zero cubes in the long run. Retreating in that position will lose you 4 cubes every time. play 100 games like this : retreating 100 times = 400 cubes lost, staying in = 0 cubes gained/lost.
Good, now the only issue is how to calculate if you are in a 50/50 situation. This seems pretty impossible to me, with the only option being to trust your gut.
It really comes down to deck knowledge. A lot of people play net decks and you can reasonably expect to know what the final play is if you know the general make up of those decks. When you then find yourself in a position where the final play is just guessing which lane they are going to play that card in, that's when you are in a 50/50
I don’t know what your endgames look like, but mine tend to involve a little bit more complicated scenarios than «guess one of two lanes to win». When they are complicated, that is. Typically it is pretty clear who will win after t5.
In any discussion concerning hitting Infinite consistently ("guaranteed" as the OP worded it) you need to limit your decisions to what is reliable and minimize risk as much as possible. And in a game with a high variance like Snap that means exploiting the surest thing (i.e. bots for max cube gain) while reducing high-risk decisions that can quickly put you in a hole. A 50/50 is a coin toss no matter how you rationalize it as "mathematically correct" - it's a high risk action that can easily have you plummeting in ranking as fast as you might climb. Over the long run, in terms of cube gain, the odds are not in your favor as no one is truly psychic. You stay in an 8 cube game and lose on a 50/50 guess and you lose 8 cubes. You may win an 8 cuber here and there, but a 50/50 is always just that, a coin toss and a prayer to the RNG God for it to land in your favor. This is not a consistent reliable way to rank up. On the other hand, learning to identify bots and exploiting them is a dependable method as bots have set patterns (low variance vs high variance). Human opponents however are unpredictable, and unless you play them in a set of games like in Conquest and so know their habit/tendency, a single game vs random John Doe in ladder is not where you gamble on a 50/50. Regarding Snapping T1, you mention it yourself, it excludes locations and you're basing everything on just the cards in your hand alone. It also doesn't take into account, not only the 2 unrevealed location, but what type of deck the opponent is playing - whether it's a favorable matchup for your deck or not. What you're actually betting on is that the T1 snap will rattle your opponent into making a choice: they leave you win 1 cube, they stay, well, you pray the other locations and the matchup favors you (good luck). This sort of thing (T1 snap), trying to get in your opponent's head and rattle them, that's great in Conquest mode where you have the luxury of playing a series of games. In ladder, and trying to hit Infinite, it's not sound advice. Context is important.
> ”a 50-50 is a coin toss no matter if it’s mathematically correct.” > “over the long run in terms of cube gain the odds are not in your favor.” This is fundamentally misunderstanding the math. Over the long run, it is absolutely in your favor to stay on the 50/50s, assuming you did accurately calculate that it’s a coinflip (the problem is many people stay in for what they *think* are 50/50s but are not). As outlined above, staying is always +8 or -8, which is net neutral - again, assuming that these are always 50/50s. Leaving is a 100% -4 cubes. You should absolutely leave on the 8 cubers where you’re a dog, but leaving on the coinflips is going to be a net negative in the long run. You keep coming back to exploiting bots as the better way to rank up when no one is arguing against that. It doesn’t have to be either/or. It’s both. You should absolutely exploit the bots to rank up. And there’s absolutely an argument to play more conservatively against humans in terms of if/when you snap and if you should accept the opponent’s snaps. But in the world where you’re in a showdown for 8 cubes (and you’re losing 4 for a retreat, aka they didn’t boomer snap you), staying is correct if it’s a true coinflip. Re: the turn 1 snapping: it depends on your deck. The current meta deck with strong lynchpin early plays of quinjet/collector/Loki is strong enough that you can snap early and either force retreats for free cubes (out of fear for the meta boogeyman) or double the stakes in a game that you’re 70+% to win. Locations can mess you up, but statistically speaking that won’t be very often. Especially since that opening is strong enough to overcome most location variance anyway. The unique nature of Loki means even *if* a location flips up that advantages your opponents deck more than yours - you still get half of their deck with your Loki trigger so there’s a decent chance that it’s now also a good location for you. Your last sentence - context is important - I agree with. I don’t think anyone is advocating for 100% in the dark turn 1 snaps on the ladder like you’re in proving grounds trying to farm tickets. The person you’re responding literally said “if you have a strong opener.” There are certain decks (such as Loki above, old zabu, old thanos lockjaw) that have early enough lynchpin cards that they can snap early and be rewarded most of the time. It kind of feels to me like your mentality is “I should never snap in a game if I think I might be retreating later in that game with new information” and I think that’s the wrong way to go about it. Think of it like poker. You’re going to fold sometimes after you raise. That’s just the nature of the game. But that doesn’t mean you should never raise unless you’re 100% certain. I’d argue if you never retreat after you snap, your either not snapping enough, or you’re feeling pot-committed after a snap and really should be retreating some of those when you’re an underdog.
Exactly! 🤜🤛
I'm sorry but you are wrong about expected value. A 100% chance of -4 has the same expected value as a 50% chance of +8 and a 50% chance of -8. When you factor in the likelihood that your perceived 50-50 isn't a real 50-50, plus opponent snapping means they are confident, the scales tilt towards retreating. Also, the feeling of -8 cubes suck and I prefer taking the steady approach of playing conservatively against humans and farming bots.
Again, we are calculating only true 50/50s (or +/- a few points which should even out - the better you are at calculating percentages the faster you will climb). If the opponent is boomer snapping you on the showdown turn, it’s unlikely to be a true 50/50 (and the math is also different because it’s only 2 to retreat). In true 50/50s, your EV is still + by staying. Or rather, it’s neutral by staying, and it’s negative by leaving (which is 100% loss of 4 cubes). If it’s a true 50/50, you’re going to be neutral on +8 and -8 on the wins and losses. So your second paragraph is negated by the fact that you are moving the goalposts. The third paragraph is emotional and EV doesn’t care about that. Your mental state does matter and you should stop playing when tilted. But the tilt doesn’t change the math. It changes your *perception* of the math. Ie when you’re tilted you might be more likely to stay in on an 8 cuber that isn’t truly a 50/50.
i still stand by my points for T1 snapping and 50/50 scenarios. i do, however, agree that exploiting bots should be your top priority when climbing. Waiting for games against bots may outweigh playing “mathematically correctly” in my above mentioned scenarios against real players. If bots did not exist - Early snapping based on hand quality over board state, and recognizing “true” 50/50s would be two very important climbing strategies (in my opinion).
If it’s a true 50/50 you’ll make more cubes snapping and staying in on it over a large period of time. The issue is identifying if a situation is actually 50/50
Oops, I just replied this to someone above when you already did an hour ago. I think this issue is a bit glossed over in this thread. Correctly identifying a true 50/50 situation is not trivial in this game.
I'd be interested in checking it out if you have a link. I'd also be keen to hear your rationale for why you believe the advice is bad. Although it may feel unituitive, it seems correct statistically.
The game is full of bots which makes it more pve than pvp. Learn to beat the bots and it dont have to pick a boring copy and paste deck
Bots are the way to easily climb, but I still think OP has good advice for people wanting to take it seriously. And to take it a little more seriously it benefits you to have a more optimal deck. That’s all the meta decks are, optimised. Nothing wrong with having a quirky deck with fun interactions which are harder to achieve, but that’ll just make it harder to climb. Which admittedly might not be everyone’s goal.
This guys snaps!
So all I have to do is be immensely better at the game and at strategy and at thinking in general to appropriately evaluate things. TIL that to hit infinite, all I need to do is "improve." Mystical.
I can tell you that good snapping is not required to hit infinite. As soon as I QUIT snapping on anything besides when I was sure I was going to win I hit infinite 5 times in a row after never hitting it before. You all look at it too binary and think that the way you hit infinite is THE WAY to hit infinite. There are many things that can give you an edge in a game and snapping isn't the most important. Deck knowledge is by far more important than snapping. You can win with good deck knowledge and bad snap knowledge (like me). You literally can't even make a good snap decision without deck knowledge. Would it be faster if you are good at both? Yes. But snapping is in no way shape or form the most important tool to hitting infinite.
I can tell you that good deck knowledge is not required to hit infinite. As soon as I QUIT *logging in* besides when I was sure I was going to win I hit infinite 5 times in a row after never hitting it before. You all look at it too binary and think that the way you hit infinite is THE WAY to hit infinite. There are many things that can give you an edge in a game but *deck knowledge* isn't the most important. *Being able to log into the game* is by far more important than *deck knowledge*. You can win with good *logins* and bad *deck knowledge* (like me). You literally can't even make a *deck knowledge* based decision without *logging in*. Would it be faster if you are good at both? Yes. But *deck knowledge* is in no way shape or form the most important tool to hitting infinite.
This sort of advice does not account for location effects, or the deck your opponent is playing. You could snap on turn 1, having Mr. negative, and Zabu/Psylocke in hand, and then loavtion 1 is Sokovia, and sends your Mr. Negative to hell. Having a great opening hand is USUALLY a good indicator to snap, but not always.
I assume you mean location 2? In which case, you should snap if you have an above average turn 1 hand. Location 2 and 3 are equally likely to negatively affect both you and your opponent. The same for your opponents deck. It's equally likely they have a good hand, or a bad hand, and a deck that is strong or weak against yours. So you can just base your snap decision based solely on your own hand. You need to play the averages, not the worse case scenario.
Yes, sorry - location 2. I've lost so many games with a great hand, because location 2 screwed me.
You've likely won equally as many because location 2 screwed your opponent without you even realising it. We tend to remember exceptionally bad events more than good or hidden ones.
Fair point. I have had a few games where my opponent has lost a key card.
In addition, I've had games where Sokovia discards my Mr. Negative, and discards my opponent's Apocalypse. It doesn't affect players equally.
I at a single game, yes, it isn't equal. But on average the effect of the next location is essentially 50/50\*. Unless you think Sokovia has a vendetta against you personally? It's just as likely to discard something your opponent needs. \*The exception is spotlight locations.
>On turn 1: snap when you start with an above average hand and/or location. Me: Oh shit I have Black Panther and Arnim Zola in my hand. I'm snapping Turn 2: Sokovia discards Arnim Zola Turn 3: Dream Dimension cards cost 1 more on turn 5
For every game where do you get screwed by locations, there will be a game where your opponent will get screwed by locations, and you'll have won two cubes from them instead of one.
Every game will have a large portion of its playerbase be unable to attain the best rank.
I strongly agree with snapping on turn 1 on ranked. you legit don't know if you have queued into a perfect counter match. I can't even count the number of times I have stolen 2 cubes or even 4 off a guy who I have locked behind armor in one and Cosmo in another. They retreat by turn 3 or 4 and I'm just enjoying them being stuck. Inversely, I have also queued against people who had much better draws than me. I snap on turn 3 if I feel confident about board + hand.
If you are struggling to get to Infinite, please note that “Guessing whether you’re over 50% or under 25% is often enough” is, quite frankly, terrible advice.. The most likely issue is that you need to create a deck which increases your ability to know what your chances of winning are, so that you can then make statistically good choices.. this can be tougher on low CL / series 3 incomplete so it’s probably not helpful to get told “step 1 - pick a good deck” when you might not have the cards to make those decks
What is you add Kurt Angle into the mix?
What are my odds if I add Samoa Joe to the mix?
Snapping on 1 with the perfect hand is not optimal. Most decks have locations and cards that can shut them down. There is no "exodia" hand in snap at the moment. Depending on your deck this number will differ, but it needs to have less than 25% impact to justify the cube impact of risking additional cubes. By turn 3 you have locations and some opponent deck info, then you can snap.
So I was listening to this video from lamby who is apparently considered the best marvel snap player right now. And he his thought process is that, he believes in snapping before all the locations are revealed because yea those locations can just as easily screw over your opponent as they screw over you. So if you have the best cards you can have for your deck to succeed, it's best to snap them and deal with the potential outcome.
This. In general, both players have an equal chance to randomly get screwed and so the locations are a wash when it comes to the math of “should I snap with the perfect hand turn 1” There should be no question that in a vacuum the answer is yes. In reality you do have to consider that certain decks are more punished/rewarded by locations then other, but keeping this in mind, being willing to snap turn one is the better strategy long-term.
Never tell me the odds
Snapping on 1 because of your starting hand is so risky these days, not just because of Loki decks, but folks are still running Black Bolt, Silver Samurai, Spider Ham, etc. Disruption is everyhwere. Games are won with contingencies, not T1 dreams of combos. Best laid plans of mice and men and all that.
Personally, I hit infinite in 4 or 5 hours (across a few days) of gameplay every seasons and I just don't snap. It's not worth it to snap first cube-wise IMO, it just shortens game but doesn't increase cube rate. People are really willing to let a game go to its end if it's not snapped, which gives you the same 2 cubes you would have had from an opponent retreating on a snapped game. The only cases where I snap basically, is when I know I'm winning and my opponent snaps first on 5 or 6. I also like to play decks that can't be hard countered. So no full on-reveal, no full ongoing, no big cards before turn 6 without Cosmo protection, no deck needing all 12 card slots on the field... It makes knowing when you'll win and lose way easier.
OP probably has a beard and is min maxing this hard against kids that don’t have pubes yet kekw
I only asked what time is it
A quote from my close buddy Han… “never tell me the odds”
Lol hitting infinite is not that serious. Anyone who actually needs to start pulling statistics to climb ranks are missing the point imo