Risk vs Reward

Instead of writing up my research paper which is due next week, I decided to write up this blog post.  Yeah, I'm procrastinating, but at least I'm doing something constructive with it.

This was actually going to be the topic of one of my old STORM Monday videos that I stopped doing.  Basically, it's weighing the potential costs of doing something against the potential benefits.  You actually probably do this all the time without thinking about it.  I mean, you don't Set four back rows without protection from Heavy Storm all the time, right?

Well, maybe you should.  What's the downside of just Setting everything?  Well, if your opponent does play Heavy Storm, you've lost all of your Traps and will probably go on to lose the duel.  But, what if your opponent doesn't have Heavy Storm, or is hesitant to play it?  Then you're going to be in control of the duel, at least until they get through all of your back row.  In addition, your defenses won't be destroyed by a simple Mystical Space Typhoon or Night Beam.

Yeah, this idea isn't new.  Plenty of people have talked about why you should consider Setting your hand despite Heavy Storm.  But it's better to start with an idea that you might be familiar with.

What would another example be?  Well, let's say you're playing Hieratics and you're going first.  You have the combo in your hand already.  Do you play it?

Perhaps you should.  If you drop your hand onto the field and end up with something like Atum, Photon Strike Bounzer/Number 25: Force Focus, and a weakened Red-Eyes Darkness Metal Dragon, then the only thing that you'll have to worry about is Dark Hole.  Otherwise, your opponent gets a chance to Set their Traps, like Torrential Tribute, and such.  Would you rather worry about one card (Dark Hole), or a variety of Traps?

Yeah, that was kind of a simplistic example, but it's the rationale behind pulling off a combo first turn so that your opponent can't disrupt it.

But, this whole risk vs reward mentality can apply to late game as well as early game.  For instance, once, I was facing down a Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning with no cards.  My opponent had just used Raigeki Break to destroy my MST by discarding Thunder King Rai-Oh, so the BLS was the only thing left.  I had 3200 LP and topped Scrapyard.  Well, I could grab Scrap Goblin and hope to stall for a turn, right?  I mean, if he had drawn a Monster, he could've killed me next turn.  But if I were to Set Scrap Goblin, then I would be putting all of my hope into the next card I would draw.  Yeah, I could draw a Scrap Chimera, but that wouldn't do much by itself against a BLS.

However, I could risk losing to a top-decked Monster in order to have a greater chance of winning if I were to survive to the next turn.  Instead of only hoping for something like Dark Hole or Mind Control, I would be able to draw into something like Cyber Dragon or Photon Thrasher to go with my Scrapyard.  I mean, if I just Set a Scrap Goblin, he would just banish it and he'd be one card up, having drawn a card.  This way, I'd be able to have more outs in my deck in case I did survive.

What happened in the actual duel was that I just held onto my Scrapyard and ended.  He topped Effect Veiler, so he just attacked with BLS.  I ended up drawing Dust Tornado, so I was forced to grab a Scrap Goblin with Scrapyard and Set it just to not die.  But, he drew Tour Guide, so I ended up losing.  Not a very good example when making the right play still ends in a loss, but it works.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it's okay to take risks sometimes.  Obviously you shouldn't go dropping your whole hand onto the field all the time, even if your opponent would statistically have Heavy Storm or Dark Hole only once every six or so games.  Is guaranteed victory if your opponent doesn't use Heavy Storm worth it if the use of Heavy Storm would result in a guaranteed loss?  These are the types of things that you have to think about, and determining when it's a good idea to take risks will make you a better player.