Trading Stocks

[Youngling]

This is going to be really simple.
1. If you have the same amount of stocks as your opponent but you have more percent, TRADE STOCKS.
2. If you have more stocks than your opponent, TRADE STOCKS.


1st one is obvious and most people do it, but I don't see the second one being used enough.

Say your opponent is at 2 stocks and you're at 3. You trade stocks and now you have 2 and they have one. You went from having 1 1/2 stocks for every 1 stock they have to having 2 stocks for the 1 stock they have.

This math isn't mind blowing at all, just pointing it out. Now obviously if you're at a fresh stock and your opponent is at like 150 then don't trade. But if you're at around the same percentage as your opponent then trade.

I always cringe when I watch Shiz V M2k because M2k really should've traded that one time that he had the chance.

 

[GodLi]

3. trade so you don't get 4stocked

 

[ph00tbag]

The fewer stocks you have, the greater an opportunity your opponent has to come back on you.

If it's their last stock, it's really a different story, but if your opponent is going to respawn, do not trade if you can help it.

 

[The Star King]

People don't trade if they think they have a good chance of taking a stock without trading.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Or just remember it takes one little tap to kill falco and you'll wish you had that extra stock for your one slip up later.

 

[ajp_anton]

If Luigi could trade stocks more easily, I would do it more often.
"Unfortunately" it's difficult to kill someone who isn't already done for and not make it back =).

 

[Bl@ckChris]

i get kills when i can cuz ganon is ***.

but i usually do try to only trade in those situations.

 

[FrootLoop]

the rational to trading when you're up a stock is that a 2 stock vs 3 stock (you gotta take 1.5 stocks for each of yours) is easier to comeback than a 1 stock vs 2 stock (you gotta take 2 stocks for each of yours).

I disagree with the rule because the only time you can "choose" to trade stocks is when they're guaranteed dead anyway, or at worst, they have to guess a mixup to avoid loss of stock. I'd rather take a stock and not lose mine. Trading stocks can reset momentum, but so does killing them and not dying.

I'll only choose trade stocks if it's their last stock and I have more than one.

 

[Kal]

This is going to be really simple.
1. If you have the same amount of stocks as your opponent but you have more percent, TRADE STOCKS.
2. If you have more stocks than your opponent, TRADE STOCKS.

The first one, with rare exception, is a good strategy. The second, on the other hand, isn't necessarily optimal. Of course, with some added criterio vis-à-vis having more stock than your opponent, it becomes optimal, but it's not hard to construct a counterexample where this is a sub-optimal strategy. Though, as a general rule of thumb, I think these are pretty good.

 

[Dees]

I usually buy low and sell high

 

[Moooose]

a little stock trading is good for any 401k but stick to mutual funds mostly

 

[kalamazhu]

a little stock trading is good for any 401k but stick to mutual funds mostly

looool moose jokes

 

[odinNJ]

^^ that was honestly what i thought this would be about when i saw it.

also, if i have two stocks, my opponenet has one, and its a friendly, i will always trade stocks to finish. I will also do this anytime i am being recorded, or anytime i am playing falcon.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Just don't trade because 95% of the time you can kill them anyways?

 

[Xyzz]

Falco's edgeguard on spacies becomes pretty beastly if you are willing to just dair them offstage, so that actually secures a lot of kills (:

 

[FrootLoop]

if they're far enough offstage that you can dair suicide without having to guess then they're far enough offstage to do a normal edgeguard without having to guess.

 

[Bones0]

The mathematical basis for this is flawed because it assumes that each player's stock is of equal value. For instance, a Peach stock is worth significantly more than a Falco stock. Then there's also the fact that a stock's value drops SIGNIFICANTLY the second you're put into an edge guard situation. Then there's characters like Marth who are a lot less threatening when you're at higher %s and can't be combo'd vs. lower %s where a single grab on a spacie could mean 80%.

Unless your opponent is on their last stock and you have at least 2, trading is for noobs who can't edge guard.

 

[Youngling]

... Do I need to make it clearer?
Would you rather have 100 stocks to their 99 or 2 stocks to their 1?

 

[Bones0]

You can't have 100 stocks.

 

[MasterShake]

Oh? JV 100 stock? You won't.

 

[Youngling]

Looks like I'm arguing with 5 year olds

 

[Bones0]

6 and a half in SmashBoards years.

 

[The Star King]

^lol

Youngling, you're oversimplifying it.

 

[Kal]

If you are better than your opponent, and there is no assumption that you will play worse as time progresses, you would actually rather have 100 stock to his 99. If you are worse than your opponent, you would rather have 2 stock to their 1.

 

[odinNJ]

i would rather have 3 stocks than 2, regardless of my opponent, you cant just claim something is better

 

[Habefiet]

If you are better than your opponent, and there is no assumption that you will play worse as time progresses, you would actually rather have 100 stock to his 99. If you are worse than your opponent, you would rather have 2 stock to their 1.

Kal, you're probably going to want to go ahead and mathcraft that, because I foresee disagreement with your assessment based on people's weird intuitions.

My tendency is to go for trades when I'm up and see a chance for one, but it isn't a hard and fast rule. Like others have said, it's a little more complicated than just saying "I have to take .75 stocks per stock versus only needing .5 stocks per stock." Why go for a trade when I have high certainty that I'll be able to get the edgeguard? Is my opponent more likely to come back from 2-1 as opposed to 3-2 (some players play so differently when down by a substantial degree that this is a real issue). Even if I don't think I'm going to get the edgeguard, if we're both at low percent 3 stocks v. 2, why toss it down to 2-1 and give him a chance for some crazy quick gimp when I've been consistently outplaying him to get to this point?

Overall, the game isn't that black and white. You can't just say, "Trade under these two circumstances," when those circumstances are so very broad and all-encompassing.

 

[FrootLoop]

... Do I need to make it clearer?
Would you rather have 100 stocks to their 99 or 2 stocks to their 1?

you can't just choose to trade from neutral position on the stage. You have to have a huge advantage (be edgeguarding them) and by that point you might as well try to convert it since it's all but guaranteed anyway.

 

[Life]

Always trade if your opponent is at last stock (even if you are too, many trades involve spikes so they'll die first--obviously don't trade at 1-1 if your trade will kill you first).

Consider trading if your opponent loses more from it than you do (eg. if you're at four stocks and 150% and they're at three stocks and just respawned), but don't do it if you think you can get the kill by edgeguarding safely instead.

Sound good?

 

[odinNJ]

you dont always trade if its their last stock, too much variability

 

[Kal]

The assumption is that the trade is guaranteed. If you want to bring probabilities into the matter, it gets kind of messy I'm sure.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

i've seen some sad things happen to dashizwiz trying to trade.

very sad indeed.

 

[Warhawk]

I think for trading scenarios you're going to wanna be at a higher percentage most of the time whether you're up a stock or not.

 

[Krynxe]

I have a holographic stock, but it's not for trade.

 

[ShroudedOne]

The mathematical basis for this is flawed because it assumes that each player's stock is of equal value. For instance, a Peach stock is worth significantly more than a Falco stock. Then there's also the fact that a stock's value drops SIGNIFICANTLY the second you're put into an edge guard situation. Then there's characters like Marth who are a lot less threatening when you're at higher %s and can't be combo'd vs. lower %s where a single grab on a spacie could mean 80%.

Unless your opponent is on their last stock and you have at least 2, trading is for noobs who can't edge guard.

I'm afraid I don't understand what makes stocks worth less or more, and why it matters. Mind elaborating?

 

[The Star King]

Some characters tend to die more quickly (at lower %s) than others.

 

[ShroudedOne]

So the characters that die quickly, on the whole, their stocks are worth less? Shouldn't they be worth more, since they can't afford to waste them?

 

[Diakonos]

I've often thought about this too. In theory, the math makes sense: assuming each stock is worth the same (and... they really should be, since the point of the match is ultimately to eliminate their 4 stocks before you lose yours), the ratio does increase once you're ahead.

Say I take the 1st stock. Now it's 4:3 for me. And I have an opportunity to get a trade kill, but not a relatively safe edgeguard (say there's a 30% chance I'll miss edgeguard, but 100% trade). Now it's 3:2. Etc. So for me the math makes sense if you're ahead, but you clearly have to optimize by making sure you trade only if the kill is guarantee and if you're sure you can't kill them without losing your stock.

Percent makes a difference too, but I don't think it's a huge one. Say you're at 3 stock 50% and they're at 2 stock 130%. Yes, you should probably try to kill them regularly. But if you're given a chance to trade absolutely (without an otherwise guaranteed kill), it's still worth it, imo. Suddenly you have 2 stocks to their 1. People will say, "Yeah but now you have 2 stocks and they can just gimp you and suddenly you're even!!" True. But it could be just as true that they gimp you while you're at 3stock, and suddenly it's 2 stock a piece. It could happen either way.

There are probably a few other factors, like the demoralizing effect this could have on your opponent. If s/he knows you're playing wild and are willing to throw away both his/her stocks and yours, they might think twice about putting themselves in certain situations.

In any case, it's more complicated than the OP makes it seem, but I think trading could be used more strategically than it currently is.

 

[Kal]

So the characters that die quickly, on the whole, their stocks are worth less? Shouldn't they be worth more, since they can't afford to waste them?

You could also just say the "value" of a stock is your average % before death, in which case Peach's is pretty higher compared to Falco. I'm sure this is what Bones means.

 

[KrIsP!]

You can't have 100 stocks.

#YOL4T

a little stock trading is good for any 401k but stick to mutual funds mostly

This thread would have been 1000 times better/more informative if this was the OP.

 

[Mahone]

I have a holographic stock, but it's not for trade.

woah...

Woah...

WOAH... this was ****.