Trading Stocks

[ShroudedOne]

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.

That makes tons more sense. Ok then.

 

[Youngling]

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.

I agree with everything in this post. I realize that I didn't put enough thought into this thread and just thought that since the math made sense then it had to be true.

There are a lottttt of exceptions. Like I thought about playing against Mango or someone and I'd definitely rather be down 2-1 than 99-98.

 

[Massive]

I think it's safe to say that whoever has the most stock is winning the match.

Trading a stock to someone produces no net change to your advantage if you are ahead, but it does change your overall standing in a match. If it was 4:3, it is now 3:2. Since your trade at 4:3 removed your stock as well, you no longer have an opportunity to make it 4:2, however slim that chance.

A one stock lead is by no means insurmountable, sometimes it's tenuous at best.

You diminish your leeway to mess up (everyone messes up eventually, no exceptions) the fewer stock you have. From that vein I'd argue that trading stock is probably not the best idea, assuming you're not ending the match by doing so.

Trading does make for a much more exciting match though.

 

[Dastrn]

I agree with the OP premise, with one condition. If you're playing a matchup where one mistake means you lose a full stock, then you protect your stocks and try to chip away rather than trade.

Don't trade with the ICs in Brawl, basically. I suppose we're on the Melee boards and I should use a Melee example, but it's been too long for me to confidently make a comment on a Melee matchup without the likelihood of failing dramatically in doing so.

 

[Bones0]

Go pick any top level video at random, and chances are someone dies within the first 30 seconds. If there's a spacie, make it 15. Almost all of the top tiers can take a full stock from a single grab/hit. Only exception is Jiggs because she can't really be combo'd, but even she can be put in a horrible position that her opponent can abuse the entire stock (Fox uthrow and uairs a million times or something).

 

[Lovage]

the theory makes sense but in reality trading stocks is an IFFY strat that i wouldn't really advise unless you are 130+.

unless you are the ultimate last stock clutch king or something, i much prefer to get a lead and slowly+carefully extend it until they almost can't get back into the game. practice ur high% defense ni99as! #fullhops #shields #platforms

 

[samizdat]

Trading stocks is definitely a situational thing.

The people who are saying it isn't are missing the point that the "standing" of a match is not determined simply by stocks (i.e., 4:3 or 2:1), but by stocks as well as %. Obviously if you are at high % then your stock is worth less than when you are at lower %, right? Well, yes; however, the value of a given stock is not directly proportional to the accumulation of % throughout the maintaining of that stock.

As Bones has pointed out, when you have to account for character and match-up nuances, things get far more complicated. As Falco, the value of my stock at higher % is greater against Marth, who can't very easily combo me into kill moves, than it is against, say, Fox. But that said, if Fox has just spawned, and I am able to get a shine combo on him, then my stock has more value at that moment than it would if Fox were at, say, 60%.

There is also the question of player skill -- how much confidence you have in yourself as the better player. If you are more confident, then trading in general would be less advisable.

Clearly, figuring out the value of each stock in a given match is not as simple as applying stock ratios.

 

[odinNJ]

I think that confidence in winning without trading plays a huge role.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I mean, you know what's better than trading stocks? Taking one.
I think the discussion needs to be about whether or not taking an easy stock trade is better than going for the kill which may be harder/riskier.