Snapshot9 said:
[...]
When you play someone better than you are, you beat them with
defense, not offense, by outthinking them, and thereby restricting
their offensive skills.
[...]
I don't agree with this. Of course I do agree with playing a smart game and considering carefully the balance between offense and defense. But I believe that when playing a better player, that balance is shifted slightly in the offensive direction.
The way I see it the choice between offense and defense--between going for the out and ducking--is about deciding which one is associated with a higher chance of winning the game.
For instance, if you think you have an 80% chance of winning by going for the out but you also see a lock-up safety that you think gives you a 90% chance of winning the game, go for the safety. Similarly, there are times you might estimate only a 10% chance of winning with an offensive approach, but because your chance of winning with a defensive shot is only 5%, you should go for the out.
My point in the first paragraph is that the defensive side probability is more sensitive to who your opponent is than is the offensive side probability, so the balance is shifted depending on who your opponent is.
Here's an 8-ball example. You're on the 8-ball which is is a few inches from a corner pocket and is close to one of your opponent's balls. You're partially hooked and can't make it without kicking for it. Your opponent has three balls left.
You see two reasonable choices
(1) kick to make the 8-ball -- 20% chance; sellout if you fail
(2) tap the 8 onto your opponent's ball, leaving him an open shot but also needing to break the cluster before he gets out.
In comparing your chance of winning for the two options, your opponent's skill level plays a big role only in the second option.
Your option 2 chance of winning might be 25% against a B player and 15% against an A player. If so, then you go for it against the A player and duck against the B player.
Likewise if you're playing a one-hole golf match against double-bogey-mike on a 200 yard par three with water before the green, you should probably lay up before the water on your tee shot to maximize your chance of winning. But if you're playing against Tiger, go for the green.
So how does all this comport with the "play the table, not the opponent" addage? I think that's something that's frequently misused. I think when deciding what to do you must consider both the table *and* your opponent. Then once you've decided on a specific course of action, you execute it without reference to who you're playing.
Double-Bogey Mike
Fargo