Monoploy: Luck or Skill?

[Lonhro]

[ QUOTE ]
Whose turn is it? Whoever's turn it is gets the right of first action. If it's player B's turn and he wants to buy the houses, he gets the houses.

And Lonhro is wrong. If you have a housing shortage, you have a housing shortage. If there aren't any houses left to "make change" for the hotel, you have to sell them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies, assumption is the mother of all f*ck-ups. Just thought houses/hotels=same as unlimited bank. Jedi is 100% correct.

[housenuts]

2 summers ago at my job i won probably 80% of the monopoly matches. we usually played 4-handed and the other people were just junk.

if someone is 'skilled', and the others are clueless you can usually abuse them.

amongst a bunch of players that are decent to good, the skill level decreases. often the best strategy is to sort of work with one other player to benefit both of you and knock the other 2 people out, and then just fight it out 1 on 1.

against this same group of people i don't think i lost 1 game of Risk all summer, and i lost maybe 2 games of chess out of nearly 100, and i'm no protege.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright, I have a few more questions:

1. Say there are only four houses left to buy. Player A has Hotels on his monopoly and Player B has enough room/money to buy four more houses. Player B declares I want to buy those houses. Player A then states I'm selling back one of my hotels, and putting up those four houses. Who has priority here and is this a legal move? Can Player A declare he's selling back one of his hotels (and putting up four houses, so he's really only selling back one "house" if you consider a hotel 5 houses, I think you know what I mean) after the fact that Player B declares he wants to purchase those houses?

2. Scenario: All houses are bought up. Player A has one monopoly with three hotels, all other property is mortaged, and has zero cash (for simplicity). If Player A lands on ANY spot that makes him pay money, does he have to sell all three hotels back? Remember, all houses are bought up and you can't build unevenly.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't really know what you're on about here. For starters, you can't have more than one hotel on any one property, unless you're playing retarded rules. Secondly, in between rolls, any player can make any improvements and/or downgrades to his property(ies) at ANY time.

2. You can/have to sell them back. Just because there are no houses left in the Monopoly box doesn't mean you can't put houses on properties, just like if there's no money in the bank doesn't mean the bank is broke. Make houses with cubes of cheese or something - they count.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whose turn is it? Whoever's turn it is gets the right of first action. If it's player B's turn and he wants to buy the houses, he gets the houses.

And Lonhro is wrong. If you have a housing shortage, you have a housing shortage. If there aren't any houses left to "make change" for the hotel, you have to sell them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are both wrong. it has nothing to do with whether or not it's player A's or player B's turn.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright, I have a few more questions:

1. Say there are only four houses left to buy. Player A has Hotels on his monopoly and Player B has enough room/money to buy four more houses. Player B declares I want to buy those houses. Player A then states I'm selling back one of my hotels, and putting up those four houses. Who has priority here and is this a legal move? Can Player A declare he's selling back one of his hotels (and putting up four houses, so he's really only selling back one "house" if you consider a hotel 5 houses, I think you know what I mean) after the fact that Player B declares he wants to purchase those houses?

2. Scenario: All houses are bought up. Player A has one monopoly with three hotels, all other property is mortaged, and has zero cash (for simplicity). If Player A lands on ANY spot that makes him pay money, does he have to sell all three hotels back? Remember, all houses are bought up and you can't build unevenly.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't really know what you're on about here. For starters, you can't have more than one hotel on any one property, unless you're playing retarded rules. Secondly, in between rolls, any player can make any improvements and/or downgrades to his property(ies) at ANY time.

2. You can/have to sell them back. Just because there are no houses left in the Monopoly box doesn't mean you can't put houses on properties, just like if there's no money in the bank doesn't mean the bank is broke. Make houses with cubes of cheese or something - they count.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whose turn is it? Whoever's turn it is gets the right of first action. If it's player B's turn and he wants to buy the houses, he gets the houses.

And Lonhro is wrong. If you have a housing shortage, you have a housing shortage. If there aren't any houses left to "make change" for the hotel, you have to sell them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are both wrong. it has nothing to do with whether or not it's player A's or player B's turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then what is it? Since player B said he wanted to buy the houses, he gets to buy them before player A gets to act?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, I have a few more questions:

1. Say there are only four houses left to buy. Player A has Hotels on his monopoly and Player B has enough room/money to buy four more houses. Player B declares I want to buy those houses. Player A then states I'm selling back one of my hotels, and putting up those four houses. Who has priority here and is this a legal move? Can Player A declare he's selling back one of his hotels (and putting up four houses, so he's really only selling back one "house" if you consider a hotel 5 houses, I think you know what I mean) after the fact that Player B declares he wants to purchase those houses?

2. Scenario: All houses are bought up. Player A has one monopoly with three hotels, all other property is mortaged, and has zero cash (for simplicity). If Player A lands on ANY spot that makes him pay money, does he have to sell all three hotels back? Remember, all houses are bought up and you can't build unevenly.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. 1st declaration happens first, player B has the right to buy them. This is crystal clear. Turn is completely irrelevant, however the game gets more interesting if you add a house rule saying that you can only buy houses on your turn before you throw since it is a much tougher risk/reward decision to make than after you throw.

2. Hmmm, I don't remember if selling unevenly is allowed, I am quite sure it is, but haven't played in a long while now, so got a bit uncertain. I am 95% sure he can sell just one hotel.

EDIT: In the official rules, turn is not very important, everybody can buy/sell houses and discuss and conduct trades whenever they want, regardless of whose turn it is. The games flows better however if you make some rules about it (i.e. it has to be your turn to initiate a trade discussion, you don't discuss when others discuss, do not interfere in other discussions before the initiator invites you etc.).

[_Z_]

Thanks for answering questions, Arnfinn, good stuff. Another one:

Are any there any types of collusion that are disallowed? Can 3 players at the start of a game agree to not trade with the 4th player? Can one player sell all his properties to his buddy for a dollar? Does any of this happen in practice?

Z

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Are any there any types of collusion that are disallowed? Can 3 players at the start of a game agree to not trade with the 4th player? Can one player sell all his properties to his buddy for a dollar? Does any of this happen in practice?

Z

[/ QUOTE ]

Long term alliances often destroys the game, let's i.e. say there are 4 players left and the 3 weakest make a long term-alliance against the strongest player, then constructs a scenario where one of them wins, then the strongest player would often be chanceless. The game is more fun if alliances are prohibited, since this forces the weakest players to manage to agree on a trade that puts them all in a better spot which requires tough negotiation to find, as opposed to allying which every braindead monkey can do. Then if they find it, the game is open again and everybody can keep on trading with eachother and the strongest player, long term alliances only locks the game in a pattern. Wrt collusion, if you decide upfront that your buddy is going to win and he knows, his chances would be huge, I would say 90%+ in a 4-player game.

[anacrime]

Can anyone else elaborate on this: "selling unevenly is allowed" ?

[Lonhro]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone else elaborate on this: "selling unevenly is allowed" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can sell one hotel only (from say, your green monopoly). A few turns or rounds later if you want/need to sell more property from that group, it has to start off by selling one (or both) of your remaining hotels, followed by selling houses evenly as above.

[ QUOTE ]
All houses on one colour-group may be sold at once, or they may be sold one house at a time (one hotel equals five houses), evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected.

[/ QUOTE ]

[anacrime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone else elaborate on this: "selling unevenly is allowed" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can sell one hotel only (from say, your green monopoly). A few turns or rounds later if you want/need to sell more property from that group, it has to start off by selling one (or both) of your remaining hotels, followed by selling houses evenly as above.

[ QUOTE ]
All houses on one colour-group may be sold at once, or they may be sold one house at a time (one hotel equals five houses), evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]Your post didn't really make sense to me. You do realize that there are no houses available, right? Are you saying it is OK to have hotels on Pacific and North Carolina, but not on Penssylvania? Your second sentence seemed to contradict your first b/c you're talking about selling evenly, while your first sentence talks about selling unevenly.

Also, your second quote doesn't support your reply.