Staking Champions or Gambling Addicts?
Posted by Nathaninch on 30-May-2007 at 16:00
Comments | Nathaninch's bio | Print 
Browsing through forums, checking out Runescape videos or from in game experience we sometimes discover champion stakers and the massive fortunes they have acquired through their craft. They boast their victories for all to see, their spoils including gold pieces and items that would take the average Runescaper months or years of hard work to acquire. It is well known that staking is the fastest way to make (and lose) money.
Staking, if you are unaware, is the act of wagering items/gp on a duel We admire these winners, hail them as champions and envy them. For my first editorial at Runehead, I am here to tell you that these 'champions' are not to be envied at all. Pity, is a verb that applies much more accurately.
A 3rd age kite shield stake win by Enycezgodz
These champions want us to believe that they obtained their spoils through sheer talent, as if they are a professional poker player preying on the many fish in the poker sea. They are either deceiving us, or more likely delusional. The high stakes dueling that our champions succeed at is conducted almost exclusively through DDS/whip stakes (no armour, only weapons with specials on or off).
Contrary to popular belief, the outcomes of these duels are determined almost entirely by luck. These champions we envy are not champions at all. They are gambling addicts on a winning streak.
Get used to the fact that high stakes dueling in Runescape is gambling. No matter what impression you may have of it, high stakes dueling consists of extremely little skill and is almost entirely based on luck. There are a few factors to the outcome of a duel that a high staker typically attributes to his success; attack style, combat statistics and the first hit. With some research, observation and personal experience I have come to the realization that none of these play a large role in a duel's outcome.
- Attack style is one that I've always found a little silly. The thought is that the different attack styles (strength, attack and defense) give you boosts to their related stats. Like, if you're on attack, you are more... attackier. You'll hit more often. I've never found this to be true, whether I'm fighting an NPC or another player. Have you ever noticed that you hit higher when training strength? No, you haven't, so why would you hit more often while on attack or get hit less often when on defense? It doesn't make sense.
- Combat statistics has some essence to it. Combat statistics play a significant part at low/medium levels (where variations are much more apparent) and duels with armour on (where defense actually comes into play) but high stakes dueling is almost always done by high-leveled players whose stats are almost always the same (maxed out or are darn close). The variations in levels are smaller, and have less of an effect in greater numbers. As well, the fact that a weapon is equipped without any armour skews things greatly to the point where statistics have even less of an effect.
- On to the first hit... this one had me sold. I staked for quite a while thinking that this was the key to my success. This is what the champion stakers take advantage of to win their fortunes. It makes sense right? Being the first player to hit would put you one hit ahead of them from the get go. In any duel that would otherwise result in a tie, you win. I estimated that this was the determining factor in about 15% of my fights from pure observation. I got curious and recorded the results of 1276 duels and whether the player with the first hit won or not. I didn't really know what to expect but after 1276 duels, the statistics made me stop. At that point, the first hit had won 658 fights. 658/1276 = 0.516. That's 52% winning percentage for the first hit... rounded up. Not an appealing percentage, and one I wasn't willing to stake large amounts of cash on. Throw in the rake (scammers) and the odds are against you coming out a winner. Perhaps 1276 is not enough duels to make a sufficient conclusion from. I think it is, but if you have numbers that don't support these (or if they do) I would like to see them.
So I say with confidence that high stakes dueling is nothing short of gambling. What then, of our champions? Do they really deserve such credit for rolling the dice, and coming out lucky? Do they display some talent that contributes to their success? No, they gambled and came out on the winning end. Good for them. However, they do lose just as often as they win. No one ever puts a post together about all of their stake losses. No one messages their entire friends list telling how they just lost their entire bank in the span of four duels. So don't be fooled by the wealth that our champions flaunt. They'll lose it in a couple of days. A week, max.
It's understandable how people fall into the world of gambling. Gambling is a very addictive thing because short of jumping out of an airplane, there isn't much that can provide the thrill, excitement and despair that gambling can. Our champions win big, think they own the Duel Arena, that they are something special and lose it all faster than they won it. I said in the introduction that we should pity these champions. We should. They become addicted to gambling and it's pretty sad to sit back and watch them behave like a maniac. Staking totally consumes them and the greed that is displayed is tough to stomach. If you want to try staking out, go for it. It can be a lot of fun. Just don't think you can master it and become one of our champions, because if you're not careful, you probably will.
Comments
0m3gaknight7 posted on 30-May-2007 21:42
I question the data to some extent on first hit. It would hold steady that in an evenly matched fight between maxed stat players, the one to achieve the first hit would get 10-20 hits to the other's 9-19. Over time this should make a solid difference...
What was your w/l record on second hit? Did you hold rules consistant? Are you maxed combat?
If what you say is true, the game would have to have some sort of auto compensation for second hit, oorrr....
The other things you claimed to have no effect really do, and some people took you on the second hit by them...
If there really is no predictable trend, how does one explain those who were able to consistantly win large amounts over extended periods of time?
Examples:
Raven588 *banned for bug abuse? Possible answer...*
Cursed You *Banned for rl trading*
Gragnowrackl (me) *Retired...*
Is it possible that some players have discovered systems outside of immediate observation?
Duke Freedom posted on 31-May-2007 07:16
Most top stakers who were able to win consistently oftenly bug abused at one point. Throughout history there have just been too many bugs in staking that so-called top stakers could have abused. The few of them that did not most likely just had extreme luck.
The point is that even if 'good' stakers are able to gain a small advantage, say 55% vs 45%, which would theoretically enable you to win consistently over time, this winning certainly wouldn't go without ups and downs. Yet top stakers regularly stake large percentages of their possesions; stakes of 100mil - 500mil are not unheard of and even larger ones exist.
Staking with such a large amounts, disallowing them to do many stakes if they happen to be on a loosing streak for once, makes the staking equal to gambling.
ijcai posted on 31-May-2007 07:26
To me it seems like there is some skill involved in knowing when to stop, who to stake, how much to stake, how to get someone to keep staking you, and being attentive with regards to issues like bugs and rule switching.
Put 2 death posted on 31-May-2007 07:38
I'm a staker myself, and have stake both of those two gentlemen in the photo. Staking is a balance between luck and skill, you will never win with just one.
These people should be admired for their guts and wealth. It takes balls to stake a 3rd age kite knowing there is always the chance to lose it. In my personal experience, I take a certain amount knowing it wouldn't affect me too much and then I set a spot where I stop staking if I win. For example, I usually take out 50m knowing that if I lose it, im done for awhile. Though, if I get on a streak and up with 130m, in an actual case - I draw the line at 130m, knowing I almost tripled what I started with.
In the instance where I lost 50m, I knew there was the chance to lose it - and I took it. My fault, not anyone elses.
Though staking is part of the game, and get used to it - it'll become more and more popular.
Trojann2 posted on 31-May-2007 08:31
Exactly, Cursed you was addicted to Gambling, The Day he lost his Main, He made a new account so he could get back up there and stake again.
Nathaninch posted on 31-May-2007 09:47
@ Om3ga:
The results of the second hit are 618/1276. Rules were always consistent. I have 97 strength and defense, but a large portion of the duels I recorded were fun duels against someone with 97 attack and 96 defense.
As to those who won consistently over time, I don't believe them. They either abused bugs, got extremely lucky or lie about their losses.
@ijcai and Put 2 death:
Being a smart gambler is good, but a smart gambler is still gambling.
Death, you should be admired for understanding the gambling demon and being able to control yourself. Not many can do that.
I want to make it clear I have no problem with gambling. It's entertaining. I have a problem with the perception that high stakers have talent that leads to their success, when they're just plain lucky.
Whether one thinks we should admire their guts, or be disgusted by their greed is all a matter of perspective I guess.
Sub-zer03000 posted on 31-May-2007 13:55
when i was a member, i dueled mostly for fun. it wasnt a way to make money, it was a tool to see if i could kill a level 60-90 with no food. it was the fun of the fight, not getting anything out of it, although i did stake a few times, nothing big. most was like 10k cause im poor rofl. and i lost a lot anyway.
the point is, not every one has the luck for high stakes duels. i hear people complain all the time "i got hacked" or "i got scammed" near the duel arena, i heard " i just lost 100mil, need stuff to stake" can you believe that. not only do they lose there money to this addiction, they gotta take others money too. when that happens, you gotta look at you self and ask "am i addicted?" just like in real life.
0m3gaknight7 posted on 31-May-2007 18:03
@Nathan
I have suspected that the true value of first hit is somewhat diminished for a while now, but it doesn't exactly stand to reason. The number of duels which come within one hit of win or loss is far more than 2 percent, even given that one hit is often a 0.
This means that unless jagex has introduced a way to favor the second hit player in their damage seeding system, you either got very unlucky over your data sampling or were beaten somehow.
However, the sheer bulk of it testifies heartily that luck is not a factor...
For some anecdotal evidence, almost all of my money came staking with my pure where skill is a factor.
And as to addiction, you couldn't be more right. That is precisely the reason why I quit staking and quit RuneScape. It simply will consume all your thoughts, all your time, and eventually if you are not careful, your life.
Duke Freedom posted on 01-Jun-2007 02:05
0m3gaknight7, I can agree that 'good' stakers might be able to pull a small advantage (55% vs 45% consistently is already very much), but the point is not that they can stake 10.000 times 1K gp and win 5.500 times and loose 4.500 times, earning 1000K gp...
No, the point is that they stake 10 times 100 mil and are then either bankrupt, double so rich or somewhere in between.
The fewer stakes you can do at the amount you are staking for, the more you rely on pure luck. That has nothing to do with skill or some people having more luck than others, this can be shown purely mathematically.
Do not make the mistake that saying "oh I have a 55% vs 45% chance so I'm a better staker and can win consistently". You will still loose 45% of your stakes and the fewer stakes you can do at the amount you stake with, the more dependent you become on your luck to win 55% of the stakes.
Also keep in mind that bug abusers, x-loggers and what not are rampant in staking and that the possible small advantage that "good" stakers might have will most likely be completely removed due to that - turning into a disadvantage and expected loss.
Staking is essentially a zero-sum game and if you throw in the bug-abusers and x-loggers, you are even expected to loose over time. Perhaps there are some good stakers who are able to gather a small advantage, even with the cheaters around, but then stakes they do are still far too large to say that they can win consistently over time.
Conclusion? Go merchant! Guaranteed profit there, if you have a little bit of common sense that is. Hehe.
Sk8rdude60 posted on 01-Jun-2007 10:49
"They'll lose it in a couple of days. A week, max."
That's not true. My friend has been staking for quite a while, and hasn't lost any, if anything he's gained tons. He's up to a few partyhat sets and a ton of santas/other rares.
Cheese_Bap posted on 06-Jun-2007 08:09
I do a lot of mage staking with obstacles, that is pretty much nothing but skill knowing where to stand and what spell to cast. Apart from that I agree with you 100%.
0m3gaknight7 posted on 18-Jul-2007 01:18
I did some independent research on first hits and got surprisingly different results! So far, using only controlled I have ran 76 to 54 wins:losses in duels in which I struck first. Although my data sample is small and inconsistant, I will continue this and see where it goes.
Duke, the advice regarding the amount of a stake is golden, it is what I have always governed my staking by. If you cannot take falling behind 10 fights at any one time on bad luck, it is only a matter of time before you are cleaned.
As to merchanting, I do not think it pays as well on the hour as well managed staking.
I will certantly continue to attempt to make cash on the rare market however, it is a great secondary source of income to have running on the back burner.