James Robinson wrote:People seem to think that going 1 large is the safe option in numbers games. I don't see how it's any easier compared to any other variant.
In a 1 large, you could easily have 25, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 and a target of 900+, which would more or less be no points, whereas in a 6 small for example you could easily get given 10, 8, 7, 3, 5, 6 and a target of 445, which can be achieved relatively easily.
There have been many occasions when 1 large has tripped players up, and opponents have taken full advantage, so I didn't use 1 large, because you're trying to make sure that your opponent doesn't take advantage. Granted it failed horribly, once.
1 large might seem easier, but I just don't see how it is.
People seem to think that going 6 small is the hardest option in numbers games. I don't see how it's any harder compared to any other variant.
In a 6 small, you could easily have 6, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 and a target of 900+, which would more or less be no points, whereas in a 1 large for example you could easily get given 100, 8, 7, 3, 5, 6 and a target of 103, which can be achieved relatively easily.
There have been many occasions when 6 small has tripped players up, and opponents have taken full advantage, so I didn't use 6 small, because you're trying to make sure that your opponent doesn't take advantage. Granted it failed horribly, once.
6 small might seem harder, but I just don't see how it is.