Playing for extras

The author of "50 Shades of Red" opens the chapter with the words of Bill Shankly: "If you are first, you are first. If you are second, you are nothing". A tournament result is decided not only by wins but by extra points. This lesson explains what extras are, why "just good play" does not guarantee them and what way of thinking distinguishes the players who collect them. This is a tournament-level topic: in ordinary club games extras are not always awarded, and the rules for awarding them differ from judge to judge.

What extras are

In mafia this system of scoring applies: for a win each player of the winning team gets one point, for a defeat zero. Extra points are awarded separately for a contribution to a particular game. The author's example: you played well as a black, convincingly portraying the sheriff. The town believed your version, thanks to this the mafia won three against three. For this a bonus is due, for example plus 0.4 points.

To earn extras it is not enough to win. You must make a bigger contribution to the win than the other players, stand out against their background. The players of your team are not only comrades-in-arms going to victory shoulder to shoulder but also competitors in the fight for extra points. So in any game, besides the open battle of reds with blacks, there is a hidden intra-team fight for extras.

The swindle about "just play well"

There is an opinion that to get extras you must simply play well and make the right actions, and the points will accumulate by themselves. The author warns directly: do not fall for the fairy tales of experienced tournament players. While you quietly and peacefully accumulate points, these people take plus 0.1, plus 0.2, plus 0.3 and more in each game they win and throw you down the tournament table.

"Playing for extras" is a conscious strategy that differs substantially from "correct play". It shows both in the attitude to the situation at the table and in the actions taken. Your task is to make moves that raise the team's chances of winning and to describe them to the host as if the win were your merit. The line between boasting and objective description, between manipulation and permissible interpretation, the author leaves to the player's discretion. He makes a reservation: the criteria for extras are subjective from judge to judge, there is no single regulation, so his observations are rather recommendations.

Principle one: total responsibility for the result of the game

The key thought: you must not let another civilian make the key decision of the game, that is, decide who leaves in the vote. You must turn from the "led" into the "leader" and seize leadership. If the other leader's decision proves wrong, the whole team loses. If right, the extras go to him, not you.

What it means to win and take extras by role (according to the author):

• Don. To get some extras is simple: find the sheriff and kill him on the very first night.
• Sheriff. Make black checks; if a check proved red, try not to let it run the table, because this player will "squeeze out" bonus points from you.
• Simple black. Make an easy run-up, speak so as not to be suspected, and in the end become the deciding hand in the vote.
• Red. The hardest case, because you compete with five civilians of your own team. You must push the table through to moves that maximise the town's probability of winning, and leave hard counterweights if a vote went wrong. If you did not sort out the black colour, leave firmly red those who will decide whom to remove next.

The author notes: at the base of winning in any role lies the use of the strategies of the red town, so first of all master the devices that lead the reds to victory with an ordinary civilian card. The responsibility of the don and the sheriff is defined by the role, and their direct competitor is the leader of the opposite team.

If you did everything right, you will get extras. If wrong, nobody takes them off you: if you win, you simply get one point. The author calls this strategy similar to a no-lose lottery.

Principle two: either triumph or failure

Playing for extras is always either a triumph or a failure, and failures must be accepted steadfastly. A line of behaviour where you simply vote with the town by the will, taking a "passenger" position, is excluded. As a black you can do so if it leads to victory, but as a civilian you cannot. Requests like "mafia, shoot me please, I do not want to get bumps after the game" and "guys, I am leaving, I did not sort it out" are excluded.

The minimum a red must do: sort out at least one red colour and leave the right will. Or one black. Or leave the sheriff surely the sheriff, no other way. The probability of success by the author's estimate is 50 percent and above. Thanks to this you get extras, and if you err, you do not, as you would not have got them without a confident speech either.

By not leaving hard wills and counterweights you simply give points to others. The author notes that exactly confident and strong play is accepted in the grandmaster environment: a grandmaster differs from an ordinary player in playing harder and freer, taking responsibility, being aimed at the win and not fearing condemnation. He asks us from now on to notice that a player "takes a lot upon himself" not because he got conceited but because he wants to take the extras that belong to you. In his own words: "But that is not certain".

The bonus benefit of the approach

Taking responsibility for the result focuses attention on sorting out the game situation, and you really start to understand the game better. The author admits that by the end of a tournament you can get tired and think worse, but the mindset and approach determine the degree of concentration, and it affects the ability to penetrate to the essence of the game and make right decisions. Introducing this approach, in his words, will transform the game, the rest is a matter of knowledge and execution technique.

The key thought of the chapter: the mindset of "playing for extras" consists of total responsibility for the result of the game and the wish to make a bigger contribution to the team's win than other players.

Practice at the tournament (recommendations of the Academy)

1. Formulate initiatives in the first seconds of the minute: "I suggest nominating so-and-so, because...". This shows the judge who leads the table.
2. Take the will upon yourself and do not hand it to others. Frame it as an initiative: "My red colour is this, my black is that".
3. Do not repeat other people's speeches, strengthen your own arguments.
4. After the game describe briefly and exactly to the judge the three moves you consider your contribution.
5. Find out from the judges the criteria for awarding extras before the tournament starts: they differ.
6. Do not sacrifice the team's win for extras. The author says directly "of course, you must win".

For the red

If the team win is not counted in extras for you, do not change your manner of play: right moves will bring a result with time. But do not confuse modesty with passivity.

For the black

For a simple black extras come from the deciding hand and from work by the role. If you adjusted to the red leader's play and removed him at the right moment, tell the judge about it.

Example (compiled for the Academy)

Red no. 5 at nine confidently suggests lifting three, chooses the candidate, conducts the split and leaves the will: "No. 2 is red, no. 7 is black by the count". The mafia breaks the split, the reds win, and the judge marks no. 5's initiative with extras. The second red, who silently voted by the common will, gets only one point.

Self-check questions

1. What are extras and how do they differ from points for a win?
2. Why does "just good play" not guarantee extras?
3. What minimum must a red who plays for extras do?
4. Why does taking responsibility raise the quality of play?

Practice

After each game write down three moves you can call your contribution and one moment where you gave the initiative to another. In the next game, in the same place, take the initiative.

Typical mistakes

• Waiting until others decide.
• Asking to be "shot" so as not to answer for the result.
• Describing the contribution louder than it is.
• Forgetting about the win for the sake of extras.
• Considering extras objective.

Source of the idea. The chapter "Features of playing for extra points" from Dmitry Novik's book "50 Shades of Red" (2021). The recommendations for practice at the tournament, the example and the questions were compiled for the Academy.