Grouping twist chapter 13 IN/OUT CLOSED/SUBGROUPS

[Yit HanS103]

We know that the majority of IN/OUT grouping games are open with all conditional rules. However, in grouping twists, we learn of those few CLOSED IN/OUT grouping games - the difference here besides knowing the number of elements, its that not all the rules are conditional. Correct?

In the first game as closed- subgroups in/out game the book has on pg. 553 chapter 13 grouping twist

I diagrammed it like a mismatch (chapter 6 ordering twist) ei: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ |__ __ __ __
in out
Whereas the book suggest us for all in/out grouping games to use the logic chain.
I would like to know WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EITHER DIAGRAM. I actually got all answers right with the mismatch diagram. I tried the logic chain after, and I kept getting question #4 wrong. I read the explanations and they took a different approach (distribution). I also didn't find logic chain here too helpful with making inferences.

Why, if the result is the same, does the book suggest for all in/out grouping games to do the logic chain. But it also taught us in chapter 6 (ordering twist) to use the mismatch diagram? The only difference I see is that mismatch is more for ordering games, and the logic chain for grouping games though, I still don't get why not just sticking to one diagram?

Please, I hope you can help me have a better understanding of the two diagrams.

PS: I like your regular in/out grouping games, though I think they take so much time.


thank you!!

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, you either asked the right / wrong person, because I draw my diagrams more like you did.

GAMES is a weird thing to teach -- we crave some structure, since it all feels so chaotic at first.
But any structure we invent can get a little bit arbitrary and sometimes even superfluous.
There are often multiple valid ways of diagramming a game, and as long as they work for you, they work.
And sometimes we are trying to make a game fit within a pre-existing "type" of game we've learned, when we'd actually have an easier time just adapting our approach to whatever the task in front of us is.

So you should never feel like what you read in a Games teaching book is gospel. Experiment with your own ways of doing stuff, but realize that SOME measure of consistency has value, because it increases our ability to do routine Games faster.

I do almost all my games with horizontal lines.
If I'm doing a grouping game, I just write the groups as a series of horizontal lines.
If I'm doing a 3D ordering, I don't add a second set of lines ... I just write above and below the normal line.

If I have closed grouping (with subgroups), I just use a hybrid of those previous two approaches. I would write out horizontal lines to represent the spots in each group, and when I need to worry about someone's subgroup characteristic, I just write it with a lowercase letter underneath their spot.

So consider all the approaches you're learning as possible options --- see if you can see the value in how we've shown a game in a book or a lesson, but also feel free to test out your own adaptations. If you find something you like better, great! Stick with it and do it enough to make it feel normal/automatic.