I’ve enjoyed games all my life but have only made a hobby of it for the past half a decade. In that period I have been a successful player who maintains a solid win-loss record. While each game brings its own challenges and demands different skills, I have begun to question of what skills I make the greatest use, that is what best characterizes my personal style of play. I make no pretense that my formula is the formula, but only verbalize it to incite an exchange of ideas and to hear how others characterize their own play. Valuation I find no single skill more central to good decision making and winning games than the ability to rightly assess value. This statement is a wide stroke that embodies so much it may come across as vague. I mention valuation not as a characteristic of my play but rather the base for its foundation. The ability to properly value separates by way of a chasm the keen players from the feeble ones. A day offers everyone the same number of hours and each must choose how he will utilize those hours. A game offers players about the same number of opportunities and each play must be effectively used to advance one toward the explicit victory conditions. It should be blatantly obvious that a player who seizes every opportunity will outplay the one who too often overlooks fruitful moves in favor of weaker ones. I can’t tell you how many times I observe frequent gamers who can’t seem to make the connection between actions and results. This can be difficult because players can be bombarded by numerous factors and have a difficult time rightly predicting future outcomes. Yet in some games the mappings of actions to victory are quite clear. Take Hacienda using the combined variant. With most moves there is a clear mapping of actions to victory by way of a VP schedule. While one cannot anticipate one’s opponents with perfect clarity, it is easy (for some) to see that some actions net greater returns than others. While Hacienda is one of those games in which most things you do produce VPs, other games offer a greater periphery of options that can distract players into spending too much time and resources on fiddly actions that net no to low returns. And to confuse this goal, sometimes the path to getting the highest victory point returns is indirect. In St. Petersberg, for example, keen gamers have understood the early need to build a base of income. Toward the middle of the game the pendulum swings back and players must switch focus to VP-producing cards over income-producing ones. A player who drives after income the whole game through, will find himself bringing up the rear. Yesterday’s gaming included Primordial Soup. I’ve only played three times but I enjoy observing the synergy between various gene combinations so I expect this game will see more table time. In any case, a wide variety of strategies were employed, some emphasizing gaining more gene cards and some in gaining more amoebas. What stood out to me with regard to card emphasis, is that it appeared more difficult to maintain lots of cards over lots of amoebas due to the ever fluctuating Ozone Layer. It’s not difficult to maintain 3 cards, but it becomes increasingly difficult as you move further past that. Additionally, as a player must have more than 2 cards or 2 amoebas before earning any points from the respective source, it seemed ineffectual for players to hover at 2 of anything for a time, which some did. My sense of valuation tells me to break that 2 barrier on both fronts as soon as possible in order to net VPs for my efforts. If you want to have some fun in dubai don’t read this bullshit and get youself some Dubai Escorts. Those girls are extremely hot and very expensive. If you have some cash they are worth it.