Game: Shark

Thread: Re: Number of shares in Ravensburger editon?

joffgracia — 2008-08-12T07:20:36+00:00

Yes, it's the same.

Thread: Re: At least Two Ravensburger Versions

joffgracia — 2008-08-12T07:19:30+00:00

The 1991 edition has three sharks in the box, the 2001 edition only one.

Thread: At least Two Ravensburger Versions

spiritualcoach — 2008-08-10T04:41:33+00:00

I recently learned that there are at least two different Ravensburger Versions that have been published. One is from 2001 and the other from 1991 (published in West Germany). So, if you are looking for the Ravensburger Version you may want to just check before buying.

Thread: Re: Joining groups of the same color

erfalucho — 2008-07-28T04:35:10+00:00

I play the Ravensberger edition with some rules from the Flying Turtles edition.

cosmicencountermad wrote:
1. If I join a two of same color groups, say a 4 and a 4, does this acutally lower the price of the stock? It appears it is not legal to add tokens to a group of 7 or more, but it is legal to join two groups together. Two groups of 4 is worth 8, but joining them makes a group of 9 and it is only worth 7.
This is called the "Rule of 7" from the Flying Turtles edition and is what we incorporated into our gameplay (it makes for better play, in my opinion). Joining the two groups of 4 does bring the stock value down from 8 to 7. Furthermore, if this causes players to pay the difference then ALL players pay, including the one that caused the merger.

cosmicencountermad wrote:
2. When selling stock to pay the bill, is 1/2 of 7 get you 3 or 4 thousand Flying turtles?
It is half rounded-down. So the you would get 3,000.

cosmicencountermad wrote:
3. What if you go bankrupt (you sell everything and can't pay the bill)? Do you go to zero and start over or are you out of the game?
Although I've never seen that situation, I would say you are at zero but still in the game. Simply because on your turn, you can still get money by placing a piece (which is a minimum of 1,000).

I would recommend that you use the site's player aid (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/11105). It's excellent and clarifies a few things (at least for me).

Image

garygarison — 2008-07-11T02:54:44+00:00

Homemade. Glass beads as buildings, Risk cubes as stock trackers, Candyland cards as stocks, vinyl placemat as board

Thread: Number of shares in Ravensburger editon?

garygarison — 2008-07-09T23:30:45+00:00

Here's the stock breakdown in the Flying Turtle edition:

4 sets of share certificates in 4 different colors (blue, green, red, yellow). Each set comprises 15 share certificates representing 1 share and 5 share certificates representing 5 shares.

So fifteen 1's and five 5's. Is Ravensburger the same?

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-07-01T23:37:36+00:00

Sharks played in the CABS board room at Origins08

Thread: Re: Another rule of $7000 question

idiot crow — 2008-06-29T03:21:12+00:00

I have the flying turtles version.

Rule Book:"The value of a share on the index is determined by adding up the total number of counters of the groups of the same color.

I adjust the price index to always be the same value as the number of pieces of each color which are in groups. If there are no groups, but at least one piece of a color then its index value is 1,000.

Rule Book:"Each time a player places a counter in isolation he earns F.T. 1,000 ... Each time a player increases a group he receives the newly quoted price on the exchange."

A player gets paid each time he lays a piece on the the board. If it is isolated he gets 1,000 - if added to a group it increases the number in the group and he therefore gets paid the newly quoted value (after placing the piece), which could be the same exchange price as before placing the piece. The rules do not say he gets paid only if the price on the exchange increases.

The player placing the piece in the group is rewarded for increasing the power of a group and not because he increased the value in the index. The reward for a value increase in the index is paid through the shares owned.

Rule Book: Placing a counter next to one of a different color is only allowed if it creates a group larger than the attacked group. In this case the counters of the weaker group are removed from the board and the game. ... When a group is eliminated the value on the exchange will fall accordingly. In this case, all players, with the exception of the player responsible for the elimination, have to pay the bank an amount equal to the decrease in value, times the number of shares of that color which they possess ...

I would interpret this to mean that you only pay for a decrease in the index when pieces are being removed from the game, which only happens with an attack. Therefore a merger of a Blue group of 4 and a Blue group of 5 (if they were the only two blue groups on the board) would lower the index from 9 to 7 but no players pay for the loss in the stock market. The player placing the piece increased the group and therefore would get 7,000.

The stockholders still lose because the value of their existing stocks are still worth less than before the merging. They are just not as big a loss as the ones attached and removed from the game.

Thread: Re: Joining groups of the same color

Walsfeo — 2008-05-08T18:20:09+00:00

I have not played with the Ravensberger version.

cosmicencountermad wrote:
1. If I join a two of same color groups, say a 4 and a 4, does this acutally lower the price of the stock? It appears it is not legal to add tokens to a group of 7 or more, but it is legal to join two groups together. Two groups of 4 is worth 8, but joining them makes a group of 9 and it is only worth 7. The way we play, stock values only drop when pieces leave the board, not when groups merge.

cosmicencountermad wrote:
3. What if you go bankrupt (you sell everything and can't pay the bill)? Do you go to zero and start over or are you out of the game?You can't go below zero cash. If you still owe after selling in all your stocks with remaining cash value, then you have to start over from scratch. I don't know if the rules have changed, but there is no reason to eliminate someone from the game. We also allow people to keep zero value stocks, even if they bankrupt.

Thread: Re: Joining groups of the same color

Polgara — 2008-05-08T09:09:37+00:00

My answers are based on the new version of shark that has sections marked 1-4 and one marked with a sharkfin on the board, because I have that one.

cosmicencountermad wrote:
1. If I join a two of same color groups, say a 4 and a 4, does this acutally lower the price of the stock? It appears it is not legal to add tokens to a group of 7 or more, but it is legal to join two groups together. Two groups of 4 is worth 8, but joining them makes a group of 9 and it is only worth 7.
If I look at the stock table that comes with my game, a chain of 9 houses is worth 9000. Maybe I don't understand what it is you are doing in your example...
2. When selling stock to pay the bill, is 1/2 of 7 get you 3 or 4 thousand Flying turtles?
it's rounded down, so if the worth of the stock you're selling is 7, you'd get 3.
3. What if you go bankrupt (you sell everything and can't pay the bill)? Do you go to zero and start over or are you out of the game?
If you can't pay the bill, you're out of the game.

Thread: Joining groups of the same color

cosmicencountermad — 2008-05-08T08:41:09+00:00

Played Shark for the first time tonight. Several rule questions popped up.

1. If I join a two of same color groups, say a 4 and a 4, does this acutally lower the price of the stock? It appears it is not legal to add tokens to a group of 7 or more, but it is legal to join two groups together. Two groups of 4 is worth 8, but joining them makes a group of 9 and it is only worth 7.

2. When selling stock to pay the bill, is 1/2 of 7 get you 3 or 4 thousand Flying turtles?

3. What if you go bankrupt (you sell everything and can't pay the bill)? Do you go to zero and start over or are you out of the game?

Thanks

Thread: Re: Shark on Ebay

DarrellKH — 2008-04-17T12:32:20+00:00

If I didn't already have a copy, but had played it, I'd try to get it, myself.

Thread: Shark on Ebay

kendahlj — 2008-04-17T11:07:37+00:00

I rarely see this game on ebay, but there is one on there now going for $10. Auction ends soon though...

Thread: Re: Shark with blunt fangs

GaryP — 2007-11-15T15:16:32+00:00

We also played with the TOP variant.

Maybe this is specific to the later Ravensburger edition, but what is this variant?

Thread: Re: How is this for 2 players?

WalterLai — 2007-11-14T09:48:04+00:00

It is playable for 2 but not fun. First of all, alliances won't be possible. It is quite common for players to crash a stock which the leader has a majority of shares.

Neither will the game be as psychologically stimulating for 2. Since one can only buy or sell during one's turn, part of the excitement is that one can never be sure if one's holdings won't turn into paper by one's next turn -- after 5 to 6 other players have taken theirs. With two players, no drastic development is likely.

Thread: Re: How is this for 2 players?

Walsfeo — 2007-11-05T13:24:14+00:00

Philip Thomas wrote:
I think it works ok with 2. Better with more, but 2 is still ok. I've only played one or two games with 2 though.

I've never played this with fewer than four, at least not in recent memory. It would be a substantially different game with 2.

Thread: Re: How is this for 2 players?

Philip Thomas — 2007-11-04T10:08:29+00:00

I think it works ok with 2. Better with more, but 2 is still ok. I've only played one or two games with 2 though.

Thread: How is this for 2 players?

Brad Oliver — 2007-11-04T09:05:14+00:00

Topic says it all. I saw this in a local store and was curious how well it might work for two.

Edit: for clarification, I saw the Ravensburger edition.

Thread: Re: Another rule of $7000 question

JeffyJeff — 2007-09-04T00:28:24+00:00

ekh_86 wrote:
Actually, we ruled that the joining the two groups of 7 would cause the stock price to remain the same, 14, with zero bonus given to the player joining the groups.
The text from the English Flying Turtle rules I have is:

N.B.
A counter added to an existing group of 7 counters does not increase the value of that share. However 2 groups of 7 counters can be set up in different locations.

However the text right below that is:

The value of a share on the index is determined by adding up the total number of counters of the groups of the same colour. ...

This would seem to indicate the share price is adjusted so it matches what's in the grid.

But even though the price does "fall", there is no "margin call" (ie. players owning shares in it having to give the bank money) in this case as the section on "Price fall" seems clear to apply only when a group is eliminated per rule 6-1-d (placing a counter next to one of a different colour), not durning a merge per 6-1-c. The text is:

When a group is eliminated (see 6-1-d) the value on the exchange index will fall accordingly. In this case, all players, with the exception of the player responsible for the elimination, have to pay the bank an amount equal to the decrease in value, times the number of shares of that colour which they possess.

Thread: Re: Starting stock

docreason — 2007-09-03T22:49:07+00:00

JeremiahClayton wrote:
I created a copy of the game and play with a hybrid of both official rules:

- Shark-Zone game board.
- No money or stock at the start of the game.
- Rule of Seven.
- 80 company tokens. (No black side on the colored die)

The rule which provides players with stock-certificates at the start of the game only serves to increase the luck-factor in the game.

The rule of seven, as in the maximum company size allowed is seven? I don't see why that should be introduced. I find eliminating it again definitely leads to a greater chance of swings.

Thread: Re: Rule of 7 details as we play them

JeffyJeff — 2007-09-03T22:19:53+00:00

JeremiahClayton wrote:
I too play the active player can lose money in a merger.. since the active player is afforded the opportunity to sell stock at the start of the turn.. there is no reason the player should be afforded immunity in the action.
But the same thing applies to increasing the size of a chain that knocks a smaller chain off the board. The active player in that case also is afforded the opportunity to sell stock at the start of the turn, but is immune to price decreases.

It should also be noted that the player to the right of the active player also is afforded the opportunity to sell stock before the start of the active players turn... (ie. at the end of their turn)... the point at which those two players had the same amount of information.

Thread: Re: Starting stock

JeffyJeff — 2007-09-03T22:12:29+00:00

I've always played the Flying Tutle version and hence all players start with no money or shares. You have to earn both.

Like Paul, I don't see it adding anything to the game to start with any shares.

Image

myadestes — 2007-07-27T19:17:49+00:00

My home made copy of Shark

Thread: Re: Values of shares when removing / adding a building

echdareez — 2007-07-19T06:26:03+00:00

If I may sum it up :
If a company has a chain or several chains on the board.. the addition or subtraction of an unconnected token does NOT effect the value of the company.

So : thanks Jeremiah for putting the dots on the i so to say

I also found out where the problem was located : as I used the Dutch part in the manual, I discovered that it's stack full with errors and omitted things >>> next time, I'll just read the German part [as I usually do ]

thanks guys, this proves to be a lovely place once again!
/dimi

Thread: Re: Values of shares when removing / adding a building

Walsfeo — 2007-07-18T23:17:10+00:00

JeremiahClayton wrote:
If the last token of a color is removed from the gameboard.. the price of the company is zero.. and thus players are unable to purchase stock in the company.. although the players may hold previously purchased stock in the company.

Correct!

Thread: Re: Values of shares when removing / adding a building

unity — 2007-07-18T13:45:02+00:00

JeremiahClayton wrote:
echdareez wrote:
We played Shark last night and stumbled upon the following questions :

1. as the first player during your first phase of your turn, you will be faced with 4 companies which are valued 0. You have no money yet [no dice have been thrown] but are you permitted to 'buy' 5 shares 'for free' ? As they are worth 0 ? We decided to only allowing the buying of shares if they were worth 1000 [or more].

2. this will be harder to explain : imagine the following :
Y.X.XX > the 'X' represents a building, of company X, 'Y' for company Y and a dot represents a space > the value of company X should now be 2000 if I'm not mistaken? At least : if the X's are all there is of company X?
Suppose that the single X is being removed from the board by firm Y :
YY..XX > will the share of company X drop to 1000 ? Respecting the rule that you have to devaluate the value of the share by the number of buildings removed?
What if X builds another building like this :
YY.XXX > will the value of the share now rise to 3000 ?

thanks a lot for the clarification
/dimi

Dominic is incorrect on a couple of points.. but here are all the questions answered:

1. You cannot purchase stock in a company which is NOT on the gameboard.

2. Y.X.XX -> YY..XX = No change in value to Company X and a $1,000 increase in value to Company Y. Thus.. if no other tokens are on the gameboard.. the value of both Company X and Company Y is $2,000.

YY..XX -> YY.XXX = An increase in value of $1,000 to Company X.. thus resulting in an overall value of $3,000 for Company X.

If a company has a chain or several chains on the board.. the addition or subtraction of an unconnected token does NOT effect the value of the company.

my mistake on point 2.
The only time the share is devalued is when a chain is removed or, in the case of an isolated token, if it is the last one, in which case the value cannot drop lower than 1000$ anyway

Thread: Re: Values of shares when removing / adding a building

echdareez — 2007-07-18T13:12:26+00:00

Thanks Dominic!
1. I thought so, but I think I should reread the rules [where did I miss that one? ]. And yes, that we got right ;-) [a buying phase before and after throwing the dice]

2. wow : mea culpa! Thanks for the clarification / appreciated!
/dimi

Thread: Re: Values of shares when removing / adding a building

unity — 2007-07-18T13:02:33+00:00

echdareez wrote:
We played Shark last night and stumbled upon the following questions :

1. as the first player during your first phase of your turn, you will be faced with 4 companies which are valued 0. You have no money yet [no dice have been thrown] but are you permitted to 'buy' 5 shares 'for free' ? As they are worth 0 ? We decided to only allowing the buying of shares if they were worth 1000 [or more].

2. this will be harder to explain : imagine the following :
Y.X.XX > the 'X' represents a building, of company X, 'Y' for company Y and a dot represents a space > the value of company X should now be 2000 if I'm not mistaken? At least : if the X's are all there is of company X?
Suppose that the single X is being removed from the board by firm Y :
YY..XX > will the share of company X drop to 1000 ? Respecting the rule that you have to devaluate the value of the share by the number of buildings removed?
What if X builds another building like this :
YY.XXX > will the value of the share now rise to 3000 ?

thanks a lot for the clarification
/dimi

1.
You are not allowed to buy shares valued at zero. This is clearly specified in the rules. So for the first turn, first player is not allowed to buy shared BEFORE rolling the dice, but he is allowed to buy them after (you are aware you can buy your five shares/turn before AND after the dice has been rolled right?)

2. yes/yes/no, you add 1 building to the chain, the stock price raises by 1000, not 2000, so the new stock value is 2000

Thread: Values of shares when removing / adding a building

echdareez — 2007-07-18T09:20:16+00:00

We played Shark last night and stumbled upon the following questions :

1. as the first player during your first phase of your turn, you will be faced with 4 companies which are valued 0. You have no money yet [no dice have been thrown] but are you permitted to 'buy' 5 shares 'for free' ? As they are worth 0 ? We decided to only allowing the buying of shares if they were worth 1000 [or more].

2. this will be harder to explain : imagine the following :
Y.X.XX > the 'X' represents a building, of company X, 'Y' for company Y and a dot represents a space > the value of company X should now be 2000 if I'm not mistaken? At least : if the X's are all there is of company X?
Suppose that the single X is being removed from the board by firm Y :
YY..XX > will the share of company X drop to 1000 ? Respecting the rule that you have to devaluate the value of the share by the number of buildings removed?
What if X builds another building like this :
YY.XXX > will the value of the share now rise to 3000 ?

thanks a lot for the clarification
/dimi

Image

2007-07-16T17:16:35+00:00

i made a copy of the game.

Image

gamephotos — 2007-06-07T16:21:13+00:00

Board - Flying Turtle Edition

Thread: Re: How to be the biggest shark in the pond

marioaguila — 2007-05-26T02:19:58+00:00

Excellent tips...but we play with the Sid Sackson variant where the active player receive only 3x the price increase...so the probability for one weak company to get bigger is better.

Thread: Third Shark Game

a2greg — 2007-05-25T02:18:25+00:00

Well another month and another GLG gathering (3 players but the spirit of Dave was with us). It was time to break out Shark for the third and last time for awhile.

One thing stood out at the end - higher scores than our two games last month. The game had some very slow and even growth. Red and Yellow established early and rose to mid-price nearly together. Blue was always a little behind and green stayed way behind.

But a strange thing happened somewhere mid-game, Green established itself in the middle of the shark tank and grew like a little monster. It even took a bite out of players in a mild shark attack. No one could believe it as the Shark/Green die combination was rolled some three times out of maybe 6 rolls. It never really got beyond maybe 5k but it hovered there threatening smaller pieces of Yellow and Blue which made players edgy.

JeffH was able to shark attack JeffP and myself on our Blue holdings. JeffP had enough cash to pay off the attack while I had to do some stock sell-off in order to get out of debt. That hurt my chances.

As the game cruised to the finish line (@2.5 hours), Blue stock continued to rise and eventually surpassed Yellow and Red. JeffP had a nice portfolio that included strong Yellow and Red plus a competitive amount of Blue stocks. I thought it would be a close finish between JeffH and JeffP but it was less close than I imagined.

Game 3 Totals:
JeffP 643
JeffH 603
Greg 499

And the final totals for the series of plays...

3 Game Totals:
JeffP 1543
Greg 1401
JeffH 1360

Overall, Shark was a fun game and I have to say that I enjoy it better than Acquire. You have to be a flexible tactician and sometimes a gambler to win at this game.

Image

Walsfeo — 2007-05-07T03:52:14+00:00

Board and bottom showing components, including bits from previous games all in one box.

Image

Walsfeo — 2007-05-07T03:50:51+00:00

Home made Shark board, game in progress.

Image

Walsfeo — 2007-05-02T21:55:52+00:00

Home made Shark board, made of Polpar & Pine

Thread: First and Second Games

a2greg — 2007-04-23T21:02:32+00:00

Our group (3 players) broke out Shark for the first time and got down to some serious "business" gaming. We played with no house rules and with the optional 5 black buildings.

The first game ran about 2 hours. The strongest stock by far was green. It built an early lead and just kept chugging while the other 3 stocks never made much impact other than being enticements for a quick buck that was rarely ever realized. The game had many small to medium sized mergers and the pile of dead buildings grew. JeffH got hit early with a harsh shark attack that took all his money and forced him to turn in some stock at half price to pay off his debt. He had a hard time overcoming that. When the game ended, it was low scoring but close.

Game 1 totals:

JeffP 355K
Greg 346k
JeffH 294k

The second game ran about 1.5 hours. The board growth was considerably different this game. The yellow and blue stocks were the strongest by mid-game but they were dispersed into medium-sized chains. Red didn't really ever get going and green stood poised for money making for much of the game. In fact, high speculation on green completely emptied the green stock pool for maybe half the game. It did pay off a couple of times and then players dumped it to get the rewards of their investments. In the late game, I made a shark attack on the blue stock (even though I was heavily invested). It bit JeffH fairly hard and nibbled on JeffP's bank account. It was a risk as I drove down my most valuable stock at that point but it did some needed damage on my opponents. I hoped to push up the value of the stock a bit before the end of the game (it ended at 9k falling from 11k). But there was still yellow stock available and it was closing in on the magic 15k mark and I still had cash so I kept buying. When the bell rang, we were all a little flush from a lot more activity in the second game.

Game 2 totals:

Greg 556k
JeffP 545k
JeffH 463k

Fun, food, and fellowship was the theme of the afternoon.

Thread: Re: Another rule of $7000 question

a2greg — 2007-04-18T19:04:48+00:00

The rule of 7 seems a bit awkward to me and doesn't it change the way the game plays out? Is it more likely (using that rule) that a game will end because all buildings of a single color are used rather than a chain reaches 15k in value?

Wouldn't a better approach be to simply limit the bonus that someone receives when merging to something less than the value of the stock? Either limit it to a fixed amount of say 5k or like Sid Sackson suggested - 3 times the amount of the stock increase (ie. equal to an additional 3 share dividend).

It just seems that the rule of 7 goes against economic logic (losses brought on by good merging?). It's the point of this type of business and game that eventually one company rules them all. I would think that slowing it down a little by offering less bonus incentive might bring about less of a "piling on" effect.

Image

ScottH — 2007-03-13T00:28:37+00:00

Flying Turtle Edition

Image

itiswon — 2007-03-08T02:06:36+00:00

all parts in the game

Thread: Diversity and Patience Beat Greed and Fear

Lemur — 2006-10-24T03:06:09+00:00

Shark is a game that is reminiscent of Acquire, although it tends to be a bit nastier. There are several versions of the game available, from different manufacturers, with some differences between the rulesets.

The game played was the Flying Turtle edition, and – unfortunately – there was at least one GIANT rule played erroneously, which may have had some impact on the philosophy of the players (if not on the actual outcome of the game).

Interestingly, on the first turn, each player rolled to place a different color in a different area —in fact, through the second turn, only Chris had been able to add to any of the colors (Red) and, consequently, he was able to purchase two Red stocks.

Over the first third of the game, Chris led the way with Red, adding to a growing mass in the center of the board, and purchasing as many shares as possible each turn. He had a commanding lead in Red, and thus, was firmly in first place.

Green and Yellow were positioned precariously closely to Red, to the point that it seemed at any moment, Red could attack them. In fact, it would have taken only one Red token in that area to eliminate all the Yellow or Green from the board.

But, just as quickly as Red had ballooned up in size, the dice stopped rolling Red. By mid-game, everyone had sold his Yellow and Green shares, anticipating the takeover that never actually came.

Still, with Chris leading in Red shares with 15, and Bill also with 15, Jarett with 5 and Andrew with 4, it was clear Jarett and Andrew would need to do more to place competitively in the game. All the players, at one time, had purchased Blue shares, but Jarett and Andrew held onto their’s the longest, even as the giant Red beast snaked its way across the board to the 1 / 4 regions that Blue had made its stronghold. As Red moved closer, Andrew panicked and sold his shares off, leaving him with 4 Red shares, and nothing else.

The mid-game began to drag. With no affordable stocks left, and Red not being rolled, the Green and Yellow that looked like easy prey earlier, were now being built up, and began to present a risk to the once-unstoppable Red. However, no one was willing to sell the Red stock, since selling too early would almost certainly cost that person the game.

The major rule that was overlooked was the fact that if/when tokens are attacked and removed from the board, they are also removed from the game. This had little impact on the actual game, since only about 5-6 tokens, total, were attacked and eliminated. However, it did impact the players’ understanding, and probably would have resulted in the quicker sale of the other colors besides Red.

Buying on “spec” became the standard procedure — the player would buy 5 shares, roll the dice, hope to make money (or kill a different color) and then, sell the 5 shares back, so he wasn’t placed in a position to lose money.

However, Jarett, holding only 5 Red shares, did two things differently. He held onto his blue shares for several turns, selling off 1-3 each turn, but retaining the rest. This vision helped him greatly, as Blue was not eliminated from the board until after Jarett had sold his final share, something that took 5-6 game turns to accomplish. Additionally, rather than purchasing five shares of a single color on spec, he diversified, purchasing two Blue, two Green and a Yellow, or some other permutation of the three colors. Consequently, each turn, he had a 75 percent chance of making money (depending on the region rolled).

In the end, this diversification strategy worked well, as Jarett converted his spec buys into a ton of cash, and emerged victorious, with a not-insignificant lead.

Thread: Re: Strategy Ideas for the Ravensburger Edition

Philip Thomas — 2006-01-11T21:36:10+00:00

Good advice. The 5 stocks a turn limit is also an important consideration. For example, you should have stock in all 4 companies as mentioned above. But consider only putting 5 stock in a company your opponents have bought heavily. That way you can sell up if you have a good chance of lowering the stock value (that is, placement in 2 different regions will cause stock loss). Its always unpleasant to have to sell stock during a price loss...

Thread: Strategy Ideas for the Ravensburger Edition

jeffjwatts — 2006-01-11T21:15:11+00:00

I played a game of Shark a few nights ago and was thinking over some of the events in my head at lunch. This motivated me to look up some of the Shark articles on the Geek. Lo and behold, I noticed there were no strategy articles for Shark, so I thought I’d write a very basic guide.

These are rules I generally follow, but I welcome any disagreement to these rules or editions of any other general rules to follow.

Rules:
1)Turn 1, pick the same starting stock as a previous player picked for his or her starting stock. Obviously you can’t do this if you are the start player.

Reason: The odds of the person who picked the stock first rolling his own stock are 3 in 6 (50%), since the stock die has 2 wild cards and 1 of the particular color. It’s in his best interest to use the wild card for his own color since he will profit $2,000 ($1K for the build and $1K for the stock increase), and you and any one else with the color will only make $1K.

Then on your turn you’ll have $1K for immediate investment and again a 3 in 6 chance of rolling the same color. However, if the previous player has built 1 building, you may be able to build adjacent to the existing chain and thus be able to net $2K for the build and an additional $1-2K for the stock gain. (You’ll make $2K if you used the money you may have had at the start to buy an additional share of the color.)

2)Initial placement of new buildings for chains you want to grow should be at the intersection of numbered areas and the shark zone. For example, if you rolled a 1 on the placement die, you’d want to build either at the 1//2/shark intersection or at the 1/4/shark intersection.

Reason: This greatly increases the chance of the chain growing on subsequent turns. The odds change from as low as 1/12th to a 1/3rd chance (8% -> 33%).

A bad placement in center of a numbered section will only roll again 1 in 12 times. The color die will only roll 3 in 6 times or ½ and the placement die will only roll 1 in 6 times. ½*1/6=1/12th (8%).

Whereas, if placed at an intersection the color die still is ½ but the placement die has a 4 in 6 chance of rolling an adjacent area. There are 2 shark faces and the 2 area faces for a total of 4 in 6 faces of the die. (4/6=67%) So ½*4/6=1/3rd (33%).

3)Money invested in smaller chains with diverse groups has a higher ROI.

Reason: A stock with a lower value has a higher percentage gain when its stock goes up. For example, if a stock which has a value of 10 increases its share price by 1 it has gone from 10 to 11. This means its value has gone up by 10%. However, if a share with a value of 1 which increases its share has gone from 1 to 2, which means its value has increased by 100%.

4)If the remaining “safe” stock’s shares are sold out or very expensive, it’s better to day-trade in a cheap, risky stock.

Note: Day-trade for this purpose is defined as buying stock before the dice roll, rolling the dice, and then immediately selling the stock after the roll.

Reason: Sometimes it makes no sense to keep a given stock, because it has a high chance of being devalued by the actions of a much bigger building chain on the board. However, rather than let your excess money go to waste you can perform a day-trade. Three events will happen during a day-trade. One, you will roll the bigger building chain. In which case, you can avoid destroying the smaller chain for no gain on the day-trade, but no loss either. Secondly, you may roll a different color and/or location that have no effect either way. Thirdly, and hopefully, you’ll roll the stock you have day-traded. Then you can grow the chain, profit from the transaction and then sell off the still risky stock.

While you only profit on 1 out of 3 of the cases, it is still a better option than just letting your money sit on the table idle.

5)Diversify your stock portfolio early. It’s better to have 1 of each type than 4 of 1 type.

This is somewhat controversial; since in many instances specializing in 1 stock is the only way to win the game. However, early on specializing in 1 stock will result in other players not building that stock which will result in a low stock value. Whereas, diversifying stock types will result in a steady stream of cash and growth of your average stock value.

6)Do not get attached to a type of stock.

Just because you started the stock, don’t stick with it if it’s not moving up in value. There is definitely a bandwagon effect in this game and it is in your best interest to be on the bandwagon. Don’t hesitate to sell loser stocks!

7)Conversely don’t sell a stock casually, since it takes time to reinvest the money into new stock.

Sometimes it is necessary to sell off a stock that you are heavily invested in because it has become threatened by a nearby larger chain. Rather than selling it all at once however, it may be better to sell off chucks of it, keeping enough cash on hand to deal with possible losses.

Reason: This will keep more of your money tied up into (hopefully) appreciating assets and not lying around in static cash. Also, even if the stock does depreciate, you have more stock as a basis to start buying back into the newly stable stock.

Happy hunting sharks!

Thread: Re: Starting stock

Philip Thomas — 2006-01-11T18:08:26+00:00

Interesting. I have Ravensburger and have always played with Starting Stock. There's a 50% chance you can build in the company you have a share in on your go... so it puts more money into the game, I guess.

Thread: Re: Starting stock

jeffjwatts — 2006-01-11T17:42:49+00:00

I've always played the Ravensburger edition, so we've always picked a starting stock.

I would assume this would speed up the game since everyone has some starting income potential.

Thread: Re: Question on recent editions

peacmyer — 2005-12-09T05:42:15+00:00

Nope, the Flying Turtle bits are not as nice....

Thread: Re: Shark

Kaleidos Funtastic — 2005-10-22T11:56:14+00:00

Played this one for the first time last night at my aunt's, who purchased it at a sale for 2.50.

My impression was that it was a stripped down, fast playable (within 5 minutes had the rules run down) version of Acquire, and really entertaining and educating for its simple rule basis.

The black addition, as well as the 7000 max sounds very nice to improve the system. I'm not so sure though on the pay who causes may(hem). It feels a bit like the environmentalist point of view in the stock market business, but I can imagine that it can be highly disruptive in advanced gameplay.

But then again, the dice factor makes it just as entertaining as acquire is more deductive and intricate. I'd say two games for two different kind of occasions.

And for those who picture Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko: picture Kathleen Turner behind him with a kitchen knife from Serial Mom or War of the Roses. ..

Thread: Re: Shark

kvn299 — 2005-10-03T13:08:38+00:00

I have the Ravensburger edition and I play by the old rule that a chain cannot contribute more than $7000 to the value of a stock. This makes discourages people building huge chains just to collect the stock-value bonus. The interesting thing about this rule is that if you join two large chains of the same color, the value of that stock can actually decrease.

Thread: Re: Shark

Philip Thomas — 2005-09-30T15:33:14+00:00

Well, I don't like to point it out, because it is a bad rule. But in the example below the rule (which is ambiguous), it quite clearly states that Mary doesn't have to pay losses for the destruction she caused. I suggest you ignore it anyway

Thread: Re: Shark

DarrellKH — 2005-09-30T11:59:16+00:00

My group's general perception of the "black building" rules was "Eh", as in it didn't seem to do much for anybody, one way or the other.

When I read the (Ravensberger) rules, I gathered that everyone involved in a stock loss pays, not excluding the player who caused it. I'd have to look at them again, but I can't recall there being any uncertainty in the way it was written.

I've toyed with the idea, at various times, of designing a "Shark on steroids", as it were - with two or three different kinds of building chains (chains in which can only compete against other chains of the same kind), on a grid which more closely conformed to a plausible, geographic situation (thereby restricting adjacency in certain places, causing chokepoints, and intermixing locales for placement of the different kinds of buildings).

The one thing I haven't cared for in games with four or more players is how it tends to "dilute" the differences in assets each player holds. With only four types of stock, games with more players tend to lead towards decreased diversification in holdings, as play becomes more chaotic, and players are forced to be more conservative in their decisions. Maybe some people like this, but I do think it changes the nature of the game rather significantly.

Thread: Re: Shark

Philip Thomas — 2005-09-30T11:44:13+00:00

Not a board variant, but I play with 2 changes.
1) You have to pay out for losses that you cause (from your description it sounds like you play this too, but the rules are perversely otherwise).
2) Destroyed buildings are not removed from the game, so can be rebuilt.

It is a pretty good game, even without the changes.

What do you make of the variant with the black buildings? (when you roll black or white you can place a black building, in a space adjacent to nothing. You get a management bonus equal to the highest stock value, and share prices don't change) Later on existing chains can be joined to the black building, which then counts as a building of that colour. They stay in play if their chain is destroyed).

Thread: Re: Shark

DarrellKH — 2005-09-30T10:43:55+00:00

It's definitely a game of trends (which is just one of the reasons why referring to a fictional Wall Street icon in its context is appropriate).

Buying and selling "at the right time", however, does allow the dice to push you up against the wall, and this becomes more true as the number of players increases. In a three-player game, it's a well-reasoned assumption that investing in a chain two spaces away from a chain smaller by one building is going to reward you more often than not. The same assumption in a four-player game, though, is overly optimistic.

I'd be very interested in any board variant for this game (I have the Ravensberger version). I came up with one of my own, but I really think there could be some interesting things done with more convoluted boards having "choke points", for instance.

Thread: Re: Shark

Walsfeo — 2005-09-30T03:32:33+00:00

While Shark has a die rolling aspect, it's not the kind of random that sneak up on the unwary. After your first game, you know how the dice may fall, and know the risks they take.

It's a game of trends.
It's a game of buying at the right time, and selling at the right time.
It's about helping yourself more than you help others.
It's about hurting others more than you hurt yourself.
It's about walking away from a path of devistation because hey, they knew the odds.

I really like this game with the board version I modified from the Flying Turtle set, but I don't like that board as it stands.

I should post my variant somewhere.

Thread: Re: Two mistakes made the game run long

Philip Thomas — 2005-09-24T09:29:49+00:00

Yes, always helps to know the rules...

I play with a couple variants
1)You can lose money on your turn if you eat a chain which you have shares in.
2)Buildings eaten can be reused in the same game.

With all that extra money around, was there any sign of the shares running out?

Thread: Two mistakes made the game run long

Henry Rhombus — 2005-09-23T17:15:51+00:00

Shark (Ray, Max, Adam, Dave, Linda, Eric)

Ray arrived at the halfway point in Bohnanza, but once we finished tooting our horns in that game, I brought out Shark, a stock-collecting game with some similarities to Acquire, although the payouts and losses have no real world equivalent.

This turned out to be the longest game of Shark I've ever played. No company ever had a value over $9,000, and chains kept disappearing as quickly as they formed. A couple of isolated buildings would spring up, double in size, then vanish under the jaws of a hungry competitor. Dave kept on top of all the changes and seemingly earned money with every roll of the dice, most noticeably when he rolled "yellow, Shark" -- a roll Adam called while the dice were in the air -- and devasted nearly everyone else by destroying a chain of six green.

By game's end -- an end that came about through the depletion of red buildings -- Dave was clearly the winner, topping out over $400,000. I was fifth from the top with only $196,000, just barely beating out Linda, who had seemed cash poor from the beginning and always lagged others in stock holdings.

When reviewing the rules later that night, I realized why the chains stayed small and consequently why game had taken so long. (I usually review rules prior to bringing a game out for play, but the hours have been filled with painting and redecorating for the most part, so I must plead ignorance and ask for forgiveness.) The two rules I messed up are:

1. Placing an isolated building ALWAYS nets you $1,000.

I knew that placing an isolated building didn't raise the value of a company (other than the initial placement which raises the value from 0 to $1,000), but I mistakenly assumed that you received the current value of the company whenever you placed a building of that color. This mistake added more money to the game, which fueled more stock purchases; more importantly, this mistake encouraged others to place isolated buildings because they would often benefit more than their opponents. If I own five yellow stock, for example, while everyone else owns more than I do, I would place an isolated building and net the current value (say, $7,000) rather than increase the value of the chain. Receiving the proper bonus of only $1,000 would likely have encouraged everyone to build larger chains so they receive big bucks.

2. A chain cannot devour another chain of the same size.

I was mixing in rules from Acquire here, telling others that if you merged two chains of the same size, you chose which chain went away. The correct rule is that a chain MUST be bigger than the chain it consumes.

We had several situations where a chain of size two was one space away from an isolated building. Someone rolled the color of the isolated building, placed a building next to it (creating a chain of size two), and wiped out the other chain of two. This isn't possible, and my mistake created far more wipeouts than I've previously seen.

Despite my errors, Dave, Adam, and Ray seemed to enjoy the game. Max and Linda less so, partly due to downtime and partly due to lack of control. With six players, you have to ride out five turns before you can adjust your holdings and a lot can happen in that time. I've played only with six players to date, so perhaps I should try a three- or four-player game to see what changes. I'll also teach the correct rules next time, which should further improve the playing experience.

Thread: Shark with blunt fangs

Philip Thomas — 2005-09-09T20:22:45+00:00

Took this out to play with my friend Mark. Mark's favorite game is Monopoly, so I wanted something with similar features but better gameplay (2 player Monopoly is not good). From my collection I selected Shark as having both money and dice, just like the old classic.

Explained the rules clearly. I play two changes from the rulebook. First, if you cause a stock to drop in value, you do pay any losses from your own shares. Secondly, buildings eaten aren't placed out of the game, but can be rebuilt. We also played with the TOP variant.

I chose a yellow share, Mark a blue. Mark started, and within a few turns all four companies were in business, with Mark invested in all of them and me invested in all except blue, and particularly heavily in red. There was plenty of play in the shark zone and a blue chain perilously close to a larger green chain. However, before I could exploit that, Mark ate a red chain of 2 with another blue chain, causing me to lose several thousand pounds. I had to sell some greens at half price. Fortunately a little later red reappeared, this time in a corner well away from danger.

Finally I managed to eat the blue chain, and Mark lost heavily, choosing to sell out most of his blue shares to pay for the loss. I then invested in blue, since the other blue chain was fairly safe. I now stopped paying attention and got badly burnt when the blue chain ate a green chain of 6. Refocusing I realised that my 16 yellow shares at 4000 could be turned to value 0 (and a lose of 64k) by one move from Mark. He had 5 yellow shares, though, so maybe I had some time. I sold down to 1 share, and then ate the chain myself. He had spare cash for the loss.

Both of us now embarked on a buying spree for blue, he emerging with a couple more shares than me. Blue had acquired a couple of Top buildings and was now easily the biggest corporation around. However, my heavy investment in red was paying dividends as it grew to size 4.

Finally, Mark took blue to 15000, ending the game. Once we had sold the shares, I had 1.2M, and he had .6M, which suprised me- I had thought he was closer...

A fun game for both parties- Mark said he liked it.

Thread: A Shark Shocker

Morgan — 2005-09-07T22:10:43+00:00

Shark Session 9/3/2005

Its been well over a year since we played Shark, but I brought it along
knowing there would be a newbie boardgamer showing up for the night.
Shark is easy to learn, easy to play, and easy to setup, so I wouldnt
have to spend so much time explaining for the newbie, and the rest of the group wouldnt have to wait so long to get rolling. Shark can also be a nail-biter of a game, which exactly the right thing to keep folks interested.

There were five of us playing: Me, Mel, Dave, Claude, and Bruno.
Dave and Claude both picked up a share of Green as their initial asset.
Bruno went for Blue and both Mel and myself took a share of Yellow.
I knew full well that Dave and Claude were looking to sponge off each other by taking the same color. This is a very common technique used in our games. Two or more players can "hedge" their bets against the rest of the crowd by building up their color until the time comes to get out. In effect they act as a team against the rest. The only real move against this, in my estimation, would be to take a different color and build that up in opposition. The idea being that it would go un-noticed for a while until it eventually, and hopefully, starts to rise.

Heres how it played out after several rounds: Green had gone entirely nowhere, while Yellow and Blue climbed to about 8000 on the track.
Yellow had embedded itself safely with about 6 buildings inside the Shark zone and the nearby "1" Zone, and another two chained elsewhere. Blue was doing nicely inside zones 2 and 3, with about 8 hotels there. Red had just started to make an appearance and was climbing into the 4000 range. Green was dead in the water; no chains at all. Dave was quick to drop his Green shares in favor of the up and coming Yellow, while Myself and Mel were even with about 9 shares of yellow each. Claude also dropped his green in favor of Red and Blue this time. Bruno was doing well with a mixture of Blue and Red.

At about this stage the two front runners were Blue and Yellow, with Red becoming the new "hot" stock to own since it was cheap and climbing.
Blue and Yellow were mostly safe stocks since there was no danger of them
being taken over so late in the game, each of them having about 8 buildings and far away enough from each other on the board. The race now was to see who could acquire the most shares of each in order to punch home the victory. Owning 20 shares of either Yellow or Blue was certain to spell a win for anybody.

The final stages: The game played out without any chain being taken over
by another, simply because the opportunity to do so never arose. Blue and Yellow rose steadily from 8000 to 13000, with Blue eventually moved ahead and ending the game at 15000. Red had started to make a showing, but it wasnt enough to make anyone rich, besides being too late.

The final valuation:

Blue------15000
Yellow----13000
Red-------5000
Green-----1000

And the winner was...MEL our newbie player! His combination of Blue and Yellow shares plus enormous cash holdings was enough to give him the victory. Mel had gotten in early enough, with significant share numbers in the big stocks (blue and yellow) to really make a difference. While the rest of us were trying to diversify across the board early in the game, MEL had gotten on the right track first. Claude and Dave were slowed down by having picked a loser (green) early on. Bruno correctly guessed Blue but ultimately failed with a large collection of Red. I could count myself in the same situation by having focused entirely on Yellow and Red. Needless to say, we were all put to shame by Mel's brilliant play (or beginners luck). To beat the pants off veteran Shark gamers was quite a feat. Did I mention that Mel is an excellant Poker player too? Wonder if that had anything to do with it?

Overall an interesting game.

The final tally:

Mel----$289,000
Bruno--$276,000
Dave---$269,000
Me-----$254,000
Claude-$223,000

Free SHARK TIP! : Always buy shares BEFORE the die roll. You can make out like a bandit if you hit your color. If the die roll is not in your favor, just sell afterwards.

Thread: Re: It's Not Easy Being Green...

kvn299 — 2005-05-27T13:42:04+00:00

I love this game. It really shines, though, when people take risks and play agressively. In my experience, when everyone plays it safe--diversifying shares, investing in the same colors as other players--the game can be a real snoozefest.

In the first game of Shark I ever played, there was a ton of screwage and I had a great time.

Thread: Runaway Victory

Lemur — 2005-05-26T14:04:19+00:00

CK and Chris bought into Red early, and collaborated to build red up to a very valuable commodity. By the 6th or 7th go-around the table it was pretty clear that CK was going to win unless a lot of red was taken out, while he was heavily invested (25 shares to be exact). Chris pulled out of red, in anticipation of that occurrence, but unfortunately the rolls just did not come to do that and CK sold his shares for more than $300,000.

Chris was battered by not having any new colors to go into (CK controlled red; Brian and Michael controlled green; yellow was a non-entity and blue was available but the price was WAY too high to make any sort of profit. In last place, Chris now began looking to move up to second (since first place was completely out of reach), and began looking for an opportunity to take out Green, since Michael and Brian were both heavily invested there. Instead, no one got the rolls they needed.

There was but one hostile takeover in the game, and the rich just kept getting richer and richer. CK ran away with it.

Thread: It's Not Easy Being Green...

Lemur — 2005-05-26T14:03:07+00:00

For some reason, Chris P. invested heavily in green when most others were in yellow. His attempt to take over yellow did not work, but at no cost to himself. Enough people at the table were still in green, so the risk of it going under was somewhat slim; however, as people began to realize the number of shares he had, and the aggressive manner in which the price was leaping, many sold off green, to attempt to destroy the value.

Chris P. managed to raise the price one more time (to 14) and then sell it all off, for $154,000. Brian still had no choice but to attack green with yellow, if for no other reason than, if the price reached 15, the game would end. This was a HUGE move for Brian (as Chris P. surely would've ended the game, if able, the next turn).

Instead, the game lasted another 5-10 turns. Chris P. diversified his holdings, essentially matching the most anyone had in anything profitable, and still managed to win, fairly convincingly, with a total value of $283,000 to Brian's $202,000.