I just wanted to coment on a coment that says to win the first round is most important in elo this is very not true as what good would winning the first round do you if you used up all your pills? It was on a thread about someone who got then locked the thread, someone who said they couldnt win at elo, a vaguely similar thing happend to myself but it was because i was trying out a new Junkz/Jungo deck that was on paper ok but it wasnt quite strong enough to beat the decks it was desinged to beat i.e other attack manipulators or high power cards and obviously struggled against the sob clans although strangely enough I did quite well in defeat against even those clans the deck would just not win my elo was down to 945 but I changed back to a deck I had being using recently and won 3 games in a row then drew then won to get me back to 1012 elo, unfortuntantely no one has yet told me weather this deck is better or worse than the exact same deck I used with Hugo but now I am using Bridget as Hugo is banned. Perhaps there is nothing in it! Either way some one did say my deck before had a max potential of the low 1100's so if Bridget has slightly weakend the deck or has not made a significant improvement then I guess that would mean I would still be around that level max, I admit I probably cant get the most out of any deck but I think I get more than most would out of the deck its just there probably arent many players in UR who could get the max out of their deck.
I missed what the real subject here is. Or the point of the whole post. 1st round or Bridget? Pardon me if i missed the point.
Winning the first round - okay, this is not entirely true, not entirely false also. It always depend on your deck and the situation. It also depend on how you won the round. It also depend on how you would capitalize on that first round win. You should know your deck well, and know the deck you're facing. You should come up with a plan not only for your 4 cards but for your opponent's 4 cards also. Know what to take, what to block, when to overpill, when to attack, which card to match up, when to bluff and know when your opponent is bluffing. Winning the first round may give you some advantage on 2hko decks, but like most decks there are counters to that.
Bridget/Hugo - These two are very different strategy-wise . Bridget for life gap decks, and Hugo for attack manipulating decks. But any could work on your deck since Bridget jives with the Jungo bonus, and Hugo goes well with the Junkz. Maybe the problem here is your Junkz/Jungo combination. To be honest, i dont see that combination much in elo, but i really havent used either clans much to comment more on the gameplay. Jungo i believe, is used on high powered, life gap decks to counter Roots and GHEIST. While Junkz is a low pilling all around clan. Can they be played together? the answer is yes. But to get the most out of your cards, there are far more better combinations for both of those clans
I agree with bazOkajoe completely, however in matches with high dmg cards(2HKO) I think is very important to win the first round, because your opp don't know if the next turn you are going for the KO or just bluffing, so yeah I prefer winning the first round in those type of matches
If I could copy and paste a picture on the message boards, I'd go google up captain obvious right now.
I agreed that's why so many decks are built around 2HKO. That is why I always try to have 2 DRs in my deck.
I don't really understand the English in you post, but as far as I can gather about the value of the first round here we go:
In order to do well in ELO you need to always try to stay ahead of your opponent, considering both life and pills as indicators on the status of the match. I would argue that while you don't need to "win" the first round, you need to utilize it effectively or you will never get far. Using the first round effectively can be achieved by winning the round with a reasonable amount of pills or by bluffing your opponent and causing them to overpill.
A general rule that many players use in UR is that a game is more or less tied if the ratio of pills to life for one player is the inverse of their opponents. For example, not knowing anything else about a match, if one player has 9 pills and 12 life, and their opponent has 12 pills and 9 life, the game is close to tied (leaving aside circumstantial things like landing the only DR etc.)
I would say that trying to edge oneself onto the winning side of this ratio is very important, since after a good first round. The game can be more or less mathematically determined. For example, if I lose the first round after playing more pills than my opponent, it can be quite easily said that I am losing the game, and that I'm in a mathematical hole.
Some decks can use the first round psychologically like Endracer points out, and if that's the case for your strategy, then winning the first round becomes the way to win.