| Player 1 |
|
#character-encoding UTF-8
#player1 Noah Noah
#player2 Carl Carl
>Noah: AEEEOQS -AEEOQ +0 0
>Carl: AEHIILW 8D WHILE +30 30
#note AWHILE seems better.
>Noah: DEIIORS G5 IDO.ISER +61 61
>Carl: ABEIOQT C7 QAT +35 65
#note Maybe QI instead - my inclination might be toward that in a game, and Quackle favors it statically and perhaps in the sim (I ran it earlier but didn't record the result). ABEOT might mesh well with the R and AWHILE, though perhaps mostly for bingos. BEIO and ABEOT both feel kind of odd. I'm tempted to say weak, but not that weak ... like you will often end up scoring mediocrely, but better than you might with leaves that contain all 1-pointers, and worse than you might with leaves that contain stronger scoring tiles than the B. I'm not sure why the B seems somewhat worse than the M as a scoring tile ... part of it is that the M can form a lot more twos, and I guess the other (perhaps related?) part is that "M" is more of a soft sound that goes well in the middle of words??? B is an awesome letter for starting words and I think much worse in other positions.
>Noah: CEIKPST 13A PICKETS +93 154
#note I also considered SKEPTIC, but decided on a play which seemed -more defensive - perhaps much more defensive.
>Carl: BEEGIOR B10 BOG.E +28 93
>Noah: AADEINN A7 NAIAD +25 179
#note I believe this was my rack. I think it took me a brief while to notice I could play this on column A (I believe I had already noticed column H before he played, though again not immediately). I didn't see 11E ADENINE, which seems decent, perhaps better.
>Carl: AAEEIOR D12 A.EE +18 111
>Noah: EILNOPU E5 PIN.OLE +48 227
>Carl: AEEIORX A13 .OX +38 149
>Noah: BIMORUY 15D .MBRYO +39 266
#note I felt a little bit of regret or potential regret that I didn't play ERBIUM, shortly after making this play. I seem to really struggle with a lot of plays because committing to one choice that will determine the fate of the game feels wrong ... maybe because in analysis land, you are free to endlessly entertain many outcomes. ERBIUM seems not only better leave-wise, but also defensively - mostly beause of row 14, but also maybe a bit because of EMBRYON, which I didn't independently generate as an option in this game. The sim likes EMBRYO valuation-wise, though, probably because the pool and board are consonant-biased. Perhaps its higher win% rating for ERBIUM relates to defensive value and lower leave variance. Report: 4p 3286it ERBIUM 92.65/30.1 EMBRYO 92.08 31.1 D4 YUM 90.11/22.8
>Carl: AEEHIRR F3 RAH +14 163
#note AFAIU, Carl considered REHIRE and HEARER, but liked this because of the pool. Report: 4p/4658it HEARER 4.03/26.3, H10 IRE 3.18/20.2, RAH 3.17/18.9, REHIRE 3.15/21.5, 14I HEIR 2.72/20.2.
>Noah: ?EILUVY 10D e.U.IVELY +68 334
#note LIVERY is another, less risky option, given that I wasn't sure this was good. Report: 4p/4943it eLUSIVELY 99.58/66.7 LIVERY 99.3/55.2 Pass 97.39/26.9
>Carl: AEEINRU - +0 163
#note I'm pretty sure Carl said he had this rack, but I didn't write it down. He challenged here.
>Noah: EFLNRUZ J6 FURZ. +25 359
#note Carl quickly pointed out PHIZ after I played this - H2 FURZE looks good here.
>Carl: AEEINRU K9 A.E +17 180
>Noah: DELNSTT H1 TENDS +33 392
#note I missed SYNDET, which looks better, as much more defensive.
>Carl: EFINNRU J13 FUN +22 202
>Noah: ?GIJLOT 14I J.G +20 412
>Carl: AAEINRW 1F AN.IWEAR +62 264
>Noah: ?AILORT M1 .eTAILOR +66 478
>Carl: EGOOSTT 8L E.GO +18 282
#note We found that ERG 8L seemed to be a 2 point improvement over this in the postmortem, which Champ agrees with, but GROT is listed as a 3 point improvement ... I'm not sure why we didn't notice that. Maybe we miscalculated it, or only considered N2 TOES and not the post-CUM 13L TOES ... but even if the best sequence after GROT were CUM-N2 TOES, GROT would be equally as good as ERG.
>Noah: CDMNUV 12K CUM +20 498
>Carl: OSTT 13L TOTS +18 300
>Carl: (DNV) +14 314
|
