| Player 1 |
|
#player1 Scott_Appel Scott Appel
#player2 Sean_Wrona Sean Wrona
>Scott_Appel: AGNOU 8D GUANO +16 16
>Sean_Wrona: BCMORRS E7 B.RRO +14 14
#note Okay, this is bad and I totally get why. If I'm not gonna score anything and I want to keep the S, I need to fish which means at least leaving ORS. I'm trying to figure out what this really is. Probably I just didn't think the play through. I just fixated on this without saying to myself 'Wait, is this really the best leave I can have after a play scoring this few points? No wonder Scott controlled the entire game afterward but he still couldn't completely shake me, which probably says something about how I played on the subsequent plays.
23:53
>Scott_Appel: EKPSU 12A PUKES +36 52
>Sean_Wrona: DELMOST B10 MO.LD +28 42
#note I considered playing SMOLTED* here. Glad I chickened out.
22:25
>Scott_Appel: ADEGIOT A4 GODETIA +87 139
>Sean_Wrona: ?ELSTTW 5A .WLET +16 58
#note 3 minutes and I couldn't find anything? I'm probably going to call this word knowledge though since I'm not sure I know wattles, I'd assume townlets was good but would never think of it, and I definitely do not know wristlet or wastelot.
19:25
>Scott_Appel: CDEEHIR G7 E.RICHED +67 206
>Sean_Wrona: ?FIOSST I8 SOFTIeS +67 125
#note Unbelievably stupid and I instantly saw that seconds after reviewing it. If I played it the other way that would give me a large number of potential spots I could play through. This essentially cedes him the game as row 4 is all that's left... Strangely, it sims much closer to the other plays than I think it should. Even though this is simming right up there with the other plays (and the I8 plays seem to be simming better than the I2 plays for some reason) this feels tactically very wrong, but then again Quackle sims don't care enough about board dynamics.
>Scott_Appel: ADHN 4D HAND +28 234
>Sean_Wrona: AIJMRRW 3E MI +11 136
#note This is me being WAY too cute, but it actually worked, so how much of a failure is it? I assume it's just a failure I got lucky on (because he had nothing worth doing on row 2...) Even 1100s would figure this out...
>Scott_Appel: IQ C9 QI +26 260
>Sean_Wrona: AJNPRRW 2F JAW +55 191
#note Yeah, I guess I see why JAR sims better. NPRW allows the opportunity for things like PRAWN (not that it would play anywhere), unduplicates the letters, all those letters seem to be pretty synergistic together, etc... Close call anyway, but I probably made the wrong choice.
16:13
>Scott_Appel: AFIL 1G FAIL +41 301
>Sean_Wrona: INPRRYY 15A PYIN +42 233
#note Played this first, then AWRY. As with SEX and AWEE against Matthew O'Connor, I'm wondering if I made the wrong choice. I'm not sure it makes much difference in either game as long as I found both plays in either order.
15:43
>Scott_Appel: EIV H13 VIE +27 328
>Sean_Wrona: AORRRTY H1 ..RY +30 263
#note Yeah, I should have played YAR instead of AWRY because at least that opens an additional bingo line. I did consider it and I don't know why I changed my mind. Basically FAILS is my only hope after this (or a remote RE bingo), meaning that this was a fail.
>Scott_Appel: EGLN 12I .NGLE +12 340
#note I'm wondering a little why he opened up the board like this with the sizable but not completely insurmountable lead he had. I know he had the blank at the end of the game, so maybe that's it.
>Sean_Wrona: AOORRTT B2 TRO. +17 280
#note This play was a lot worse than I thought it would be relative to other possibilities. I guess the problem was I wasn't considering the nature of the pool and how few bingo-prone consonants it had left. Having an equal number of vowels and consonants was a bad move with this remaining pool, but TROW would probably be much better against an average pool. Got it, but it took me a while.
13:29
>Scott_Appel: AAN 13A A.AN +26 366
>Sean_Wrona: AAEORTV C1 VOE +18 298
#note Assumed I'd draw another e. The problem was that I failed to ask myself, 'Then what?' The same issues with the pool exist where there are extremely few bingo-prone tiles remaining so I can see why this is horrible balance.
11:45
>Scott_Appel: EZ M11 Z.E +24 390
>Sean_Wrona: AABERTX N8 TAXA +38 336
#note Yep, I totally see why fishing is superior to this but I just don't think of these things. Since he had the blank it didn't matter, but still...
11:02
>Scott_Appel: ?CEIOTU O4 CUrIO +33 423
#note Oh wow, he missed a bingo so this could have been way worse.
>Sean_Wrona: BEENRSU O11 SNEER +30 366
#note DISBURSE is slick...
10:23
Cumulative winning percentage loss via Quackle: 30.0%
Average winning percentage loss: 2.5%
Significant mistakes (7): BURRO (poor rack management), OWLET (missed bingos), SOFTIES (wrong placement), MI (too cute, not enough substance), TROW (poor rack management given rest of pool), VOE (poor rack management given rest of pool), TAXA (should have fished)
And now I see my flaw with attempting to measure cumulative winning percentage loss. It appeared a lot lower in this game than it should have because I was behind the whole game, so I had low winning percentages throughout. Losing a cumulative winning percentage of 30% is a lot better when you lead the whole game and therefore had higher winning percentages on previous plays than in a game like this. If I really want to measure how I played (and I do) sum(winning percentage of my choice/winning percentage of the best play) is the only way to do it. I need a catchy, snappy term for this.
>Scott_Appel: ET K10 TE. +8 431
>Scott_Appel: (BU) +8 439
|
