| Player 1 |
|
#character-encoding UTF-8
#player1 Orry Orry
#player2 Noah Noah
>Orry: III -III +0 0
>Noah: CIINTUY 8H UNITY +24 24
>Orry: AEIRSTT K4 TRIS.ATE +82 82
>Noah: CCHISSY 4H CYS.IC +32 56
#note I had trouble deciding between this and ITCHY. This sims A LOT better.
>Orry: LNO J6 LO.N +14 96
>Noah: ADHIIPS L11 HIP +21 77
#note Not sure of this rack but it feels right.
>Orry: RRU M4 .URR +7 103
>Noah: ADIMNSZ H1 ZIN. +45 122
#note Ditto the previous note.
>Orry: NOW M12 NOW +22 125
>Noah: AADEFMS I2 FA. +18 140
>Orry: ?ELTX 15K iXTLE +64 189
>Noah: ADEGIMS 5B DEGAMIS +88 228
>Orry: AEEKRRT F5 .ARKETER +68 257
>Noah: AEGGHMO E9 HEMAGOG +95 323
>Orry: ?DELNOW H8 .NpLOWED +86 343
>Noah: IOOQSUV - +0 323
#note Challenged after a think. I thought my winning chances were pretty good if I just didn't challenged, and was tempted not to challenge, but decided to anyway. I might have some ego invested in not allowing phony words which causes me to challenge more than I should. On the other hand, with the state of my word knowledge, I'm not expected to get every word in a game right, so it might be good to accept that sometimes I *am* going to challenge a good word, like I did here. The preceding was written earlier: this later part is written on or after 1/23/23 I still feel kind of weird about my process with insecure words ... like I feel my reasoning when challenging was impure in some way. While writing this commentary, I feel more relaxed though ... similarly, when, tonight, I recalled my thinking on the commentary of the UNWHEELS turn against Wally Schultz, I also kind of felt more relaxed. Not sure what else to say about it. It's like I was worried about people judging me, or had internalized something very judgy, and am currently not feeling that judgy, perhaps largely thanks to a recent series of lively responses to a Tweet I wrote.
>Orry: AEO 1H .OEA +23 366
>Noah: IOOQSUV 13C VO.S +31 354
#note I noticed I might be able to draw into a monster QUIFF play at some point. A 4-ply sim really likes B1 OVOID here (with OVOIDS in second), I think because of big Q scores on row 1, but QUAS(AR), which I am only seeing now, in analysis, might also be a significant factor. QIS and QUIFF (which I fish one more tile for with OVOID than with VOGS) are also good.
>Orry: AADT 4A DATA +25 391
>Noah: EIIOOQU A1 QUI. +42 396
#note I think this was my rack.
>Orry: BNRU 15A BRUN. +27 418
>Noah: EEIJOOV 12D J.. +38 434
>Orry: DE N13 DE. +24 442
>Noah: EEIOOPV 3F VE..E +11 445
#note I think I noticed this pretty fast, and felt like it looked unappealing, but that blocking the F was good. As I kept thinking about the position, I eventually noticed POORI, which seemed to raise this play's stock a lot ... I think I thought maybe I could win if Orry misses POORI. A problem with that is, if he just doesn't see it and plays the simple FLAB J11, he still wins. EVITE is 4 better on Champ, but I think I still like going for the steal ... also, if he doesn't play a GTO endgame, which seems quite plausible, the valuations change, though (maybe??? I might need to check this) that could also put EVITE or some other play a fair bit higher than VENAE on expected spread. Another factor is that my spread was maybe not that good here. I'm not sure how that factors into things exactly ... I think you should care the most about spread with a competitive spread ... if your spread is much higher or much lower than other players', it feels more tankable. Also, in the actual game I usually don't have full info about what other's spreads are, even if it is public. I think this has often been confusing for me ... like I feel like I've often had a tendency to conflate "public info" with my info, which seems to have something to do with the way I (most people in our society?) learn about social reality. A first gloss at the definition of "public info" would say that it is info that "everyone has easy access to", but of course, "easy access" is situational - I can't Google in the woods with no internet connection, or, as in this game, look at the standings during a game (maybe I'm lucky and there's a piece of paper with them listed right by me, though that could be considered unethical by some). I think part of what makes annotating games tricky for me has to do with the different ways in which certain sorts of information would be considered "knowable".
>Orry: ABEFIL 7B FLIE. +9 451
#note I think Orry did eventually see POORI before playing ... or maybe he said he happened to see it after FLIER? The former seems like it makes more sense, but I think he did say he didn't see it at first. I think Orry had plenty of time for this endgame ... maybe 4-9 minutes.
>Noah: IOOP J11 POO +13 458
>Orry: AB 3C AB +20 471
>Orry: (I) +2 473
|
