| Player 1 |
|
#character-encoding UTF-8
#player1 Josh Josh
#player2 Michael_Fagen Michael Fagen
>Josh: AHIIMOS H6 OHIA +14 14
#note damn it, I really hate this opening theory. I don't know what's right. OHIA in the classic Quackle position like I did here, or opening theory position not giving back any vowels next to DLS and setting up my S. Quackle says I chose wrong when almost always it prefers this placement of a VCVV 4-letter word like OHIA, even when I have an S. I figured after I made this play that I had chosen wrong because Quackle doesn't respond adequately to either placement.
>Michael_Fagen: DOPY G6 DOPY +37 37
#note why did I allow this
>Josh: GIIMOSY I9 YOGI +25 39
#note my only other choice here seemed to be I2 YOGISM. Sad position I put myself in. This wins a sim by 4 points, which definitely makes it the best play.
>Michael_Fagen: OTTU H12 TOUT +18 55
>Josh: AHIMNSZ 11I .HAZI +36 75
#note J10 NIZAM looked so obviously best here, and yet I somehow talked myself out of playing it, citing the K5 2x2 and how that scenario gives me fewer options to naturally continue the game than anything habitual after GHAZI. I convinced myself the difference in equity was a few points, that MNS would bingo more than SH and therefore make up the difference in equity, and that the easy scoring GHAZI gives back is not a big deal, since Michael has one-pointers that would favour the K column rather than scoring huge with the Z placement of GHAZI. Quackle's evaluation is that of a very disappointed position of influence, ranking GHAZI 15 down in equity, by it giving 10 more points back on average immediately. This sort of play is what gives me trouble against Michael. Totally convincing myself that a really weird inference and exploitation-based line is somehow the right choice when I can just grab equity. This play gives him way too much of an opportunity to outmaneuver me on this board. Oh, and at least 5 other plays sim better than this. #strategysaddest
>Michael_Fagen: EFRU L8 FUR.E +42 97
>Josh: ?LMNOSV 9K L.V +10 85
#note I am an idiot for being in this spot.
>Michael_Fagen: DJO 13E DOJ. +20 117
>Josh: ?LMNORS 14F MO.RN +34 119
#note ok. this has base equity slightly higher than the bingos, and given positional advantages, it is the right play. At least got this turn right.
>Michael_Fagen: DEEINSW N4 ENDWISE +74 191
>Josh: ?EKLNSV I1 KELViNS +76 195
#note close to having missed this
>Michael_Fagen: ?EIQRR 2H R.QuIRE +70 261
>Josh: AGINNST 1L TANG +25 220
#note I've had this rack a whole lot recently. I'm in horrendous shape here now, for good reason. 15J ANTING is the other consideration. This seemed to help not give Michael too many super easy scoring plays, which is always worth something. #questionable
>Michael_Fagen: AEGITU 15J AUGITE +29 290
#note seems I chose wrong
>Josh: ACDEINS 4G DE.IANC.S +84 304
#note or not
>Michael_Fagen: EF O7 EF +35 325
>Josh: AAENOSW 1F WEA. +39 343
>Michael_Fagen: BELRTU 12A BUTLER +30 355
>Josh: ACENOOS E9 COO.. +16 359
#note bizarre spot. NOCE(B)O was not found by me. Champ thinks it does best, but that's probably very wrong. The benefit to emptying the bag is that if I draw the X, I am very likely to be able to outscore Michael's best sequences with the 11E spot that's hard to deal with. If I don't draw the X, the idea is that high-scoring x plays are rarely going to leave Michael with options to go out next move. But there are probably sequences that manage to go out that Quackle is not assuming Michael is playing. I thought this did best timing-wise, and blocked the worst X spot while going for bingos or 15A plays. I also thought about A(B)OON which seems too weak, and OO(T) which seems too fishy. I can win the game without a bingo after this one. #questionable
>Michael_Fagen: AAEIPTX 11A AXE +25 380
#note Michael knew my range was really strong here. He thought he could maybe escape in the endgame after this. Quackle likes AX in the same spot, which is interesting because it can threaten a lot of bingos which are hard to block and also win the game doing so. We didn't see this post-mortem, but it seems pretty strong
>Josh: AEILMNS A8 AMI..LE +33 392
#note I took a long time retracking, looking for 9s, making sure I iterated properly, and didn't leave myself enough time to confidently play a better win than this. Didn't see NAM(AB)LE, was only 99,9% sure of MIN(AB)LE, tried to find something like 13L SALE (setting up NIM in between), and didn't see ANIMES 15A, which only wins by 3. This I thought also only won by 3, but I missed the vertical outplay for 3 more. Sad.
>Michael_Fagen: ABIPRT B3 BIPART +14 394
>Michael_Fagen: ABIPRT -- -14 380
#note has to try it. BIPARTED and BIPARTITE, but no BIPART*
>Josh: NS 5I .NS +10 402
>Josh: (ABIPRT) +20 422
|
