| Player 1 |
|
#character-encoding UTF-8
#player1 Jackson Jackson
#player2 Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein Josh Sokol-Rubenstein
>Jackson: EEEEIIX -EEEIIX +0 0
#note Q slightly prefers EX here over E, but its close
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: AADEINV H4 VIAND +26 26
#note NAVAID would be another candidate, but given Jackson's rack being very slightly better than average, it is a good idea not to allow more 7s to play, or even more precisely, not to allow as many high equity plays next turn that draw into bingos, since the board is far more condensed on the top, and without the I and G columns being protected by the V in NAVAID, 7-letter words are less likely and also score less
>Jackson: ABEKORU 5E KUB.E +22 22
#note bad play. KUE at least is a better similar version, and AUK is best. I usually love making AUK-type plays, but just missed it here. KUBIE is definitely worse than both. I deserve to lose
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: ?AAEEOW E2 AWO.E +12 38
#note also considered A(V)OW for 4 more. Scoring is nice, forking, potentially not as nice, and AEE? has a higher chance of breaking next turn. The forking of the 3 row can actually allow me to 3x3 if Jackson takes full advantage of either line. This turn depends heavily on Jackson's range; if he has weak bingo tiles, either play can bail him out. If he has an S, AWOKE seems better, not giving back the K column and I guess the 3A line. AWOKE allows more 7s to play while blocking 8s through the N, but opening an A for posterity at 2E. I preferred things a bit more open, but I might have been wrong. #questionable
>Jackson: AAMORST 8D MATA.ORS +64 86
#note did not see TAMARAOS, it's 10 more. It gives back a lot, but I can get some counter plays at 1a, so its worth it by a solid few points.
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: ?AEEOUW F1 OWE +32 70
>Jackson: LLOORYZ 1F .OZY +48 134
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: ?AAEGRU 4H .AGUE +20 90
#note I took over 8 minutes on this rack. I eventually saw ASSUAGER, the only bingo, around 6 minutes in, after generating AGERATUM, ARGUABLE, GRADUATE and RUNAGATE. At first, I thought ASSUAGER made sense, but because I was fairly certain that ASSWAGER* was invalid, despite ASSWAGE being an alternate form of ASSUAGE, I ended up deciding against playing it. Throughout the rest of the game I was fairly certain ASSUAGER was valid. If I had pulled the trigger on ASSUAGER, the time I spent would have been somewhat reasonable. I never saw D1 AREG for 30, which trumps my play of VAGUE by a few points of equity. In and of itself, ASSUAGER is around 9 points better than VAGUE, which is about what I intuited during the game. This was my first stroke of luck in what would become an absurd work of art, as not even making the best non-bingo play worked out by blocking Jackson's huge double-double. #knowledgemedium
>Jackson: DILLOOR D1 IDOL +29 163
#note devastating he blocked DOORSILL. I figured he had something along the lines of AR? here, and its tempting to play DROOL/VAGUER, but IDOL still seems worth it - he often has bingoes elsewhere anyways, plus if he doesnt hit, the D2 scoring spot is a big bailout for him
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: ?ADEGRT M3 GRAfTED +82 172
#note Spent around 1.5 minutes here, knowing I needed to speed up. I should have easily spotted TRiAGED, which doubles G and D. The only issue is the X spot that creates, but I would be slightly closer to drawing it than Jackson, so it might even be beneficial to me. Quackle rates this as a bit more than 2 points worse #findingsmall
>Jackson: EIILORR N8 ROILIER +73 236
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: ADEMNRS O4 DAMNERS +101 273
#note This was twice my average score after ROILIER
>Jackson: EFIJOPR K3 F.JI +28 264
#note JIFF is one more point, really no reason not to play that. FRIJOL is okay, but EOPR is preferred here
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: ?AEILPT J6 PA.TIbLE +77 350
#note Absolutely insane. To make matters worse, despite slowing down for a half a minute to look for row 9 overlaps, I somehow fail to spot PLATIEs for 3 more. This time, creating the X and Z bomb spot at 10F is somewhat contemptible, seeing as Quackle cannot quickly decide if it likes sacrificing the 3 points or not. PARTIbLE has some decent control. I can see attempting to close things off within 3 moves or so after PARTIbLE. After PLATIEs, not as much, since the R and S of MATADORS and the E and R of ROILIER aren't very intuitive to deal with without opening new threats, despite their closeness. Furthermore, the P on B9 can always be used to make desparate forking plays. Still, I rate this as yet another mistake. #findingsmall
>Jackson: EIOPRUU 1A PUR. +18 282
#note I think this has to be it, making a big lane on the A column, plus EIOU is not so bad with a consonant heavy pool. UMPIRE exhausts too much, UPO N1 I guess is okay.
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: CEFNNTV 13I V.NEN. +26 376
>Jackson: EINOOSU M12 O.O +7 289
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: CCEEFGT 9C CETE +17 393
#note utterly confused here. I decided to score and block the MAT and the I in PARTIBLE. I am definitely not in formidable shape, despite the unseen dreck, since Jackson will be able to play around with the ONOS spot for some time. I am hoping to be able to either block ONOS with a play more reasonable than T(OR)C or (E)FT, or play to the E in AWOKE to block the P in PURI, or just manage to outscore with another lucky draw. Worth noting that (E)FT is probably the best block, as I have a few draws to the T with my leave, and T(OR)C runs into potential (ET)H plays, which can potentially be fished for as well, but both of them interfere with Jackson's long-term plan. They may be worth doing. #questionable
>Jackson: EHHINSU 6D H.H +30 319
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: ACFGILY B1 .GLIFY +42 435
#note and for a fourth time, I draw into an overly lucky play to pretty much guarantee a win. However, if Jackson does have the worst case BISQUES A6, it's a tie, unless I talk myself into (C)ANTIC C9, which I don't think I would.
>Jackson: EINSTTU F8 ..T +5 324
#note no legit wins, just going for spread, this hits Q on both sides, A on both sides.
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: ACINQSX 11B CINQS +36 471
#note Easy endgame too.
>Jackson: BEINSTU 15G BUNTIES +84 408
>Jackson: BEINSTU -- -84 324
#note theres always a small part of me that thinks this is good. At this point, I had a bit of value in losing by like 50, but really no harm in losing by more than 150 once I already guarantee that, so no harm in trying this
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: AX A3 AX +36 507
>Josh_Sokol-Rubenstein: (BEINSTU) +18 525
|
