| Player 1 |
|
#character-encoding UTF-8
#player1 Noah Noah
#player2 Jason_Vaysberg Jason Vaysberg
>Noah: EEEEOPT 8D TEEPEE +18 18
#note Close in a sim with TEEPEE 8C. |--p
>Jason_Vaysberg: IX 9I XI +34 34
>Noah: AGHINOT 7H OH +28 46
>Jason_Vaysberg: OY J6 YO +19 53
>Noah: AGINRTW E5 WAT.RING +98 144
>Jason_Vaysberg: NOUY 12A YOUN. +26 79
#note As an intuition test, can you guess the difference in our (that is, Noah's) average score on our next turn after FA F10 vs. FA 10J with the ADEFIRS rack? Answer in next turn's commentary.
>Noah: ADEFIRS A8 DEIF. +36 180
#note Sims very close with FA 10J and EDIFY. Curiously, FA 10J sims much better than FA F10 - Quackle thinks the latter gives us about 14 extra average points on the next turn!!! I guess a lot of bingos -- probably mostly plurals -- don't fit after FA F10, and it seems very (or maybe just quite?) unlikely he won't leave us the ability to play plurals in response to his play.
>Jason_Vaysberg: DEFN 10J FEND +29 108
>Noah: ABDRRSV 6C BR.VA +18 198
>Jason_Vaysberg: GM C11 G.M +12 120
>Noah: DGHIMRS G5 D.M. +24 222
#note I thought DAMP might be too cute -- sometimes I think I make some poor situational leave evaluations, and wondered if this could be one such -- and I think was a bit worried about the giving back a stronger column H, but Quackle does think DAMP is much better than GAMP.
>Jason_Vaysberg: ?CDIOTU L8 CO.DUITs +76 196
>Noah: GHIQRRS 12K Q.RSH +21 243
#note This looks like an error ... I might've felt like I was down at this point, though maybe I didn't feel this way. And in actuality, I seem to have a significant advantage at this point. I noticed GRITHS, but don't think I realized that it set up QI, which is pretty nice. Sim prefers GRITHS and SHIRR, and I think I like those. I have some good Q chances with the pool and board after both plays, and their defense is much more thematic at this score. I think I prefer GRITHS to SHIRR because GRITHS takes out stronger lanes, though the points of SHIRR are a little enticing.
>Jason_Vaysberg: EIOSTUV K1 OUTVIES +85 281
#note It seems like GRITHS/SHIRR would've worked out particularly well in the actual game.
>Noah: AGIRRSU 1H GIA.UR +24 267
>Jason_Vaysberg: ACINNPT 14J CA.NIP +32 313
#note Actual rack.
>Noah: EILORSS O8 ROSE.I.S +117 384
>Jason_Vaysberg: ANTW D4 WA. +17 330
>Noah: AALOOTZ N6 ZOA +34 418
>Jason_Vaysberg: ?AEEJNT 7M J. +17 347
#note Actual rack.
>Noah: AALLNOT 4I LA.A +14 432
#note Good chance of drawing ENTOZOAL here. Not sure this is correct, though. I still have slight losing chances after LAVA, e.g. to his next rack, or perhaps other plays like BEA(T)NIKs. Perhaps LAVA is not even the spread play. I wonder if this turn affords me any 100% winning plays. OLLA O3 and TALON 2E were some promising looking early candidates, which look like they can lose to big plays (sKELETAL and KLAVERNs, respectively). Maybe something like ATONAL 3J is completely safe, as that weakens his options (after ATONAL, it looks like his highest scores are KeSTREL and BAcKLIT). I probably want to concede small win chances to spread here, though.
>Jason_Vaysberg: ?AEEENT H1 .EE +4 351
#note Actual rack. It looks like he had a theoretical shot here, with EdENTATE and at least one possible draw: KIBE.
>Noah: BIKLNOT 2C TINKL. +20 452
#note It was amusing to not draw an E, but get a (pre-GEE) playable bingo! Sad that he blocked.
>Jason_Vaysberg: ?AEELNT N2 ENTo... +30 381
#note I've never mETAZOAN I didn't like.
>Noah: BLOR O1 BRO +19 471
>Jason_Vaysberg: AEL D10 LA.E +14 395
>Jason_Vaysberg: (L) +2 397
|
