I know he is working hard to fix things, was just saying it aloud.

I have helped him in the past, and will help him again if he needs help and I'm capable of actually doing something useful (which I'm probably not on the current matter).

oh and welcome back Th10. Hope we can lure you into some strat discussions when you have time.

I was thinking of posting a "tough spot" board every day to get people talking about different ways to approach certain situations. Might be good or might be a total waste of time..... will give it a go, though.

Thanks.

That sounds like a decent idea, but I feel like a new board every day is too much. This thread generally isn't super active (unless things changed while I was away), so like 2-3 spots per week might work out better.

This is a screenshot of my profile a couple of years ago. I thought something else looked weird too, not only is my top advanced score missing, my top normal mode score is too.

If anyone wants free Timed rating, I'll be playing for a short while.

So strange to be orange in Timed.

Spinst's wins are back in the system.

Will comment more later, but looks fun.

That would probably be enough to explain the daily rating difference I noticed.

A rookie rack 7 mistake costs me a T1 with Willy yesterday...

you guessed it.I put my 2 north instead of east, and had no spot for the 8 rack 2. Otherwise our boards are identical.....oh well.... need to pay attention...

http://www.triplechain.net/reconstruct?chain_id=6437670

Alex 3-zoning 5 different chains.. racks 1 to 4 were such a mess

Here is a spot of the day for y'all:



Not really happy with any option here, but a couple of possibilities stand out as "probably the best play".

I would do this:



The 6 in the left zone is badly out of place, but you should end up with good chain possibilities depending on what comes in the next roll. If you put a 6 in the last chain spot, you actually have a snake charmer setup. Next best would be a 5 where everything still plays pretty well. If no 5 or 6 comes, a 4 is sort of useful there too, so you can 5 zone 4s with only 2 more (might be good for winning a DC!).

^^ this

why not the sup-op dynasty with the three 2s in play...

I like Alex's for a DC and the above for a tourney...

Edit.. more I look the more I like Alex's.... middle can take a 4,5 or 6....

agree with Alex and Gabe. should also be noted that in the event of a ton of 2s raining down lower right between bottom and right boxes can potentially become a safe spot for 2s (poor wording I know) allowing for a potential extra safe spot when it comes to the end without ness interfering with chain potential.

SubArctic: unless you put a 5 in the middle for your 4th rack you really hurt your chances of getting anything out of your 5s. also you need a 4th 4 to snake them where the other setup only needs 3. which more than makes up for the potential wasting of the 6

My instinct was subarctic' line, although Alex's looks pretty good. Warped, I don't see how sub's line is any more reliant on a next rack 5 than Alex's.

Alex' solution is basically what I try to get in round 3 of a DC after three rounds, with 6s as major chain, of course and 4s as the single number. The two left numbers can be interchanged for a very similar and equally good (?) position.

If the last rack helps your major chain, you have a decent shot at a top, if only 1-2 of that number appears in rack 5-8

0 - 2.61%
1 - 10.43%
2 - 19.82%
3 - 23.79%
4 - 20.22%
5 - 12.94%
6 - 6.47%
7 - 2.59%
8 - 0.84%
9 - 0.22%

19.8% to be one of the only to 5-zone your major chain is not a probability to sniff at

Thx warped. All still a learning curve for me..

I guess what got me thinking is that in a DC the strength of the third chain seems to be the determining factor lots. While the advanced gets you to chain the two primary chains more often, the dynasty 3rd chain 4 zone can be a difference maker.

Is it possible that the advanced in this example might score better on average, but the dynasty might win more DCs??


After thinking about it more, I would take the advanced one over the sub-op dynasty.... and I should be looking for these types of opportunities more. As you note, advanced can handle twos way better.

EDIT. Actually I think Gabe raised the 2s/dynasty problem in one of the first posts ITT. It was neat to read the transition over time for you guys at the beginning from the charmer to the dynasty to the advanced...

I'd probably play it like this. I really hate when I have a setup where I can't snake the 6s if four of them come in racks 5-8, and I'd sacrifice the 4s a bit to have my 6s in a stronger position. Still have a chance of being able to snake 4s with only three of them if we get another in the next rack as well. It's probably close between this setup and the one Alex posted.

Seems like this brought some decent discussion. What I hated about this spot was that the viable options seemed all have the problem of having to "discard" one of the dice to a square where it does not connect naturally later.

It is, it really needs the 5, whereas in Alex's setup you'll have a much better setup without a 5 assuming there is either 4 or 6, in Sub's line an extra 4 or 6 isn't especially useful, although 6 does make them slightly stronger. The main advantage of Sub's suggestion is to have all 6s used in a situation where you only have one 5 and four 4s, three 6s are clearly the most valuable chain in this situation.

While this is true, in this scenario you would only play the 4 to center in rack 4 if there are no 5s or 6s, cause sacrificing the equity from your higher value chains to make stronger 4s isn't worth it.

This is an interesting way of playing it, and one that I didn't even consider. Props for finding a way to have all dice in natural positions. However I'm not so sure if this is that good of an option. Sure having all the 6s used is good cause of their higher value (like mentioned before), but if you don't get the 5 in next rack, you basically don't have a 3rd chain, also you can't improve your 6s if another one comes.

The first two options posted were two of my top three options, but I didn't use either of them, so how did I actually play it then?

Site is down it seems so I cant do a screenshot, but I suppose you put the 6 that I put in the top down in the bottom zone? So that another 6 in rack 4 lets you snake 6s with only three of them in racks 5-8.

Bingo!



Like mentioned in my previous post, 6s at this spot are so much more valuable than your other chains, that I wanted to get full value of them, so thinking in a similar way to mrg. I feel this play is clearly stronger though. Sure it is a bit greedier and riskier than Alex's play. But you can have really strong 6s, which is what you want when your other chains aren't strong. And when you look at it, there aren't many rack 4 combinations that leave you with a really poor setup. The dream is obviously 65, but 54, 64 and 66 all leave you with fine setups, 44 isn't that desirable. Just one 6 with no 4s/5s, one 4 with no 5s/6s and one 5 with no 4s/6s aren't very good, but not exactly terrible either, but basically you want two dice (not 55 though) to have all the 8 squares used. In the situations where there is only one, you will have to rely on your stronger 6s to bail you out.

Don't know if this is better than Alex's suggestion. The math to figure out so many remaining racks is just too complicated.

Yeah I agree that's probably the best play.

You played it the way I think I would in-game.

http://imgur.com/a/5E20J

It leaves a great setup about half the time (54 or 56 in round 4), and it gives you advanced 6s 60% of the time. 6s are just too strong to play it any other way imo.

I also had a tough spot recently; Round 7 of my DC yesterday. Thoughts?

http://imgur.com/a/0CEa2

Lol too late. Took me ages to download imgur to my phone!

Fixed the image showing.