The 1st round of the 2020 Summer Match Play is over, and the matches are up for round 2.

Thanks to all who played in round 1. The round 2 matches are below in yellow.

Please join your match within three days and you have until July 25th at 11PM ET to complete the 50 games.

Have fun!!!

I was the only one of the top 8 seeds to lose in the first round.

Thanks for the strat discussion, AK. Despite my efforts to keep as many options as possible open, I tend to have a very strict geography when it comes to the openings, generally with a north-south orientation (my placement of 1s and 2s and useless 3s along the way are related to this orientation). So the idea of using the 66444 in a way the allows you to either make the Dynasty on a north-south axis or the advanced in an east-west direction is something I never would have considered. Pretty cool.

I have seen others do something similar -- maybe waffles and Hg80? -- but never put together the rationale behind it.

Regarding the 4/3/1 -- I've always played the inner version.

I'm not sure what the debate is. I can't think of a single scenario where outer is better than inner.

Also, nobody review games. More people playing different, crazy, insane strategies is way more fun. Arctic is basically my clone after we played so much timed together early on. I'm also in the waffles camp, just place the tiles down in under 90 seconds and then curse at all the obvious mistakes you made. A few weeks ago, I needed a 6 (maybe?) in rack 9 to snake it, I got a 6, and didn't snake it. I cursed, closed the window and didn't even realize until the next day when I wondered why I had done so badly.

I find deciding between the inner advanced and outer advanced the most challenging part of the advanced strategy and although I prefer the outer advanced and actively favour it (it plays a bit better 5-9), I find it a lot less flexible than the inner strategy for setting up in rounds 1-4.

I probably run into this problem because I opt to play the advanced route a lot earlier than most players.

Assuming you get 6655x in the first rack (sometimes I will even opt for this with a 665xx) and then getting a 6xxxx in the second rack my 6s are set up like this with either the 5's looking like this.



or this



I do this set up instead of the one required for the inner strategy that would look like this.

[img[https://i.imgur.com/q1IK2k1.png[/img]

So as to avoid the competition between the 5s and 6s for the central rack placement on racks 3 and 4. In my mind the 6s has initial priority which means any 5 on rack 3 is going to be wasted since I want to avoid placing in the upper zone because then a 5 is essential in rack 4 or you've got a mess. Whereas the the inner placement strategy allows for the 6 to be completed and a 5 on the third rack to still have use if you only got 2 in the opening racks.

I also tend to play this way because since I'm prioritising completing the 6 rack I can through all the junk 3's/additional 6s into the bottom right area leaving the top left area free to place additional 4's that are going to chain off in the event that I have to place a 4 for the inner strategy.

In contrast with the outer strategy



I can't be sure where my chain of 4s is going to be going so I might waste them placing them top right and then not getting a 6 in rack 4.

This is just my reasoning behind the reason I tend to favour playing inner on common rack 1-4s but given the right racks I do try and play the outer variant.

It is a discussion, not a debate. people are sharing preferences and their reasoning.. I assume, hoping to learn why other people do different things/which play might be best in certain situations.


I think people should be allowed to review games if they want to. It wont create a bunch of people playing exactly the same way. It might just result in minor changes here and there. Most people are ok just playing, but some want to improve. Why discourage improvement?

Yeah, we played a ton of timed and we ended up playing many boards the same way. We had lots of DC ties. But starting maybe 2018 I made some changes (maybe you did too.. I don't know) and I find our tie % is much, much less than it used to be, which would indicate that we are not playing the same.

BTW, calling me your clone seems at best odd, and at worst insulting and arrogant.

I do not think my results compared to your results support that I am some version of you .

We are our own players, each with different strengths and weaknesses.


whatever works...

Yeah. One thing some people miss is misaligned dynasty opportunities when they get tunneled on orientation. It can be, hey wait, there is an "upside down" dynasty here, or I can re-orientate my board to get the same dynasty with ones in a better position.

Anyway, nails, I can relate. I still miss lots of options where I fail to spot a better opening because my head was locked on a NW-SE advanced orientation (or something like that), and I didn't see a better option on a different axis.

BTW, me noting the way Bandwagon plays the 64XXX followed by 644XX was not that because it is brand new. It really isn't, as many players who hold out for the dynasty from rack one on will play it this way. I thought it was novel for Bandwagon to do it, because it was not a play to continue with the dynasty, but rather a better advanced play with dynasty fall-back.

I would guess cherrycin (for example) might make the same play, but for different reasons/options than Bandwagon.

Good points in post 6280 Bandwagon. That all makes sense.

What just happened?

I didn't see a single reason mentioned here for outer to be better than inner. I can't think of a single reason for outer to be better than inner. It's not much of a debate, unless I missed something obvious. Please name one.

I was joking... I didn't actually call for a ban on reviewing games

IDK what's going on, but let's call me your clone if that's better for you, and my point stands.

I'm genuinely interested in knowing how outer is better than inner. Am I missing something stupidly obvious? Inner has everything outer has and more.

I'll post some situations this weekend where/why I think it would be better, and you or anybody can weigh in...

I just thought of one very specific scenario. A 66655 rack 5, followed by a 55xxx rack 6, followed by no 5s. It would leave you needing a 5 in rack 9, whereas with outer you would not need the 5 in the middle. There may be a few other very specific scenarios like this, but I'm talking more broadly.

Ya I do that for exactly the reasons AK mentioned.

I'm on my phone so won't post pictures now but with all the HU games I've been playing I've actually thought about the outer vs inner alot recently. Typically, I try to keep the option between Dynasty and advanced open for as long as possible with the exception being if I get 3 of the same number in rack 1 (4,5,6). In those cases I'll immediately go advanced figuring it gives me the higher maximum score.

Let's say you get a 6665X or 6664x rack. This is difficult to explain without pictures but if you think about the optimal location for that 4 or 5 and where the resulting chains will lead. There's also some score maximization scenarios AK's likely referring to that comprise maybe 10-20% of racks where outer is better than inner, mostly around where your play leads to you needing to bink the rack 9 snake and don't. Not sure how applicable that is for the DC in general though.

Yeah, but this does not make inner worse. You are choosing to go down that path with needing to bink rack 9 because it is a +EV play. You can always play the 2nd 5 (if 5s are the incomplete chain) in the middle zone and not need to bink rack 9. Having more options and getting unlucky in rack 9 does not make outer better than inner.

Not your fault arjun, but I feel like I am put in a position to defend a position I didn't make. As you can see above, my comments about the 4.3.1 outer are reflection of my preferences (under certain conditions), and I acknowledged that I don't know the math that would prove which one is better.

Of the two openings below (4/3/1 inner and outer), I do not like playing the inner when there are 3 or more 1s in the opening racks. As we all know, you may need rack 9 to complete the 6s in the example below, and there is about a 60% chance of getting a 6 in rack nine. But, if 1s and 2s are also competing for the center, that 60% does not matter much if you end up being forced to play a 1 or 2 in the center.

Also, the inner 4/3/1 is great when it works, but it can also break your outer chain in two and take away what might otherwise may have been a win if the outer 4/3/1 was played.

So, the problem is what are the odds of getting a clean 6 in rack 9 if needed, and how often does the broken 3 chain hurt you.

I don't know the math on this. My instinct is that I will tend to stay away from the inner if there are lots of 1s, but I will play it if there are not, and I will also play it if my placement of numbers in rack 2 put me in a position where it is the best option.

I think there are other things to consider though. Is this H2H or a DC? Is the 3 chain the same as the major inner chain that dynasty player's would be playing, or is it the outer chain? What is the 2 situation? If I chose one over the other, will I leave a chain number orphaned and needing a rack 9 connect?

I am sure there are a ton of other factors. So, as to your question on whether you are missing something stupidly obvious about the outer being better, I don't know. For one, I don't know the complex math, and two, there are many situational variables that (imo) make it hard to say x is always better than y or vice versa.

Also, as I said, I was just stating my preference. I was not making a case that people should use it over what they are doing. Imo people should weigh what the can and decide accordingly.

Arjun, if there is some math to support the inner being a higher EV opening then it would be nice for you to share that. You seem pretty clear and definitive that it is better, whereas I am only stating my preference for the other opening (conditionally, of course).

inner 4/3/1



outer 4/3/1

Arctic, you're missing the point. In 97% of scenarios, you can just make inner into outer by playing the 2nd 5 in the middle zone. It doesn't matter if there are 3 1s or 8 1s, inner just becomes outer in this case. And you always have the extra option of playing inner needing to bink rack 9, which is purely optional.

In 3% of scenarios (pulled this number out of my ass), you are forced to go through the middle in rack 9. Like on a 55xxx rack 5 and then no 5s later. Or the extremely specific example I gave earlier. This really doesn't happen often.

So inner can become outer if you like. Inner also has an option of doing something outer cannot do if you think it's +EV. I'm still struggling to see why anybody would prefer outer.

Hi Folks

I want to apologize to Arjun. In post 6279 he referred to me as a clone of him and I took exception to that and called the comment insulting and him arrogant.

My read on the comment was not charitable, and I took it to mean that he saw me as having developed my game to be a mirror of his. Arjun let me know that was not his intent/meaning at all, and I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.

We started playing at the same time, and we played a ton of timed games together, and we discovered lots of the same things (though he had a much he had a quicker learning curve than me, and I spent many hours getting thrashed by him in timed..lol). So, we ended up with lots of common approaches for a few years. We have more differences now than then, but one constant is that he still has a much, much sharper mind for this game than I do.

Anyway, This is a conflict free thread, and I feel bad for saying what I did. Sorry Arjun.

I'd make the same play with the 6s and 4s but still with a dynasty setup as my primary goal and the option the go for advanced or something inbetween.

If people are interested in what I found to be an impossible spot, have a look at this rack 7. I thought for a long time before I made what I thought was the least suckiest of all my options...lol

I can post some notes later, but am interested in what others would do in this situation..

This is what I'd do after some thought. Probably wrong.

Looks like we have to put something in the north region that does not further our progress toward a snake. We can put a 4 or 5 there that connects to an existing chain, but then we'd need two of whatever number we put there in rack 8 to get a snake. Since we've already given up on a potential snake with 6s, I'd waste one of those in the north, which allows us to make further progress toward snakes for the 4s and 5s.

So, 4 in the east (top left), 5s in the center (top right) and west (bottom right), 6s in the south (top right) and north (doesn't matter which). Then we'd only need one 4 and one 5 in rack 8 to snake them both.

EDIT: Adding illustration

It's a shitty spot. Donk's method maximises DC win EV, nails' method maximises score, but has a DC win EV of 0. I would do something a little different to donk, play both 6s and both 5s and ditch the 4. I would need 44 and Donk would need 55, but that's only a small difference.

With nails' play, it maximises your chance to snake 2 numbers. But, if you throw away a 6, you lose the DC:
You lose if no more 6s come because 6 chain is only 3 zones, and others 4 zone them
You lose if 1 6 comes, because you 3 zone 6s, and others snake them.
You lose if 2+ 6s come, because you 4 zone 6s, and others snake them.

So yeah, play the 6s, ditch a 5 or a 4 (probably a 4), and you still have a 16% shot at completing the chain.

Edit - I just realized there is no way of ditching a 4 without splitting up the 6 chain, so Donk's method is the best.

Interesting perspective -- I think I am always looking to maximize score and don't think enough about DC win EV. Might explain why I don't have a solo DC win in more than a year...

That doesn't look right to me. You can't snake the 6s in this set up.
With his set up you also snake the 5s if you only get 1 on rack 9, whereas Donk's needs 2.

I instinctively lead towards nails as the one I would play to prioritise only need a single 4 and 5 to snake both those chains.

Yeah, that does not surprise me. It seems there might be 4 or 5 types of opening approaches by players..

1. Dynasty .. it takes a lot for these players to quit on a dynasty
2. Dynasty, but will play advanced - Players who might hang on longer than others for the dynasty, but can and will switch to the advanced.
3. Balanced Dynasty/advanced.. Players setting up for and preferring the dynasty, but will shift and fully commit to advanced sooner than group 2.
4. Primarily advanced or quasi-advanced with dynasty as a backup (or not..)
5. Other openings I can't really classify.

Dynasty is the best opening by far, imo.

I see myself in category 3 but the last few months have been leaning towards 2 a bit more, as I felt I was abandoning the dynasty too soon and was getting too "advanced happy."

I think I am probably like most players, in that the number of 2s in play can be a deciding factor in an opening as to whether a person should stay with the dynasty or move on.