Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabethebabe
I lost yesterday's DC in rack 8.
I had to chose: optimal 4s and be screwed by a 1 in rack 9 or suboptimal 4s and hope for 1-less rack 9. The only thing that interests is optimizing win equity. What would you have done?
We had the same score but I didn't have that option in rack 8. We had the same board going into rack nine though.
Having looked at your game I would play rack eight exactly like you did.
The extra paired 2s on the diagonal and the volume of 1s (you are going to need a zone with three 1s to keep the middle free of 1s) are going to restrict most players from having a three-zone third chain, and if they do have a three- zone 3rd chain then they probably need a rack nine 2 and/or no 1. Dynasty was the exception, unfortunately for you and I. He had the 3 zone 3rd chain and the extra set of paired 2s, and he dodged the 1.
As I was playing this and got to rack eight I felt my competition for the win was going to come from players who got a 6 with no 1 in rack 9, and beat my four zone of 6s with their five zone of 6s by connecting the center zone. I thought that a 1 in rack 9 would give me a likely win - I doubted a 61XXX rack 9 could even catch up with the lost bonus points, and if there is 6XXXX rack 9 with no 1 I lose anyway.
So I would have sacrificed the 3rd zone of 4s as you did and pin my hopes on the 1 for the win.
PS. A 12XXX rack 9 is not ideal for either of us, considering where our orphaned 5 was.. Still might have snagged a win though.
There are a couple of interesting parts of that particular DC. I may post a question/thought about rack 2 and 3 later.