awesome that is like 7k higher than your previous best, wow!

also thanks th10 with your strategy i got snake charmer for the first time. took me like 30 tries (when i need fours they never come, but when i'm wanting high scores oh hai 44444 rack)

I like it, it feels like you have more flexibility in the chains. I had one game with only 3 5s in the middle racks, this would have been a problem in the classic strategy but scored >60k thanks to your strategy. It also feels like it's an advantage that you can put different stuff in the middle and are not required to put 3 of the same number in the middle to connect the outer chain. It's not much difference when it comes to playing 1s and 2s I think.

Nice, next step is to get it in normal mode, gl!

That sounds familiar.

Good to hear that. Also nice to know I'm not alone in thinking this.

Yea, this is true in most cases, i.e. when there are not a lot of them. But in the games with lots of 2s (12-14), especially if they have to be played in a way we really wouldn't like to play them in racks 1-4, I believe they are easier to play with this setup, mainly due to this:

I always play to maximize my score. I think that gets you the most DC wins. I've never believed in taking 'the road less travelled' in order to seperate myself from the field.


I feel bad for TH10. He didn't get to hold that record for long.

What would be your strategy for this? I was trying out some different layouts and this one seems like it would be pretty good, but I don't know enough about the game to explain why.

Update:

Based on the games I've played, I knew it wouldn't last too long, so although I didn't think it would be broken this quickly, it was always going to happen at some point. Oh, well, I'll always have the memories.


Nice! I was just about to post an answer to your question, but you already got the snake charmer without it. I'll answer anyway. Most of the ways to get snake charmer need 21 dice for the chains, but one of them needs only 20 dice for the chains, so when the goal is to get snake charmer, that should be used, since it is easier to get. It was possible to see it in one of the pictures in that long post. I'll re-post it here.

i'm a bit drunk so cant address this accurately, but i think maybe i've not quite posed the question right, because i'm not proposing taking unorthodox decisions, but it's a question of opportunity cost, and i think, unless i'm missing something, expected score is not the right metric to use.

edit: but i don't know what the DC ranking algorithm is, so it might make a difference if you are trying to max DC wins, or DC ranking

This is another thing off the list

Grats on the score Derwi!

Thanks.

how on earth do people guess exactly what the optimal play is every single daily challenge, like no one else ever gets it wrong ever.

oops just used your 5k post

like if you get no 4s in the first 3 racks how do people know that they are going to get baraged with them later on?

it makes no sense

Every time i play the DC i'm always 10k+ behind the top ten

I always try and make what I think are the optimal plays

and i always do so much worse than every single other player

I mean i know i'm stupid and all

but it shouldn't happen

I think the best DC players find a way to keep their options past the 4th rack.

No I deleted it instantly when I saw it was me

A great big fat LOL for Triplechang and his 23-08 Daily Challenge win. 4×2s in the first 4 racks and making two pairs with them ftw

Keeping options open as late as possible is often a good idea, although it can backfire in some games. Keeping them past the 4th rack is quite difficult though (if we don't count Dynasty strategy as keeping options open), but keeping them until 4th rack isn't usually that difficult.

Yea, that can only work, if racks 5-9 have 0-1 2s. Also, in Triplechang's previous win (08-20) he is the only player out of 28, who had 6s on the outside. While I don't remember exactly what the racks were in that one, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a good play to wait to get 6s for the outside chain, the fact that 1/28 players had them like that speaks volumes. With all the cheating that has been going on, certainly makes one think about if that is the case. However from what I've seen, triplechang is a decent player, who does seem to have a tendency to make unorthodox -EV plays, so I think it is more likely that he knowingly gambles with the daily challenges, hoping to get lucky making plays no one else makes. I guess this is proof that sometimes taking the road less travelled can work.

DonkDonkDonkDonk,

Tommorrow, you should record your Daily Challenge play and the post it the following day. Some of us will off our thoughts on what was optimal and what we did.

I'll do that

maybe it will help

This sounds like it could be a good idea. Although based on yesterday's results maybe Dynasty should be the only one who tells thoughts about the game, since everyone else failed it more or less.

I took screenshots of the rounds of today's challenge, I can post them tomorrow after DonkDonkDonkDonk, even though they might not be that useful, since my game ended in a failure, as usual.



Need to make a correction to the best possible bonus situation. I had a game, where I could've scored 74800 with the perfect 9th rack. It got me thinking what is the best possible realistic score (having both 5s and 6s) in advanced games and I found out something surprising and interesting. It turns out that with both 5s and 6s, the best possible bonus is actually 22, with 23 and 21 very close, 24 and 20 quite close too. This is explained by the 5 chain scoring less points than only 6s, so the value of having higher bonus goes down and the value of having more 6s to give more valuable chains goes up. Below is a table, the last one is averages of the other eight.



So the range that should be the goal is actually 20-24 (22>23>21>24>20), 25 and 19 are barely ok, while 18 really isn't good enough. Also, when there are twelve 5s, 21=23, 20=24, 19=25, and with thirteen or more 5s, 21>23, 20>24, and 19>25.

I can tell you right now what happened. I luckboxed it.

I think the second rack was 5,5,3,3,3. With a 4 already in the center zone, I decided to play the 3s and punt the 5s.

Then, 4s didn't come on rolls 5-8. But, that allowed me to use a couple squares for 2s. As a result, I maximized my bonus with a five-zone of 3s and five-zone of 6s. My third chain was irrelevent.



I wish I had looked into that. When I made my post saying...

... it occured to me afterwards that it may not apply perfectly to 5s.

Considering so many of the top Advanced scores have bonuses of 20-22, I should have known something was up.

Don't worry, I was wrong about it myself, as can be seen from my previous bonus post.

I don't think this has anything to do with it. I believe the reason for not having high scores with higher bonuses is simply the fact that it's just very difficult to get higher bonuses than 20(-22), the main reason being the need of having to run way above expectation with the amount of 1s and 2s to get them, because there aren't many manipulations to get more 1s/2s. Also there can't be too much of either 1s or 2s, nor too much of them total (realistically 26+ bonus is too much), and even with a balanced amount they have to be played optimally to be able to fit in all of them (bonus 23-25), it can be difficult and isn't always even possible. I don't think I've ever had a game with bonus of 25 and two snakes, 24 with two snakes probably just once, and even 23 with two snakes probably less than five times. Also, because of this any starting rack with only 1s/2s is actually playable, I think both my 72450 games might have been started with racks containing only 1s/2s.

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA


Looks like the daily challenge being shipped to yours truly.

i was pretty happy with how i did in the DC

but i was 20k below everyone else

i am either A) completely ******ed

or B) all you guys are geniuses that put einstein to shame.

playing the DC makes me feel ******ed and reminds me how far behind the intellectual curve I am

I'm just going to play advanced where volume=results