Nigel Richards - One-in-the-bag pre-endgame analysis (OTCWL16)

Moves with equal percentages of wins, losses and draws are sorted descendingly according to the following heuristic:

H := (points scored with the move) + (mathematical expectation of the player's highest score next turn) - (mathematical expectation of the opponent's highest score next turn)

While this heuristic is generally good, the ordering according to it should be taken with a grain of salt; for selected examples, we give a better sub-ranking of the moves according to the mathematical expectation of the final spread of the game.

Example 1

This example between Joel Sherman and Nigel Richards is taken from here. Joel was 7 points behind.
His rack: ?AEIMNQ
Unseen tiles from his point of view: ACCEEHSS
Game in gcg format

Joel played [UMIAQs A10 51 EN], a winning move.

There were exactly three winning moves:

Example 2

This example between Nigel Richards and Frank Tangredi is taken from here. Nigel was 14 points ahead.
His rack: DGIKRTU
Unseen tiles from his point of view: BCEIJNOU
Game in gcg format

Nigel played [MIDGUT A4 30 KR], one of three winning moves.

Only four moves never lost:

The move [MIDGUT A4 30 KR] that Nigel played is actually best according to the mathematical expectation of the final spread of the game. Here are the final spreads of the game from Nigel's point of view after each pick (hover over a spread to see an optimal endgame sequence):

Return to next steps page

This site uses web cookies, click to learn more. Our privacy policy. © Ortograf Inc. Updated on March 14th 2022. Informations & Contacts.