I went 3-4 with a -90 spread at the monthly Philly tournament on Sunday. This was below my lower bound goal -- at worst I wanted to be 4-3 -- but given that I was 0-3 before lunch I'm not completely unhappy with it.
I'll get into the games more in a minute, but first I have to comment on the poor sportsmanship shown by several players. Apparently instead of showing the national tournament this year, ESPN has plans to carry a kids tournament. This is probably a good move as, if the Philly group is any indictation, the amount of petty quibbling among players you'll see is less for a bunch of fifth graders than for a bunch of adults. Seriously, it was pretty absurd. For one, people get so attached to their own personal boards and get into a huff if they have to move. At one point, niether I nor my opponent had a board setup (there are half as many boards as players, so this will happen) so we took an open board knowing that the person who it belonged to was playing so-and-so, who was already setup at his board, so the board we took over would be open. When the woman whose board we were at saw this she got super pissed. She started bitching about how we took her board and how, "we better not ever do that again." And how, "I was winning on my board, now I'm losing." Even after my opponent explained and apologized (an apology she accepted) she still continued to bitch about it. At several minutes of listening to her complain I said to her, "it's just a board, get over it." I probably should not have said anything, as it caused some friction between us that lasted the entire tournament, and culminated in a very small and petty quarrel at the end, but I hate it when people are being completely unreasonable and everybody kowtows to it.
Eric experienced a somewhat similar incident when he and his opponent were trying to find a board to play on and everytime they thought they had found one somebody would kick them off, because they wanted their own board, they can't just take the open board, they have to be difficult and kick people off and play on their own boards. I don't understand. For all intents and purposes it's the exact same thing. There are no hometown fans rooting for you at your own board. It's not college basketball.
Also while observing play I saw somebody blantantly butting into a game he wasn't involved in. With the game already in hand, the soon-to-be-winner went to make a play, then before announcing his score, decided against it, taking some more time to think -- perfectly legal. The nosy observer said, "c'mon, just make the play and take the victory, don't be worried about spread points. You're worried she's gonna play OY, just make the play. [Turning to another observer]. I hate the way this guy plays. He's always going for spread points. They don't matter just take the win." But actually spread points matter very much, especially in a small tournament, so it's reasonable, smart even, to consider them. And even if it weren't, it's completely out of line to make such comments aloud about a game you're not involved in. Had I been playing I would have told the person this, but the guy who was making the plays is only 14, so he probably isn't that comfortable talking back. Eventually he made his play and subsequently won the game. At this point his opponent started being super pouty -- scowling, throwing her score card around, speaking very curtly. Intentionally doing all the little things to let everybody know she was pissed, basically being a total baby about losing. That's such bad sportsmanship -- just fill out the scorecard and thank your opponent. You can vent all you want and be as mopey as you like later in private.
Anyway, on to the games. I played Dave Engelhardt first just as I did in the last tournament, and just as in the last tournament he edged me in the end. I took the lead late by bingoing SATIATED through an open E, but my subsequent draw was DDNNRRI and the only other vowel I drew the rest of game was a single U. He had vowels for the end game, I didn't and there was nothing I could do to avoid a loss. Lorraine Burton crushed me in the next round. I was trying to not get frurstrated by bad draws, but it was to no avail. I know I'm better than her, but she got the tiles. My next match was even worse. Scott Kitchen gave me a serious whooping, 483-340. He drew both blanks, 2 Ss, the Q, the Z, and the X, and he drew9 of the 12 Es. I couldn't compete. Going into the lunch break I was not happy at all. Eric had only slightly more success in D1. He was 1-2 with a bad spread.
In the first game after lunch I beat Mark Miller. Mark is one of the top D2 players, his peak rating is nearly 1800, so beating him is good. It gives me something, at the very least, to hang my hat on. I made a good challenge against him when he played COILINGS (later Eric and I agreed that in general you should challenge the -INGS words, unless you're sure it's good), only to make the gaffe of making a play that put an open RE on the board, allowing him to bingo RECLOSING on his next move. Considering I knew his tiles, that's really idiotic. Still I was able to grab a decent lead and play defense for a 391-365. In the next game I put up my highest point total of the day and lose to Stan Williams 419-447. With me up by about 40 he bingos SCOUTING and CAUSING on consecutive plays to go up by over 100. I hit a bingo and parlay the X and Z into big points, but it's not enough. I'm not unhappy about this loss, at least I was able to compete. I win my final two games to make my tournament record at least respectable. I edge Marty Fialkow, the fastest player in the tournament, by 9 (he had 18 minutes left on his clock at the end, I had 30 seconds), and then I crush Lorraine Burton by 141 in a rematch. The latter of these games is particularly gratifying as this time around I get the tiles. I hit up JUICER, TALKIEST and RELEARNS all for big points. My top play on the day is TRIPLETS for 80, but given the circumstances I think my best find was SATIATED. I had to find a bingo, as there was only one open lane and I knew he'd close it next turn, and I had AA in my rack, and I'm usually not good with the double A words. I also hit up a few new stem bingos (ESTRUAL and ENTOILED) and it's always nice to see a payoff like that.
Overall I beat 2 people rated higher than me and 1 rated lower than me. I lost to 2 people rated higher, and 2 rated lower. I'm expecting a small drop in my ratings, but it shouldn't be anything too substantial. Also, I think I was severely outdrawn in 2 games (Lorraine I and Scott), and I think I severely outdrew my opponent in 1 game (Lorraine II), and in the other 4 games the draws were more or less equal. That puts me at 2-2 with a +40 spread in "even-playing-field" matches. I'd like to get that ratio up to 3:1 for the next tournament. Eric finishes at 2-5, but 2-5 in D1 is at least as good as 3-4 in D2.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Crushed by Eric
I got crushed in the mini-series against Eric. He won 4 out of the 5 games with an aggregate spread of nearly +400. Some explanation is required. In any Scrabble loss a combination of three factors are at work: 1) good play by your opponent, 2) poor play by you, 3) bad luck. There definitely was a lot of 1) in our series, and I think much, much more 3) than 2). The last three games I drew atrociously. I didn't get a single blank, I didn't have many good stem racks, and when I got point tiles I had them all in my rack at one time. One game I had Q,X and Z all in my rack. I was able to play them off separately each for a decent score (30-35), but between plays Eric drew the blanks successively and hit up two 70+ point bingos. Also, twice I had a good bingo stem with one extra letter that didn't fit (once it was an O, once an A) so I played off the single letter for a modest score (10-15), and both times I drew the exact same letter I just ditched. Obviously, that's the problem with fishing, but if you have a rack like AAEINTR, and the board is open I think playing off an A is usually the right move. The chances of having a bingo rack your next turn is too good to forgo.
Anyway, I am not complaining about my tiles (I'm a firm believer in the strong law of large numbers), I'm just trying to provide an honest assessment of why I think the series was so lopsided. After the first two games we had drawn pretty evenly and the tally was 1-1 with a +7 spread in Eric's favor. I like to think that's a more accurate depiction of where I'm at these days, but I'm not sure. Last night the playing field was too uneven to tell.
I did have one terrible, almost embarrassingly bad play. I had AEINORS in my rack. I should know this rack well. I have both the AINERS and the OINERS stems basically memorized. I didn't recall the bingo immediately, so instead of taking a few more seconds even minutes if necessary, (my clock was not a factor) to find it I played ARINOSE knowing it was invalid and knowing Eric would challenge. In retrospect I have no idea why I did this. I just botched it. And literally, the split second after I announced my score I saw the real bingo, ERASION. I had the exact same rack a few plays later, and I bingoed, but by that time the game was basically already out of hand. The point swing from that play was tremendous.
Anyway, turns out I was wrong and there is a Philly tourney this month. In fact it's next week. Eric and I are going. Hopefully I'll get a little more sleep before this one, and hopefully I'll draw decently. But, if I don't, so be it. I'm not going to get frustrated. I gotta keep that Joe Edley zen shit going on. Although, it really only helps my mental state with respect to the game. It really doesn't help my game that much. If I draw poorly I usually lose no matter how calm or uncalm I am.
Since my school workload has increased recently, I can set only some modest preperation goals before next weekend. Learn one more page of stems and another quiz worth of 4s.
Anyway, I am not complaining about my tiles (I'm a firm believer in the strong law of large numbers), I'm just trying to provide an honest assessment of why I think the series was so lopsided. After the first two games we had drawn pretty evenly and the tally was 1-1 with a +7 spread in Eric's favor. I like to think that's a more accurate depiction of where I'm at these days, but I'm not sure. Last night the playing field was too uneven to tell.
I did have one terrible, almost embarrassingly bad play. I had AEINORS in my rack. I should know this rack well. I have both the AINERS and the OINERS stems basically memorized. I didn't recall the bingo immediately, so instead of taking a few more seconds even minutes if necessary, (my clock was not a factor) to find it I played ARINOSE knowing it was invalid and knowing Eric would challenge. In retrospect I have no idea why I did this. I just botched it. And literally, the split second after I announced my score I saw the real bingo, ERASION. I had the exact same rack a few plays later, and I bingoed, but by that time the game was basically already out of hand. The point swing from that play was tremendous.
Anyway, turns out I was wrong and there is a Philly tourney this month. In fact it's next week. Eric and I are going. Hopefully I'll get a little more sleep before this one, and hopefully I'll draw decently. But, if I don't, so be it. I'm not going to get frustrated. I gotta keep that Joe Edley zen shit going on. Although, it really only helps my mental state with respect to the game. It really doesn't help my game that much. If I draw poorly I usually lose no matter how calm or uncalm I am.
Since my school workload has increased recently, I can set only some modest preperation goals before next weekend. Learn one more page of stems and another quiz worth of 4s.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Rating slip
My rating dropped from 1450 to 1407 after my weak performance in Philly -- not too bad, I guess. I won't play a tournament for a while, so it'll stay there for a spell. There is a tourney in York, PA only a few hours from here this weekend, but I can't make it. I imagine the next one I play will be the next Sunday-er in Philly, probably next month. There was no Philly tourney one this month.
I've been playing a fair amount on-line (about 2 games a day) and studying stems while I exercise. I'll give the new stems I've learned below. What I really need to do is get the 3s down 100% (about 99% now), get the short J-Q-X-Z words and vowel dumps down 100% (about 90% now), and start putting a dent in the 4s (not sure what % I'm at now). The things is, I enjoy studying the bingo stems much more than anything else, so that's mainly what I study. Plus I really can't devote any time to it outside of my allotted exercise/study-word time. I do have other things going on.
One small consolation from the last Philly tourney is that I tracked and scored almost perfectly. To keep those skills sharp I'm playing a 5 game series against Eric this weekend -- $1 per game and $.01 per point. One of my goals is to be able to play .500 against Eric, so this will be an indication of how far I have to go (although 5 is a small sample size).
I was playing on-line the other day, a 3 minute game, and my rack was EIKLNRT. I wanted to play TINKLER, but it didn't fit, so I just laid down TRINKLE in utter haste thinking, "what the heck, maybe it's valid." My opponent didn't challenge and instead laid down EXED extending TRINKLE to TRINKLED for 60+ points. I did challenge and since neither TRINKLE nor TRINKLED is valid, EXED came off. I made a play and then my opponent played just ED again making TRINKLED for 30+ points, obviously she thought EXED was the problem the first time, but that's a valid play. I challenged. Again her play came off the board. She then sent me a message that said, "That was really mean, trinkle isn't even a word!" I wrote back saying, "I wasn't sure. That's what challenge is for." After the game I thought about what she said and I came to the conclusion that it's not at all mean. There are basically two reasonable schools of thought you can have on this issue and neither lead to meanness.
1) It's perfectly okay to play any word at anytime regardless of validity. That's what the challenge is for. If your opponent doesn't like you playing phoneys they can challenge, or if they are on-line they can play the void mode.
2) It's poor sportsmanship to play words you know for sure are phoneys. Even if you believe this, I didn't know with 100% certainty the word was phoney. Surely you don't have to be 100% certain on every word you play, as that takes a significant factor of risk vs. reward completely out of the game. Let's say I'm 60% certain a word is good and it's a huge score with the next best play being a very small score. From an expected value standpoint it might be completely worth it to play the word. Now, if they extend my questionable word via a D or an S for a huge amount of points, then that is a risk on their part that they should have considered. Again, from an expected value standpoint it might be completely worth it to challenge. In both cases I could have made what I thought was the best play without trying to trick or deceive my opponent. There is no meanness in that.
Anyway, some new stems:
STONIE -- WATSON WILL RAX THAT LIMP BITCH
RANEES -- MOTTO: LOOK GOOD CROW ON
DARTLE -- ADIOS WAXY SET
ORATES -- HEAR THE ENDLESS CHAMP GAB
ENTERS -- GOES INSIDE A COUPLES VERY WAXY YURT
LINTER -- A GOOSY KID
ARDENT -- CUB VIG SUX
SEALER -- EPOXY STOPPED THE VEXING NICK
RETIES -- A HEP DAZED MAN KVETCHES AND RELACES
RAINED -- POURING BIG CATS AND VINO ON HIM
I've been playing a fair amount on-line (about 2 games a day) and studying stems while I exercise. I'll give the new stems I've learned below. What I really need to do is get the 3s down 100% (about 99% now), get the short J-Q-X-Z words and vowel dumps down 100% (about 90% now), and start putting a dent in the 4s (not sure what % I'm at now). The things is, I enjoy studying the bingo stems much more than anything else, so that's mainly what I study. Plus I really can't devote any time to it outside of my allotted exercise/study-word time. I do have other things going on.
One small consolation from the last Philly tourney is that I tracked and scored almost perfectly. To keep those skills sharp I'm playing a 5 game series against Eric this weekend -- $1 per game and $.01 per point. One of my goals is to be able to play .500 against Eric, so this will be an indication of how far I have to go (although 5 is a small sample size).
I was playing on-line the other day, a 3 minute game, and my rack was EIKLNRT. I wanted to play TINKLER, but it didn't fit, so I just laid down TRINKLE in utter haste thinking, "what the heck, maybe it's valid." My opponent didn't challenge and instead laid down EXED extending TRINKLE to TRINKLED for 60+ points. I did challenge and since neither TRINKLE nor TRINKLED is valid, EXED came off. I made a play and then my opponent played just ED again making TRINKLED for 30+ points, obviously she thought EXED was the problem the first time, but that's a valid play. I challenged. Again her play came off the board. She then sent me a message that said, "That was really mean, trinkle isn't even a word!" I wrote back saying, "I wasn't sure. That's what challenge is for." After the game I thought about what she said and I came to the conclusion that it's not at all mean. There are basically two reasonable schools of thought you can have on this issue and neither lead to meanness.
1) It's perfectly okay to play any word at anytime regardless of validity. That's what the challenge is for. If your opponent doesn't like you playing phoneys they can challenge, or if they are on-line they can play the void mode.
2) It's poor sportsmanship to play words you know for sure are phoneys. Even if you believe this, I didn't know with 100% certainty the word was phoney. Surely you don't have to be 100% certain on every word you play, as that takes a significant factor of risk vs. reward completely out of the game. Let's say I'm 60% certain a word is good and it's a huge score with the next best play being a very small score. From an expected value standpoint it might be completely worth it to play the word. Now, if they extend my questionable word via a D or an S for a huge amount of points, then that is a risk on their part that they should have considered. Again, from an expected value standpoint it might be completely worth it to challenge. In both cases I could have made what I thought was the best play without trying to trick or deceive my opponent. There is no meanness in that.
Anyway, some new stems:
STONIE -- WATSON WILL RAX THAT LIMP BITCH
RANEES -- MOTTO: LOOK GOOD CROW ON
DARTLE -- ADIOS WAXY SET
ORATES -- HEAR THE ENDLESS CHAMP GAB
ENTERS -- GOES INSIDE A COUPLES VERY WAXY YURT
LINTER -- A GOOSY KID
ARDENT -- CUB VIG SUX
SEALER -- EPOXY STOPPED THE VEXING NICK
RETIES -- A HEP DAZED MAN KVETCHES AND RELACES
RAINED -- POURING BIG CATS AND VINO ON HIM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)