Beside the Safe option and the Bold option there's a third option, where you never see the bingo to begin with. That's the one I'm most likely to take.
I felt like a dick doing this to my opponents so I stopped. Not that it really affected them, but I knew that they knew that I would only do it to get the extra 0.1% edge from fucking with them.
It's rare to have a channel that both analyzes games expertly while also playing that same game expertly too. Not to mention the regular uploads and quality editing and guest appearances. Really high quality stuff.
And among all the brilliant points about correct play, he also just sneaks in a bombshell insight at 6:23 that I'd never thought about; that looking at how the strongest players play, is not a plain measurement of what is correct, it's a skewed measurement because strong players more often play opponents weaker than themselves, and adapt to that situation.
It’s true. Several respondents said they would consider playing the aggressive move only against other elite players (though many said they would never play boldly against any opponent ever).
@@samlin8089 In casual settings, definitely - though I prefer to do it with handicaps that still allow me to "find the best play", such as - no bonus points for playing all your tiles, limit to the number of tiles I can use, etc.
I once played DEUTZIA aggressively in a tournament. My opponent didn't have the correct tiles for a hook, so was forced to make his best move, and leave the hook up. I picked up an S, so followed up with PLAYS/DEUTZIAS, and was able to take a huge lead on turn 2.
I feel really confident about how I approach this conundrum. The better my opponent is, the more likely I take the bold approach. For the same reason, I’m more likely to open triple lanes against higher rated players, who are likely to score well irrespective of the lane. The other consideration is where I stand in the tournament. In one Nationals, I had a decent record but a poor spread on Day 4, so I opted for the bold opening because it seemed like a necessary risk to come back. It didn’t work- opponent got there first-but I don’t regret it.
I agree with you 100% and was about to say the same thing. If I were playing, say, Joel Sherman, I know that starting with a 92-pt lead (or even a 106-pt lead) isn't "safe" but is definitely a big plus. And then if he does NOT have an S or blank, he's likely to have to play defensively. Add to that the likelihood of picking up an S or blank myself, and it means that I'm very likely to win that game. Of course, if he has one of those hooks, he'll likely score big and go on to win... but that was going to happen anyway!
It would be interesting to see a Scrabble engine that takes this into account. It would suggest more aggressive tactics if your opponent has a higher ranking
@@QuarkTwain In the world of chess engines, this is called "contempt," and it usually comes up in the context of making or avoiding a draw (high-level chess is a very drawish game). When the engine has high contempt, it is less willing to accept a draw in a position that's otherwise defensible. Effectively, this makes the engine play more aggressively, at least in the middle game.
Yup, I'm not a Scrabble player but i do play TCGs and there's a lot more calculus involved in a tournament scenario than just whether the odds of a specific play work out in your favour. You're always having to consider whether the risk is worth losing your tournament progress (or conversely if you need to make the risky play to come back from a poor performance)
7:27 I love this. Playing a move that might be technically suboptimal to get into your opponent's head, and because it's fun. Who says competitive play takes the fun out of games?
Especially considering tournament play is time boxed. Even in casual games here on RUclips, I've seen pros get scuppered by agonizing too long over close calls, leaving them with no time in the end game.
This video was great. Well researched, original research to boot, great editing, interesting thesis, and much more high effort in general than just analyzing a competitive game.
I always click 'like' as soon as I open Will's scrabble videos as I know they're going to be so good. I would take the bold option against a much weaker opponent as I want to decrease the chance they can beat me on lucky draws. I would take the bold option against a much stronger player for the same reason, increasing my chance of winning from a lucky draw. Against any player near my level I would play the safe option.
I've learned enough from game theory that aggression and putting pressure on your opponent to timely play perfectly is almost always correct regardless of the game.
I prefer the bold placements generally and feel very validated by Josh's comments 😀 I'd say what the current engines say is almost useless here. As advanced as Macondo is, it doesn't yet have the tools at all to correctly evaluate such a position. For a few of the front hooks, there's a small added possibility that the opponent might not even notice them. Generally very unlikely but adds a few % to the value. Similarly, there might be some words where the back hook is uncertain enough that the bold placement might leave the opponent unsure if the word takes a back hook... especially under double challenge.
The evaluation is just a simulation of win%. All the engines are saying is that from simulating games out, the number of times your initial lead is overcome by the end of the game is more in one case or the other. This isn't useless because while not literally definitive, this evaluation is significantly better than any evaluation a human can do on the same subject, and why the engines are able to tease out the minute difference between a word that is good to play aggressively vs not.
@@Ecrilon I guess useless is a strong word, but I'd expect the simulation results to be highly misleading in a situation like this because the moves played within the sim don't match the moves that would typically actually be played in a simulation like this. So it's a case of the "garbage in, garbage out" principle
@AlexDings I am pretty sure simulations are overly generous on the bold plays, actually, not as much because human play won't mimic computer play, but because at the end of each iteration of a simulation, the computer will give an estimated win percentage of the position based on score differential and tiles remaining, without factoring in board dynamics. In fact, the fewer plies you use, the more the computer likes the bold play, since the hook gets cashed in less often and the win percentage estimate will be too generous given the dangerous hook out (try PRETZEL on 2 vs 4 vs 6 ply)
@@Ecrilon But the problem is that the engines simulate the games using what they consider to be optimal in the subsequent moves, and that can have its own bias and issues, exactly in tricky, double-edged situations like this.
Its really cool to hear scrabble players talk about words as more or less "defendable" or "risky". This honestly feels a bit like getting into a fighting game, where yeah I might understand the basic game, but its awe inspiring to watch pros pull off cool plays.
I’ve made a couple videos now comparing Scrabble to other games and I really want to do one someday comparing it to fighting games (I have a couple specific ones in mind)!
You are an incredibly skilled RUclipsr with good instincts on how to take something interesting and view it through universal themes. And, it’s all about Scrabble, a game you are extremely knowledgeable about. Congrats
Minute or so in I was thinking the aggressive approach looked like a Josh Sokol type of play! Such an incisive position, and explanation and editing of your video is excellent.
this is my favorite video of yours yet; I was even thinking about this myself with PRETZEL just the other night and I (a scrub) decided that the safe option had to be right. I had no idea that there was such an analysis of words like Pretzel, so this video really opened my eyes to the level of analysis that has gone into a very specific, and very cool, scenario.
I had the pretzel conundrum in the form of RELAXIN during a club game some time ago. I definitely took the bold move for the reasons Josh Sokol stated -- more fun. Easy enough to do in a club game. In a tournament where it mattered, I would likely have skewed toward the safe play if I was in contention. But with this analysis, I feel equipped to make a much more informed decision should it happen to me again.
will this is one of the coolest videos i’ve ever seen and just now i finally got to play this scenario opening with the AENNOZ? rack what Josh said in his interview is just a beautiful way to think of games in general. To not play MENAZON leaving the S hook is a sin against how fun, and memorable, scrabble can be.
While I'm not a Scrabble grandmaster yet, the upside to playing offensively for a score difference of only 14 points isn't worth the stress (additional fun element aside). Tournaments are stressful enough, and it's important to preserve energy whenever you can. I'd rather take a small point sacrifice and move on to the next rack.
I feel like in many ways the 'bold' placements are less stressful, no? You're going to have a lot of positions where the spot is either hammered immediately or blocked immediately - which lead to a normal game - and if the spot stays open for a prolonged period of time, then it's all in the hands of the tile bag. I feel like most of the stress is placed on the opponent rather than on you. I understand your point of view though
@@AmaranthRBY I'm sure it's fun sometimes to take a punt and hope for the best. The only scenario I can think of where it would make sense to play bold is when you're required to win by a huge spread, so creating more volatility is the way to go. Otherwise, I'm happy with the regular pretzel :)
I feel like the bold option is more fun and also (obviously) higher variance which plays to the underdog's favor. I am so lucky to have gotten to play against Josh and our game was an absolutely *ridiculous* high scoring slugfest, with me benefitting a lot as the underdog from his fearlessness at leaving scoring spots open. Part of me hopes you someday cover that game on this channel!!
I haven't played scrabble in forever. I think I got recommended this channel because I play other games competitively and I watch chess videos and stuff. I would play the bold approach against players that I feel are stronger than me, and the safe option against opponents I think are weaker than me. Which menas, I would always play the bold option, but I'm imagining I could get good :p
It’s fun to watch these problems evolve. I play games like Go & Street Fighter where if it’s advantageous to be in a position you can usually just… be there.
Loved this video!! Not sure if The Algorithm would agree, but I would be super excited to see more uploads like this one, breaking down strategy and not focused on any specific real-life game/player.
Thanks! I do pay attention to The Algo but I also run with the creative spark any time I feel inspired by something (which happened here basically at random).
What a great breakdown of scrabble game theory. I liked how you showcased the nuance of the plays and asked others for their opinion because you're not sure yourself. The way I see it, if you follow the mathematically correct line and then play a million games, you'll win the most often. But if you only need to win one tournament game, you can definitely play it safe and focus on early leads. Will, you're kinda the Kendrick Lamar of football
5:12 I'm curious about the engine's bold preference for LALIQUE but coin flip for SILIQUE, two very similar words which makes it easier to compare them. I would have thought the engine favours bold when risk is lower, and SILIQUE has only 5 back hooks compared to LALIQUE's 6. Do you have any idea why? My best guess is the risk of putting S of SILIQUE on centre square factors into the equation, but I wouldn't have thought that it would tilt the risk that much. I'm not sure if you have more insights on this.
This is probably just a bit of noise caused my lack of thoroughness on my part. When I run the sims for these two again, they’re both in the coin flip category for me.
The way my mother and I play (when we have the chance to) is quite similar to this, as we always go for the highest scoring plays to maximize our *combined* points. It adds a layer to the game where you're actively pushing where you normally wouldn't, it's great!
One of my favorite Scrabble videos. Count me in team Sokol, and imo it's always correct to go bold against higher rated opponents. So, if I'm playing Nigel, Will, or any of the experts polled here I put them to the sword, even with BEZIQUE!
Dude this reminds me so much of when I was learning poker. You just have to get used to bad beats and accept that you're playing a sample size of many thousands of games instead of just one. Once you get in that headspace 62% chance to win or at least get a dominant lead is a no brainer. That being said, I imagine it'd be easier to live with the results if you were playing like a scrabble ladder or something vs a one off tournament. I guess that's where the scrabble version of ICM would come into play.
It's not quite the same in my mind for 2 reasons: (1) both the bold and non-bold play put you above 62% chance to win (probably even higher, more like 70%), it's just if the bold works well for you it jumps to 99%, whereas working badly puts it at 40%, while the safer placement has you hovering in the 70% zone for longer, and (2) poker is a game where many hands are played and the objective isn't to win the most hands but to win the most money, so you should base your strategy on the price for playing the pot compared to relative odds, even in the cases of bad beats. Scrabble tournaments are based on wins first and foremost, spread as a tiebreaker. I think you see a lot of the top players favor the safe positions because they trust they can convert a 70% computer win probability in human play more often than the weighted average between the 40% and 99%.
Interesting analysis! As a strong intermediate / low expert player myself, I will usually play the risky version if I think I am an underdog against a very strong opponent. I might need some luck in any case, so I might as well hang the game in the balance right away.
I can think of a quick analogy in poker called "implied odds" and "reverse implied odds." Low pocket pairs like 22 can be valuable in poker as a way to "set mine," fishing for the roughly 1 in 9 chance of another 2 coming on the flop giving you at least 3 of a kind. This works because low pocket pairs have good implied odds. When they lose, they tend to lose small and fold early, as you're not likely to invest much with only a low pair. When they hit, they tend to win big, as you'll have a very strong disguised hand that other strong hands (top pair, overpairs, two pairs) might not expect. Even against straights and flushes you have outs to a full house. However, there is something to be wary about, especially with the lower pocket pairs (22-66)-- reverse implied odds. It's the same concept but one level deeper, and applies when both players have more money in front of them. The problem with low pocket pairs is that although they do well against strong hands, they can get dominated when a higher pocket pair also hits a set ("set over set"). When this happens, you are almost drawing dead most of the time, needing to spike 4 of a kind to win. Hence, when players have very deep stacks in front of them, low pocket pairs become less valuable because you might not be able to fold them yourself to an enormous bet, even when dominated.
If I was lucky enough to draw a pretzel, I’d play it, get huge points, and then my family would dissolve into talking about various snack foods for half an hour before the next person played their word.
Hello Will, a view from Czechia. I´m one of the best Czech players (it´s nothing special, Czech community is not wide, but only for context) and I prefer safe play. Key idea is: if you are favorite you are happy with 50 point leading after 1st move and you don´t need sharp game. If your opponent is another strong player, the situation stay same. You are happy with nice leading after opening. It should be another situation, if you are weaker player. In that case it´s an interesting choice bold play. There should be also some tournament aspects, for which you can prefer bold play, but if there aren´t tournament reasons, safe play is better (from my view).
I'm 100% with Josh here. I don't play scrabble, but I'd always go for the most fun, and often rewarding play. Even if they manage to use the open spot for a retaliation, we are even and have a game on our hands. If they don't, I'm very much in the driver's seat.
As a mediocre Scrabble player with poor dictionary word knowledge, I think players like me should ALWAYS go aggressive when we get the chance, especially against stronger opponents. If it comes down to word knowledge, I'd lose to a pro player every time. But leading with aggressive plays like that can increase the chance of winning to almost a coin flip. Strong players facing a weaker opponent probably shouldn't do that, because high point hooks are very easy even for novice players to find in these cases. But, maybe if you're a competitive player facing another player of equal or higher ranking, it pays to be as aggressive as possible.
i think in tournament play, it depends on who you are facing as well. if i know im better than my opponent, i will be more inclined to try a riskier play. its a good way to further increase my spread and even if he takes advantage of the TW score, i will still be able to beat him most of the time.
I find the math and psychological pressure being quite convincing as reasons to play the aggressive option, especially as someone who is not usually a favorite to win Scrabble games.
Computers emphatically consider NIB a mistake - the player trailing likely needs to leave the slot open and hope for the best there. But again, against a much weaker player, I might be inclined to block and battle my way back in a game where my opponent has much more difficult plays to spot than giant S-hooks.
@@wanderer15 That makes sense. NIB also does not completely block the hook. It would be devastating to play NIB and then see your opponent bingo with ASBESTOS.
When playing higher level competitive in anything, especially if you're in the top 8 or higher, I generally tend to play risky simply because I know most won't. It usually works, but even if it doesn't pan out, it's something your next opponent won't likely forget which turns up the mind games for him, greatly increasing the chance to win that one.
First, I agree with Josh that it's more fun leaving the spot open. It's just more interesting doing it that way. Second, if I'm playing against a weaker opponent, they probably won't see it. (I'm not that good at the game, and everyone I play with is twenty years out of practice.) If I'm playing a stronger opponent, then I need any advantage I can get, and a 200-point lead is definitely a good advantage.
I'd say if you're playing someone higher rated than you you should play PRETZEL, SELTZER, RELAXIN, etc in the "content" spot, because you're already an underdog to begin with, so if it's close to 50/50 whether you're going to get the hook you need first, which I think it is close to 50/50 in most of these situations, it's often better just to play it against a higher rated opponent or an opponent you have a bad record against. If you do hit the spot before your opponent and your opponent is higher rated, the handicap of being 150-200 points behind is often enough that you can just play at your normal strength and still win comfortably.
0:19 doesn't that drastically help out your opponent on the board state allowing for more chances for them to make a word themselves that can score them an even higher amount of points?
Another element (not needed at the highest level 😊) is whether your opponent is likely to know the hook. I played BRONZER years ago in the ‘risky’ position, then was later first to pluralise. So satisfying 😅🎉
I'll take my sanity above the 14-18 points, thank you very much! I cannot imagine playing the "bold" option in a real tournament game... I can only imagine your coach or the commentators/observers laying into you after the game for "throwing" after getting such a heavenly opening rack and going on to lose. Of course, if you actually went second and the first turn your opponent exchanged 3 tiles for example, playing the "risky" option becomes just plain suicidal.
As a “safe” option picker myself, I totally get this. I don’t know if I’ll actually have the stones to try a bold placement if I draw a rack like this…we’ll see!
I find it really interesting that only one of the GMs you asked had a different answer for seltzer than for pretzel, when both engines had a different answer
Actually unless I edited it wrongly it was both Adam Logan and Jackson Smylie saying that. Still very much a minority answer, but I think it’s actually the closest to my own answer now.
I didn't see the tiles in the thumbnail, so just from the title, you could have given me 100 guesses about what this video is about, and I'd never have gotten to the answer Scrabble.
I wondered the same thing after watching this and went through his games - doesn't seem like there is one on record. Otherwise we'd know the correct answer 🤣
I guess the correct answer is "it depends". It depends of parameters that are not easy to establish, and beyond the mathematical study proposed. It depends of your opponent : is he enough good to give him 130 points? does he seems unconfortable with his first draw? factors that can influence your choice are also how you tournament is going? did you have misfortunes yet? or does everything goes well and you feel strong and invincible? Matsumoto's point around Entropy is key. Know yourself and play accordingly to what makes you more confortable than your opponent
every time I get aggressive I'm seemingly always punished instantly for it no matter how often the probabilities seem to be in my favor. So I'll just play it safe.
I wonder how much of the calculation on SELTZER should consider that by playing the risky option, in addition to the -S hook, it also puts the S in SELTZER below a triple word, making any bingos the opponent may have that can take an -S that much more powerful. The score gap for SELTZER is a few more points than PRETZEL, but to me it looks like there's additional risk involved, just not risk in the opponent playing an S. But maybe I'm just overvaluing that possibility. That said I would still 100% take the risky play. In my experience, playing aggressive is just more fun.
That’s actually a great point. However, keep in mind that even safe SELTZER gives up all the same bingos as aggressive SELTZER - if all the tiles are low pointers, the difference may only be a handful of points. If you do happen to hit a high-pointer in the right spot, the triple-word S bingos will hit harder for sure - but even then the gap between those plays will always be significantly less than the gap between the big hooks and normal hooks.
1:30 And here I was having a nice pretzely moment, thinking 'no way can my opponent hook a 'D' to that - It looks like you were pretzeld. (Intentional humour - oh, and don't forget 'incites' for a related issue!!
4:50 not just fewer hooks but also more _obscure_ ones ― ones that even a sizeable chunk of seasoned players may not notice ― let alone _know_ ... imo top lvl (say GM) scrabble doesnt just mean playing the most "optimal" plays ― ur playing the _player_ 2... as if the pros r engines that can display their ABSOLUTE word knowledge at ANY given time... like 🤯 long story short ― this is what makes opening placements of words like GENIZOT# _that much wilder_
For sure. When we start factoring in opponent mistakes, things get even wilder. For example I once played STAMPED in a very dangerous spot gambling that opponent wouldn’t think of the normal word STAMPEDE - they played off an E elsewhere and I capitalized immediately.
I think the best psychological ploy is to play PRZETEL from the other side. If your opponent doesn't notice and you win, they will likely give up Scrabble entirely in self-disgust, thus reducing your competition in future tournaments. You have to play the long game.
At my level I always go bold but not because of any psychological advantage, more that it will be a long time before I hit a score over or close to 100 again. I'd like to see a video on highest scrabble openings in professional scrabble if you haven't already done one.
If you allow smaller tiles being the one under consideration, I've heard a horrifying example: a player putting the M on the double letter score for OOMIACK and his opponent had a W for WOOMIACK which is also an acceptable spelling.
Heyyy, this just came up for me in a game for the first time. I had RELAXIN, but my opponent actually opened with trade 2, so i figured he was more likely than usual to have a hook.
When I was playing at a higher level, especially when I was mainly playing CSW against North American opponents who had not yet learned as many of the CSW-only words as I had, I was very risk-averse with these racks, preferring to coast to likely victory without setting up a huge coin flip. Now that the standard of play has increased while I've gotten much rustier, I'm more inclined to take the points and I'd probably play 8h SELTZER against anyone 1800+
Beside the Safe option and the Bold option there's a third option, where you never see the bingo to begin with. That's the one I'm most likely to take.
Yep, it's a "tree" for me.
I'd have been very proud to find Repel
Except now that I've seen the word discussed at length, I'm much more likely to spot it.
let pre tree are all possible
Yep!
PERT it is, then. Boy am I off to a great start :)
Maximum psychological advantage is playing the bold placement vertically
the dude at the end did exactly that lmao, no wonder hes the champ
That's the most funny thing in Scrabble -- it doesn't matter at all technically, but humans are humans...
I felt like a dick doing this to my opponents so I stopped. Not that it really affected them, but I knew that they knew that I would only do it to get the extra 0.1% edge from fucking with them.
I love josh's answer. Games are meant to be fun, so fuck it, we ball
Came here to say something similar, stayed to agree
The 3-axis scatter plot was perfect and so clearly explained. ✅✅✅
I think I would play TREE. :-)
PEE is a good option as well.
Im not a Scrabble player
Please explain😅
@@blu3m0nkeythe joke is just that they wouldn’t see the bingo and would make a bad play instead
Can we get this channel large enough that when Will goes to ask his friends their thoughts he can call up Nigel Richards?
your scrabble coverage is by far the best coverage of any competetive game or sport i have ever seen.
100%! Most of us don't even play Scrabble and we're still hooked
I am a chess master and this man makes me appreciate Scrabble way more than chess
@@degenerate82 chess has extremely good analysis too
It's rare to have a channel that both analyzes games expertly while also playing that same game expertly too. Not to mention the regular uploads and quality editing and guest appearances. Really high quality stuff.
Thank you, that’s really too kind!
And among all the brilliant points about correct play, he also just sneaks in a bombshell insight at 6:23 that I'd never thought about; that looking at how the strongest players play, is not a plain measurement of what is correct, it's a skewed measurement because strong players more often play opponents weaker than themselves, and adapt to that situation.
It’s true. Several respondents said they would consider playing the aggressive move only against other elite players (though many said they would never play boldly against any opponent ever).
@@wanderer15do you sometimes go easy on obviously weaker players? maybe not in a tourney cuz each point counts but in an exhibition game.
@@samlin8089 In casual settings, definitely - though I prefer to do it with handicaps that still allow me to "find the best play", such as - no bonus points for playing all your tiles, limit to the number of tiles I can use, etc.
I once played DEUTZIA aggressively in a tournament. My opponent didn't have the correct tiles for a hook, so was forced to make his best move, and leave the hook up. I picked up an S, so followed up with PLAYS/DEUTZIAS, and was able to take a huge lead on turn 2.
I feel really confident about how I approach this conundrum. The better my opponent is, the more likely I take the bold approach. For the same reason, I’m more likely to open triple lanes against higher rated players, who are likely to score well irrespective of the lane.
The other consideration is where I stand in the tournament. In one Nationals, I had a decent record but a poor spread on Day 4, so I opted for the bold opening because it seemed like a necessary risk to come back. It didn’t work- opponent got there first-but I don’t regret it.
I agree with you 100% and was about to say the same thing. If I were playing, say, Joel Sherman, I know that starting with a 92-pt lead (or even a 106-pt lead) isn't "safe" but is definitely a big plus. And then if he does NOT have an S or blank, he's likely to have to play defensively. Add to that the likelihood of picking up an S or blank myself, and it means that I'm very likely to win that game. Of course, if he has one of those hooks, he'll likely score big and go on to win... but that was going to happen anyway!
It would be interesting to see a Scrabble engine that takes this into account. It would suggest more aggressive tactics if your opponent has a higher ranking
@@QuarkTwain In the world of chess engines, this is called "contempt," and it usually comes up in the context of making or avoiding a draw (high-level chess is a very drawish game). When the engine has high contempt, it is less willing to accept a draw in a position that's otherwise defensible. Effectively, this makes the engine play more aggressively, at least in the middle game.
It's like how NFL teams are more likely to go for it on 4th down late in the season/late in the game trailing
Yup, I'm not a Scrabble player but i do play TCGs and there's a lot more calculus involved in a tournament scenario than just whether the odds of a specific play work out in your favour. You're always having to consider whether the risk is worth losing your tournament progress (or conversely if you need to make the risky play to come back from a poor performance)
Bold move: opening with H8 PRETZEL
Funny move: opening with B8 HITLESS
Turn 2: playing 8A SCARED
Alternative turn 2: A2 FUCKERS
@@Dashie- SPOOKED
7:27 I love this. Playing a move that might be technically suboptimal to get into your opponent's head, and because it's fun. Who says competitive play takes the fun out of games?
Especially considering tournament play is time boxed. Even in casual games here on RUclips, I've seen pros get scuppered by agonizing too long over close calls, leaving them with no time in the end game.
I would love to see more of these Theory based videos. Theyre so interesting to see the psychology behind masterful Scrabble plays!
This video was great. Well researched, original research to boot, great editing, interesting thesis, and much more high effort in general than just analyzing a competitive game.
I always click 'like' as soon as I open Will's scrabble videos as I know they're going to be so good. I would take the bold option against a much weaker opponent as I want to decrease the chance they can beat me on lucky draws. I would take the bold option against a much stronger player for the same reason, increasing my chance of winning from a lucky draw. Against any player near my level I would play the safe option.
Pretzel Logic
Great album perfect to listen to while playing my favourite game! Great video
I've learned enough from game theory that aggression and putting pressure on your opponent to timely play perfectly is almost always correct regardless of the game.
I prefer the bold placements generally and feel very validated by Josh's comments 😀
I'd say what the current engines say is almost useless here. As advanced as Macondo is, it doesn't yet have the tools at all to correctly evaluate such a position.
For a few of the front hooks, there's a small added possibility that the opponent might not even notice them. Generally very unlikely but adds a few % to the value. Similarly, there might be some words where the back hook is uncertain enough that the bold placement might leave the opponent unsure if the word takes a back hook... especially under double challenge.
The evaluation is just a simulation of win%. All the engines are saying is that from simulating games out, the number of times your initial lead is overcome by the end of the game is more in one case or the other. This isn't useless because while not literally definitive, this evaluation is significantly better than any evaluation a human can do on the same subject, and why the engines are able to tease out the minute difference between a word that is good to play aggressively vs not.
@@Ecrilon I guess useless is a strong word, but I'd expect the simulation results to be highly misleading in a situation like this because the moves played within the sim don't match the moves that would typically actually be played in a simulation like this. So it's a case of the "garbage in, garbage out" principle
@AlexDings I am pretty sure simulations are overly generous on the bold plays, actually, not as much because human play won't mimic computer play, but because at the end of each iteration of a simulation, the computer will give an estimated win percentage of the position based on score differential and tiles remaining, without factoring in board dynamics. In fact, the fewer plies you use, the more the computer likes the bold play, since the hook gets cashed in less often and the win percentage estimate will be too generous given the dangerous hook out (try PRETZEL on 2 vs 4 vs 6 ply)
@@Ecrilon But the problem is that the engines simulate the games using what they consider to be optimal in the subsequent moves, and that can have its own bias and issues, exactly in tricky, double-edged situations like this.
Very cool premise for this video! I love the scrabble histories as well but this dive into a very specific conundrum is fascinating. Thanks Will
Its really cool to hear scrabble players talk about words as more or less "defendable" or "risky". This honestly feels a bit like getting into a fighting game, where yeah I might understand the basic game, but its awe inspiring to watch pros pull off cool plays.
I’ve made a couple videos now comparing Scrabble to other games and I really want to do one someday comparing it to fighting games (I have a couple specific ones in mind)!
“Yeah, my Scrabble footsies are insane”
You are an incredibly skilled RUclipsr with good instincts on how to take something interesting and view it through universal themes. And, it’s all about Scrabble, a game you are extremely knowledgeable about. Congrats
Thank you very much!
Minute or so in I was thinking the aggressive approach looked like a Josh Sokol type of play! Such an incisive position, and explanation and editing of your video is excellent.
this is my favorite video of yours yet; I was even thinking about this myself with PRETZEL just the other night and I (a scrub) decided that the safe option had to be right. I had no idea that there was such an analysis of words like Pretzel, so this video really opened my eyes to the level of analysis that has gone into a very specific, and very cool, scenario.
I really like these conceptual based videos! Amazing entry point for casual players to see optimizations to mindset not memorizations!
I had the pretzel conundrum in the form of RELAXIN during a club game some time ago. I definitely took the bold move for the reasons Josh Sokol stated -- more fun. Easy enough to do in a club game. In a tournament where it mattered, I would likely have skewed toward the safe play if I was in contention. But with this analysis, I feel equipped to make a much more informed decision should it happen to me again.
I don’t even know how to play scrabble but I’m watching these vids because they’re very well made
will this is one of the coolest videos i’ve ever seen and just now i finally got to play this scenario opening with the AENNOZ? rack
what Josh said in his interview is just a beautiful way to think of games in general. To not play MENAZON leaving the S hook is a sin against how fun, and memorable, scrabble can be.
He just invented Scrabble Theory.
While I'm not a Scrabble grandmaster yet, the upside to playing offensively for a score difference of only 14 points isn't worth the stress (additional fun element aside). Tournaments are stressful enough, and it's important to preserve energy whenever you can. I'd rather take a small point sacrifice and move on to the next rack.
I feel like in many ways the 'bold' placements are less stressful, no? You're going to have a lot of positions where the spot is either hammered immediately or blocked immediately - which lead to a normal game - and if the spot stays open for a prolonged period of time, then it's all in the hands of the tile bag. I feel like most of the stress is placed on the opponent rather than on you. I understand your point of view though
@@AmaranthRBY I'm sure it's fun sometimes to take a punt and hope for the best. The only scenario I can think of where it would make sense to play bold is when you're required to win by a huge spread, so creating more volatility is the way to go. Otherwise, I'm happy with the regular pretzel :)
You made Scrabble sound fascinating to someone who doesn’t typically care for it- well done! This was so cool to watch (:
I really appreciate that, thank you!
I feel like the bold option is more fun and also (obviously) higher variance which plays to the underdog's favor. I am so lucky to have gotten to play against Josh and our game was an absolutely *ridiculous* high scoring slugfest, with me benefitting a lot as the underdog from his fearlessness at leaving scoring spots open. Part of me hopes you someday cover that game on this channel!!
That actually would be a great one to cover. It’s still lurking on RUclips, right? (Scrabble Go channel as a VOD maybe?)
absolutely loved this video and would love to see more things like it about scrabble theory as opposed to a specific game or situation overview
LMAO Im actually proud that I realised what the video was going to be about after like 5 seconds, I officially now scrabble stuff yay
I love that knowing a huge portion of the dictionary is only THE START of getting into competitive scrabble
I haven't played scrabble in forever. I think I got recommended this channel because I play other games competitively and I watch chess videos and stuff. I would play the bold approach against players that I feel are stronger than me, and the safe option against opponents I think are weaker than me. Which menas, I would always play the bold option, but I'm imagining I could get good :p
Thanks for stopping by and giving my video a try! Your instincts definitely mirror my own.
Omg that's an incredible video. Thanks Will!
Love this new style of video!
It’s fun to watch these problems evolve. I play games like Go & Street Fighter where if it’s advantageous to be in a position you can usually just… be there.
Loved this video!! Not sure if The Algorithm would agree, but I would be super excited to see more uploads like this one, breaking down strategy and not focused on any specific real-life game/player.
Thanks! I do pay attention to The Algo but I also run with the creative spark any time I feel inspired by something (which happened here basically at random).
Can you make more videos about Scrabble Theory?
What a great breakdown of scrabble game theory. I liked how you showcased the nuance of the plays and asked others for their opinion because you're not sure yourself. The way I see it, if you follow the mathematically correct line and then play a million games, you'll win the most often. But if you only need to win one tournament game, you can definitely play it safe and focus on early leads. Will, you're kinda the Kendrick Lamar of football
Better than the Drake of football. Thanks!
5:12 I'm curious about the engine's bold preference for LALIQUE but coin flip for SILIQUE, two very similar words which makes it easier to compare them. I would have thought the engine favours bold when risk is lower, and SILIQUE has only 5 back hooks compared to LALIQUE's 6. Do you have any idea why?
My best guess is the risk of putting S of SILIQUE on centre square factors into the equation, but I wouldn't have thought that it would tilt the risk that much. I'm not sure if you have more insights on this.
This is probably just a bit of noise caused my lack of thoroughness on my part. When I run the sims for these two again, they’re both in the coin flip category for me.
The way my mother and I play (when we have the chance to) is quite similar to this, as we always go for the highest scoring plays to maximize our *combined* points. It adds a layer to the game where you're actively pushing where you normally wouldn't, it's great!
Cool variant!
Very nice video. Thought-provoking and informative.
One of my favorite Scrabble videos.
Count me in team Sokol, and imo it's always correct to go bold against higher rated opponents. So, if I'm playing Nigel, Will, or any of the experts polled here I put them to the sword, even with BEZIQUE!
Dude this reminds me so much of when I was learning poker. You just have to get used to bad beats and accept that you're playing a sample size of many thousands of games instead of just one. Once you get in that headspace 62% chance to win or at least get a dominant lead is a no brainer. That being said, I imagine it'd be easier to live with the results if you were playing like a scrabble ladder or something vs a one off tournament. I guess that's where the scrabble version of ICM would come into play.
maybe scrabble players that also play poker have this mindset in general
It's not quite the same in my mind for 2 reasons: (1) both the bold and non-bold play put you above 62% chance to win (probably even higher, more like 70%), it's just if the bold works well for you it jumps to 99%, whereas working badly puts it at 40%, while the safer placement has you hovering in the 70% zone for longer, and (2) poker is a game where many hands are played and the objective isn't to win the most hands but to win the most money, so you should base your strategy on the price for playing the pot compared to relative odds, even in the cases of bad beats. Scrabble tournaments are based on wins first and foremost, spread as a tiebreaker. I think you see a lot of the top players favor the safe positions because they trust they can convert a 70% computer win probability in human play more often than the weighted average between the 40% and 99%.
What will I do next time I am lucky enough to draw a pretzel?
I won't even see it.
Interesting analysis! As a strong intermediate / low expert player myself, I will usually play the risky version if I think I am an underdog against a very strong opponent. I might need some luck in any case, so I might as well hang the game in the balance right away.
I always love seeing a retinas reference. Great content. Thanks!
wanderer15 true fan alert!
Letting someone triple off your z evens the game. Tripling off your own z? Absolutely crushing
I can think of a quick analogy in poker called "implied odds" and "reverse implied odds."
Low pocket pairs like 22 can be valuable in poker as a way to "set mine," fishing for the roughly 1 in 9 chance of another 2 coming on the flop giving you at least 3 of a kind.
This works because low pocket pairs have good implied odds. When they lose, they tend to lose small and fold early, as you're not likely to invest much with only a low pair. When they hit, they tend to win big, as you'll have a very strong disguised hand that other strong hands (top pair, overpairs, two pairs) might not expect. Even against straights and flushes you have outs to a full house.
However, there is something to be wary about, especially with the lower pocket pairs (22-66)-- reverse implied odds. It's the same concept but one level deeper, and applies when both players have more money in front of them.
The problem with low pocket pairs is that although they do well against strong hands, they can get dominated when a higher pocket pair also hits a set ("set over set"). When this happens, you are almost drawing dead most of the time, needing to spike 4 of a kind to win. Hence, when players have very deep stacks in front of them, low pocket pairs become less valuable because you might not be able to fold them yourself to an enormous bet, even when dominated.
If I was lucky enough to draw a pretzel, I’d play it, get huge points, and then my family would dissolve into talking about various snack foods for half an hour before the next person played their word.
Hello Will, a view from Czechia. I´m one of the best Czech players (it´s nothing special, Czech community is not wide, but only for context) and I prefer safe play. Key idea is: if you are favorite you are happy with 50 point leading after 1st move and you don´t need sharp game. If your opponent is another strong player, the situation stay same. You are happy with nice leading after opening. It should be another situation, if you are weaker player. In that case it´s an interesting choice bold play. There should be also some tournament aspects, for which you can prefer bold play, but if there aren´t tournament reasons, safe play is better (from my view).
I'm 100% with Josh here. I don't play scrabble, but I'd always go for the most fun, and often rewarding play. Even if they manage to use the open spot for a retaliation, we are even and have a game on our hands. If they don't, I'm very much in the driver's seat.
As a mediocre Scrabble player with poor dictionary word knowledge, I think players like me should ALWAYS go aggressive when we get the chance, especially against stronger opponents. If it comes down to word knowledge, I'd lose to a pro player every time. But leading with aggressive plays like that can increase the chance of winning to almost a coin flip.
Strong players facing a weaker opponent probably shouldn't do that, because high point hooks are very easy even for novice players to find in these cases. But, maybe if you're a competitive player facing another player of equal or higher ranking, it pays to be as aggressive as possible.
I LOVE PRETZELS 🥨🥨🥨
I love your videos !!!
YEAHHH
I love both Pretzels and your videos
I love pretzels and all of your nice comments!
This video is going to get me in trouble at my next tournament, isn't it
i think in tournament play, it depends on who you are facing as well. if i know im better than my opponent, i will be more inclined to try a riskier play. its a good way to further increase my spread and even if he takes advantage of the TW score, i will still be able to beat him most of the time.
I find the math and psychological pressure being quite convincing as reasons to play the aggressive option, especially as someone who is not usually a favorite to win Scrabble games.
I'm actually quite curious about the zinnia vs nib question at 2:00. What would you favor there and what do computers say?
Computers emphatically consider NIB a mistake - the player trailing likely needs to leave the slot open and hope for the best there. But again, against a much weaker player, I might be inclined to block and battle my way back in a game where my opponent has much more difficult plays to spot than giant S-hooks.
@@wanderer15 That makes sense. NIB also does not completely block the hook. It would be devastating to play NIB and then see your opponent bingo with ASBESTOS.
When playing higher level competitive in anything, especially if you're in the top 8 or higher, I generally tend to play risky simply because I know most won't.
It usually works, but even if it doesn't pan out, it's something your next opponent won't likely forget which turns up the mind games for him, greatly increasing the chance to win that one.
Very cool Will... you're putting out some great content, keep it up.
So LAZIEST is a safer option right?
HastyBot: immediately gets a g in a starting rack
I cant believe that I actually understood this video! Nice job.
Personally, I would probably opt for "Leep" only to then realize I've spelt it wrong.
Fantastic video - thorough analysis.
First, I agree with Josh that it's more fun leaving the spot open. It's just more interesting doing it that way.
Second, if I'm playing against a weaker opponent, they probably won't see it. (I'm not that good at the game, and everyone I play with is twenty years out of practice.) If I'm playing a stronger opponent, then I need any advantage I can get, and a 200-point lead is definitely a good advantage.
I'd say if you're playing someone higher rated than you you should play PRETZEL, SELTZER, RELAXIN, etc in the "content" spot, because you're already an underdog to begin with, so if it's close to 50/50 whether you're going to get the hook you need first, which I think it is close to 50/50 in most of these situations, it's often better just to play it against a higher rated opponent or an opponent you have a bad record against. If you do hit the spot before your opponent and your opponent is higher rated, the handicap of being 150-200 points behind is often enough that you can just play at your normal strength and still win comfortably.
0:19 doesn't that drastically help out your opponent on the board state allowing for more chances for them to make a word themselves that can score them an even higher amount of points?
Another element (not needed at the highest level 😊) is whether your opponent is likely to know the hook. I played BRONZER years ago in the ‘risky’ position, then was later first to pluralise. So satisfying 😅🎉
Very nice!
You could also have one or two blanks in the opening move. That would reduce both the number of possible hooks and the face value of the word.
I'll take my sanity above the 14-18 points, thank you very much! I cannot imagine playing the "bold" option in a real tournament game... I can only imagine your coach or the commentators/observers laying into you after the game for "throwing" after getting such a heavenly opening rack and going on to lose.
Of course, if you actually went second and the first turn your opponent exchanged 3 tiles for example, playing the "risky" option becomes just plain suicidal.
As a “safe” option picker myself, I totally get this. I don’t know if I’ll actually have the stones to try a bold placement if I draw a rack like this…we’ll see!
I will almost always go SAFE, I don't have the bravery for the bold moves unless I get desperate 🤣🤣🤣
Josh Sokol mentioned at a certain point not playing for fun.
Reminds me of a Smash Bros melee player named Amsa, who was known to say "i play to win"
I find it really interesting that only one of the GMs you asked had a different answer for seltzer than for pretzel, when both engines had a different answer
Actually unless I edited it wrongly it was both Adam Logan and Jackson Smylie saying that. Still very much a minority answer, but I think it’s actually the closest to my own answer now.
I didn't see the tiles in the thumbnail, so just from the title, you could have given me 100 guesses about what this video is about, and I'd never have gotten to the answer Scrabble.
Wow scrabble strategy sure has a lot of twists! Kind of like a garlic knot or braided babka!
Are there any Nigel games on record of him having to choose safe vs bold like this?
I wondered the same thing after watching this and went through his games - doesn't seem like there is one on record. Otherwise we'd know the correct answer 🤣
not quite... the closest would be him going 4 PRENZIE 4 max pts on stream ― no hooks thrown out (surprisingly) 👀
I will play safe Will. I just learnt PRETZEL. Thank you Will.
Hi Will, is there a link to the 3D plot used in this video? I would like to dive deep into the chart
Yes, I’ll try to remember to dig it up and post it here
Out of Context Quote: Recommend the more aggressive placement of seltzer
I guess the correct answer is "it depends". It depends of parameters that are not easy to establish, and beyond the mathematical study proposed. It depends of your opponent : is he enough good to give him 130 points? does he seems unconfortable with his first draw? factors that can influence your choice are also how you tournament is going? did you have misfortunes yet? or does everything goes well and you feel strong and invincible? Matsumoto's point around Entropy is key. Know yourself and play accordingly to what makes you more confortable than your opponent
Hi Will. Is professional scrabble always played 1 v 1? Have there ever been any classic games with 3 or 4 players all playing against each other?
It is indeed always 1v1 though I’d love to see other variants popularized!
This got me hooked
i dont even know how to play scrabble
My strategy for the next time I draw a PRETZEL will be to never notice the bingo at all, thus reducing points, honor, and difficult decisions.
every time I get aggressive I'm seemingly always punished instantly for it no matter how often the probabilities seem to be in my favor. So I'll just play it safe.
I wonder how much of the calculation on SELTZER should consider that by playing the risky option, in addition to the -S hook, it also puts the S in SELTZER below a triple word, making any bingos the opponent may have that can take an -S that much more powerful. The score gap for SELTZER is a few more points than PRETZEL, but to me it looks like there's additional risk involved, just not risk in the opponent playing an S. But maybe I'm just overvaluing that possibility.
That said I would still 100% take the risky play. In my experience, playing aggressive is just more fun.
That’s actually a great point. However, keep in mind that even safe SELTZER gives up all the same bingos as aggressive SELTZER - if all the tiles are low pointers, the difference may only be a handful of points. If you do happen to hit a high-pointer in the right spot, the triple-word S bingos will hit harder for sure - but even then the gap between those plays will always be significantly less than the gap between the big hooks and normal hooks.
What did you use to make the 3D graph?
Another expert player, Morris Greenberg, helped out with his R knowledge and Plotly!
Tournament, I'd play Safe... games with nothing at stake (i.e. club, friends), I'd play Bold...
1:30 And here I was having a nice pretzely moment, thinking 'no way can my opponent hook a 'D' to that - It looks like you were pretzeld. (Intentional humour - oh, and don't forget 'incites' for a related issue!!
4:50 not just fewer hooks but also more _obscure_ ones ― ones that even a sizeable chunk of seasoned players may not notice ― let alone _know_ ...
imo top lvl (say GM) scrabble doesnt just mean playing the most "optimal" plays ― ur playing the _player_ 2... as if the pros r engines that can display their ABSOLUTE word knowledge at ANY given time... like 🤯
long story short ― this is what makes opening placements of words like GENIZOT# _that much wilder_
For sure. When we start factoring in opponent mistakes, things get even wilder. For example I once played STAMPED in a very dangerous spot gambling that opponent wouldn’t think of the normal word STAMPEDE - they played off an E elsewhere and I capitalized immediately.
I think the best psychological ploy is to play PRZETEL from the other side. If your opponent doesn't notice and you win, they will likely give up Scrabble entirely in self-disgust, thus reducing your competition in future tournaments. You have to play the long game.
That is genius
At my level I always go bold but not because of any psychological advantage, more that it will be a long time before I hit a score over or close to 100 again. I'd like to see a video on highest scrabble openings in professional scrabble if you haven't already done one.
If you allow smaller tiles being the one under consideration, I've heard a horrifying example: a player putting the M on the double letter score for OOMIACK and his opponent had a W for WOOMIACK which is also an acceptable spelling.
Heyyy, this just came up for me in a game for the first time. I had RELAXIN, but my opponent actually opened with trade 2, so i figured he was more likely than usual to have a hook.
Agree with your instinct there for sure.
When I was playing at a higher level, especially when I was mainly playing CSW against North American opponents who had not yet learned as many of the CSW-only words as I had, I was very risk-averse with these racks, preferring to coast to likely victory without setting up a huge coin flip. Now that the standard of play has increased while I've gotten much rustier, I'm more inclined to take the points and I'd probably play 8h SELTZER against anyone 1800+
Such an amazing video!!!!
i wonder if there’s a competitive scrabble iceberg chart
My favourite word in scrabble
Ha, glad you enjoyed this pretzel content!
i love wtching vidoes bout things i have no idea about