Has anyone ever analyzed a recap of a game they played? What I mean is to look at how much you payed for each of your property cards, and then see how much you sell each property card for. It'd also be good to know what other properties were for sale, and what other checks were available each round so you have some idea about relative values.

Perhaps instead of seeing how much you sold a property for, you could see what your relative score is compared to the average of the other checks available. For example, if the checks are 10-11-13-14, the average check size is 12, so if you got the 14, you'd be a +2, but if you got the 11, you'd be a -1. Maximizing this relative value is mathematically the same as maximizing your gross amount, but it's just a different way of looking at it. Ideally, you'd like every check you collect to be a positive, and though possible, this is unlikely. What people try to do is use their larger properties for a larger positive, and the small properties for negatives. Ultimately this analysis would tell you how well you're reading your opponents and how well you're using the cards you have.

You could do the same thing when buying the properties, looking at what the average property value is on the board and trying to maximize your relative value. Of course, you win the game by having the most money, not by having the best properties, so this analysis isn't as important. It would be interesting though to see what you're paying for relative values. Another interesting thought I just had is that a properties relative value isn't really correlated to it's actual value. For instance, the 30 property could have a relative value from an auction of only +4 (if the average was 26) but the 20 property could have a relative value of +8 if the average was 12.

So the final analysis that I'm interested in would be to see how much I pay for each of my properties, what their relative value was, what I'm able to sell each property for, and what the relative value is for each check.

Another cool analysis would be to look at the properties everyone has bought and see who has the best and worst property average. Then see if people are able to translate that property advantage into check/money advantage. So, someone who is winning after the bidding round might lose after the selling round.

So, these aren't strategies exactly, but more things to think about and discuss. Here's something we talked about last night:

what kind of distribution do you prefer for your hand. Would you prefer a hand of 12,13,14,15,16,17,18 or 5,9,12,15,18,21,25 or even 1,2,4,15,24,29,30. All hands have the same average of 15 but are drastically different in the variation of the numbers. I contended that having all cards in the middle is better because it takes out the risk in the selling part of the game. You won't win the big check numbers, but you will win the rounds when everyone plays a low card. I think having a large distribution to work with makes the selling round more challenging and riskier. If you do well, you have can do really well, but if you do poorly, then you can get screwed. Since it's so hard to know what cards other people will play, I like to lower my risk and have a bunch of mid level cards.

One final thing that I like about this game is how it is not only broken down into two rounds, buying and selling, but each of those is broken down into between 5-9 (or 10?) individual auctions. So there's really 10-20 (depending on the # of players) "turns" if you will. Each turn you look at all the variables and try to do better than your opponents. Sometimes it's easy to see: in the same round, you paid $1k for a 10 and I paid $1k for a 15. Or I sold a 20 for $10k and you sold a 19 for $4k.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what thoughts other people have about analysis of the game, or any comments/reactions to my ramblings. Thanks for reading :-) ~Matt

Well, a lot of that was too mathy for me this late on a Friday afternoon. Hell, it was too mathy for me anytime. I'm too lazy to perform any kind of analysis like that.

I do have an opinion on the desired card spread, though. I would much rather have the 1, 2, 4, 15, 24, 29, and 30 spread. The odds are fairly good that you can flop your 1, 2, or 4 out when the check distribution isn't as variable. You'll have paid significantly less for them in the auction, and generally I think you can turn the most profit with them. Likewise, the 29 and 30 guarantee you a good check. This is particularly useful when the distribution is wide spread. The goal isn't necessarily to always take the high check, but to take the check that gives you the largest net gain over your opponents.

Example: On the table are a 15k, 14k, 13k, and 10k check. You could flop your 30 and take the 15, but you'd only be gaining from 1-5 on your opponents. Better to throw down a lower card (the 15, or maybe even the 4) and take good money for such a low card. If the cards on the table are 15k, 11k, 8k, and 2k, however, then it's a different story. By taking the 15k, you'll have a net gain of between 4 and 13 on the other players. That kind of spread puts you in a very good position.

I guess my overall point is simply that the way to win the game is win the auctions with the largest spread. It's much better to use a high card to win an auction with stakes something like 10k, 3k, 2k, VOID, than to use it to win an auction that's 15k, 14k, 14k, 13k.

I think at this point (or much earlier) I may have just started rambling blindly. Again, it's late on a Friday. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!

Edit: spelling

Nothing tight and in detail here.

One game, someone mentioned that I won a game b/c I had $$ leftover from the first phase (half of the game). I commented that I'm sure me choosing the correct properties for phase 2 made a difference as well.



That's one reason I like to mix things up and only do a 3p or 4p game. My main complaint with 5p and 6p games are since all the cards will be used, people can just hold out for the 28 - 30 properties, as well as the $15K and possibly the $14K checks.

By having to take out a few cards in 3p and 4p, it messes with people's thinking, forcing them to be less "mechanical" about their playstyles.

Even without all the cards, I think what I described was pretty sound, especially if you payvattention to what's coming out. The fact that cards are missing doesn't really impact looking for the card spread. Most of your points will come from the checks obviously, and you'll know at that point which properties are in play. The checks you want to win are those in a batch with a large spread. When the spread is tight, I find it's almost always worth throwing a small property.

Yeah, I agree with your comment on tight spread vs wide spread. My comment wasn't to refute what you said, but to show things can be quite different if some of the cards are randomly removed without anyone knowing about it.

To add, there's also which to throw away if it's a medium spread.... say -6 difference. In tight games, sometimes getting that 1 to 5 extra points can make all the difference. Especially if it goes on for several rounds. I have seen a few games where shockingly, the spread was kept relatively tight overall.