On 5/10/07, Steven Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I understand the Quackle scheme as explained in this thread, AE > would be less highly valued than EE and ERN would be less highly > valued than ERR, whereas both Sheppard's approach and mine would both > prefer AE and ERN, respectively. So, Quackle must have some > additional synergy factors to account for this - right?
Quackle's actual leave values were created through a more complicated process than I'd like to fully describe right now, but I will try to explain it in the near future. Quickly: The first step is to come up with "leave values" for all 3.2 million racks. BaSiC values with synergy and v/c are part of the estimates for the values, but I also take into account whether the rack has a seven or eight letter bingo (and how many) and what possible nonbingo plays are likely to be available. The estimates are tuned to minimize error with a million-ish sample of simmed random racks. Then for zero- to six-tile leaves, I compute the leave's expected value based on the values of racks it can draw (weighted for probability). John
