No one responded to my question, maybe because it was dealt with in a two-year-old thread titled Equity and Leave Files. Somewhere in the middle of this thread, John O. wrote:
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). I'd like to get this right, as I'm going to be referring to it in the revision of my book. What it sounds like to me is that the value of any leave depends, at a gross level, on the number of words in the TWL that can be played with it, but that there is an increased emphasis particularly on the number of bingos that can be made from the leave. And after this value has been derived theoretically, it is tested out through a very long simulation of racks containing the particular leave in question? I would greatly appreciate seeing how all of this might work in the case of a specific leave, say EGR. Second question: I've managed to obtain a file called superleaves, and also 6 files called leave1.txt, leave2.txt, and so forth. These files have different values. Am I correct in that the superleaves file that I have is outdated? It has a negative value for the X (-0.14), whereas in leave1.txt it has a value of 3.31. Thanks in advance for any help with this, Joel --- In [email protected], "joelrw" <jwapn...@...> wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been curious about this for some time. I am interested to know how the > valuation of any given leave relates to the frequencies of letters in TWL, > the individual point values of the tiles, relative tile rarity (e.g., 12 Es > probably brings down its valuation), and any other variables that are > important but that I can't think of right now. > > Thanks, > Joel >
