# | Player | Total | App | Avg | ๐ฅ | ๐ฅ | ๐ฅ | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
|
= | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | ==
|
1 | HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
| 720.00 | 8 | 80.00 | 6 | 2 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | sebcbien2
| 417.00 | 8 | 46.33 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| |||||||||||||||||
3 | Klepp
| 224.00 | 4 | 44.80 | 2 | 2 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
4 | TitanicTony
| 188.50 | 7 | 23.56 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
5 | T1-T3
| 184.00 | 3 | 46.00 | 2 | 1 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||
6 | outskirts
| 172.50 | 4 | 34.50 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| |||||||||||||||||||
7 | RottinJohn
| 161.00 | 6 | 23.00 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
8 | cellmate
| 136.00 | 7 | 17.00 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| |||||||||||||||||
9 | 5737525
| 130.00 | 6 | 18.57 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| |||||||||||||||||
10 | DebbyJ
| 123.00 | 6 | 17.57 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
# | Player | Streak | Points | 16-week | 32-week | 53-week | Yearly | Alltime
|
= | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | ==
|
๐ฅ | HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom | 83 | 100.00 | 1282.00 | 2724.00 | 4173.50 | 1282.00 | 9436.00
|
๐ฅ | jimmyp | 50 | 72.00 | 72.00 | 72.00 | 120.00 | 72.00 | 497.75
|
๐ฅ | Klepp | 43 | 60.00 | 743.00 | 1534.33 | 2334.42 | 743.00 | 3325.62
|
4. | redberet | 34 | 44.00 | 590.58 | 845.33 | 1201.16 | 590.58 | 2872.66
|
4. | Unidex25 | 34 | 44.00 | 44.00 | 79.00 | 111.50 | 44.00 | 166.00
|
6. | sebcbien2 | 33 | 35.00 | 579.08 | 1244.25 | 1758.75 | 579.08 | 4339.08
|
7. | DebbyJ | 22 | 30.00 | 401.25 | 738.41 | 1105.91 | 401.25 | 2179.08
|
8. | silvrstreak | 19 | 26.00 | 117.50 | 318.00 | 326.00 | 117.50 | 724.33
|
9. | ix | 16 | 23.00 | 64.04 | 64.04 | 78.04 | 64.04 | 1146.91
|
10. | Ellie2 | 12 | 20.00 | 668.00 | 873.42 | 873.42 | 668.00 | 890.42
|
11. | wasjun | 10 | 18.00 | 35.58 | 51.83 | 71.08 | 35.58 | 147.08
|
12. | Punster | 6 | 15.00 | 157.62 | 270.62 | 397.12 | 157.62 | 773.87
|
12. | daz | 6 | 15.00 | 30.00 | 30.00 | 59.25 | 30.00 | 153.75
|
14. | mrbuck | 5 | 12.00 | 12.00 | 20.50 | 20.50 | 12.00 | 20.50
|
15. | The-Bible-is-the-Word-of-God | 4 | 10.00 | 238.33 | 238.33 | 1060.33 | 238.33 | 1693.83
|
16. | JackK2019 | 1 | 9.00 | 9.00 | 9.00 | 9.00 | 9.00 | 9.00
|
For more: WWCX Home Page
For more: WWCX Home Page
For more: WWCX Home Page
Hey congrats on this win Hop! But also!!!
Did I read you have a streak of over a thousand on this? Thatโs awesome!
I like this variant so far and its pretty fun to streak in that it starts off fairly easy to go quickly.. but then I wind up making a dumb mistake around level 30ish and start again, do the same, start again, etc..
I couldnโt seem to get to 40, so canโt imagine playing hundreds without messing up! With only one cell youd have to always stay rlly focused to keep such a high streak. Thatโs rlly cool, good job :)
ps- Iโm trying to get elo up so playing w some custom variants after dennys suggestion. Ive been playing this higher level for last half hour, itโs not too bad but have messed up a few times and elo plummeted more. Do you have any variants you like for raising elo?
Thanks GoA,
In this variant, I usually look for ways to free a column however bizarre order of moves it may require. Then it becomes easy for me.
Whatever variant you play, try not to lose (easily). I usually play variants of these competitons (Monday, Wednesday, Saturday and joey's).
When you click the name of a player you can see what variants they play. So maybe you can have a look at what those guys with high ELO are playing to get an idea. Also you may have a look at this link to see the daily deltas of top ELO players (under "Daily Standings").
Yea, it sounds silly but I was thinking the best advice esp w higher difficulty variants is prob just : โtry not to loseโ lol. But it does make sense bc when I first started playing on here I didnโt know much abt elo, and did most of my damage to it in 2 ways : 1. Pressing quit instead of save when I got bored of playing or wanted to try a different variant 2. Playing variants Iโm not skilled enough with over &over &over.
W this 11x1 I set it to difficulty level 10 and it was up and down. After a bit I did 11 and was making progress. The elo payout is good but man I just lost 2 in a row and the takeaway is a lot too. Still fun tho. But absolutely no idea how you got over 1000! Iโd prob start having hourly panic attacks after 100, lol (Iโm not v good under pressure)
thatโs a good idea to check out the high elo reg games. Iโll try that, thnx for the tips
For more: WWCX Home Page
For more: WWCX Home Page
For more: WWCX Home Page
For more: WWCX Home Page
Congrats, Hop!
Rlly impressive how fast you got to 120! Took me hours to get to get to my last game, but seemed like you got that lead very quickly indeed!
I hadnโt played many of the 11x1w before, and hadnโt played any 10x1 or 11x1 in a while unless theyโve been on HS, but the winnable was much more fun to streak when you know there must be a solution. Started getting tougher for me after 50, at which point I was just seeing how high I could get before I lost.
On my 49th or 50th game I almost quit abt 18 mins in, thinking Iโd walled myself in, and at the last sec I realized I could do some rather odd maneuver with moving up some spades that I wish Iโd noted my moves because it wound up being a rather satisfying fix, (it never happens to me after so long that I find a solution, ha.) Anyway these got tough, very impressive on that fast 120! Kudos!
Thanks. I was trying to catch up with redberet until 70 or something. Then it was a relexad play during breaks.
"but the winnable was much more fun to streak when you know there must be a solution"
Tell it to TN.
"That does not compute." That said..............."fun" can be a lot of things, depending on context. In a competition such as this, where one is just trying to zoom along and get some high number, without regard to challenging oneself in the most complete manner...............I can see some element of "fun". But as to their place in 'regular' freecell........no, they should not exist. But as I've also said before.......I'm glad (really) that some folks can enjoy them. I just think there are those here who conflate them with 'real' freecell. And yeah - you all have heard all my arguments ad infinitum on that. There should just be very high walls separating freecell from freecell lite. And there aren't.
Saying "they should not exist", when so many players enjoy them (some even prefer them) is really stupid,imo!!!
Knowing I'm playing a winnable does not make me a better player. In these competitions, every game could be your last, so you have to pull out all the stops with each one. If knowing it's winnable gives you added incentive, fine, but for me I'd only be fooling myself. Thanks for taking the time to lap me, Hop.
They are the SAME GAMES. Lol
In fact playing the regular option of 11x1 can be EASIER than 11x1w, if you can grok that! I notice it just by being observant when I play.
"You can observe a lot just by watchin'".
-- (you-know-who) (Yogi)
When I first started on site, I thought the fact there are unwinnables was rlly odd and kinda pointless seeming. Now that Iโve played here a bit more, I can see the element of risk & thrill one may feel while streaking with them.
I also realize that it does, to some degree, speak to a players skill because I do feel a bit smug when I can quickly see itโs UWโif Iโm right, I mean. As skill rises, itโs easier to see when it is and that in itself is at least something, I guess.
I see both sides, pros & cons to each. Iโm glad they arenโt in hot streak (thatโd be maddening) but if Iโm honest I do still think it odd that theyโre added to so many competitions. In tourneys theyโre frustrating and closing out to check wastes time, but I can at least see that a super skilled player may not even have to waste much time so that makes some sense to me.
In daily competitions, or SSC, I donโt see much point as it doesnโt speak to skill but rather to luck. But there are fewer winnable variants than reg, I think, right? Which means Mon,Wed, Sat games have more variety so am glad theyโre there. +they donโt annoy me as much now as when I first started playing.
But I disagree they donโt ever affect game, or at least for me as Iโm far more likely to close out a tricky game earlier if I think itโs UW and in a rush. Iโve won and lost some that looked very likely UW but actually had some little trick maneuver. But like I said, I can see relevance for that bit as it speaks to skill on how quickly I may notice it.
There was a time when we didn't have the W option. But then things changed for the better! I cannot see how anyone would think W shouldn't exist!
I definitely have nothing against winnables, but those records have as much meaning as the 10x6 record. Unwinnables are the true equalizers.
redberet's point is accurate.
And this post is mostly aimed at Go. Everybody else has heard it all before - multiple times. I don't wanna re-litigate all that yet one more time. And Go..........I know you've done at least some 'research' on past discussions and happenings, but you may or may not have happened upon this thread:
Freecell.net - play online competitive Freecell solitaire
While that is not the complete set of 'arguments', it contains quite a bit. Just for a germane sample, I present this, from page 2:
"Consider, ElGuapo, this thought experiment......
Player A is playing 4x10, climate 5. According to the cumulative stats, 61+% of those are winnable (or shall I say *are* won - some of you all maintain the actual numbers somewhere not easily findable on this site). [El Guapo followed up this post of mine with a post stating that the actual number of winnable games for 4x10 was not that far from 99% or so.] If said player is playing the regular version of 4x10, and draws game #160, for example, it is as of now 0/12, yet apparently is known to be winnable because its elo is listed as 1906.774. But said player would have no idea if the game he was facing was winnable or not, and clearly it's a difficult game. So he wouldn't know how much time to 'waste' trying to find a pathway, realizing that his quest might be futile. (As a certain significant percentage are indeed unwinnable.) There's a cost/benefit analysis that by necessity figures into how much time to spend on such games. There's a "diminishing return" concept at play.
Player B is playing 4x10, climate 5, but is playing the "Freecell Lite" version, also known as W4x10. He may also draw game #160, but will KNOW it's winnable if only (s)he takes the time (or takes the deck of cards) to crack the case. This knowledge represents an automatic advantage over the game. Yes, as joey, Punster, and others note, "it's still the same game". While true enough, the simple knowledge of having that advantage of "I'll win with enough effort and/or time (and/or cards)" makes a *huge* difference. It's a clear advantage.
So...........because of the way things were set up, player B will get a larger bang for his buck (reward/effort ratio) than player A, even tho they played the same game. Player A had a harder road to travel, having first needing to determine if the game was even possible to win."
=======
1. Yes, it's the same game - but without the skill needed to *first* determine if a game is even winnable. IMO that is a VERY key part of freecell, historically, and even now, if one is playing the regular flavors (if they're not 100% winnable). And I'm not talking regular vs. "lite"; I'm talking just in general. Say one is playing a 10x0. A great deal of those are unwinnable. So one must decide how much time to devote to "categorizing" each of those game to figure out whether it's winnable or not. It's a KEY skill - and expense of time, in many cases.
2. None of my quote above addresses the issue of the lists of winnables in the database - which IMO (coinciding with redberet's point above) is a worthless data set. Unless (big) asterisks are added to *every* one of those 'records'. As I've 'splained multiple times before..........whatever the listed records for winnables are, they are not valid.........** because** whoever was/is playing the regular version of said variant could well have exceeded the 'reported' record(s) for the winnable flavor. Hate to take up the space here....but here's an example:
The 'listed' record for W10x1 is by "Gulbis" with 663. The all-time record for the regular flavor is "Honest" with 116. Had Honest been playing winnables back 15 years ago, who knows how high his(?) score would/could have gone? It could have been 1,116. Or 10,116. We can't know. Thus we can't fairly compare Gulbis's 'record' with Honest's *real* record. Therefore that 663 has no, or at best, very little meaning. That should make sense. Gulbis was playing "freecell lite".
3. I would wager, strongly..........that Ellie2 above, without this refresher, couldn't have stated my arguments. The standard (not uniformly, tho) arguments against my logic are simply some version of "Winnables are better because you don't waste time on games that cannot be won". Which of course is true. But.......the theory of the regular version is that, over time, everybody's luck will even out. Which is true (sorta), but still gives "streaks" which are not scattered along a bell curve for all. To deal with that.........years ago I urged Denny to make the default listing be "Winning %" instead of streak length. Or better yet, the inverse of winning percentage, as that's a much easier thing to see separation when dealing with variants that are 98+% winnable. That went nowhere, obviously. My point being, obviously again, I hope, that that stat removes the 'luck' of someone getting 100 winnable 6x4s (or whatever) in a row. With winning percentage, 'luck' really does "even out" over even a moderate amount of play. Every, or nearly every, other "sporting" list of standings uses winning percentage. Why couldn't freecell have been likewise?
4. The genesis of the creation of winnables was 11x1. Some players were (justifiably) getting irked that they were running into one of the "land mines" of that variant, of which there are 30-40 in climate 5 - scaling up to over 100, I believe, for climate 10. So somebody could run up a streak of 200 (or whatever), and then get unlucky with one of those mines. So........it did kinda make sense, from a player's perspective, to weed out those land mines. But still...........since the original database was what is was, even that was "freecell lite". Had winning % been the default scoring for the standings...........those few land mines wouldn't have mattered much at all, even in the intermediate run.
I'll leave it at that. To those of you *not* being Go.............save your cyberclicks unless you've got some new argument to make. Again, this post is aimed at Go. She clearly already understands the issue, or at least some facet(s) of it.
streak, as a measure of skill, makes no sense. no two streaks are the same because each player is playing a different sets of games. unwinnables that end streaks make it even more meaningless
win % would be better, but again, only if the same set of games have been played
for Elo... neither player nor game Elo is effected by unwinnables... yet streak is... why?
knowing a game is winnable in advance may make some players try harder, but for the 'vast majority', its just a bit of added frustration knowing they lost a winnable game
in the past, there was no list of unwinnables... look forward
TN, I appreciate that repost. But wasnโt that kind of what I said?
I was saying I can see how it speaks to skill because the knowledge itโs winnable affects game,- you will put in the effort if itโs tricky because you know there *must* be a solution. And when playing unwinnable, in tourneys or in streak, it speaks to skill on how quickly youโre able to see itโs UW.
however, I was saying that in SSC, tho Iโm not against them because it adds variety to the competition- it still doesn't speak to skill. It may be an โequalizerโ as red says, but that term can be applied to anything that cuts down competition, or gives an advantage to some, but still doesnt mean it speaks to skill. ( I think Madonna controversially referred to COVID as the โgreat equalizerโ, which was in poor taste, yes, but while I'm not a great fan of Madonna, her statement is technically correct in that Covid didnโt differentiate among classes, genders, hard workers or non, etc- it came for anyone.)
just as in the SSC, a UW comes for anyone, regardless of skill. For instance, in todayโs 13x0, I was over 50 streak until dealt a UW. I didnโt play poorly, but luck ran out on hands dealt. Iโm never bitter because it happens to everyone, but my point was, in SSC, I appreciate that the UWs are there only because there are more variants to play, (as there arenโt as many winnable variants I think, right?) but Iโve won before, I canโt remember over who, seb I think? And we were very close but tbh he wouldโve beat me had he not been dealt a UW his last game close to time called. There was nothing he could do abt it, just his luck that day, but I considered it at least a tie because he was in lead before that and so was more skilled.
cellmate:
"win % would be better, but again, only if the same set of games have been played"
......."look forward"
While that (your first statement) is technically true...............over, say, 100-200-500 games, the difficulty differential would be very minimal. And of course for streaks, the exact same 'handicap' is present.
As to looking forward.............the database represents hundreds of thousands (at least; likely millions) of hours of play by thousands of players. To say "look forward" dismisses that 'effort', which in large part is the matrix which holds together the competition aspect of this site. It's a ridiculous thought to ignore it. Yes, it's been somewhat corrupted by the cheaters among us, but it's still very far from worthless.
To add, I look at UWs in tourneys as sort of an obstacle course, or โhurdlesโ given to stump. Like speed bumps almost. Yes, I can see how a better player could win by deciding more quickly that itโs UW.
but also, if they werenโt there, wouldnโt a better player win all the winnables faster anyway? So itโs just an element of thrill I guess, is how I see them in tourneys.
in SSC, Iโd see them as unnecessary if it werenโt for the fact that there are more variants to play by adding both winnables and UWs to the rosters.
@ Go...................Yes, as pertaining to the extra skill needed to play the regular flavor, that is essentially what you said - and I was trying to give you credit for recognizing that already with my "She clearly already understands the issue.......". However..........I suspected you had not thought about the database/records issue.
As an aside.............I appreciate your fresh voice here, and the willingness to experiment, comment incisively, and your overall fun attitude. Yay!
Ps- lol, TN, I think we posted same time again. I replied to you right above your last one, before my last one.
And "There you 'go' AGAIN!" LOL!! ๐๐
Also, one last thing, as my example re: seb or whoever it was, and as you mentioned in your post, it is a bit hard to gage your own skill compared to others if they get dealt UW. As Iโve said Iโm not super competitive but with myself, competition with others almost makes me uncomfortable tbh.
That said, if I were ever to get close to someone like calico Iโd know โhey Iโm getting pretty good hereโ. But thatโs all moot if I only win because theyโre dealt a UW.
Lol TN, we do this every. single. time. ha, I bet we couldโve been stars of a debate team somewhere.
Thanks TN, yeah Iโm not sure if itโs that I had or hadnโt considered it, I wasnโt rlly meaning to discuss regular streak play but just any sort of daily competition format.
With regular play, I see that it would equal out over time. I guess the equalizer argument re skill or luck may still hold for debate but lets save that for another day haha
and also, sidebar on my end, thank you for being informative and engaging to my questions and dialogue since Iโm still at least mildly newb here.
"I definitely have nothing against winnables, but those records have as much meaning as the 10x6 record. Unwinnables are the true equalizers."
So by your rationale, 8x4 (which is an unwinnable variant, right?) and 10x6 are of the same sort?
I usually stay away from unwinnable ones not because the games are harder but because I may get dealt an unwinnable one, which would annoyingly end my streak.
For example, I chose not to play at yesterday's SSC just because of that. I didn't want to take risk of losing my current 66. Getting to 66 again takes a lot of time if I lose it. Nowadays I play 13x0 only when it is about to age off. Take a look at here to see why.
Once upon a time I was in love with Lucky Thirteen. So much so, I put my three user id's to work keeping streaks alive. When all three went over 100 at the same time, I went for the gusto. Well, the first one lost at 119. second at 123 and the last at 154. Point is, 197 is not going down. I chased that record because of the combination of luck and skill needed.
My best in winnables is 851 and that record does have less meaning to me. It creates a monotony/complacency because the element of risk is not there. Not just that, losses to winnables are twice as excruciating as those in streaking.
Since there is no W next to 8x4, it's not officially a winnable variant. Just kidding. I am only referring the W's to their counterparts. I agree your method of play and also your goals require winning, of which I have a high regard for, as well as those 10x6 players, mostly for their determination. This is when I did my trifecta.
Just curious Hop, but why 13x0 specifically? I understand not wanting to lose streak by playing unwinnables, but you usually play harder variants at unwinnables for SSC right? (Iโm usually fairly awed by your streaks and the fact you risk em with unwinnables some days.) . But I donโt think 13x0s are that hard. It *is* always annoying to get an unwinnable after so many, but of all the variants Iโd say 13x0 is one of those least difficult to quickly catch back up.
That said, while it didnโt take me long to get to 56, when I got an unwinnable and started over I got to 20ish pretty soon before getting another unwinnable. Even with easier variants I only have so many redos before I get bored and I didnโt feel much like trying v hard after that. I even lost a few easy ones that were winnable after that, because I didnโt much care anymore. Is that what you mean? Just like, boredom from the monotony of it? Because I donโt see it actually taking you very long to get to 66, if I was only 10 under that, and youโre def better than I am on here
Ps- red, nice story abt trifecta. Very impressive :). Also helps me understand a little better the overall tone of unwinnables and why some seem to favor them
"Just curious Hop, but why 13x0 specifically? I understand not wanting to lose streak by playing unwinnables, but you usually play harder variants at unwinnables for SSC right? (Iโm usually fairly awed by your streaks and the fact you risk em with unwinnables some days.) . But I donโt think 13x0s are that hard."
13x0 is not that hard. Absolutely. But the dealer is not so friendly to me. So It's not certain how much time it would cost me to get it back. I wanted it to be there for the sake of the 13-sum competition.
Yeah, I see what you mean now actually. After I replied I played it again out of curiosity on how much time itโd take for me to get there. Made it to 13 and then unwinnable.
I closed it out with an eye roll and a never mind.
For more: WWCX Home Page