Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Meld Test Leaderboard
#1
We need a Leader Board for speed. The high score takes into account some luck to get a high test weight and finish in a reasonable time. A leaderboard for the fastest times would balance that out, because most likely the quickest speeds would have the lower test weights. I just finished in under 100 seconds, but I don't know what my test weight was, so I don't know if that was good or not. Speed baby!
Reply
#2
(07-09-2013, 09:16 PM)rakbeater Wrote:  We need a Leader Board for speed. The high score takes into account some luck to get a high test weight and finish in a reasonable time. A leaderboard for the fastest times would balance that out, because most likely the quickest speeds would have the lower test weights. I just finished in under 100 seconds, but I don't know what my test weight was, so I don't know if that was good or not. Speed baby!

Done.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#3
That is awesome! And not just because I am at the top of the speed leaderboard...
Reply
#4
I think it was a good request. I'm not sure that the test weight should be anything like as valuable as it is. Figure, you still have to *check* for the kings around and queens around, even if they're not there. A hideous hand for the test would be, say

AHTHQHQHJHTSTSKSQSJSADTDKDKDJDAC:ACTCKCKC

There's only 2 scoring units...but you've got 3/4 arounds in aces, kings, queens, and jacks, and an almost-run in hearts. I know I'd check and double check this nasty, nasty hand (from a counting perspective).
Reply
#5
(07-10-2013, 05:24 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  I think it was a good request. I'm not sure that the test weight should be anything like as valuable as it is. Figure, you still have to *check* for the kings around and queens around, even if they're not there. A hideous hand for the test would be, say

AHTHQHQHJHTSTSKSQSJSADTDKDKDJDACACTCKCKC

There's only 2 scoring units...but you've got 3/4 arounds in aces, kings, queens, and jacks, and an almost-run in hearts. I know I'd check and double check this nasty, nasty hand (from a counting perspective).

My opinion is that it takes much more time to find a meld unit as 'existing', recall the point value, and add to the total; than it does to disregard a meld unit as 'non-existing'. (Bear in mind, I use "much more" even though I am referring to fractions of seconds.)

The more I play, the better my strategy gets. I have been fine tuning the process by which I read the hand. I won't disclose the steps that I take to access the meld, but I always do it in the same order. As I am sure everyone knows, consistency is vital in improving speed and accuracy.

Now that we have several hundred games on record in the database, there is proof that the fastest meld counters are able to finish a single hand in ~10 seconds. Before the creation of the Power Pinochle Meld Test, I would have never guessed that meld could be counted so quickly. Another observation is that on average there are only 3 - 3.5 meld units per hand. So, the math dictates that our fastest meld counters can find, score, and add a meld unit in about 3 seconds.

Interesting stuff.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#6
(07-10-2013, 05:24 PM)ToreadorElder Wrote:  I'm not sure that the test weight should be anything like as valuable as it is.

I just dashed through a test to set a new record on the Speed Leaderboard. The Test Weight was low, but not ridiculously so; actually 4th highest on the "Speederboard." So this goes to show that the way the tests are being weighted can be refined further.

I think I would like to delve into:
1. Which Meld Units are easier to find and which are harder to find? *I found I was mostly dealing with marriages and pinochles.
2. Does doing larger sums drastically slow down a tester? *I didn't have to add any higher than 16 on any of the 10 hands in the Test.
3. Does finding 6-7 Meld Units take disproportionately longer to find than 4-5 Meld Units? *I never had to find more than 4 Units in any one hand. All hands had between 2-4 Meld Units.

PP Admins have access to all the relevant details to every Meld Test, and we are finding some interesting truths about meld counting. I think I would like to offer another table below the Leaderboards. I could display the Meld Test history for the logged in member (not everyone's, just your own). This way you could track all your games, see your longest streaks, and make informed observations about meld counting and the Meld Test.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#7
I can't speak for anyone else, but I find double K's, Q's, or J's the hardest to find...and therefore, the brutal hands are those with almost-doubles.

Some hands are also easier to count quickly, if you can see a particular feature that lets you *stop* looking. Say you're dealt a hand where your diamond holding is just TDTD. If you see that quickly, you can immediately turn off the search for anything around and any pinochles. Conversely, the harder hands are those that are balanced (6-5-5-4, 5-5-5-5) and lacking in 10's...now you really need to look for practically everything, and check and double check for those double K's or Q's. Lots of face cards gives a degree of tombstoning...everything looks largely alike, with no breaks.
Reply
#8
I'd like to say "Welcome and Well Done" to LuckyLarryDavid for stealing my crown at the Weighted-Score Leaderboard! And he did it in under 15 tries! Very impressive. Quite obviously you've got your brain wrapped around speedy meld counting.

It took me 30 tries to retake my crown.

Will LuckyLarry go another round?
Time will tell.

Best of luck to LuckyLarry and everyone who plays.

PP
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply
#9
Congratulations once again to SpeedyLarryDavid!
I think I'll concede now.
It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing all your life. -- Mickey Mantle
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)