Sons of Steve Garvey: Yahtzee Round 2, Die Roll Selection

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Yahtzee Round 2, Die Roll Selection

Round one in the books. Now it's Round 2...git rollin'!

(click image to enlarge)

To review the rules or to post a non-roll comment/question, go here.

39 comments:

Jason said...: Rollsies...; 10/12/2010 1:46 PM
Eric Karros said...: Roll, bitches; 10/12/2010 1:46 PM
Jason said...: A 6 and a 5. Come on 4 to get us closer to the straight...; 10/12/2010 1:48 PM
Josh S. said...: I get to play!; 10/12/2010 1:49 PM
spank said...: Give me a six. Baby needs some shoes.; 10/12/2010 1:49 PM
Jason said...: I'm pretty good at this game. 6-5-4 for my max rolls.; 10/12/2010 1:49 PM
Nostradamus said...: 6-5-4-2-4 plus...; 10/12/2010 1:50 PM
Nostradamus said...: 6-5-4-2-4-4...; 10/12/2010 1:51 PM
Josh S. said...: Whu?; 10/12/2010 1:52 PM
Jason said...: Readers: 6-5-4-2-4-2-4-4
Sons: 5; 10/12/2010 1:55 PM
Jason said...: Damn elusive 3; 10/12/2010 1:56 PM
Josh S. said...: That's a pretty low-scoring Full House. Maybe 4-of-a-kind with 4s?; 10/12/2010 1:57 PM
Jason said...: Full house is 25 points regardless of rolls, right?; 10/12/2010 1:58 PM
Josh S. said...: Oh yeah. They're pretty common, though. I think we're good either way.; 10/12/2010 2:00 PM
spank said...: Looks like 25; 10/12/2010 2:00 PM
Jason said...: I'm not opposed to taking the 4s category for 16 points which at least matches the Sons.; 10/12/2010 2:02 PM
Nostradamus said...: I'd say go with the 4's, but full house would be fine, too.; 10/12/2010 2:04 PM
Nostradamus said...: Alright, Mr. C's strategy thoughts coming up.

I don't think we'll have much trouble rolling a full house with 8 die every turn. I say go for the fours, which will buy us a little forgiveness in the top bracket if we get stuck looking for a specific category late in the game. (average for the bonus is 3 of each); 10/12/2010 2:07 PM
Josh S. said...: So, we keep the 4s and a 6?; 10/12/2010 2:08 PM
Nostradamus said...: By which, I endorse taking all the fours. The fifth die is moot.; 10/12/2010 2:08 PM
Josh S. said...: We didn't roll a moot.; 10/12/2010 2:10 PM
Josh S. said...: EK, your score sheet has a few issues. You have "Count and add all the ones" for every number in the top half. Also, "Sixes" is "Sizes."; 10/12/2010 2:11 PM
Josh S. said...: ^"only ones", not "all the ones". Sorry.; 10/12/2010 2:12 PM
Josh S. said...: I guess 22 is too low of a score for 4-of-a-kind.

Yeah, Fours it is.; 10/12/2010 2:15 PM
Nostradamus said...: Yeah, we still have a lot of options open for 4x. using the fours buys us what amounts to another couple of chance rolls for the 1s and 2s; 10/12/2010 2:16 PM
Josh S. said...: I'm trying to imagine an actual Yahtzee game with this much strategy discussion.; 10/12/2010 2:17 PM
Nostradamus said...: @Josh

This is normal for my house.

We've got issues.; 10/12/2010 2:22 PM
Steve Dittmore said...: Go for the 4s.

This is way more fun than puzzles, plus I don't feel so dumb.; 10/12/2010 2:23 PM
Eric Karros said...: Thanks for the headsup on scoresheet errors. Copy and paste is a blessing and a curse.; 10/12/2010 2:31 PM
Eric Karros said...: 5 5 2 for the Sons...; 10/12/2010 2:38 PM
Nostradamus said...: 5-5-2-3; 10/12/2010 2:45 PM
MR.F said...: I missed my chance to roll, didn't I?; 10/12/2010 2:48 PM
Nostradamus said...: Alas.; 10/12/2010 2:52 PM
spank said...: Awwwww. None of the Sons wants to play with EK.

*laughs*; 10/12/2010 3:26 PM
Eric Karros said...: Yeah I'm on my own here. Dozens of readers vs EK. Bring it, bitches!; 10/12/2010 5:39 PM
Eric Karros said...: 5-5-2-3-6; 10/12/2010 5:40 PM
Eric Karros said...: 5-5-2-3-6-2; 10/12/2010 5:40 PM
Eric Karros said...: 5-5-2-3-6-2-2...4?; 10/12/2010 5:58 PM
Eric Karros said...: No, damn, a 6. Nostradamus I'm not.

5-5-2-3-6-2-2-6. Crapola. Full House, two's, or three-of-a-kind? Let's see...def not 3oaK, as the total sucks. With two's I'm still on par for the Upper Half bonus, sort of a default play. Full House, as someone mentioned, is pretty easy to get in this game, but why waste it here. I'm thinkin' two's. Not gaining much, but not foregoing much.

Two's it is.; 10/12/2010 6:06 PM