The previous post on cricket auctions reminded me of a glorious post on the Cheap Talk blog, proposing a new set of rules for Scrabble. Instead of choosing letters at random, they bid for them:
The game works roughly as follows. At the beginning of the game tiles are turned over in sequence and the players bid on them in a fixed order. The high bidder gets the tile and subtracts his bid from his total score. (We started with a score of 100 and ruled out going negative, but this was never binding. An alternative is to start at zero and allow negative scores.) After all players have 7 tiles the game begins. In each round, each player takes a turn but does not draw any tiles at the end of his turn. At the end of the round, tiles are again turned over in sequence and bidding works just as at the beginning until all players have 7 tiles again, and the next round begins. Apart from this, the rules are essentially the standard scrabble rules.
This awesome proposal allowed them to work out which Scrabble letters are over/under-priced in the standard game:
The way to measure this is to compare the “market” price to the nominal value. If the market price is higher that means that players are willing to give up more points to get the tile than that tile will give them back when played (ignoring tile-multipliers on the board.) That means that the nominal score is too high. For example, blanks have a nominal score of zero. But the market price of a blank in our play was about 20 points. This is because blanks are “team players:” very valuable in terms of helping you build words. So, playing by standard scrabble rules with no bidding, if the value of a blank was to be on equal terms with the value of other tiles, blanks should score negative: you should have to pay to use them. Other tiles whose value is out of line: s (too high, should be negative), u(too low), v(too low.) On the other hand, the rare letters, like X, J, Z, seem to be reasonably scored.
As fun as this sounds to an econo-geek, it makes me wonder… Is nothing sacred to economists?
(I think you know the answer.)