Among Us Lite – Round 0

Current decision number = 12

Previous Moves

Round 0, initial position:


Stock = 50

Checksum: 6+6+6+6+5+5+5+5+5+5+50 = 104

Blue: I vote “fe”, building in-suit and turning over in a column with only four face-down cards.

Green: I like “dj”, also building in-suit and we have two Tens. Better to keep flexible and don’t commit all our efforts to a single column.

Red: I lean towards “fe” because we also have two Nines cancelling the effect of two Tens. But if someone flipped a coin and chose dj I wouldn’t say “coin is sus”.

Actual play (decision 1, 30 Sep): fe → 8 of Clubs (readers tie 1-1, blobs vote 2-1 in favour of fe)

Note: I had to rot13(haqb) a few moves because my readers requested a screen dump after every move.

Red: I’m tempted to dig further with “fa” but it’s better to build in-suit with “dj”

Green: Just take “dj”. With two aces exposed I’m not liking our chances of clearing column 6 any time soon

Blue: Remove one face-down card from column 6 and I might be swayed towards digging – “dj” it is.

Actual play (decision 2, 1 Oct): fa → 6 of Diamonds (readers vote 2-0 against Kolorfull Kibitzers)

Red: I vote “dj”. The alternative is gh but now the difference is 5 face-down cards versus 4 instead of 5 vs 3 in the previous move. May as well take the in-suit build.

Green: I agree with Red. Our prospects are good with three turnovers and odds-on to get at least one more.

Blue: I prefer “gh”. Even though it’s off-suit, KQ is still the best possible off-suit build because there is no rank higher than a King. In other words we never lose a turnover regardless of our next card.

Actual play (decision 3, 4 Oct): dj → 3 of Clubs (readers vote 2-0, Kolorfull Kibitzers vote 2-1)

Blue: “gh” is clearly best. The real question is whether we play the supermove “ac” or “ed” next unless something special happens with the next card

Red: “gh” it is. If the next card is A, 6, 8, T or Q of any suit then play “ac” next, since “ed” costs a turnover if we expose a Four.

Green: Play “gh”. Hopefully the next card is any Jack or any in-suit build (except Eight of Diamonds) giving us an easy decision.

Actual play (decision 4): gh → J of Hearts (Well done to SA who nearly guessed correctly with the J of diamonds!)

Actual Play (decision 5): gh → T of Hearts (trivial)

Actual Play (decision 6): gh → 5 of Spades (trivial)

Green: Just play “gf”. Even if we don’t get the empty column, having the last card in column 7 face-up is much better than having it face-down.

Red: I like “gf”. Any Seven doesn’t cost us a turnover because we already get the empty column!

Blue: I like the supermove “ah” since there are two Tens vs one Nine. If we can get an empty column then “ah” only delays our dopamine rush. The advantage is clear if column 1 reveals a Seven of any suit.

Actual play (decision 7): ah → 2 of Clubs (readers vote 2-0)

Blue: Another friendly card. Just build in-suit with “ad”.

Green: We may lose the empty column if the last card in Column 7 is a Two, but the chances are small. I also like “ad”.

Red: If we knew e.g. the next card in Column 10 was the Jack of Spades then there would be more incentive to chase the empty column. But here we must make the simple play of “ad”.

Actual play (decision 8): ad → 6 of Spades (unaminous)

Actual play (decision 9): ga → Q of Diamonds (trivial)

Actual play (decision 10): id → 3 of Spades (trivial)

Actual play (decision 11): ei → Q of Hearts

Blue: Deal a new row of cards.

Green: Not so fast. We have a supermove “he” to consider before dealing a new row. It increases our in-suit builds by 1. But I’d rather keep the junk pile in column 8 and deal.

Red: Come to think of it, I prefer “he”. Even if a King turns up in the next round, we have fair chances of good things happening in columns 2 or 7.

Actual play (decision 12): Deal cards (readers vote 2-0)

NOTE: This will be the final decision of round 0. Round 1 will see a fresh blog post in the same format as Round 0. If you have suggestions for improving this format, please let me know in the comments.

And that completes round 0. Now let us finish things off with a bad pun 😊

37 thoughts on “Among Us Lite – Round 0

  1. Green’s argument for dj is cryptic, but to make one that is explicit and concrete (that might or might not be what Green had in mind): Suppose we uncover a card and new opportunities arise that have us rapidly clearing a column. We finally have a card with none below it that could produce a space if we have a home for it. If we started with dj then we gave up no possibility — there is still a home for a 9. If we did fe and the card we want to move is an ace, our initial move gave up the possibility of doing so. Against that and in favor of fe is the benefit of starting in a 4 pile versus a 5 pile. I think dj is a tiny bit better.

    To be more general we can talk about “market value” — receiving tens are of a lower market value than receiving 2s or receiving kings. Demand to supply is 2:2 in the one case and 2:1 in the other two. Use up the least valuable thing first — all else being equal. (Often, ceteris just ain’t paribus.)

    Red’s argument about nines canceling tens is exactly the opposite direction of truth, so I raise my eyeball at him.

    gh and bh are clearly worse but not terrible either, and we’ll probably be doing one of them before long. gh better for turning over from a 4-card pile, bh better for being in-suit on a king (a very long-term consideration at this point). If a blob chose one of those I wouldn’t be saying “sus!” Or perhaps this is an opportunity to start calibrating the criterion for “sus”. How expert is expert? If one of the blobs had proposed one of those, would it trigger you “sus” detector? Proposal of ac or especially ie would be cause for “sus” as I see it.


    1. What I meant to imply with Green’s comment is if our first 3 turnovers are in e.g. column 7 and we get the dreaded King then we are back to square 1 as far as our first empty column is concerned. But if our first 3 turnovers are in different columns then we don’t get the same problem (assuming nothing stupid happens like three Kings in a row).

      Red’s “nines cancelling tens” is based on the concept of “market value” and I recall you or SA often mention that in your comments. Therefore TT9 means we demand more Nines and less Tens and TT99 means we are indifferent. I agree both Green and Red’s comments are based on wishy-washy intuition, but it’s hard to analyse everything to the nth degree when we only have ten face-up cards!


      1. Thanks for the follow-up. Regarding, “if our first 3 turnovers are in different columns then we don’t get the same problem”, I don’t see how any of the options differ in terms of committing to a single column or allowing different columns. I can see how “nines canceling tens” can be taken the right way now. In any case the summary is that all 3 blobs said reasonable things that are not suspicious.


  2. Having only seen the cards and not read the text, choice seems to be fe or dj. I’ll go with fe due to 4 cards above.

    .dj is also fine, I don’t either being a bad move.

    After reading the blobs I am with the pack. Now on to the people comments


    1. Perhaps a better way of thinking of it is that I have too much time on my hands and write too much. I suspect the master agrees with me that if either of those two lines of play is better than the other, the difference is tiny.


      1. Esteemed Scholar Bart, please continue to write too much. I am leaning from your posts. The fact that I do not retain these ideas is another story.

        And don’t take my posts too seriously. There is not one shred of evidence that proves life is serious. As you know by now I enjoy silliness and tongue-in-cheek and playing down-to-the-fool.


  3. “Round 0, Decision 2” (see below)

    Bookkeeping: Your email announcing this post came as a reply to “Google Docs”, which was not helpful. I thought it would come as a reply to Round 0. I have dug around and found Round 0, but matching it up with the correct post would be nice.

    Also, is there a label here to refer to? “Round 0, decision 2” perhaps? Otherwise we won’t be able to keep comments aligned with position.

    Clarification for myself: Since the prize is for clearing eight suits, score is irrelevant. We do not need to conserve moves — unless perhaps it was part of a clever ploy to “out” the impostor.

    I feel confident that the best move is clearly fa or fd, which are equivalent. We are digging in our smallest pile. And what’s more, the market value of receiving 9s is low. That is, we have one 8 and two 9s to receive it, and no other 1:2 situation on the board. We still have the 2:2 situation with 9s and 10s, but that is not as good market value. For comparison Queen to King is 2:1. Because we have the two 9s, we can move that 8 around freely to support future opportunities.

    Red is at least tempted by the right move, but he opts for the wrong one, along with green and blue. Either none of them are experts, or I’m not expert enough.


    1. Esteemed Scholar Bart, apologies for submitting to the dangerous path of overthinking things too much (and the fact I am beginning to write like SA), but I was worried that if I write too many comments in the round-0 post just to notify you a move has been made and there are many decisions in that round, then we might get an awful lot of comments.

      OTOH if I edit the post to add the latest move then I assume you do *not* get notified that my post has been edited. This is why I added a comment to Google Docs by “deliberate mistake”.

      Perhaps it’s better if I trust that you and SA will read this blog post regularly, and if I don’t hear from you for three days then I post a reminder. Do you think this is a good idea?

      I might also consider adding a separate post for “laws of etiquette” to cover situations like “what is SA suggests a move but I don’t hear from you for six days?” or “what should SA do if he anticipates not being able to contribute within the next 4 weeks for some reason” etc.

      I think saying something like “Round 0, decision 2” is a good idea. I can also count trivial decisions in order to reach the magic constant of 50 decisions if we are able to reveal every card. I was hoping to achieve an equivalent effect by using dates, but that’s probably not a good idea.

      Clarification: Yes, score is irrelevant – either you remove all eight suits or you don’t. Number of moves is also irrelevant.



      1. Too bad this isn’t simpler… But what about a single thread called “logistics” or “meta-comments” or something, and you put a reply in there every time you update the main thread, as well as “what do we do if SA hasn’t logged in”. So then I’ll stash a pointer to the main threads somewhere and know to look there for the heart of the matter…


  4. Well, thanks to Master Chi-Yuen and Esteemed Scholar Bart my play has certainly changed over the last little while. Even two months ago I would have just said “dj” without another though. But now, after a brief internal consultation, I quickly rated “fa” as superior.

    As far as the Three Kolorfull Kibitzers go, they march in lockstep this time.

    I don’t use the alert feature to know when there are new posts, I tend to check in once or twice a day to see if anything has been added, and also to again study both my mentor’s posts to see if I have missed or misinterpreted anything. I believe that repetitive reading reinforces retention, an ability that seems to be a diminishing as I click off the years.

    Any way youse guys set this new format up is OK with me. I will be happy dancing along in my customary trailing position.


  5. Re: Round 0, Decision 2 on 10/1:

    I vote dj, with red and green, but not primarily for the reason red gives. If the main criterion is “maximize the chances we can get a turnover with the next card”, then dj would be best even if the 10 in column j was in hearts — an off-suit build. We can still place a 9 after that move, but can no longer place a queen after gh. A new 9 doesn’t give us a new NET turnover, as we lose ac, but if that new 9 was in a short pile we would care very much which of those 2 turnovers we take. But red doesn’t make that argument. Instead he argues for the in-suit build. The damage of an offsuit build is negated when we still have a way of moving the lower card around, though the small long-term plus side of getting cards together still holds. I agree with red that if the face-down card difference was 5-3 instead of 5-4, I would go for gh (I would also do it if the difference was 2-1, or 3-2. Not sure about 4-3.)

    Blue is correct that the off-suit QK is less of a problem than any other offsuit pair, but that’s avoiding a disadvantage instead of telling us the real advantage, which is there are fewer face-down cards in that pile. Maybe we should assume he knew that but thought it was obvious and didn’t need to say it.

    I don’t think blue’s suggestion is bad enough to warrant suspicion, especially as the other two are not giving the best argument for their choice.


  6. First: Going no further than the new card layout, I think it is time to join the diamonds together, “dj”. It is somewhat tempting to join the red Queen with the Black King, but not tempting enough.

    Second: After then reading the comments by the Kolorfull Kibitzers I really don’t have much to say. They are just talking at this point. Soon we will have a bit more of a database to see who’s comments are consistent and who’s are suspect or erratic. To be honest I don’t know if I am looking for someone whose play is weak, like mine, or someone who is a genius of misdirection and intrigue.

    Third: After reading Esteemed Scholar Bart’s comments I see that again he is again able to view the next move and the Kolorfull Kibitzers’s comments with a more Scholarly Approach while I just feel it is time to join the Diamonds and let the Peanut Galley talk on.


  7. Round 0, decision 4. On the criterion of face-down cards, it’s still 4 versus 5, so getting a free column is still far away. But it’s the only difference to make queen-on-king preferable to the ac supermove. Maybe there’s a tiny additional advantage to starting to build queen onto king as facilitating putting a jack on that and making a nice garbage suit. So “gh” it is, as all the blobs suggested.

    Since they all made the same recommendation, distinguishing the blobs has to be based on their future speculation. For Blue the “real question” is not a serious question for an expert player at all… the supermove would be better than moving the 2 onto the 3 with ed, which makes the 3 immovable. So that’s a significant demerit for him. Red is right in noting that fact. Green’s list of ranks seems kind of tedious and pointless, and with the 8 of diamonds we would NOT move it right away as that would render the supermove impossible. So it is not an exception worth noting, so maybe a demerit for him too, though it’s at the end of a longer chain of thought.


  8. First: “gh” for me, uncovering the Diamond Jack.

    Second: All Kolorfull Kibitzers agree. I’m not sure why Green doesn’t like the Diamond 8, I think it would be an excellent card

    Third: Esteemed Scholar Bart also agrees. And as always he treats us to his clear minded assessment of the Kolorfull Kibitzers this round. Thank you.


  9. Round 0, decision 7.

    I go for “ah”. Once again, “market value”. As Blue puts it, there are two tens, putting a nine on one of them leaves us with the most options. The revealed card could well steer the play in a new and profitable direction.

    Blue’s analysis is like mine. Red does have an interesting point about how a seven doesn’t lose a turnover, but the appearance of a 7 somewhere else will change things — as Blue implies. Green’s analysis is kinda primitive. Demerit for green. And possible demerit for red, though couched more convincingly.

    Green and Blue had best and worst answers for the last two decisions, one of each. Red has a disguised bad answer for this one, and a bad answer down the line in a hypothetical situation.


  10. First: (just looking at the cards). To (almost) quote Esteemed Scholar Bart, “Tens is cheap, 2 for 1 Sale”. I vote supermove “ah”

    Second: (after reading the Kolorfull Kibitzers Komments (I know youse guys was waiting form me to do that! Ya’ shudda’ beat me to it)). Green/Red, arrived at an OK, second level, move from different directions but no need to do it now, save it for later. Blue: blah blah blah, listen to Esteemed Scholar Bart and save your brain cells: “Tens is Cheap”. At this early stage of the hand I am not sure anything else is needed.

    Third: (after reading Esteemed Scholar Bart’s comments). As always, Nicely done Sir, Nicely done.

    Master Chi-Yuen, Learned Sir, I know we are working on a format to present this insaneness to the world, but it would help this lowly ‘hopper if the last set-up was at the top instead of the opening deal. Or both if the first is important.

    And I almost always ask for a particular card when I see a good spot for it, such as here the J of Dia just works nice. It scares me how often I am rewarded late in the game when the odds are better. If I do the YouTubeThing I think I will be accused of cheating.


  11. I am having a Twilight Zone moment. I posted to this earlier today. Upon reading after prose after posting I even saw a typo and considered posting again to correct it but then thought it not necessary.

    But it is not here now, Play theme from Twilight Zone, dodoDOdo-dododDOdo. Anyway that’s how it sounds in my head.

    Did I do something more stupid than normal and cause Master Chi-Yuen to hit his DELETE button?
    Are we limited to 20 comments?
    Is it possible that I did not hit the Post Button and did not see the font and format change as I can clearly visualize?

    Try again

    Round 0, decision 7.

    First (just looking at the layout): To almost quote Esteemed Scholar Bart, “Tens is cheap, Two 4 One Today”.
    So I go with SuperMove “ah”

    Second (after reading the Kolorfull Kibitzers Komments (I know everyone was waiting for me to do that)): Both Green and Red arrive at an OK move, but for different reasons. Blue did better.

    Third: (after reading Esteemed Scholar Bart’s reply) Nicely done, Sir, Nicely done.


  12. Regarding SA’s suggestion, I like how the story proceeds from top towards the bottom, and would be slightly less happy if the new stuff was at the top. I still struggle a bit to navigate, but it’s much better than it was before from my point of view. I’ll often open the thing up twice and have one window looking at the hand, and the other one where I am writing my comments. Dost thou not have a scroll bar, hopper? I work on a desktop and the elevator shaft with its elevator in it is right there at the right edge. Dragging it is a quick way to get to the bottom.


    1. Esteemed Scholar Bart, my request, no matter how poorly stated, was to show the set up before the current moves began. In this instance, the position before Decision 4. The original position is still posted at the
      top and seems somewhat useless to me at this point and so I suggested replacing it each time rather than adding a third screenshot.

      I agree it best to continue to have the moves, Kolorfull Kibitzer Komments and Master Chi-Yuen’s comments continue in a downward orientation.

      Obviously you were able to see my first post, therefore I am facing the fact that when I returned and re-posted @ 10:08AM I did not see my own post which was made at @ 4:26AM ???? That is a little scary, even for me.


      1. Aha, now I understand, and agree with you. If the pixels are not too expensive, I would strongly urge the master to keep in the blockchain the screenshot before each decision point. It will be very valuable when going back to re-evaluate blob recommendations.


      2. The supermove ah has been played. I expect the next decision to be close to trivial, but I may as well take the opportunity to confirm you are happy with the new layout (current position on top, followed by the history of previous moves)


      3. The supermove ah has been played. I expect the next decision to be close to trivial, but I may as well take the opportunity to confirm you are happy with the new layout (current position on top, followed by the history of previous moves)


  13. Round 0, decision 8:

    ad and gf are the candidates. We no longer have any recipient cards “going cheap”. Both of those moves close off a possibility. We have a total of 3 guaranteed turnovers in this situation, and neither choice changes that figure. If the card under g is a 2, then we regret ad, although there are only 6 2s unseen. If the card under a is a 7, we we would regret gf, and there are 8 7s unseen. Six 2s are not a trivial part of the deck, and even with 8 regrets the other way, that’s not enough to offset going for the space, which is potentially very valuable. I think it’s best to resist the natural human tendency to “keep going” in the same column.

    The blobs all make the other choice, with increasing commentary. Red’s observation about a jack hiding under column j as a motivation for wanting a space earlier is too obscure for me. I think of spaces more long-term, including ease of getting them back after a deal. We may not get space g right away but we’re still working towards it.

    As for format, this is a great improvement. However, I would suggest adding the new moves and situation to the bottom, not to the top. This leaves the entire top of the file unchanging (block chain-ish) and you are only adding stuff at the bottom. To look back one step, as you have arranged it, I have to jump back and forth between top and bottom. If you add only to the bottom, I think it is clearer — and should be easier for you too.


  14. Round 0, decision 8 — reconsidered

    When GM said the decision was almost trivial, and all 3 blobs gave the same action, it certainly set up the expectation that their move was the right one, and I felt like quite the independent thinker, invulnerable to peer pressure, in making my suggestion. And so I may be.

    However, there may be another factor I would never have considered before. Unless something unexpected happens, we are going to make move gf eventually. When we uncover the card, we may be able to make a space or we may not. But what is occurring to me is that given the Spider rule of never dealing if you have an empty column, we have to fill that space up with something soon. We have no use for a space right away to allow a supermove. So, if we do ad, and then gf, uncovering a 2, we will feel only the mildest regret. We will be probably unable to take that 2 out and so will do the deal with a solitary 2 in column g. However, if we do make the space, then before we can deal we will have to put some card in that slot. Either way, there will be a single card in slot g when we deal, and the chances of getting a space there after the deal will be roughly the same.

    In contrast, if we do uncover (say) a 7 after move ad, or after the following move id, then we are much improving our prospects in column f.

    So I reverse my recommendation, and say ad is the right move.


    1. The move “ad” has been added to the blockchain. After a few trivial decisions we have no more turnovers and must make a final decision before dealing a new round.


  15. First: My thoughts before reading further. I like “ad”, doing an in suit build. Looked a bit at “gf” but we don’t have any cleaning up to do that a void would help at this point in time. Col 7 should become an AtomicVoid going into the next draw unless there is a nasty King lurking. A seven is the card we want to see so if “ad” gives no help I will even do some thinking about “id” before “gf”; Seeking Sevens be me.

    Second: Kolorfull Kibitzer Komments. Everyone agrees “ad”. Green is also thinking about “gf”. Red is off in the weeds somewhere, perhaps mocking my attempt at calling the Dia Jack a while back?

    Third: To Esteemed Scholar Bart, excellent analysis Sir, it is a privilege to be playing beside you.

    Master Chi-Yuen I agree with Esteemed Scholar Bart’s comments on format. With this change I think we will be rolling.


    1. The move “ad” has been added to the blockchain. After a few trivial decisions we have no more turnovers and must make a final decision before dealing a new round.


  16. Deal. Red is “sus” for favoring the supermove. Saying “there are good things that could happen here and there” is totally the wrong approach — this game (like most games) is all about which moves give you the very best chances, not “there are chances that good things will happen.”


  17. First: OK, time to look around for housekeeping moves before the first draw. Only thing even a little tempting is to join the hearts with a SuperMove, but we would be giving up an AtomicTurnover and at this point in the hand Turnovers and Voids need to take priority.

    Second, Kolorfull Kibitzer Komments: Green noticing the SuperMove is good as we should be looking at everything, but recommending it seems to put Red a notch or three behind the others.

    Third: Not much more to say, Cards Please, Maestro

    Master Chi-Yuen, format wise, this is good. There is one small addition which would help this under-cerebralated Orthopterous, As I scroll down the history of the plays, it would help me to know when to stop scrolling as to not expose the Kolorfull Kibitzer Komments as I wish my “First” entry to be completely unaided. This gives me the best chance of suggesting something truly stupid. Perhaps adding something as simple as “Discussion Time” just before the last snapshot? Here that would be just before position 477.

    Actual play (decision 11): ei → Q of Hearts
    Changes to
    Actual play (decision 11): ei → Q of Hearts – Discussion Time

    Then I would know to stop scrolling and start thinking. Thank you for considering this or something similar.

    Also, Master Chi-Yuen, will you be doing a critique at the end of each Round, such as now, or still hold out until the very end?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s