Monopoly Odds

Monopoly Page

I'm not a huge monopoly player, it never really thrived in my family (I was more of a SNES guy). None the less, I found this analysis fascinating and I'm sure a few here will as well. I have one memory of playing monopoly and it ended with me writing my dad a huge loan check since I was getting my ass handed to me.

The Wizard's Monopoly basic strategy:

1. Buy almost everything. An exception might be for the utilities and a property of a set in which you already have one, and another player has another. For example, you land on Tennessee, and you already have New York, while another player has St. James Place.
2. Trade as well as you can. This is where the skill comes in. Try to trade for the best set you can. Here is how I rank them, in general: Orange, Yellow, Light Blue, Dark Blue, Light Purple, Red, Green, Dark Purple. This will vary depending on circumstances. In a cash-poor game, favor the sets that are cheaper to develop. In a cash-rich game go for the ones where there is more potential to spend money on.
3. One you get a set, whether naturally or by trade, build up quickly. Try to get to three houses on each property as quickly as possible. The marginal return per house drops after 3, so getting to 3 as fast as possible should be your goal. Mortgage most of your other properties and spend your cash. You just want to leave a little equity for small expenses. It sucks to sell houses, because you only get 50% of face value. However, it is a waste to not use your equity. Buy houses with it!
4. Oppose all the silly house rules. This especially goes for the money pot on Free Parking (I can't stand that one!). As a skilled player, you want to minimize the randomness of the game.

Quote: Wizard

It sucks to sell houses, because you only get 50% of face value.

Yeah, I know, and then you have to pay the goddamn realtor, and closing costs, and when you're done you still owe the bank your soul, and...

Oh, wait, we were talking about MONOPOLY houses, not real ones.

I've found that it is utterly foolish to make a trade that completes a set for someone unless you get something much better in return. The exception is when the recipient is so cash-poor that he will probably be wiped out before he gets the chance to build on his set. So I stonewall until (assuming three players or more) one player is pulling ahead. Then, if I'm not that player, I do mass trading in order to cripple the leader. If I'm the leader, I'll trade favorably with the weakest player.

There might be some utility in buying the orphan third property just to prevent one of the other players from nabbing it and then cutting a deal.

I have often wondered how to solve the problem of the no-deal environment, where players don't trade unless it is VERY favorable to them--it turns into a dice-rolling contest. Maybe we need some "nuclear accident" or "tsunami" Chance cards...

Nice opening. I wish houses in Vegas fell by only 50%; they are down more like 60% in value.

You have to take every situation individually. That said, in a three-player game when winning is my objective, which it usually is, there is often a deadlock, where no player has a natural set. In that case I'll be aggressive offering trades with the other two players, seeing who will make me the best deal. Then I'll try to make a cash deal with the other one for a property he needs. Then we'll all have a set, but I'll have the most money to build. If I'm playing with my kids I'll make trades to give everybody a fighting chance.

I will usually buy orphan properties if my opponents split the other two, to prevent them trading with each other. In a two-player game with a skilled player it can often be hard making deals. In that case, I'll suggest an auction. For example, say we're trying to trade New York for Virginia so that both of us will have a set, and end the deadlock. Obviously, the orange set is better. I might start the bidding and say if I get the orange set I'll transfer $300 your way. The other player either has to accept that offer or make a more attractive one back to me. Eventually somebody will accept a deal.

re: reducing elements of luck: how about the charge that the game is too dependent on who gets the best start? [I havent played in forever]

Quote: odiousgambit

re: reducing elements of luck: how about the charge that the game is too dependent on who gets the best start?

A good start is critical. Nothing worse than going last and landing in properties your opponents just bought the previous turn the first trip around the board. There isn't anything you can do about it. Luck is always a big factor in Monopoly. Put me against the world Monopoly champion head to head, and I think I would have at least a 45% chance of winning.

Quote: odiousgambit

re: reducing elements of luck: how about the charge that the game is too dependent on who gets the best start? [I havent played in forever]

One interesting variation is to double everyone's starting bankroll (to $3,000), and then put EVERY property up for auction, before the first roll of the dice. Ideally, the properties would be auctioned in random order, so nobody would be able to hold out for Boardwalk and Park Place.

One of the most balancing variants I've ever played was starting player 1 on "Go", player 2 on "Jail - Just Visiting", player 3 on "Free Parking", player 4 on "Go To Jail" (without sending them to Jail), and player 5 on "Go' with an extra $200.

From the "Monopoly Companion" player's guide, here's a couple of tables with some useful property information.

Maximum investment when group is built up with hotels

Property	Max Investment
Greens	$3,920
Yellows	$3,050
Reds	$2,930
Dark Blues	$2,750
Oranges	$2,060
Light Purples	$1,940
Light Blues	$1,070
Railroads	$800
Dark Purples	$620
Utilities	$300

Payback % per dollar spent, with hotels

Property	Payback % w/hotels
Dark Blues	63.6%
Dark Purples	56%
Light Blues	53%
Oranges	46%
Light Purples	41.2%
Yellows	38.8%
Reds	36.4%
Greens	33.6%

This % of investment in the group is regained each time an opponent completes a trip around a board

Property	Payoff %
Oranges	25%
Light Blues	22.4%
Reds	19%
Light Purples	19%
Dark Blues	18%
Yellows	18%
Railroads	17%
Greens	16%
Dark Purples	14%
Utilities	8%

Each trip around the board, a player has this % chance of landing on a space in this group

Property	Frequency %
Railroads	66.8%
Oranges	52.4%
Reds	52%
Yellows	47%
Greens	46.4%
Light Purples	46%
Light Blues	42.4%
Utilities	33%
Dark Blues	28.3%
Dark Purples	24.8%

The Wizard's sentiment that three houses gives you best return on investment is mirrored in the book: "Until you have three houses on each, you can't really hope to recover your investment. That's because of the number of times you'd need to collect rent to exceed what you've paid to buy the properties and houses."

I loev that post, completely cements my strategy of oranges and light blues (pinks or light purples as a backup if one of the other monopolies go)

Light blues purely cause can get them up to hotels cheaply and bring in a ncie return to build up other monopolies