Some Monopoly observations.

I've been playing quite a bit of monopoly( The board game) online. I've been recording the plays as I go, and came across some interesting trends.
In over half the games, a green property was the last one available
Getting the Boardwalk Monopoly will result in a win about 2/3rds of the time.
The most landed on spot is Luxury tax.
Boardwalk is among the least landed spots, despite having two cards that send people there.
I'm not sure when they made the changes, but income tax is now a flat $200, with no 10% option for the poor, and luxury tax is now $100, up for $75 dollars.

On a personal note, in one game I had both light blue( Oriental) and dark blue( Broadway) with hotels and no one else had any Monopoly. Still, the other three players avoided landing on any hotel property for eleven rounds. On the 12th, one player landed on both Boardwalk and Connecticut, and the other two went bankrupt, landing on Park Place. Watching three players avoid my five properties while landing on my three mortgaged properties was frustrating.

A four-player game usually goes about 90-100 minutes. One game lasted two hours and forty minutes, and one of my wins went an hour and four minutes. Five player games run two hours plus.

Approximately how many games do you have notes on?

Boardwalk will be least landed on because despite the cards sending you there are too many ways to get sent somewhere else.

I always read Illinois ave is the most landed on so your rest is interesting.

Income tax a flat thing probably a result of our poor math skills and I think you technically were supposed to declare 10% BEFORE you counted up. That made it a wealth tax not an”income tax” but knowing all that is not going to impress many women.

I always found the orange properties to be the best followed by the green. The green were hard to miss and the orange had the 6/7/9 dice probability coming out of jail and for those that don’t get that learn to play craps.

Income Tax and Luxury Tax were changed when they changed Baltic and Mediterranean to brown, which, apparently, was in 2008

Quote: Dieter

Approximately how many games do you have notes on?
link to original post

Eighty plus four player games. I have another thirty-something five and six-player games that track fairly close. Three player games seem to have a different pattern.

I had an epic game overnight. I landed on St Charles on my first spin. A player landed on Virginia and as it wasn't a future potential monopoly, he sold it to me immediately for $200. My second time around I landed on States and was able to put two houses on each property. From there, it was just a matter of buying only defensively, mortgaging all my new stuff until I had three hotels. The first player to go bankrupt had two brown pieces, and I had previously won and mortgaged NY Avenue. It took a few rounds but I was able to get to four houses on each brown property . The last player landed on NY Avenue while rolling doubles. It left him with $50 and a bunch of mortgaged properties, so he resigned.
One rule this game has is you can buy houses after you roll. I usually play you have to buy them before you spin. This game gives you both options.

This is my favorite version of Monopoly — requires desktop computer to play. You can finish a game in 20 minutes or less. None of those bells and whistles that slow the game. Just good, fast Monopoly!

https://archive.org/details/monopoly_202108

A variant I thought interesting but have not played yet has the bank collecting the rent when the owner is in jail. It would keep players from extending their time in jail late in the game.

Yea, but the REAL question is, if I hand the Get Out of Jail Free Card to the Warden... how long does it take to process???

Quote: 7NeverWins

Yea, but the REAL question is, if I hand the Get Out of Jail Free Card to the Warden... how long does it take to process???
link to original post

Depends if the screws are honest or not. Some demand a bribe.

I have no idea what rule changes have been made to the current edition, much less to the online versions and the universe of themed editions. With the original rules, however, an expert player would rarely, if ever, build hotels and always build to the 4 house level.

There are 32 houses and 12 hotels in play. No more, and no less. So controlling (i.e. monopolizing) those 32 houses is the main point of the game. The more you control the housing market, the more you can dictate what your opponents can and can't do. Here are a few rules to keep in mind...

You must build evenly. (That is, there can't be more than a 1 house difference between any two of a color group's properties.)

You must build 4 houses on a property before you can build a hotel. (That is, if you get control of a group and there's hotels but no houses available, you can't build straight to hotels. In fact, you can't build anything.)

You must tear down buildings in reverse order. (That is, if you need money and decide to break your hotels down to the 3 house level, you can't do that if there are no houses available. It's called a hotel trap.)

Quote: Gialmere

You must tear down buildings in reverse order. (That is, if you need money and decide to break your hotels down to the 3 house level, you can't do that if there are no houses available. It's called a hotel trap.)
link to original post

Is that a new rule? I thought it was, you can replace hotels with "phantom" houses that you had to sell immediately. For example, if you have hotels on the Yellows, and need to sell, but there are only 3 houses available to build, you had to sell all three hotels and 9 houses, and put 1 house on each property.

Amazing game two nights ago. The first player landed on Oriental and bought it. Second player on Income Tax and the third landed on Vermont. As the chances of getting a monopoly were slim, I offered players one and three $150 for their properties, a fifty percent profit and more than they could anticipate in future rents. They both went for it, and I completed my plan by rolling a nine. It's a first-turn monopoly. I don't recall ever seeing that before. Building hotels on it took a few rounds, but I successfully blocked any other monopolies and strangled the players in under forty minutes.
I've always played if no houses are available, you CAN build hotels if you have the funds to build one on each property.

billryan,

What website are you using to play?

I tried one I found using Google, but the game had several weird (and unadvertised) changes to the rules. The one that most annoyed me was that players in jail could not collect rent.

Dog Hand

That is a variant option on the site I play on.

I play on Gameflare and occasionally on Solitare Paradise

That is a variant option on the site I play on. I like the rule although I haven't tried it yet.

I play on Gameflare and occasionally on Solitare Paradise

It's the original rules. Hotels may be sold all at once, or broken down in the reverse order in which they were built. You must build 4 houses before you can build a hotel.

So, to sell a hotel down to a lower house level you must first remove the hotel and replace it with 4 houses. There are no phantom houses, only the 32 houses. If there aren't enough houses to break down to the 4 house level, you must sell the entire hotel and, since you must build evenly, you must sell all the hotels on the color group at a brutal 50% loss.


Trivia: How much is a Get Out Of Jail card worth?

Quote: Gialmere

It's the original rules. Hotels may be sold all at once, or broken down in the reverse order in which they were built. You must build 4 houses before you can build a hotel.

So, to sell a hotel down to a lower house level you must first remove the hotel and replace it with 4 houses. There are no phantom houses, only the 32 houses. If there aren't enough houses to break down to the 4 house level, you must sell the entire hotel and, since you must build evenly, you must sell all the hotels on the color group at a brutal 50% loss.


Trivia: How much is a Get Out Of Jail card worth?
link to original post

My gut instinct tells me it varies, according to the game circumstances. In the opening phase, you don't want to spend any time in jail, as your opponents are scooping up properties. In the closing phase, when every property might be a landmine, you want to stay in jail as long as possible so the card is not worth much.
Overall, I'd guess it is worth slightly more than half the price of paying to get out. $25-30.
I'd be interested in seeing what a Chance card's average value is. for some reason, I think they are worth more than Community Chest

In our home games, once a Chance or CC card is played, it leaves the deck. Online, they seem to go back in the deck and can be the next card up.

The rules say that a Get Out Of Jail Free card can be sold for whatever price is agreed to. The rules also say you can't give or loan money to another player. Because of this, the card becomes a useful cash transfer device.

Suppose you want to help a weak player buy the last 8 houses to prevent the stronger players from being able to build. Or maybe you want a weak player to avoid going bankrupt to a rival and instead want him to survive long enough to go bankrupt to you (thus giving you his property).

You could offer to buy his Get Out Of Jail Free card for say, $500. What if you're the one holding the card? Then you sell it to him for $1 and buy it back for $501. Completely legal.
------------

The rules say that, once resolved, a Chance or Community Chest card is placed face down on the bottom of the stack. So, the card sequence remains the same for the entire game. A good player will keep track of the cards, especially the Chance cards which usually send you somewhere else. Late in the game, when properties are developed, it's handy to know when the next card will send you to a hotel laden Boardwalk or Illinois Ave.

Another point of ambiguity is bankruptcy. The rules state: "You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you can pay either to another player or to the bank." But what does that really mean?

Suppose you own Boardwalk with a hotel and I land on it. I count up my cash, calculate how much money I'll get if I sell all the houses on my light blue color group, then how much I can raise by mortgaging all my properties and find that I'm still several hundred short. At this instant I owe more than I can pay. By strict definition of the rules I should immediately give you all my cash, sell my houses and give you the proceeds plus hand over all my properties without mortgaging them. I am bankrupt.

But, now suppose that when i realize I'm short on the rent, another player offers me $600 for Tennessee Ave. I gratefully accept and now have the cash to pay you off. This wheeler dealer interpretation of the rules is the one supported by Parker Brothers/Hasbro. Yet, is it fair?

Getting Tennessee Ave completed the orange color group for the other player. And since I had to sell all my houses, he now builds big. Oops. Two turns later I land on New York Ave and once again owe more than I can pay. Seeing that the other player will now get all my property (including the light blues) you quickly offer $600 to buy the Waterworks off me. But I'm spiteful, and angry about what you did to me at Boardwalk. I refuse the deal, give the other player all my remaining assets and retire from play. I'm bankrupt.

So, with a strict interpretation of the rules you would get all my cash all my property (including a color group) and end up in a very strong position to continue. With the looser interpretation you get the $2k rent while another player ends up with two color group's and a flooded housing market.

Both rule interpretations are valid, but experienced players will agree to what interpretation is in effect before pay begins.

Quote: Gialmere

Another point of ambiguity is bankruptcy. The rules state: "You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you can pay either to another player or to the bank." But what does that really mean?

Suppose you own Boardwalk with a hotel and I land on it. I count up my cash, calculate how much money I'll get if I sell all the houses on my light blue color group, then how much I can raise by mortgaging all my properties and find that I'm still several hundred short. At this instant I owe more than I can pay. By strict definition of the rules I should immediately give you all my cash, sell my houses and give you the proceeds plus hand over all my properties without mortgaging them. I am bankrupt.

But, now suppose that when i realize I'm short on the rent, another player offers me $600 for Tennessee Ave. I gratefully accept and now have the cash to pay you off. This wheeler dealer interpretation of the rules is the one supported by Parker Brothers/Hasbro. Yet, is it fair?

Getting Tennessee Ave completed the orange color group for the other player. And since I had to sell all my houses, he now builds big. Oops. Two turns later I land on New York Ave and once again owe more than I can pay. Seeing that the other player will now get all my property (including the light blues) you quickly offer $600 to buy the Waterworks off me. But I'm spiteful, and angry about what you did to me at Boardwalk. I refuse the deal, give the other player all my remaining assets and retire from play. I'm bankrupt.

So, with a strict interpretation of the rules you would get all my cash all my property (including a color group) and end up in a very strong position to continue. With the looser interpretation you get the $2k rent while another player ends up with two color group's and a flooded housing market.

Both rule interpretations are valid, but experienced players will agree to what interpretation is in effect before pay begins.
link to original post

I don't remember the exact circumstances, but an unusual situation occurred in a game when I was perhaps 14. There were five of us, and my vote was against my best friend. I still think the ruling was correct, but we were never close after it, and two years later, in a BB game, his cheapshots led to a brawl.

Quote: billryan

I don't remember the exact circumstances, but an unusual situation occurred in a game when I was perhaps 14. There were five of us, and my vote was against my best friend. I still think the ruling was correct, but we were never close after it, and two years later, in a BB game, his cheapshots led to a brawl.
link to original post

Yes. Like Diplomacy, Monopoly is one of those games that just seems to strike a nerve in the human psyche. It's been known to break up friendships and even end marriages. Whether the game itself causes such anger, or whether it merely brings out the anger over past transgressions between the players, I know not. What I do know is that many games end with the game board being flung across the room. Awkward.

One of my classmates in college invented a game that was a cross between Pass Out and Monopoly, with a "Its a Raid "twist. He wanted to make it an annual event, a hybrid board game/bar run. It never went anywhere and now I see Monopoly has introduced a Bar run variant, where drinking is required and you can buy properties by actions, not money.

If you’re playing against players who will land on a $160 property and then sell it promptly for just a couple hundred dollars especially when you already own one of them and the third is unsold you should win regularly.

I’m a Monopoly champion not just because of strategy but because at that distance rolling I can “call the shots” and roll pretty close to what I want to roll often enough to make a difference.

Family members used to quit in frustration regularly when playing against me.

Quote: MDawg

If you’re playing against players who will land on a property and then sell it promptly for just a couple hundred dollars you should win regularly.

I’m a Monopoly champion not just because of strategy but because at that distance rolling I can “call the shots” and roll pretty close to what I want to roll often enough to make a difference.
link to original post

I can set the levels of the other players' trading skills as a first-timer, regular, or Chairman's level. I'm often surprised by some Chairman's actions.

Yes I was wondering if this was against human or computer opponents.

An app version I used to play but haven’t in many years would have the computer player laugh “Ha! Player __ declines such a one sided trade.” or “Player __ scoffs at such a paltry monopoly.” if you offered it something that didn’t make sense.

Quote: Gialmere

Another point of ambiguity is bankruptcy. The rules state: "You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you can pay either to another player or to the bank." But what does that really mean? <snip>
link to original post

I have another "ambiguous bankruptcy" question. Suppose you're player 4 (P4) playing a four-person game and player 1 (P1) has only $80, a "Get out of Jail, Free" card, and a mortgaged Indiana Ave. He lands on Community Chest and draws the "You've been elected chairman of the board. Pay each player $50" card.

1. If no deals are made, who gets Indiana and the GOOJF card? Since P1's debt is NOT to the Bank, I would guess that P2 gets $50 and P3 gets $30, the deed, and the card, while P4 (you) gets the shaft. Is that correct?

2. Now suppose you have Kentucky and Illinois, so you really want Indiana. In this case, I suppose you could offer to buy Indiana from P1 for $70, which would give him the requisite $150 to satisfy his debt. Assuming neither P2 nor P3 makes any offers, is P1 REQUIRED to take the deal? If not, then we're back to case 1.

3. Now suppose you have Kentucky and Illinois, so you really want Indiana, and you also want to get rid of P1. Could you offer to buy Indiana from P1 for $20, which would give him $100 to satisfy his debt to P2 and P3, after which he would go bankrupt to you? Again, assuming neither P2 nor P3 makes any offers, is P1 REQUIRED to take the deal?

I have been playing Monopoly on game flare and enjoying it. Thanks to billryan for the suggestion.

Dog Hand