Based on The chessman thread, I started thinking about Monopoly. Is there a particular monopoly that is better to have than any other, based on the location on the board?
In my own experience playing Monopoly, I’m going to have to go with the orange monopoly right before Free Parking and the red monopoly right after Free Parking.
I wonder if there is any scientific data to support this. There is a large sample set in the chessman thread, and I’m wondering if there has been a similiar study on this subject.
What I’ve noticed:
Players take their turns sitting in jail. There is no other square on the board that is frequented as much as the jail square, either because you are just visiting or actually in jail. You can go to that square via a Chance or Community Chest card, or landing on the Go To Jail square, not to mention the random visits to the jail square. Once in jail, the next role to leave jail tends to hit the orange monopoly before Free Parking or the red monopoly after Free Parking.
Park Place and Boardwalk (the dark blue monopoly), the most expensive properties on the board, are not hit nearly as often, and investment in those properties does not seem to be as sure a bet as the orange or red properties.
Has anyone ever done a study on this, and is there an actual answer?
Yes, I believe that is accurate, it is either the red or orange that is the best to have. I would think the dark blue might come in third because of the “take a walk on the boardwalk” card.
It depends on how much cash on hand you have but, generally, yes, the best monopolies are the two abutting “Free Parking” – the red and orange. They’re among the most landed on squares of the board and you don’t need a ridiculous amount of cash on hand to develop them fully. Once you get a decent amount of cash, the yellows are pretty good, too.
There’s actually a number of books on the subject–I read them when I was in high school. There is a veritable slew of statistics here for your reading pleasure.
Heh. I actually love buying Baltic and Mediterranean, along with Connecticut/Oriental/Vermont - they’re all landed on frequently, but most people don’t see them as a threat, so they’re easy to get. Even if you don’t get a monopoly “naturally”, it’s a rare player who won’t hand over Connecticut for $400-$500, laughing all the while, even when they know you’re getting a monopoly from the deal. And once you have one of those two “slum” monopolies, you can build them up enough to be painful fast. This is how you can get a commanding lead in the early game, which can let you knock out other players who’re still struggling to build on their first monopolies - then you get their property, and you’re off to the races.
I’ve always been fond of the Yellows, personally, although I don’t think many people use them. One thing I do know, though, is that the Greens suck! I have never seen a game won by Greens when the player didn’t already have a commanding lead.
Funny…I always aim for the Yellow/Green corner. It’s expensive to build but you cripple people and more people tend to land on green than boardwalk or park place. Really, I think the best option is to have any stretch of two sets of properties no matter what they are. I don’t expect it matters what you choose.
The other thing I aim for is the railroads. That 200 bucks eats away at people.
As noted up-thread, the three orange properties have been calculated to be the most valuable to acquire: cheap to buy and improve, with decent returns and a useful location (getting people coming out of jail).
Ever since I was a kid I always tried to target the orange properties. Unfortunately, I usually wasn’t the only one. The magentas right below and the light blues are also easy to develop and they give a good payout, but people usually buy them right at the start of the game.
Yeah, my early game strategy is to aim for the oranges and, if that’s not possible, my order of preference tends to be anything between the oranges and Go. The reds can work out well, too, if you can get the cash to develop it, but anything from the yellows onward is pretty much impossible to develop without a bit of cashflow.
Due to the perception of value of the yellow, green, and dark blue properties among more casual players, you can often lure in such players into some pretty sweet deals. For example, you have two greens and two oranges. Another player has one green and one orange. I would try to go two-for-one and trade two of my greens for his one orange and cash. You can use your salesmanship to dress up the deal however you want, but the basic point your trying to accomplish is get enough cash from your opponent that he can’t really develop his green monopoly and you get enough that you can start building on the oranges. Also, try to time the deal keeping in mind the player positions on the board and the respective traded properties.
So, you trade a very valuable monopoly for a mid-tier one, but you can build yours up quickly and, hopefully, bankrupt your opponent or build up your cash lead and acquire other monopolies before he does.
Unless you’re playing two players, it’s rare to get a monopoly “naturally.” It’s been a good long while since I played Monopoly, but the fun of the game is somewhat spoiled for me if someone acquires a monopoly without having to wheel and dea (although that then encourages the other players to get their shit together and make some deals, so I guess it’s not that bad.) I’m surprised you’ve found so many players who would eagerly trade a monopoly-completing property for straight cash.
It’s years since I’ve played Monopoly. Please someone refresh my memory on the rules: When building on your monopoly, are you premitted to upgrade the properties by more than one step at a time? I know you can have two houses on one property while stil carrying only one house on your other two (or one), but you can’t upgrade to three houses on that property until they’ve all been given a second. But, given the resources, are you allowed to, say, drop $500 as soon as you get your Mediteranean/Baltic monopoly and put hotels on both of them?
Also, if you add a building while an opposing player is on your property do you have to refund him any rent he may have paid you, to compensate for putting up with the construction activities?*
It is about eroding the players bank accounts. Just keep hitting them over and over and you can make them sell their houses and hotels to the bank. Even getting all the RRs can be powerful.
Yes. You can upgrade all the way up a hotel if you have the cash resources. However, there are some rules in place:
Property development must be even across your monopoly. Before you start building a second house, each of your properties must have one house. Before you can buy a hotel, each property in your monopoly must have four houses.
There are a limited amount of houses that are available during the game (32, I believe.) If, say, you have an undeveloped three-property monopoly, and there are eleven houses in the bank, you can only improve your property up to 4 houses, 4 houses, and 3 houses. You cannot buy hotels on any of these properties, even if there are plenty of hotels in the bank, until somebody either sells their houses back to the bank (to pay off a debt) or improves a 4-house property into a hotel (thus returning four houses to the bank.) Also, you can use this rule to create housing shortages by selling a hotel back for four houses.
The limited housing resources are an important part of overall Monopoly strategy. There are games in which it becomes advantageous not to improve your monopoly from four houses to a hotel in order not to make 12 additional housing units available to other players.
