Choose a hand your tiles can support.
A favorite line can be comforting. It can also make it easy to overlook a better fit. Start by asking how much of your rack a candidate uses—and what kinds of tiles it still needs.
Count what is missing, then look more closely
Tiles away is a helpful first comparison. It is not the whole decision.
Consider two hypothetical candidates that each need four tiles. One needs two specific singles and the missing tiles for two pairs. Another already has its natural requirements and needs tiles in groups that can use jokers. The second may offer more flexibility, even though the raw distance is the same.
That does not guarantee it will finish first. It explains why equal distance need not mean equal potential.
Protect useful natural tiles
Jokers cannot replace singles or pairs. A natural tile that satisfies one of those requirements may be especially important to the hand you are building.
But “natural” does not automatically mean “keep.” A pair that fits none of your realistic candidates can still be expendable. Judge the tile by the role it plays.
Keep a backup that earns its space
A useful backup shares tiles with your main target. It gives you another direction without requiring you to protect an entirely different rack.
If keeping a backup means you cannot identify anything to pass, you may be trying to preserve too many possibilities. Compare what you gain from flexibility with what you lose in progress toward your main hand.
Let points inform the choice
The value of a completed hand matters, but extra points do not automatically make a difficult hand the better target. Consider the additional requirements and what you would give up to pursue them.
When two options look similarly achievable, value can help you choose. When one requires a much larger rebuild, treat that as a real cost. This is a strategic principle, not a claim that the app currently calculates expected payouts.
Reconsider when the evidence changes
New tiles, discards, and exposures can alter your options. Changing direction can be sensible when the new evidence is strong. Repeatedly changing direction without comparing the cost can leave you with several partial plans.
Worked comparison: four away is not one situation
Imagine you have compared two legal candidates on your current card. Both are four tiles short after allowing for the jokers you already hold. The following is a comparison of their missing requirements, not two complete card hands.
| Question | Candidate A | Candidate B |
|---|---|---|
| Total missing | Four tiles | Four tiles |
| Missing natural requirements | One 2 Bam and one 8 Dot to finish pairs | None; singles and pairs are complete |
| Other gaps | Two places in joker-eligible groups | Four places in joker-eligible groups |
| What a new joker can do | Fill a group gap, but neither pair gap | Fill one of the remaining group gaps |
| Main concern | Two specific natural bottlenecks | Availability of the group tiles and opportunities to call |
Candidate B deserves a closer look because more types of incoming tiles can help fill its remaining positions. But this is not proof it will finish first. If its group tiles are largely visible elsewhere, while Candidate A’s pair tiles remain available, the comparison can change. A concealed candidate also cannot use ordinary exposure calls to advance.
Decision habit: Say what you need in words: “four tiles, including two specific naturals” is more informative than “four away.” Do not subtract the same joker twice when comparing the gaps.
A tile’s job matters more than its appearance
Here is a small teaching example of tiles that could play very different roles. These are fragments, not a winning hand.
If the two 2 Bams complete a required pair, they solve a requirement a joker cannot solve. If the two 5 Craks belong to a required kong, the joker can help that group. Neither pair is automatically more valuable: its value depends on the actual candidate and the rest of your tiles.
Now suppose the 5 Craks fit neither your leading hand nor a realistic backup. Keeping them merely because they are a pair can cost you two useful spaces. “Keep pairs” is a starting question, not a rule that overrides the card.
Distinguish a backup from a nearly identical variation
Several candidates may use almost exactly the same core and depend on the same missing tile. They give you choices, but they may not protect you against the same problem.
Suppose your first choice and two similar variations all need a particular natural pair. A fourth candidate uses most of your existing tiles but does not require that pair. It can be a more useful backup even if it ranks slightly lower today. Ask what event would make you switch: receiving a different number, seeing a needed tile exposed, or finding that a natural requirement has become impossible.
A backup earns its space when you can explain both its shared core and its different route to completion. Holding four unrelated tiles for a distant alternative may weaken both plans.
When should you change direction?
Reassess after meaningful evidence, not after every unhelpful draw. Compare the best version of your current target with the best version of the alternative using the tiles you hold now. Include any exposure commitments; a target that cannot accommodate them is not a live option.
| New information | Useful response |
|---|---|
| An incoming pair fits a nearby alternative | Recount both hands, including natural gaps |
| A required natural has no available copies left | Check whether the current target is still possible |
| One useful tile arrives for a much more distant hand | Note it without assuming a pivot is justified |
| A new joker arrives | Recheck eligible groups; do not treat it as a missing single or pair |
Avoid counting tiles you already discarded as a reason to stay committed. They are gone either way. Equally, do not ignore the cost of abandoning useful tiles you still hold.
Try it before asking the coach
Choose two candidates and write down their total missing tiles, missing natural tiles, shared useful tiles, and one event that would change your preference. Then run Analysis. If the coach disagrees, compare those four observations before accepting its ranking.
The useful outcome is an explanation you understand. Hand Potential is a heuristic comparison, not a measured winning percentage; a small score difference should not be read as certainty.
Try this: Choose two candidates for the same rack. Explain which has the stronger natural foundation and which gives you more flexibility.