The comparison & result
The published Club experiment recorded about 51% of wins for kong-playing seats and 49% for never-kong seats, with a net result of roughly +0.07 points per hand for the former. A separate Classic run was much closer to even.
On the Club sheet, the relevant concealed-gong transfer is 5 points from each of the other three players when that payment is enabled. Check the exact gong type and the table’s switches. Club and Classic use different scoring scales, so their raw point estimates should not be read as a universal multiplier.
At your table
- Check the Club sheet’s transfer rules and whether your table enables them.
- A payment does not make every kong the best choice in every hand.
Check your table’s scoring rules before applying the finding. Read the Taiwanese Club reference.
How it was tested
Published experiments: 100,000 simulated hands on Club and 100,000 on Classic. Each compared kong play with a never-kong policy, alternating seat assignments. The two scoring systems have different point scales.
The players were software policies, not human participants. This report describes the published experiment; it does not establish the best move for every possible hand or opponent.
Results without a published uncertainty interval should be read as point estimates. Similar results do not prove two choices are equivalent.
Read the Lab’s method and limitationsPublished by Hé Fēn Mahjong. Ask about this finding or suggest a correction.