| |
BGonline.org Forums
BGO game
Posted By: Bob Koca
Date: Friday, 4 September 2009, at 9:19 p.m.
Can you give the poster? All are taken from threads here. No one is repeated. They are all USA players. Answers on Monday.
1) Tomorrow I will try to address byes and I will most certainly desire your inputs. Note that byes are only needed if there's an odd number of players remaining and there always give to one of the players with the most losses and never given twice to anyone, so some of the time there may be noone in the money who had a bye..but yuck..that possibility of giving a 7-3 a bye into the money split for what is often 3rd-6th.
2) Well he took a long time taking this, it was the only game that I watched during this match. The take seemed trivial, his take point is very low and no gammons possible. Evidently that is just how Matt makes his decisions; deliberately. He indicates there was no way he was passing this, I remember looking at Neil, (or was it Munitz), and sharing a glance that said: Is it possible he is going to PASS this double??
3) If speed of play is going to be formally dictated with a time control I wouldn't feel qualms about using my alloted time
4) My memory, despite Chuck's opinion that it's elephantine--even I evaluated it that way as recently as five or six years ago--is really going west.
Or is it east? I have a problem, have had it ever since I was a lad, that I call East-West Dyslexia: I have to think a minute in order to figure out which direction is east and which is west, and whether I should get on the highway going east or going west. It's not at all full-blown dyslexia--doesn't happen on my commonly traversed driving rote-routes, and it doesn't always take me as much as a minute to figure out what's going on--but it's a curious thing, inconsistent with the rest of my mental performance or non-performance, and I can't explain it. Is there a doctor in the house?
5) Unfortunately, objectionable table demeanor/behavior is in the eyes of the beholder and varies among matches -- even within different matches of the same player. It reminds me of sexual harassment claims -- what is perfectly acceptable to some is highly offensive to others.
I'm not picking on Stick but I'll use him as an example. Stick and Ray played a match which was entertaining and fun for all -- apparently for them and obviously for the audience. They were bantering back and forth with no holds barred -- it was all of good nature and was given/received as such. I observed similar match play banter (smak, trash talk, call it what you may) including Ray, Stick, Petko, Rory, and others. And all were perfectly comfortable with it. Yet, in other instances, perhaps between players who don't know each other as well (including some of the same players), similar banter/comments/displays/facial expressions, etc. are offensive.
I think to remove the social aspect of the game is to destroy the game. Adam's suggestion that all should quietly play the game and stand/smile/shake hands at the conclusion, regardless of the outcome, provides a very sterile environment that I would not find enjoyable -- and I think (hope?) many would agree.
6) I wouldn't think it was the least bit unethical for someone playing a slow opponent to refuse to double in situations where they would do so in an unclocked match, preferring instead to lengthen the match by turning it into a series of one-pointers. After all, their opponent has a great counterstrategy available: speed up, and turn the opponent's nondoubles into equity gains for himself! Similarly, if someone goes into massive backgames against a slow opponent when a simple and normal strategy would have given him a substantial advantage, again the slowpoke can use the strategy of picking up the pace and probably gaining back far more than whatever equity tailings he was finding with his longer deliberations.
7) LoL.. good point. I don't keep exact records so I just give roundabouts for that stuff anyway. Trying to give ppl who may not have been to any live bg tournies an idea of the costs.
8) The takepoint ignoring gammons is approx 18/68, or 27% (Drop and it's 7-7 with 50% ME, take and lose makes it 7-8 Crawford with about 32% ME, take and win wins the match with 100% ME). But a gammon loses the match so the gammon price is 32/68. The gammon-adjusted takepoint is therefore 27% plus 32/68 of the oppt's gammon chances. The oppt only needs a 16% gammon chance to raise your takepoint to 35%. 16% is just a little more than each player has at the start of the game, and I'm sure Matt's gammon chances are way over that in this position.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.