BGonline.org Forums

Play A "loses more gammons"

Posted By: NJ
Date: Tuesday, 19 January 2010, at 3:15 a.m.

In Response To: Play A "loses more gammons" (Timothy Chow)

Now Daniel Murphy and Bob Koca seem to be trying to convince me that the cubeless numbers are a better way for humans to understand a position. I'm not yet convinced, especially when it comes to understanding recube vig, but we're still debating that. However, I don't think that they disagree with me that this is how GNU does things; it's a question of whether humans are better off "Viewing Statistics" or viewing cubeless numbers.

Timothy, maybe you could give an example of how you would use actual results to compute things like double/take decisions. I personally don't understand how one would remember such statistics, much less use them in calculations. To me, a few cubeless numbers such as:

Win Single: 53% Win Gammon: 22% Lose Single: 21% Lose Gammon: 4%

are much more intuitive and easy to use than an actual results list such as:

Cube=1: Win Single: 23% Win Gammon: 5% Lose Single: 12% Lose Gammon: 1% WinByDrop: 15% LoseByDrop: 6% 

Cube=2: Win Single: 9% Win Gammon: 2.5% Lose Single: 4% Lose Gammon: 0.4% WinByDrop: 6% LoseByDrop: 3% 

Cube=4: Win Single: 2.5% Win Gammon: 0.09% Lose Single: 1.2% Lose Gammon: 0.02% WinByDrop: 0.8% LoseByDrop: 0.3% 

etc...

The only thing I can think of to do with that actual results list is to sum everything up, which just gives the cubeful equity. And if that is all you wanted to know, then you could just remember that one number instead of breaking it down into so many separate pieces.

If you could show us an example where you use the actual results to perform a calculation, it would really help illustrate why you prefer those numbers over cubeless numbers.

Messages In This Thread

• Play A "loses more gammons"
  Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 17 January 2010, at 4:33 p.m.
  • Play A "loses more gammons"
    Tom Keith -- Sunday, 17 January 2010, at 5:27 p.m.
    • Play A "loses more gammons"
      Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 3:59 a.m.
  • Play A "loses more gammons"
    Matt Ryder -- Sunday, 17 January 2010, at 5:37 p.m.
    • Play A "loses more gammons"
      Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 3:38 a.m.
      • Slight correction
        Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 4:15 a.m.
      • Play A "loses more gammons"
        Matt Ryder -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 6:06 a.m.
        • Play A "loses more gammons"
          Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 6:54 p.m.
          • Play A "loses more gammons"
            NJ -- Tuesday, 19 January 2010, at 3:15 a.m.
          • Play A "loses more gammons"
            Matt Ryder -- Tuesday, 19 January 2010, at 5:28 a.m.
  • Play A "loses more gammons"
    Bob Koca -- Sunday, 17 January 2010, at 7:07 p.m.
    • Play A "loses more gammons"
      Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 3:44 a.m.
      • Play A "loses more gammons"
        Bob Koca -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 4:33 a.m.
        • Play A "loses more gammons"
          Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 4:52 a.m.
          • Play A "loses more gammons"
            Daniel Murphy -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 2:30 p.m.
            • Play A "loses more gammons"
              Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 7:24 p.m.
              • Play A "loses more gammons"
                Daniel Murphy -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 8:47 p.m.
          • Play A "loses more gammons"
            Bob Koca -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 6:44 p.m.
  • Question for fans of cubelessness
    Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 3:53 a.m.
    • Question for fans of cubelessness
      Matt Cohn-Geier -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 3:59 a.m.
      • Question for fans of cubelessness
        Timothy Chow -- Monday, 18 January 2010, at 4:04 a.m.