|
BGonline.org Forums
Very nice, but just a tad conservative for raw pip counts
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Very nice, but just a tad conservative for raw pip counts (David Rockwell)
Date: Thursday, 4 February 2010, at 8:18 p.m.
Thanks for your comments and I'm in basic agreement.
I have been neutral on the issue of whether minimal wastage 15-checker positions should be the standard or whether low-median wastage 15-checker positions (as Walter might have intended, though we don't know) should be the standard. However, I am happy to go along with the minimal-wastage-standard arguments made in these posts.
It seems to me we have a growing consensus of you/David, Ian, Neil, and myself about using 15-checker minimal wastage as the standard. I'm guessing that Bob, Rich and jdg are onboard with a minimal wastage standard, too, but I hope they'll speak up if they disagree.
I think Tim is probably in agreement as well, though since he brought up the 24pt 23pt 22pt = 69 pipcount example, I am uncertain whether he is supporting 15 as the number of checkers used.
I'm also thinking that we might want to come up with a new name for the 15-checker minimum wastage table. The so-called "gold standard" table has been around awhile and depending on how it was derived it might independently stand out as a table one might prefer to use or at least we can keep it separate for comparison. A great example of where the (old) gold standard could be preferred is in the very typical cases where midpoint contact is still remaining: I think low median wastage is more accurate in those cases. (I am about to make my case for that in a separate post to Neil.)
I propose the name "platinum standard table" (PST). An alternative is "minimal wastage table" (MWT). Or I'm open to other suggestions.
Nack
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.