| |
BGonline.org Forums
Nack58 and Trice62
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Nack 57; 8-9-12; Trice's 62, etc. (christian munk-christensen)
Date: Monday, 31 January 2011, at 10:11 p.m.
I like to keep things simple. So I use 8-9-12, Trice's 62 and Nack 57 for simple races.
In the position above I didn't account for any wastage since both positions have nice positions. Since the score is 0-0 I didn't make any score adjustments.
All my 3 formulas all say pass. XG rollout says big, big take.
For money (assuming equal wastage), Nack57 and Trice62 say that at a difference of 9, 78–87 is highest pipcount that is still a take. The newer Nack58 (subt 32, double, nearest sqrt) says highest 9 is 77–86. That would make 74–83 a tiny take for money.
As Stick said, –5–5 has a lower take point than money. At the present time, I know of no table that tells you how much to adjust the money-tailored race formulae (Nack58 and Trice62) for different match scores.
Any formulas that come up with a take here?
With a 74–84 equal-wastage position for money? I hope not. :)
Which formula is considered most reliable at longer races? (how long is the shortest long race?)
At a leader count of 60 or less, Nack58 (or Nack57) is the same as Trice62.
Nack58 is a pip more accurate than Trice62 at leader counts of 61, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80, 88, 89, 90, 99, and 100. The rest in that range are the same.
The leader count of 111 may be contrary: for Nack58, add a pip to be the correct and the same as Trice62. Or maybe not (I don't remember if Neil did a rollout for that one).
Above that, the longer the race, the more accuracy that Nack58 gains over Trice62.
You're better off forgetting about the 8-9-12 rule (which tells you that even 74–83 is a money pass, and gets similarly skewed in the other direction above 116). At the time it was created, 8-9-12 was the best formula known, but it is an older work.
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.