BGonline.org Forums

Reply to Mochy's Q - Metric Rationale

Posted By: Mr Majestyk
Date: Friday, 22 July 2011, at 5:21 p.m.

A revised copy of the Metric Formula (July, 2011) can be accessed here:

http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Merrigan/Metric.pdf

A big thank you goes out to Tom Keith for his swift reply and upload of the revised doc; it is most appreciated.

The changes made reflect a more coherent explanation in light of Bob's critique - items 1 - 9.

Mochy,

The design of the Metric Formula was based on the idea of my own ME formula i.e. 50+(96-D)/(7+T)*(D), 50+(62-PLT)/(PLT+L)*(L), notice the similarity! At first, I had no idea that this might work and I still had to figure a formulation that made sense. Yor right however, trial and error did play a big part in the design, although, cross-referencing the data with test positions took quite a bit of time. Converting rule 62 to percent reflects only the raw winning chances; something had to done to adjust the winning chances that matched the Kleinman estimates and the Snowie/XG rollouts.

The development of E-Pips

Efficiency: (1100 * Q)/(11 * N), Q = Quadrant, N = Number of pips to bear-off.

Crossovers: (11 * D)/(11 * N), D = distance in pips to the 6pt, N = as above.

Is this any clear?

Kit Woolsey's Ultimate Pip Count

11 "pipples" is the mid point between 10 - 12.2449, according to Woolsey.

10 = inefficient with wastage

12+ = efficient with no wastage

A checker on the 13pt has roughly 2 crossovers; E-Pips indicate 2.15 crossovers. This fractional difference in wastage by itself doesn't amount to much but for a whole position, the difference can be significant.

Drop us a line if you have anything further to add.

NBM

Messages In This Thread

• Reply to Mochy's Q - Metric Rationale
  Mr Majestyk -- Friday, 22 July 2011, at 5:21 p.m.
  • Reply to Mochy's Q - Metric Rationale
    mtuhtan -- Friday, 22 July 2011, at 5:27 p.m.
    • Reply to Mochy's Q - Metric Rationale
      Mr Majestyk -- Friday, 22 July 2011, at 5:43 p.m.