BGonline.org Forums

METs for equal but weak players?

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Wednesday, 9 April 2014, at 12:38 a.m.

In Response To: METs for equal but weak players? (Bob Koca)

Bob Koca wrote:

But what it the purpose here? Is it so that weak players can make better cube decisions? That means they understand match equity stuff but they they probably aren't so weak anymore.

The proximate cause for my asking was John O'Hagan's post where he uses a standard MET to justify the cube action against "an even player." Implicitly, I think he's talking about players in the 3 to 5 PR range. That's not what we normally call weak players, but it's much weaker than the bots are, and I'm wondering how robust the assumption is that the chances of a 4.0 PR player vs. a 4.0 PR player are the same as the chances of a bot vs. a bot at the lopsided scores considered in John's post.

Messages In This Thread

• METs for equal but weak players?
  Timothy Chow -- Tuesday, 8 April 2014, at 3:55 p.m.
  • METs for equal but weak players?
    Robert Chow -- Tuesday, 8 April 2014, at 4:57 p.m.
  • METs for equal but weak players?
    Maik Stiebler -- Tuesday, 8 April 2014, at 6:22 p.m.
  • METs for equal but weak players?
    Jason Lee -- Tuesday, 8 April 2014, at 9:26 p.m.
    • METs for equal but weak players?
      Bob Koca -- Tuesday, 8 April 2014, at 9:38 p.m.
      • METs for equal but weak players?
        Timothy Chow -- Wednesday, 9 April 2014, at 12:38 a.m.
      • "Every disciplined activity brings multiple rewards"
        phil simborg -- Wednesday, 9 April 2014, at 7:17 a.m.