1.  XG Roller++  22/20 5/2  eq: +0.284 
 Player: Opponent:  55.17% (G:16.11% B:0.27%) 44.83% (G:6.69% B:0.26%)  

2.  XG Roller++  11/9* 9/6  eq: +0.257 (0.027) 
 Player: Opponent:  54.87% (G:19.74% B:0.85%) 45.13% (G:11.74% B:0.69%)  

3.  XG Roller++  22/20 11/8  eq: +0.235 (0.048) 
 Player: Opponent:  54.23% (G:16.04% B:0.36%) 45.77% (G:8.28% B:0.33%)  

4.  XG Roller++  22/20 6/3  eq: +0.225 (0.059) 
 Player: Opponent:  54.04% (G:15.64% B:0.32%) 45.96% (G:7.72% B:0.31%)  

5.  XG Roller++  11/8 11/9*  eq: +0.156 (0.128) 
 Player: Opponent:  52.84% (G:18.73% B:0.84%) 47.16% (G:14.04% B:1.04%)  

6.  XG Roller++  22/20 13/10  eq: +0.139 (0.145) 
 Player: Opponent:  51.97% (G:13.88% B:0.27%) 48.03% (G:7.59% B:0.29%)  

7.  XG Roller++  13/10 11/9*  eq: +0.114 (0.170) 
 Player: Opponent:  52.07% (G:18.96% B:1.00%) 47.93% (G:15.94% B:1.94%)  

8.  XG Roller++  11/9* 6/3  eq: +0.074 (0.209) 
 Player: Opponent:  51.69% (G:18.26% B:0.92%) 48.31% (G:17.41% B:1.82%)  

9.  XG Roller++  7/4 6/4  eq: +0.056 (0.228) 
 Player: Opponent:  50.22% (G:20.28% B:0.98%) 49.78% (G:14.91% B:0.97%)  

10.  XG Roller++  7/2  eq: +0.048 (0.236) 
 Player: Opponent:  49.42% (G:20.06% B:0.82%) 50.58% (G:13.08% B:0.74%)  

11.  XG Roller++  11/9* 5/2  eq: +0.046 (0.238) 
 Player: Opponent:  49.67% (G:18.90% B:0.76%) 50.33% (G:15.38% B:1.20%)  

12.  XG Roller++  20/15  eq: +0.003 (0.281) 
 Player: Opponent:  49.75% (G:16.38% B:0.58%) 50.25% (G:15.22% B:0.80%)  

13.  XG Roller++  22/20 7/4  eq: 0.017 (0.301) 
 Player: Opponent:  47.66% (G:13.94% B:0.29%) 52.34% (G:9.69% B:0.39%)  

14.  XG Roller++  6/1*  eq: 0.019 (0.303) 
 Player: Opponent:  48.30% (G:16.75% B:0.48%) 51.70% (G:13.90% B:0.77%)  

15.  XG Roller++  13/11 13/10  eq: 0.094 (0.378) 
 Player: Opponent:  47.02% (G:15.33% B:0.73%) 52.98% (G:14.81% B:0.92%)  

1.  Rollout^{1}  22/20 5/2  eq: +0.286 
 Player: Opponent:  55.62% (G:17.10% B:0.35%) 44.38% (G:6.88% B:0.31%)  Conf.: ± 0.006 (+0.281...+0.292)  [100.0%] Duration: 2 hours 00 minute 

2.  Rollout^{1}  11/9* 9/6  eq: +0.267 (0.019) 
 Player: Opponent:  55.14% (G:20.65% B:0.93%) 44.86% (G:12.14% B:0.77%)  Conf.: ± 0.006 (+0.261...+0.273)  [0.0%] Duration: 2 hours 01 minute 

3.  Rollout^{2}  22/20 11/8  eq: +0.240 (0.046) 
 Player: Opponent:  54.76% (G:16.83% B:0.42%) 45.24% (G:8.52% B:0.40%)  Conf.: ± 0.008 (+0.232...+0.248)  [0.0%] Duration: 1 hour 11 minutes 

4.  Rollout^{2}  22/20 6/3  eq: +0.224 (0.062) 
 Player: Opponent:  54.42% (G:16.52% B:0.41%) 45.58% (G:8.13% B:0.35%)  Conf.: ± 0.007 (+0.217...+0.232)  [0.0%] Duration: 1 hour 13 minutes 


^{1} 10368 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Dice Seed: 58511506 Moves: 3ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
^{2} 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Dice Seed: 58511506 Moves: 3ply, cube decisions: XG Roller

In an allout blitz, a point/blot shift move is sometimes correct. In ordinary early/middle game positions, though, point/blot shifts are far less common, especially when downgrading an inside point by more than 1 pip.
Remembering that I enjoyed Tim's rare 2pip point/blot shift position, I set out to create a (still rarer) 3pip point/blot shift position. Further, I wanted for the opponent to have only a onepoint board, to make anchoring less vital. (In Tim's position, Opp has a twopoint board.)
I am impressed that so many respondents chose the best move. Perhaps I have QF written on my forehead more than most, and/or perhaps Tim's position was still floating around in some memories, and/or perhaps it's simply that bgonliners are strong, creative players!
The first position above (on the left, if you've widened your window) has XG evals of 15 candidate moves (I kept going until all moves mentioned by respondents were included). The second position is a rollout of just the top four moves (the nonwhoppers). Below are nacbracs summaries:
........Evaluation [e T27 B48 E59 H128 Z145 h170 N209 4228
.....................................2236 n238 R281 C301 1303 D378] "&e
..........Rollout....[e T19 B46 E62] "<=10*5
Below are three variants, for which I've generated evaluations only.
We'll start with two positions (side by side, with a wide window) that slide back White's 9pt. If she instead owns her 10pt, her 64hit will safety a blot after Blue's "e" (each, 22/20 5/2). If White instead owns her 11pt, her 42hit will play better after Blue's "e." Also, in both cases, her adjusted outer board point will be less of an imposing threat (than her 9pt is) to Blue's back checkers if he keeps them split (by opting to hit with 11/9* instead of anchoring with 22/20).
As a consequence of these specific tactical differences, T beats e by .049 (instead of losing by .027) for a swing of .076 in the first position, and T beats e by .033 for a swing of .060 in the second position. These swings are notable, stunning even.
1.  XG Roller++  11/9* 9/6  eq: +0.333 
 Player: Opponent:  56.32% (G:21.15% B:0.96%) 43.68% (G:11.03% B:0.62%)  

2.  XG Roller++  22/20 5/2  eq: +0.284 (0.049) 
 Player: Opponent:  55.07% (G:16.68% B:0.25%) 44.93% (G:6.55% B:0.25%)  

3.  XG Roller++  22/20 11/8  eq: +0.247 (0.086) 
 Player: Opponent:  54.54% (G:16.51% B:0.36%) 45.46% (G:8.04% B:0.32%)  

4.  XG Roller++  22/20 6/3  eq: +0.244 (0.089) 
 Player: Opponent:  54.49% (G:16.25% B:0.34%) 45.51% (G:7.50% B:0.31%)  

5.  XG Roller++  11/8 11/9*  eq: +0.227 (0.106) 
 Player: Opponent:  54.28% (G:20.01% B:0.93%) 45.72% (G:12.93% B:0.87%)  

1.  XG Roller++  11/9* 9/6  eq: +0.367 
 Player: Opponent:  56.83% (G:22.20% B:1.21%) 43.17% (G:10.97% B:0.58%)  

2.  XG Roller++  22/20 5/2  eq: +0.334 (0.033) 
 Player: Opponent:  56.02% (G:18.12% B:0.33%) 43.98% (G:6.38% B:0.24%)  

3.  XG Roller++  22/20 6/3  eq: +0.297 (0.071) 
 Player: Opponent:  55.26% (G:17.61% B:0.42%) 44.74% (G:7.10% B:0.27%)  

4.  XG Roller++  22/20 11/8  eq: +0.291 (0.076) 
 Player: Opponent:  55.46% (G:16.94% B:0.38%) 44.54% (G:7.41% B:0.28%)  

5.  XG Roller++  11/8 11/9*  eq: +0.263 (0.104) 
 Player: Opponent:  55.01% (G:20.51% B:1.07%) 44.99% (G:12.19% B:0.80%)  

Finally, below is a variant where one of Blue's 6pt spares is instead on his 7pt. The candidate of 4 or P (making the 4pt, Seth's move), and T (hitandsTack, 11/9*/6), and 2 or p (covering the 2pt), are now all stronger than "e," which again demonstrates that anchoring is not automatically paramount. The ability to make an inside point while retaining the 7pt elucidates two of those turnarounds, but the T/e reversal of (.027 + .026 =) .053 seems less obvious and exemplifies the importance of having a diversified builder.
Nack
1.  XG Roller++  7/4 6/4  eq: +0.348 
 Player: Opponent:  57.75% (G:20.91% B:0.90%) 42.25% (G:11.93% B:0.65%)  

2.  XG Roller++  11/9* 9/6  eq: +0.321 (0.026) 
 Player: Opponent:  56.24% (G:19.66% B:0.85%) 43.76% (G:10.93% B:0.61%)  

3.  XG Roller++  7/2  eq: +0.316 (0.032) 
 Player: Opponent:  56.12% (G:20.68% B:0.73%) 43.88% (G:10.69% B:0.47%)  

4.  XG Roller++  22/20 5/2  eq: +0.296 (0.052) 
 Player: Opponent:  55.56% (G:15.87% B:0.26%) 44.44% (G:6.46% B:0.24%)  
