BGonline.org Forums

Too Good To Double: Resolved

Posted By: AP
Date: Sunday, 8 June 2014, at 8:32 p.m.

In Response To: Too Good To Double Confusion (AP)

Thanks to everyone who responded...I am now clear. Here are my thoughts:

In the posted position, I was not on the fence regarding the too-good decision (it didn't even occur to me)...more evidence that I need to pay more attention to the score and GVs.

Now, regarding the too-good question in general, Tim's answer is gold as usual. Basically, you analyze it the same way you do a regular double...and for that you need to see the distribution of upcoming rolls...so, the tool to use as Phil points out is the Dice Distribution. In order to demonstrate how XG concludes too-good, that is all I have to look at...the cubeless evaluations were like a red herring that you don't need to answer the question at all.

In the posted position, after using Dice Distribution, I looked at the Temp Map. On the bottom of that screen I can see that the average equity after the next series of rolls is 1.005, which is really the key I was looking for to demonstrate how XG concludes the position is too-good.

After playing around a bit with the Dice Distribution, I found some interesting features which raised some additional questions. First, I thought it was strange that the temp map displayed only normalized equity without the option to display MWC. Then, I tried to right-click and copy the temp map and paste in Excel. When I did that, XG pasted the info that was in the 'Details' sheet, which was confusing, but a valuable feature I didn't know about nonetheless. When I set the 'Details' tab to 1st Rolled and copied to Excel, I could see the average equity of each roll, the wins/gs/bgs breakdown, and a column for # Rolls. The # Rolls column is helpful so I could quickly calculate the average equity and tie out the 1.005.

I like having the data in Excel so I can store the analysis along with a position, and it is easy to do additional analysis if I want.

Post Response

Subject:
Message: