BGonline.org Forums

TP 23.54? GV 0.588? (Long)

Posted By: Neil Robins
Date: Wednesday, 2 July 2014, at 6:29 a.m.

In Response To: TP 23.54? GV 0.588? (Long) (Jim Stutz)

I strongly disagree with practically all of this. Using the same logic, if XG evaluates a move as leading to an EMG of 0.2888 it must be assuring us that the true value is closer to 0.2888 than it is to 0.2887 or 0.2889. Why not just give 0.3?

It's also obvious to me that extra accuracy in a MET table will sometimes benefit a human player, as in the position below from one of my matches where its hardy difficult to calculate a pretty exact winning chance. No way do I want to see less than four significant figures in MET tables. Actually, five would be my preference. If you only want the nearest per cent, there's nothings stopping you rounding to that however many significant figures are listed and however increasingly meaningless and unimportant they are.

White is Player 2 score: 3 pip: 3 7 point match pip: 6 score: 4 Blue is Player 1 XGID=-C-A--------------------c-:1:1:1:00:4:3:0:7:10 Blue on roll, cube action?

Analyzed in 4-ply No redouble Redouble/Take Player Winning Chances: 81.33% (G:0.00% B:0.00%) 81.33% (G:0.00% B:0.00%) Opponent Winning Chances: 18.67% (G:0.00% B:0.00%) 18.67% (G:0.00% B:0.00%) Cubeless Equities +0.627 +0.995 Cubeful Equities No redouble: +0.627 (-0.368) Redouble/Take: +0.995 Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.005) Best Cube action: Redouble / Take

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10, MET: Kazaross XG2

Messages In This Thread

• TP 23.54? GV 0.588? (Long)
  Jim Stutz -- Sunday, 29 June 2014, at 11:36 p.m.
  • +1.000 *NM*
    Bob Koca -- Monday, 30 June 2014, at 2:04 a.m.
  • TP 23.54? GV 0.588? (Long)
    Bob Koca -- Monday, 30 June 2014, at 3:07 a.m.
  • TP 23.54? GV 0.588? (Long)
    Neil Robins -- Wednesday, 2 July 2014, at 6:29 a.m.