| |
BGonline.org Forums
Bot equity analysis threshholds for errors and blunders.
Posted By: Keene In Response To: Bot equity analysis threshholds for errors and blunders. (leobueno)
Date: Wednesday, 16 July 2014, at 3:43 p.m.
I think its more important to get what the bot is telling you, not what parameters you are using. Explicitly, changing your error and blunder numbers really only changes the colors on the plays - as Bob said.
So, when you make an error of 0.08 or worse (defaults), then you have given up so much equity with your play or decision that it really just indicates that you made a bad decision. Understanding why is far more important. This is more clear when you consider the case of the "error". When you make a play or decision that is between your "error" number and "blunder" number, then it likely demonstrates that you were close to the right choice, but not close enough. When you make a play that is under that error threshold, but not the top choice, that may really be a technical difference in checker placement for maximizing covers or efficiency, or it may be that your play leaves 14 shots versus 13 which is marginally better.
Playing under the 'error' number just means that you have the right theme, and the right ideas about how you play, you just didnt do it completely correctly - which is a matter of technique, not failure to understand.
So, pick a number for error - the default is a good place to start. Maybe MCG or Mochy would pick a lower number, as they are more in the business of fine tuning than gaining technical understanding. Pick a number for blunder - again, its just your own threshold, so if you are comfortable that a big mistake for you is 0.1, then use that. Its about your comfort, and how you prioritize assessing the results.
I use the defaults too - they find plenty of errors in my play.
Anecdotally, I used to have far better checker play in general than I do today - the number of errors and blunders I would make was much lower, however, when I did make a blunder, it wasnt just a 0.085 or something, it would be monstrous. These days, I make far more smaller errors, and far far fewer monstrous blunders. This tells me that conceptually, I have tightened my game - I have a better understanding of positions and how to handle them, in a far more broad manner. However, it also tells me that I am getting lazy in assessing risk, and missing more technical plays than I should. So, my lessons learned are to find the reasons for the technical plays, and find the optimal plays. My basis here is good though - my understanding of the game is far deeper than it was, and now I just have to do lots of tuning. This is merely my own perspective, and it will not be the same for everyone.
K
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.