|
BGonline.org Forums
Doubling never entered my mind here--dont see the difference
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: Doubling never entered my mind here (ah_clem)
Date: Saturday, 7 November 2015, at 3:31 a.m.
Sorry, but waiting at 2a/2a or waiting at post crawford when he has a free drop is the same thing to me. You do it for the same reason, with the same risks and the same potential rewards.
Yes, it is easier to lose your market at 2a/2a but if you know that and are careful, and you read your opponent properly, and it works sometimes (a lot more than you err by losing your market) then you have employed an excellent strategy. It is a strategy that XG does not understand and does not reward, but it is valid if you do it properly.
We are very used to looking at XG and PR's and watching one Giant play another, and we are very used to listening to the advice of Giants who are giving you the right advice assuming they are trying to keep their PR low and assuming they are playing other Giants, that we forget that for most of us, both in match play and money games, we are not playing bots.
I beavered an 8 cube last night that was not a beaver. I was wrong to beaver. I will not argue that I was right. But my reasoning was that even if XG said it was not a beaver, I did have some excellent reasons to beaver this player:
1. I was on the roof and he had a lot of work to do to bring his checkers around and contain me. He was going to make all the checker errors, not me. If I come in and hit and escape I win...my play is simple. XG does not take this into account, so whatever XG says my winning percent is, that estimate is low in this type of game;
2. If things go right for me, I am more likely to make a good cube decision and he might well take a pass, so I have greater cube vig. Again, XG does not recognize this. (It turns out I got to a position where I should have doubled to 32 he would have taken a pass, but I rolled on and gammoned him. Again, I admit I was wrong and was lucky, but I must tell you that the idea of winning a gammon was part of my decision to hold the cube along with not wanting to have a 32 cube and spoil my evening...something again that XG doesn't understand.)
Does this sound like I'm bragging? When I tell you that I beavered when I shouldn't have and didn't redouble when I should have? I am certainly not bragging, and the fact that I won 32 points is not justification or proof that I handled this right. But the logic is valid...when there is real money on the line, and you are playing less than a bot, there are considerations that are valid that you cannot prove with XG.
I know that this next statement is anecdotal and cannot be backed up by fact, but I will tell you from close to 45 years of playing this game for money, probably as much as anyone alive today, the most consistent winners and the biggest winners in heads up and chouettes that I have known are not anywhere near the best backgammon players that I have known, and conversely, I have knows some great backgammon players that I would consider a pretty big dog in many games against supposedly "inferior" players. There is a human factor, and to ignore this and not take advantage is a mistake.
As a teacher, I do want to say that I insist that first the student learns what is correct according to the bot, because how can you "adjust" your game for human factors until you have first learned this. Also, I can prove what is wrong or right statistically (for the most part) with XG, but what is a proper adjustment is more of an art than a science. I am happy to say that art is still a part of this amazing game.
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.