|
BGonline.org Forums
Are lucky players better--the difference between PR and ER
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: Are lucky players better (Jason Lee)
Date: Friday, 29 January 2016, at 10:23 p.m.
When you use Snowie to evaluate your game your ER would improve if you are on the bar, as the program divided the errors by the total of the rolls.
When Xavier came up with XG he understood that was unreasonable, so now, forced moves don't count and you won't improve. While beta testing the first XG program, I came up with the term "Performance Rating" (instead of Error Rating) to differentiate between the two.
In a match in LA recently I lost to Malcolm, but I had a lower PR. Am I better than Malcolm? Hell no. But I am pretty sure that the loser of the match is more likely to have a lower than if the same player were a winner. Why? Not because of forced moves, because with XG you don't gain from a forced move, but because when you are losing, I believe that more of your non-forced moves are easier decisions.
For example, if you are holding your opponent's ace point or any point in his board in an anchor game, generally your checker decisions are far easier than your opponent's. Also, he has to worry about whether he's too good to double when he's killing you, and you don't have as tough a decision. And the leader has a cube decision every roll, while the player getting beat only has a cube decision if and when he is doubled.
So the question might not be "are lucky players better" but "how does luck make you look better or worse" or, if you assume that better players are more likely to win, then it is also logical that they will have a worse PR because they are winning, and if that's true, how can you prove they are better players?
So the answer is quite complex. Now the next question is this: why is it important to know the answer to this question (other than intellectual stimulation)?
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.