BGonline.org Forums

Accounting for uncertainty

Posted By: Bob Koca
Date: Friday, 8 July 2016, at 4:27 p.m.

In the OLM the Prime Factors recently had a TG or not decision: http://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?read=193580

In this position type there is a very small chance of gammon, but very little or even possibly no chance of losing the cash the next sequence. Suppose that you estimate that double take equity after a poor roll by you and then a 1-6 or a 1 - * is just barely over 1 meaning you cannot lose your cash. That would seem to indicate that playing on is obviously correct but here uncertainty plays a major role in the decision.

Compare to a DMP position where you can enter into a race and from race model you calculate that you have 70% win chance by doing so and are confident that is very close. If you instead keep the contact you estimate you have 71%.Here you are not as sure. However choosing that play and it being 5% lower at 66% hurts you less than it being 5% higher at 76% helps you. You should just choose the play you estimate is better.

In the play on decision though suppose you are not positive about their take decision after such a sequence. If instead it is 1.10 instead of 1.01 it does not help you at all, a cash is a cash. If it is instead .92 instead of 1.01 you have lost actual equity by playing on. Here your uncertainty is an argument for cubing immediately.

Messages In This Thread

• Accounting for uncertainty
  Bob Koca -- Friday, 8 July 2016, at 4:27 p.m.
  • Accounting for uncertainty
    Casper Van der Tak -- Friday, 8 July 2016, at 4:41 p.m.
    • Accounting for uncertainty
      Bob Koca -- Friday, 8 July 2016, at 4:59 p.m.
    • Accounting for uncertainty
      neilkaz -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 2:56 a.m.
  • Accounting for uncertainty
    Rick Janowski -- Friday, 8 July 2016, at 4:50 p.m.
    • I am referring to second position there *NM*
      Bob Koca -- Friday, 8 July 2016, at 4:52 p.m.
  • Accounting for uncertainty
    Rick Janowski -- Friday, 8 July 2016, at 5:22 p.m.
    • Accounting for uncertainty
      Bob Koca -- Friday, 8 July 2016, at 5:29 p.m.
      • Accounting for uncertainty - Agreed *NM*
        Rick Janowski -- Friday, 8 July 2016, at 5:37 p.m.
    • Accounting for uncertainty
      neilkaz -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 3:57 a.m.
      • Accounting for uncertainty
        Rick Janowski -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 7:56 a.m.
        • Accounting for uncertainty
          neilkaz -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 3:00 p.m.
          • Accounting for uncertainty
            Rick Janowski -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 3:55 p.m.
            • Accounting for uncertainty
              Casper Van der Tak -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 4:21 p.m.
              • Accounting for uncertainty
                neilkaz -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 4:48 p.m.
              • Accounting for uncertainty
                Rick Janowski -- Sunday, 10 July 2016, at 3:03 a.m.
  • Accounting for uncertainty--Uncertainty works both ways
    Phil Simborg -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 3:08 a.m.
    • Accounting for uncertainty--Uncertainty works both ways
      neilkaz -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 3:25 a.m.
    • Accounting for uncertainty--Uncertainty works both ways
      Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 9:13 p.m.
  • XGR++ RO
    neilkaz -- Saturday, 9 July 2016, at 2:56 p.m.
  • Accounting for uncertainty - Variant Position
    Rick Janowski -- Sunday, 10 July 2016, at 3:45 a.m.
    • Accounting for uncertainty - Variant Position
      Casper Van der Tak -- Sunday, 10 July 2016, at 6:43 a.m.
      • Accounting for uncertainty - Variant Position
        Rick Janowski -- Sunday, 10 July 2016, at 9:30 a.m.
        • Accounting for uncertainty - Variant Position
          Casper Van der Tak -- Sunday, 10 July 2016, at 10:17 a.m.
          • Accounting for uncertainty - Variant Position
            Rick Janowski -- Sunday, 10 July 2016, at 6:32 p.m.