[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

SMITH and JONES: The Undoubled Game

Posted By: Bob Koca
Date: Wednesday, 31 May 2017, at 2:01 p.m.

In Response To: SMITH and JONES: The Undoubled Game (Nack Ballard)

"The very FIRST time a market gainer appears (which must happen eventually, if the game is to ever break contact), it automatically means that the other player had a market-losing sequence on the roll prior (without an opposing market gainer, by definition), and therefore had a double"

Does "had a double" equal "had a mandatory double"? Assuming that is what is meant I do not believe a proof of what is being said in that paragraph has been given. In particular suppose the game changes in the following way: The first several rolls do not change the game from 50-50 and then there is a roll (let's say on A's turn) which decides the game. A has a market losing roll but the double is optional with gains and regrets exactly balancing. Two turns before that A did not a have a market losing sequence (two rolls causing no change in win chance are coming) The turn before B has a market losing sequence but it is optional violating the conjecture.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.