                       |
| ||||
| XGID=-ABBbD------bF----abbbbb--:0:0:-1:00:0:0:3:0:10 | |||||
White on roll: Double anyway | |||||
| Analyzed in Rollout | No double | Double/Take |
| Player Winning Chances: | 63.08% (G:19.18% B:0.16%) | 63.49% (G:20.79% B:0.20%) |
| Opponent Winning Chances: | 36.92% (G:1.92% B:0.04%) | 36.51% (G:2.17% B:0.05%) |
| Cubeless Equities | +0.436 | +0.915 |
| Cubeful Equities | ||
| No double: | +0.614 (-0.011) | ±0.005 (+0.609..+0.619) |
| Double/Take: | +0.625 | ±0.007 (+0.619..+0.632) |
| Double/Pass: | +1.000 (+0.375) | |
| Best Cube action: Double / Take | ||
| Rollout details | ||
| 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Dice Seed: 41086525 Moves and cube decisions: 4-ply | ||
| Double Decision confidence: | 99.7% | |
| Take Decision confidence: | 100.0% | |
| Duration: 1 hour 25 minutes | ||
Thanks for the reference; I hadn't seen that "Wisecarver Paradox" thread.
AP's "Wisecarver Paradox" position doesn't quite pass muster. After Blue plays the terrible 6/5 6/1 (instead of the much better but shot-leaving 13/7), White should double anyway, according to the rollout above.
As for the issue of whether a cube provocation play should be classified as a paradox, I like Tim Chow's answer (as does Jake Jacobs). Granted, the contact version of the Wisecarver Paradox arises more often than other paradoxes (including as early as the fourth roll for money or as the second roll if certain match scores are included), though I wouldn't characterize it as frequent.
Nack