|
BGonline.org Forums
Falafel Bets #2 - Rollout and VARIANT
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Falafel Bets #2 - Rollout and VARIANT (scotty)
Date: Saturday, 28 October 2017, at 5:38 p.m.
White is Player 2
score: 6
pip: 1307 point match
Crawfordpip: 140
score: 0
Blue is Player 1XGID=---bBBCBB---bB---bbc-b-bB-:0:0:1:52:0:6:1:7:10 Variant (White has her 4pt instead of 5pt)
1. Rollout1 24/22 13/8 eq: +0.028
Player:
Opponent:50.18% (G:13.44% B:0.80%)
49.82% (G:22.42% B:2.64%)Conf.: ± 0.002 (+0.026...+0.030) - [58.2%]
Duration: 10 minutes 48 seconds2. Rollout1 24/22 6/1 eq: +0.028 (0.000)
Player:
Opponent:50.22% (G:14.71% B:0.61%)
49.78% (G:21.08% B:2.55%)Conf.: ± 0.002 (+0.025...+0.030) - [41.8%]
Duration: 11 minutes 10 seconds1 6480 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 94307656
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG RollereXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10, MET: Kazaross XG2
As I look at the numbers that the variant rollout has provided for W, G, a0>19nd BGs, I am having difficulty understanding why both plays display identical equities. This game is Crawford, so we know the cube value is 1 for all wins, gammons and backgammons. We also know that whites gammons and backgammons are irrelevant to the equity of the position. Play #2 has 0.04% more wins, 1.27% more gammons and 0.19% fewer backgammons. I cannot see how the value of 1.27 gammons is worth less in equity than 0.19 backgammons. My thinking is that play #2 should have a higher equity based on the numbers provided by the rollout. What am I missing here???
You seem to be under the misconception that backgammons are irrelevant. If Blue wins a backgammon (triple), he will then need only 4 points to win the match (two single games or one gammon) instead of 5.
Play #1 wins .04% less often (and gammons 1.27% less often, but as you point out that's not worth much -- just future bg and deprive-free-drop equities). Against that, Play #1 backgammons .19% more often.
Hope that helps.
Nack
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.