BGonline.org Forums

Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?

Posted By: Phil Simborg
Date: Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 1:58 a.m.

Right now, we decide whether to take or drop a cube by estimating wins and losses and deducting net gammon losses (adjusted by price of gammons). We also "consider" recube vig and adjust the take point by that estimate. So a money game with no recube is 25 percent, and with perfect recube vig could go down as low as 18.

When we put this into the bots, we get the answers we need based on the above criteria. But what we don't get is recube vig. It seems to me that a cube is a take not based just on the percentage of times you win the game, but by the percentage of the time you have a recube (efficient or not). I don't believe the bots give you this information, but why can't it?

Takers of cubes don't take just because they win the game X percent; they take because they will have a recube X percent.

Why can't the bots roll out a position and tell us that in this position we will get a recube in 28 percent of the time, and in that position you get to recube 34 percent of the time. Once we know that, we can start having reference positions based on recube ability. Isn't that a critical factor that determines whether or not we take a cube? Why can't the bots give us this information?

Messages In This Thread

• Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
  Phil Simborg -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 1:58 a.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:15 a.m.
    • My thoughts on your responses
      Phil Simborg -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 2:53 p.m.
      • My thoughts on your responses
        Stick -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:01 p.m.
      • My thoughts on your responses
        Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 7:07 p.m.
        • My thoughts on your responses
          Daniel Murphy -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 7:37 p.m.
          • My thoughts on your responses
            Rich Munitz -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 3:29 a.m.
            • My thoughts on your responses
              Daniel Murphy -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 5:24 a.m.
              • My thoughts on your responses
                Phil Simborg -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 1:21 p.m.
                • My thoughts on your responses
                  Peter G. -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 3:08 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:36 a.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Andreas -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 8:36 a.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Fabrice Liardet -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 9:40 a.m.
    • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
      Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 2:22 p.m.
      • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
        Fabrice Liardet -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:58 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Stick -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 1:15 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Fabrice Liardet -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 1:37 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Ian Shaw -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 4:12 p.m.
    • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
      MaX -- Thursday, 22 October 2009, at 12:31 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    NJ -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 5:14 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Keene -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 4:33 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Daniel Murphy -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 6:14 p.m.