| 156 | |
|---|---|
| |
| 63S-21H-54@-22 | 164 |
Position ID: 4HPiAQPga+QBMA Match ID: cAkJAAAAAAAA | |
I have a (money) trunc for the fourth roll position above, 63S-21H-54@-22, which is
[@ M5 Y52 E56 N86 n90 B109].
[Nactation key: @ = anchor 24/20(2), M = Mayfair Split 24/22 13/11 6/4(2), E = Each 22(2) 6/4(2), Y = Y-split 24/22(2) 13/11 6/4, N = Near 11/7 6/4(2), n = near 13/11(2) 6/4(2), B = Both 24/22(2) 11/7.]
Essentially, @ is tied with M (or at least it is reasonable to expect that a full rollout would make it close contest).
Because I happen to be aware of that position/result, it is easier to orient myself to the 63S-21H-61H-61H-54@-22 position you posted (repeated below), where the underlined hit exchange has additionally occurred on Blue's 7pt (White's 18pt), relatively setting him back 18 - 7 = 11 pips. (Blue trails by 19 now instead of 8.)
The manifestation of those 11 pips is a third checker on Blue's 24pt instead of a fourth checker on his midpoint. This alteration has two effects:
(1) It is less costly for Blue to be hit.
(2) Moving a checker off the midpoint will strip it instead of reducing it from four checkers to three.
With the 13pt-to-24pt change (in your position, shown below), I feel it's a cinch that @ (anchor, 24/20(2)) will come out on top. Any play that covers or safeties the 11pt (M, Y, N, n, B) will do relatively worse than it does in the upper position. It is reasonable to deduce that E (Each 24/22(2) 6/4(2), which does not make the 11pt, has a shot to come in second place if M falls far enough, and other plays will be fourth or worse.
After @ (in both positions), White is also faced with the practical problem of whether to hit with some rolls, IMO adding to its desirability.
Nack
| gnubg | 156 |
|---|---|
| |
| 63S-21H-61H-61H-54@-22 | 175 |
Position ID: 4HPiAQPga+QAOA Match ID: cAkJAAAAAAAA | |
