BGonline.org Forums

Rockwell/Kazaross versus Woolsey

Posted By: Ray Kershaw
Date: Saturday, 27 March 2010, at 10:28 a.m.

I compared the match "equity" table in Woolsey's How To Play Tournament Backgammon with the Rockwell/Kazaross equivalent, rounded to integers and provided by Phil Simborg.

The leader's "equity" can be compared 55 times. [Need 1C v need 2, need 3, ... need 11; need 2 v need 3, need 4, ... need 11; ... ; need 10 v need 11.]

In 33 cases, the "equities" are identical; in 19 cases, Rockwell/Kazaross reduce the "equity" by 1 percentage point; and in 3 cases, Rockwell/Kazaross reduce the "equity" by 2 percentage points.

As I understand it, these tables depend on gammon rate, backgammon rate, free drop value, recube leverage and perhaps other things. Have Rockwell/Kazaross used assumptions very close to Woolsey's ? Of have they used radically different assumptions which just happen to net out at a similar table ?

What is the most sensitive assumption - gammon rate ?

Messages In This Thread

• Rockwell/Kazaross versus Woolsey
  Ray Kershaw -- Saturday, 27 March 2010, at 10:28 a.m.
  • Rockwell/Kazaross versus Woolsey
    Phil Simborg -- Saturday, 27 March 2010, at 11:55 a.m.
  • Kit's source data
    mfic -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 2:52 a.m.
    • Kit's source data
      Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 5:22 a.m.
      • Kit's source data
        Chase -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 5:56 a.m.
        • date, reference, more info
          Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 1:39 p.m.
      • Kit's source data
        Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 2:32 p.m.
        • Kit's source data
          Tom Keith -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 4:13 p.m.
          • Kit's source data
            Daniel Murphy -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 5:20 p.m.