BGonline.org Forums

65 is not a bad number according to XG

Posted By: Kristian Thulin
Date: Thursday, 21 July 2011, at 1:02 a.m.

In Response To: 65 is not a bad number according to XG (Christian Plenz)

Because XG measures jokers in EMG, not i MWC%. And this roll loses less than 0,300 EMG, which at DMP is 15 % MWC.

After 65, it need to be hit, and after hit it is still just around even. Fill in the 5-point and XG marks it an anti-joker.

Messages In This Thread

• SEMI-FINAL
  Ray Kershaw -- Wednesday, 20 July 2011, at 6:19 p.m.
  • SEMI-FINAL
    Petter Bengtsson -- Wednesday, 20 July 2011, at 8:01 p.m.
    • SEMI-FINAL
      neilkaz -- Wednesday, 20 July 2011, at 8:05 p.m.
      • 65 is not a bad number according to XG
        Christian Plenz -- Thursday, 21 July 2011, at 12:38 a.m.
        • 65 is not a bad number according to XG
          Petter Bengtsson -- Thursday, 21 July 2011, at 12:59 a.m.
        • 65 is not a bad number according to XG
          eXtreme Gammon -- Thursday, 21 July 2011, at 1:00 a.m.
        • 65 is not a bad number according to XG
          Kristian Thulin -- Thursday, 21 July 2011, at 1:02 a.m.