BGonline.org Forums

leobueno asks, "Why is the Intuitive Safe Play Wrong?"

Posted By: Paul Weaver
Date: Tuesday, 23 August 2011, at 11:35 a.m.

In Response To: Why Risk it? *Rollout* (leobueno)

Timothy Chow already gave a great and simple explanation, "I agree that there's no reason to risk getting primed so I would play the natural 24/16."

If you make the "safe" play 21/13, then you concede the outfield and greatly reduce your chance of making an advanced anchor. You are begging to be primed. Your next 55 54 64 65 all play poorly after 21/13.

You are an underdog in this position, and you are in danger of dying a slow death if you stay back "safely" on your anchor. Splitting gives you a chance to make an anchor and fight for control of the outfield.

Messages In This Thread

• Why Risk it?
  Max Levenstein -- Monday, 22 August 2011, at 7:41 a.m.
  • Why Risk it?
    Mick Dyett -- Monday, 22 August 2011, at 9:52 a.m.
    • +1 *NM*
      christian munk-christensen -- Monday, 22 August 2011, at 11:54 a.m.
  • Why Risk it?
    Daniel Murphy -- Monday, 22 August 2011, at 12:28 p.m.
    • Why Risk it?
      svilo -- Monday, 22 August 2011, at 1:57 p.m.
  • Why Risk it?
    misja -- Monday, 22 August 2011, at 2:03 p.m.
  • Why Risk it?
    Timothy Chow -- Monday, 22 August 2011, at 5:38 p.m.
  • Why Risk it? *Rollout*
    leobueno -- Tuesday, 23 August 2011, at 11:11 a.m.
    • leobueno asks, "Why is the Intuitive Safe Play Wrong?"
      Paul Weaver -- Tuesday, 23 August 2011, at 11:35 a.m.