                         |
| ||||
| XGID=--AAa-DCBa-a-B--bb-bbbBb--:0:0:-1:00:0:0:0:0:10 | |||||
| White on roll, cube action? | |||||
| Analyzed in Rollout | No double | Double/Take |
| Player Winning Chances: | 72,11% (G:9,67% B:0,38%) | 72,24% (G:9,56% B:0,39%) |
| Opponent Winning Chances: | 27,89% (G:4,29% B:0,13%) | 27,76% (G:4,27% B:0,14%) |
| Cubeless Equities | +0,499 | +1,000 |
| Cubeful Equities | ||
| No double: | +0,829 | ±0,006 (+0,823..+0,835) |
| Double/Take: | +0,826 (-0,003) | ±0,006 (+0,819..+0,832) |
| Double/Pass: | +1,000 (+0,171) | |
| Best Cube action: No double / Take | ||
| Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 1,8% | ||
| Rollout details | ||
| 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Dice Seed: 4 Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller | ||
| Double Decision confidence: | 76,6% | |
| Take Decision confidence: | 100,0% | |
| Duration: 3 hours 38 minutes | ||
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.03
Thank you for the replies (unfortunately I am not going extend the rollout further).
Rumour has it that close cube decisions are particularly suitable for reference positions (even though that is by no means the only or main criterion - and irrespective of suitability of the position posted). I was wondering whether close decisions could have other applications besides that. Perhaps they could be likened to psychological projective tests in which neutral or ambiguous objects leave room for subjective interpretation, thus revealing personal inclinations. Let us assume someone (eg. a backgammon teacher) would like to learn more about another person's personal cube action tendencies by emploing a set of hundreds of positions as a test. Would it be possible that close decision positions are more indicative in this respect than other positions - or is the feature more or less irrelevant for that purpose?