BGonline.org Forums

BQ: Take the 5 off or not?

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Thursday, 16 August 2012, at 12:29 a.m.

In Response To: BQ: Take the 5 off or not? (Casper van der Tak)

Casper wrote:

often avoiding double jeopardy is best

I actually think it's often the other way around. If the choice is between bearing off a checker and double jeopardy, it usually doesn't take much to swing the balance in favor of bearing off a checker. Bearing off a checker immediately typically (1) is better for the race; (2) is better if you get hit; (3) wins more gammons and backgammons.

See this blog post by Mochy for more discussion.

In Leo's position, though, the win is a lock if we're not hit, so (1) is irrelevant. The distribution of the opponent's checkers also means that the gammon is nearly a lock if we aren't hit. Winning a backgammon is also very unlikely, especially since bearing off a checker leaves us with an odd number of checkers remaining. Thus (3) is almost irrelevant. That leaves us with (2), but the opponent's position is still so undeveloped that we're still a big favorite to win even if we are hit. All this means that our priority here is to not get hit, and I would avoid double jeopardy.

If we were trailing 3-away Crawford then ripping one might be closer but I'd still avoid double jeopardy.

Messages In This Thread

• BQ: Take the 5 off or not?
  leobueno -- Wednesday, 15 August 2012, at 9:34 p.m.
  • BQ: Take the 5 off or not?
    Stick -- Wednesday, 15 August 2012, at 10:13 p.m.
  • BQ: Take the 5 off or not?
    Casper van der Tak -- Wednesday, 15 August 2012, at 10:36 p.m.
    • BQ: Take the 5 off or not?
      Timothy Chow -- Thursday, 16 August 2012, at 12:29 a.m.
      • BQ: Take the 5 off or not?
        Casper van der Tak -- Thursday, 16 August 2012, at 6:58 a.m.