[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Comment about gammons

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Saturday, 18 August 2012, at 2:26 a.m.

In Response To: Comment about gammons (David Rennie)

David Rennie wrote:

I think I understand what you're saying but if the 75% wins estimate is correct wouldn't this be a double, recube vig or not?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Whether it's a double depends on market losers. Did you really mean to say "double" here?

The inference I would make about a 75% win estimate is that it would then be a take, recube vig or not, if we ignored gammons. However, I think that Blue's gammons (as opposed to White's gammons, which I think can basically be ignored) probably push the position into drop territory.

Or is the difference between the dead cube takepoint and the live cube takepoint due to the recube vig and so nullified in this case?

I'm not sure I understand this question either. My tentative answer is yes, but I'm not sure I know what your definitions are. We all agree what the "raw" takepoint means, right? It's (equity after dropping minus equity after taking and losing a single), divided by (equity after taking and winning a single minus equity after taking and losing a single). Is that what you mean by the "dead cube takepoint"? And what do you mean by "the live cube takepoint"? I've encountered various definitions of that term.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.