| |
BGonline.org Forums
A Better Way than Hybridization of EPC
Posted By: mamabear In Response To: EPC Confusion (AP)
Date: Saturday, 12 January 2013, at 11:50 p.m.
My experience with trying to hybridize EPC with outfield checkers, is that at best, it must be handled with extreme caution, and in general, it should not be done at all. Other approaches are better when you are outside the design range of EPC.
The way I would handle this one is to say that the average roll is around 8 pips, with the median being lower, so if I give both my opponent and myself 8 pips on the next roll, I am being reasonably fair, although a bit optimistic regarding me, that is, the player with the straggler. For that reason, I imagine the 8-pip roll being specifically a 62 unless there's a serious reason to do otherwise, since that tends to produce a bit of wastage on the roll where I bear the straggler into my board. I am still being a little optimistic, since I am assuming my opponent does not roll a double.
What happens when I try that here? I roll a 62 and play 17/9. My opponent rolls a 62 and bears two men off. I now have one on the 9 and one on the ace point, and he has four left to bear off from the ace point. I know that I have lost my market, because if my last two checkers add up to 10 or fewer, my opponent has to pass with a "two-roll". (That's not EPC, or anything mathematically cool or elegant, it's just something you memorize.)
While it's true it's now redouble/pass, my opponent isn't completely knocked out, so I'm eliminating some equity tailings he would have had, if I'd redoubled last roll. I've lost my market, but the world won't end...at least, not for that reason >> And since my starting assumptions were a bit optimistic, I'm going to hold off redoubling in the original position and worry about the cube on the following roll instead.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.