| |
BGonline.org Forums
about those doubles
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: about those doubles (Bob Koca)
Date: Thursday, 30 April 2015, at 9:14 a.m.
Bob, your premise assumes that the player who was ahead when contact broke was there because of luck, and we all know there is skill in backgammon, and the more skillful the player the more likely he will be ahead when contact is broken.
So if you agree that from that point on, the luck factor is reduced if doubles are not counted as doubles, it would follow that the player who played more skillfully up to that point is more likely to win the game.
Let's pretend you are playing me, and I am the first to admit you are a better player than me. And let's pretend we play 100 games that turn into races. And let's play out those 100 games with and without doubles counting as doubles. I am convinced that you will end up winning more games as a result of doubles not counting as doubles.
I am not sure how I can prove this on paper, but the logic is clear. You are a better player; you will be ahead of me in more games when we break contact; you will win more games from that point on if the variance of the dice is reduced.
Now, take two equal players, then you are correct. If they are truly equal, then the rule doesn't matter, because either player is just as likely to be ahead when contact is broken.
My brother an I are not equal players, by the way, and that might give you a clue who came up with the rule, even though it was him, more than me, that got aggravated when he lost a race because of his opponent rolling doubles.
Oh, does it sound like I'm trying to beat the shit out of my brother? What's your point?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.