BGonline.org Forums

Novi Video--22 of my blunders or problems

Posted By: Stick
Date: Tuesday, 7 July 2015, at 10:28 a.m.

In Response To: Novi Video--22 of my blunders or problems (phil simborg)

I'm a broken record sometimes but I've cautioned people on saying a play is right because 'it wins more gammons'. I know you aren't trying to give much of an explanation of the whys of what is or isn't correct but on #6 you said 'When you hit you win a lot more gammons and you win about the same number of games.'

You win 2.5% more net gammons and you win 2.2% more games. It's the Charlie Sheen winning duh that typically matters. We can't forget to look at not only gammons won but gammons lost too.

I'm all for directly putting in what the score is when inputting a position. In other words, if it's a match to 11 and the score is 7 to 8 I'll input a match to 4 and give one player a point because it's really 4a 3a. It's odd that #7 you have the score as 4a 3a but in a ten point match. Just weird.

I'm all for naming names of who errs, who blunders, because who cares. We all do it more than we'd like. A lot of matches were also recorded and we'll probably see who did what anyway too. If you don't feel like naming who made the wrong decisions though you'll have to cut back on the story telling. For example, with #9, your accompanying story, and the brackets that were posted for the tournament I can easily see that Brian Lonergan was who erred in taking the cube.

With #10 you thought about doubling because you were playing a Giant and then upon seeing the size of the XG error you say you were happy about not doubling. Depending on what you think the average PR difference is between yourself and said Giant (3PR? 4PR) you might want to use GNU and the Jacobs staggered match equity tables to get a better idea of how big of an influence that can actually have. While the tables are far from perfect they will at least give you a glimpse into the change in size of error in such cube decisions. For example in this position if there's a 4 PR difference between players I'm okay with you doubling.

As for #12, the 2a 2a cube, knowing that your early game 33 blitz reference positions win about 67% there's no way that this can be a drop. The player being doubled is obviously much stronger than the reference position.

In #14 where you asked for an explanation of the [63] to play. It's really bad to be hit as you send a second man behind a 5 prime. The best play leaves 4 less shots, end of story.

I prefer video to PowerPoint because then I can give you a hard time much more often. Thanks for sharing.

I forget what number the problem below was but I didn't believe ++ which had 5, 2 listed as a ~.045 error. Even given the rollout the ranking of plays should come off as bizarre to you. 5, 2 wins the most games, gammons, backgammons, and loses the least amount of gammons and backgammons ... pseudocubelessly of course, yet comes in second.

		White is Player 2 score: 0 pip: 73 Unlimited Game Jacoby Beaver pip: 96 score: 0 Blue is Player 1
XGID=-BABBBBB-b---------bbBcdb-:0:0:1:52:0:0:3:0:10
Blue to play 52

1.	Rollout1	21/16 7/5	eq: -0.346
	Player: Opponent: 39.21% (G:6.08% B:0.15%) 60.79% (G:5.63% B:0.09%) Conf.: ± 0.006 (-0.352...-0.340) - [100.0%] Duration: 1 hour 32 minutes
2.	Rollout1	7/5 7/2	eq: -0.375 (-0.028)
	Player: Opponent: 42.25% (G:7.28% B:0.18%) 57.75% (G:2.47% B:0.03%) Conf.: ± 0.006 (-0.381...-0.368) - [0.0%] Duration: 1 hour 41 minutes
1 1189 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Dice Seed: 88626184 Moves and cube decisions: XG Roller+ Search interval: Large

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.206.pre-release

Stick

Messages In This Thread

• Novi Video--22 of my blunders or problems
  phil simborg -- Monday, 6 July 2015, at 9:45 p.m.
  • Novi Video--22 of my blunders or problems
    Stick -- Tuesday, 7 July 2015, at 10:28 a.m.
    • Novi Video--22 of my blunders or problems
      Phil simborg -- Tuesday, 7 July 2015, at 6:11 p.m.