BGonline.org Forums

The 65 play (25:37) - *Spoilers*

Posted By: Albert Steg
Date: Monday, 15 August 2016, at 4:35 p.m.

In Response To: MCG on first Backgammon Video Podcast--link below (Phil Simborg)

Phil — thanks again for taking the time to share and analyze interesting positions — and thanks Matt for your participation!

I hope it's okay to discuss the plays here, as part of the whole point?

---SPOILERS----

I actually got the 65 play right and came at it from an angle that didn't come top in your conversation.

First, it's clear that the 6 has to come out, and that we're super happy to have rolled it (Making the ace point is clearly wrong). So, my immediate thought is "I really don't want to get a 2nd checker behind that prime again". Running all the way gives Blue 14 shots (all 2's, 11, 53), as well as a 51 joker on the other side of the board and lovely 55, for 17 great numbers. 65 is good too, putting Red on the roof against a 5-prime with a second blot in the outfield.

Hitting on the ace point only offers the 11 direct shots, so just right there, I'm inclined to go with 11 shots rather than 14, but the non-ace numbers play pretty poorly for Blue as well -- he doesn't like the 9 dances, and the non-hitting entries are pretty ineffectual. So the hitting play is safer that way too.

Blue really only gets 11 good numbers and even those aren't the end of the world. The other way he gets 17+ very good numbers. That seems like a big difference for the immediate roll.

Messages In This Thread

• MCG on first Backgammon Video Podcast--link below
  Phil Simborg -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 2:03 a.m.
  • MCG on first Backgammon Video Podcast--link below
    Casper Van der Tak -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 1:10 p.m.
  • The 65 play (25:37) - *Spoilers*
    Albert Steg -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 4:35 p.m.
    • The 65 play (25:37) - *Spoilers*
      Casper Van der Tak -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 4:47 p.m.
  • Feedback
    TraumaBG -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 5:49 p.m.
    • Feedback
      Phil Simborg -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 7:09 p.m.
      • Feedback
        Taper_Mike -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 8:41 p.m.
    • Feedback
      TraumaBG -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 8:39 p.m.
  • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
    Albert Steg -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 9:35 p.m.
    • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
      Timothy Chow -- Monday, 15 August 2016, at 10:49 p.m.
    • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
      Dmitriy Obukhov -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 2:34 a.m.
      • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
        Maik Stiebler -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 8:27 a.m.
        • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
          Albert Steg -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 8:50 a.m.
        • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
          Dmitriy Obukhov -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 9:12 a.m.
          • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
            Maik Stiebler -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 9:27 a.m.
            • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
              Dmitriy Obukhov -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 3:22 p.m.
              • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
                Albert Steg -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 3:50 p.m.
                • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
                  Casper Van der Tak -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 4:16 p.m.
                  • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
                    Albert Steg -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 4:42 p.m.
                    • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
                      Casper Van der Tak -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 7:43 p.m.
              • Is a .09 cube error "huge"?-- *Spoilers*
                Maik Stiebler -- Tuesday, 16 August 2016, at 5:35 p.m.