| |
BGonline.org Forums
Better explanation and a proposal
Posted By: Florin Popa In Response To: Links to old posts (Timothy Chow)
Date: Monday, 19 September 2016, at 8:53 p.m.
" I have yet to see any convincing theoretical argument why some kind of adjustment should be made in such cases. For those who feel strongly that there should be some adjustment, what do you think about the following situation? You reach a position where you're supposed to Pottle, but you don't. Ding. Next turn, you're lucky enough to have a similar chance to Pottle, and you're supposed to, but you don't. Ding. Should that count as only one ding? "
The mistakes are two but the entity is the problem, you can't just sum. If you missed a D/P this is a big mistake because you could cash a point. Now let's figure you have the possibility to cash again, is another mistake but you could'n get more then 1p anyway so in my opionion the sum of all missed doubles shouldn't go over 1.00. Many say is due to luck the fact you have a second chance to double but it can be that because we want to consider independent errors we introduce artificial luck as shown in my other post regarding a repeatable position. In the same way XG is decreasing the importance of errors when low chances (under 10% I noticed). If you play as bad as you can,toward the end of the game you will see at some point green errors and then no more errors (under 2%) and the PR improving because the decisions become more.
My proposal is that the second missed error should count for the PR by a max (0 and (1- lost EMG counter)) factor and so on, a limit to 1.00 is set in this way and it makes sense.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.