I've seen many examples, where breaking our anchor instead of a single blocking point in front of opp's anchor is correct. This one is no exception. Outfield control seems to be an essential factor in mutual holding games.
1. | Rollout1 | 20/17 20/16 | eq: -0,253 |
| Player: Opponent: | 43,12% (G:5,05% B:0,15%) 56,88% (G:14,95% B:0,25%) | Conf.: ± 0,008 (-0,260...-0,245) - [100,0%] Duration: 1 minute 59 seconds |
|
2. | Rollout1 | 20/13 | eq: -0,321 (-0,069) |
| Player: Opponent: | 41,12% (G:5,66% B:0,14%) 58,88% (G:18,86% B:0,31%) | Conf.: ± 0,007 (-0,328...-0,314) - [0,0%] Duration: 1 minute 51 seconds |
|
3. | Rollout2 | 11/4 | eq: -0,377 (-0,124) |
| Player: Opponent: | 37,94% (G:5,38% B:0,18%) 62,06% (G:10,19% B:0,22%) | Conf.: ± 0,014 (-0,390...-0,363) - [0,0%] Duration: 24,2 seconds |
|
|
1 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
2 324 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
|
1. | Rollout1 | 20/13 | eq: -0,288 |
| Player: Opponent: | 42,47% (G:5,26% B:0,12%) 57,53% (G:14,50% B:0,29%) | Conf.: ± 0,006 (-0,294...-0,282) - [100,0%] Duration: 4 minutes 45 seconds |
|
2. | Rollout1 | 20/17 20/16 | eq: -0,315 (-0,027) |
| Player: Opponent: | 41,71% (G:4,47% B:0,12%) 58,29% (G:13,82% B:0,30%) | Conf.: ± 0,006 (-0,321...-0,310) - [0,0%] Duration: 4 minutes 56 seconds |
|
3. | Rollout2 | 11/4 | eq: -0,433 (-0,145) |
| Player: Opponent: | 36,67% (G:3,15% B:0,06%) 63,33% (G:8,08% B:0,13%) | Conf.: ± 0,014 (-0,447...-0,420) - [0,0%] Duration: 32,4 seconds |
|
|
1 2592 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
2 324 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
|