| |
BGonline.org Forums
TG at -2, -2
Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier In Response To: TG at -2, -2 (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Wednesday, 22 October 2008, at 2:34 a.m.
But does this constructed position satisfy the proviso that E.g., no market losing sequence ever appears, but eventually one side rolls something that lets him become TG or TG/T or some such? How could Blue have reached this position without White (or Blue) ever having a proper double?
Like I said, I think it is likely impossible from the starting position with perfect play. Although it may be possible from the starting position with perfect cube play and imperfect checker play. I'll also admit that I'm not sure whether this position conditions, but I think that one could be constructed.
Is it possible to have a position where neither side on roll should double despite the existence of market losers for both players? (excluding TG/P)
Completely off topic from the OP:
Gnubg estimates that D/T equity is 52.88%. That's terrible. I figure Blue/s D/T equity at best = 30.55% + 69.45% * 10% = 37.5%. (I"m assuming that after Blue doesn't roll a six, an expert human player for White will not lose more than 10% of the time.)
A similar position also occurs in Robertie's book (D/B), and it's the only one thus far for which the bot data is meaningless. However, I'm not sure if I agree with Robertie's claim that after Blue misses with a 6, White doubles Blue out. White may have trouble rolling the prime (he could roll a 6 immediately, or the horror 66). If Blue ever jumps he wins a gammon. If Blue can win something like 15% of the time he has a take. That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.