| |
BGonline.org Forums
Opening roll - post Crawford
Posted By: adambulldog In Response To: Opening roll - post Crawford (Coolrey)
Date: Thursday, 20 November 2008, at 4:12 a.m.
Ray:
I know that you and I have chatted about this topic a number of times, and I know that you have chided me rightly about a bunch of shaky doubles, but I am still not convinced that the idea of increasing volatility against superior players is the wrong idea. I do agree, though, that it's a hard concept to get right in practice. But I keep thinking that in many instances, particularly when gammonish sequences are in the offing, "jacking up the cube" increases the luck and reduces the skill involved in the match and therefore favors the inferior player.
If you and I (or you and some other beginnerish player) were to sit down to a 15-point match would you prefer to start with the cube on 1 or on 16? This, obviously is the most extreme case of increasing volatility. The higher volatility seems naturally to favor the lesser player IMHO. The more games the expert plays, the better for him, it seems to me. If you like we can start at DMP the next time we meet in a tournament!
Applying similar logic, I still can't fathom why players like you (and Nack and X-22, I think) sometimes prefer to pay double to enter certain masters' events in the second round. If your odds of winning the first round are over 50%, are you not sacrificing equity with this strategy?
I think you are arguing against making poor doubles/redoubles--or doubles just for the sake of doubling-- against the expert. I think you have a good point here. But I do believe there exists a group of positions (or even a "type" of position) where doubling/redoubling the superior player/not doubling/redoubling the inferior player is correct. In particular, I believe those positions may be characterized as: relatively low cubeless equity--high volatility--gammonish.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.