| |
BGonline.org Forums
Cube error rates
Posted By: Marty Storer In Response To: Cube error rates (Coolrey)
Date: Wednesday, 22 July 2009, at 1:17 p.m.
My first point about incentive (not elucidated in my previous post) is merely that, assuming that there is some significant incidence of positions in which equities change slowly and an incorrect no-double repeats, thus perhaps overly increasing the error rate of the repeated non-doubler (that assumption is not self-evident, but as I said, I believe there's some truth to it), then if someone is studying with a bot and gets dinged for not doubling early (overly dinged, perhaps, given that my first statement is based on the above assumption), then that creates incentive to double earlier.
In other words, if a chronically early doubler is looking at bot error rate and trying to spot systematic weaknesses, realizing that "Much of my error rate comes from doubling too late" creates incentive to get rid of it.
But the idea that chronically doubling early is (or tends to be) a bigger error than chronically doubling late, is not self-evident at all. Lost equity is lost equity, no matter the source.
Your statement is valid, by itself, that giving the cube away early is irrevocable, taking away the opportunity to correct incorrect no-doubles should the choice repeat. However, I don't see that it implies anything about whether chronically early doublers lose more equity than chronically late doublers. That depends on many assumptions.
Hypothetically, I might say that chronically early doublers do better overall than chronically late doublers because the chronically early doublers win more gammons. Is that statement sufficient to prove the case? Definitely not; not even close. I can say my judgment and experience bears my statement out, and you can counter by saying yours contradicts it, and the case for either stance hasn't advanced a bit.
Now, in the interest of anecdotal evidence, an anecdote: I was playing a money session against rather a pigeon-like person. His weakness was conservatism. Other than that, his game was halfway decent. He would just about never double early, and typically he would double late. He was less conservative about taking than about doubling, but still too conservative.
He lost gobs and gobs of equity by losing his market. I just felt like I could play normally, hardly paying attention to what he was doing, and just rake in however many points per hour. So, this time we'd agreed to play ten games. I won however many points, let's say six or seven, and he was steamed, talking about all his bad luck etc. He asked to play another ten.
Sure--but then what happened was that his steam caused him to make a big correction of his worst weakness; he started doubling earlier, and more correctly. He won a few points back. That was the first and one of the only times I've seen a steamer gain equity by a "double up to catch up" attitude.
I was still the favorite and I wanted to play more, but he didn't for whatever reason. Oh, well, nicely played and see you next time....
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.