| |
BGonline.org Forums
Cube error rates
Posted By: Fabrice Liardet In Response To: Cube error rates (Joe Russell)
Date: Thursday, 23 July 2009, at 11:08 a.m.
Though natural your argument is (the first time I heard about it I thought it was right), I think that it is a misconception, as many others have already pointed out. I see three ways to put it - 1 and 2 have already been stated in the thread, 3 is my modest contribution.
1) That the positions in which you missed doubles are consecutive, "alike" or even the same is irrelevant. Someone who tends to err in frequent situations (e.g. he is the king of backgames, but sucks in holding games where he always lifts the anchor too early) should be viewed as a weaker player, at least result-wise.
2) When you missed a double and the essentially same situation repeats, it means that the dice have given you back the lost equity. That luck should be taken into account. If you get the same equity by being lucky, you should be penalized error-rate-wise.
3) If you are not sure about your double and the position has a potential for repeating, then you know for sure that after not doubling you have a potential for making further errors. This lessens your equity after not doubling, compared to what the bot says. This is a further incentive to double, that you should not ignore.
The only clearly wrong use I see of error rates is to say like Snowie does (I think) "A's total equity loss was 30% MWC, B's was 15% MWC, hence B was a 65-35 favourite". I don't know how "B was a xx-yy favourite" should be computed, but I am sure that it should be computed in such a way that someone can never be more than a 100% favourite. It would be a very interesting info if the bots could compute it correctly.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.