BGonline.org Forums

Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?

Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier
Date: Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:36 a.m.

In Response To: Maybe there's a better way to measure takes? (Phil Simborg)

I am not sure whether this would be useful or not to know.

Bots do give the cubeless and cubeful equities. You can compare the two to see how much owning the cube is worth in a given position.

Viz.:

Position 1:

The score (after 0 games) is: White 0, Blue 0

Move number 22: Blue on roll, cube decision?

White	6
Blue	6
Position ID: IAAAgAAAAAAAAA Match ID: cAkAAAAAAAAA

You get a recube 25% of the time. You have an optional take/drop.

Position 2:

The score (after 0 games) is: White 0, Blue 0

Move number 23: Blue on roll, cube decision?

White	164
Blue	147
Position ID: 4PPgAWAzTvABMA Match ID: cAkAAAAAAAAA

• Blue doubles

Cube decision
2-ply cubeless equity		+0.6506
	0.6653 0.3899 0.0109 - 0.3347 0.0772 0.0036
Cubeful equities:
1.	Double, pass	+1.0000
2.	Double, take	+1.0736	+0.0736
3.	No double	+0.8684	-0.1316
Proper cube action:		Double, pass

You get a recube close to 50% of the time. Clear pass.

Messages In This Thread

• Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
  Phil Simborg -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 1:58 a.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:15 a.m.
    • My thoughts on your responses
      Phil Simborg -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 2:53 p.m.
      • My thoughts on your responses
        Stick -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:01 p.m.
      • My thoughts on your responses
        Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 7:07 p.m.
        • My thoughts on your responses
          Daniel Murphy -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 7:37 p.m.
          • My thoughts on your responses
            Rich Munitz -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 3:29 a.m.
            • My thoughts on your responses
              Daniel Murphy -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 5:24 a.m.
              • My thoughts on your responses
                Phil Simborg -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 1:21 p.m.
                • My thoughts on your responses
                  Peter G. -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 3:08 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:36 a.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Andreas -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 8:36 a.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Fabrice Liardet -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 9:40 a.m.
    • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
      Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 2:22 p.m.
      • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
        Fabrice Liardet -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 3:58 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Stick -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 1:15 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Fabrice Liardet -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 1:37 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Ian Shaw -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 4:12 p.m.
    • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
      MaX -- Thursday, 22 October 2009, at 12:31 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    NJ -- Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 5:14 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Keene -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 4:33 p.m.
  • Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?
    Daniel Murphy -- Monday, 19 October 2009, at 6:14 p.m.