BGonline.org Forums

Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Sunday, 18 October 2009, at 2:22 p.m.

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

Fabrice Liardet wrote:

As a side note, the cube vig is even more important for double / no double decisions than the recube vig is for take / pass decisions, since the doubler's future cube vig is the exact reason for not doubling although one is in the doubling window. For that reason, while I have a reasonable confidence in what the bots say about take/pass decisions, I don't have such a confidence about double / no double decisions.

I don't understand this argument, at least as far as live cube rollouts are concerned. If you ask GNU for a cube action opinion, it rolls out the position two ways, one for each cube position, and estimates the equity that way. It's true that the cube decisions during the rollout will be subject to the defects under discussion, but these will contaminate both the "no double" and the "double/take" rollout paths, so I don't see why one would be more reliable than the other. But perhaps you just meant that for evals you trust the take/pass decision more than you trust the double/no double decisions.

Thinking a bit more about Phil's question, I think that there might be some value in reporting recube frequency and efficiency as a rollout stat. Stick might call it superfluous, but I think it might improve our understanding of certain subtle positions. In certain positions, our intuition tells us (for example) that a recube is very likely to occur very quickly, or (for another example) that the recube efficiency will be very high or very low. If the bot reports its opinion on this question and it disagrees with us, then that would be very interesting: If the bot is right then we have learned something about the position, and if the bot is wrong then we have learned something about the kinds of positions where the bot can't be trusted.

This does raise the question of just which kinds of recube statistics one would want the bot to report. Obviously one would want the total number of recubes and takes/passes, but perhaps one would also want more detailed information about when the recube occurred, and down which dice-roll path, etc.

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.