BGonline.org Forums

Maybe there's a better way to measure takes?

Posted By: Keene
Date: Monday, 19 October 2009, at 4:33 p.m.

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

Phil, it occurs to me that what you are asking (in essence) here is: How can I justify a take or drop using recube vig as a reason?

I think my answer is that for high volatility positions, you can safely assess how many times you will get to a recube point quite easily (if he misses, and I roll well... etc). For low volatility positions you basically figure out how often you get to a holding game that will yield a shot x percent of the time etc.

I dont think factoring in recube vig as a firm number to use as part of a take/drop explanation is going to be realistic for most people, as this is basically an ass number - its going to come from your ass, and its going to approximate the actual number only vaguely. I think that a better way to consider recube vig (and also you have to accept that you dont care whether its a take or a drop on your recube, just getting there is the key) is as additional slime-like equity. Obviously this varies considerably on matches (score based decisions), and less so on money games. So, taking recube vig on match score basis alone is a MWC number, and you can tie that nicely to Match equity for your take/drop decisions. For money its less so, as your take points and recube points are less volatile (they dont shift on you like they do in a match).

Additionally, when you take a cube in a volatile position, then the recube vig is going to end up as a low percentage number anyway - mostly - low probability sequence followed by low probability sequence, say 1/9 x 1/10 = 1/90, thats going to be a 1.11% - is that something to add in thats actually worthwhile?

I get your point though, just my 2cents.

Keene

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.