BGonline.org Forums

Who's in contention for the ABT title?

Posted By: Bill Riles
Date: Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 3:09 a.m.

In Response To: Who's in contention for the ABT title? (Jason Lee)

If my extrapolation from your non-guaranteed calculations are similarly accurate and, if I could find sixteen or so (pushing a field of 62 to a field of 78) local derelicts willing to let me enter them for a $20 payment (how much is cheap wine in California?), I, too, could contend. It would cost me $320 for the 'payments' plus the $3,840 that would be 'added' to the pool in entry fees (should make me popular with all). Of course, if I won, and no one currently ahead of me won any significant points, I would claim the title and get a goodly portion of my 'added' money returned in an increase in the winning prize money. Hhhhmmmm, I just need to make sure none of my 'entrants' know how to play backgammon, no sense in needlessly making the field any more difficult than it will otherwise be -- it would be my luck to stumble into the backgammon 'rainman'.

Messages In This Thread

• Who's in contention for the ABT title?
  Jason Lee -- Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 2:02 a.m.
  • Who's in contention for the ABT title?
    Rich Munitz -- Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 3:06 a.m.
  • Who's in contention for the ABT title?
    Bill Riles -- Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 3:09 a.m.
    • Who's in contention for the ABT title?
      Jason Lee -- Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 4:00 a.m.
    • Savant is ok, but please don't call me idiot.
      Rich Munitz -- Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 4:26 a.m.
      • Savant is ok, but please don't call me idiot.
        Bob Koca -- Tuesday, 10 November 2009, at 5:01 a.m.