BGonline.org Forums

Rockwell/Kazaross versus Woolsey

Posted By: Phil Simborg
Date: Saturday, 27 March 2010, at 11:55 a.m.

In Response To: Rockwell/Kazaross versus Woolsey (Ray Kershaw)

I am quoting David Rockwell here as I think this answers your questions:

"All values in the table are the result of computer rollouts using GNU. In that respect, there are no assumptions used. The value in this approach is that it captures subtleties, to the extent that the software plays correctly. For example, at 2 -away, 4-away the trailer has many advantages including the ability to double-out early and recube for match after takes. This is hopefully captured in the rollouts. It would be difficult to capture these features in a table built by assumptions.

The most important "assumption" in the table is frequency of gammons. This is partially exposed in the table values at 1-away, 2-away Crawford. And, I can tell you they are higher than previously assumed or derived values. But, they aren't higher by much."

Messages In This Thread

• Rockwell/Kazaross versus Woolsey
  Ray Kershaw -- Saturday, 27 March 2010, at 10:28 a.m.
  • Rockwell/Kazaross versus Woolsey
    Phil Simborg -- Saturday, 27 March 2010, at 11:55 a.m.
  • Kit's source data
    mfic -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 2:52 a.m.
    • Kit's source data
      Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 5:22 a.m.
      • Kit's source data
        Chase -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 5:56 a.m.
        • date, reference, more info
          Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 1:39 p.m.
      • Kit's source data
        Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 2:32 p.m.
        • Kit's source data
          Tom Keith -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 4:13 p.m.
          • Kit's source data
            Daniel Murphy -- Sunday, 28 March 2010, at 5:20 p.m.