| |
BGonline.org Forums
Potential 234 backgame
Posted By: Chase In Response To: Potential 234 backgame (Chase)
Date: Monday, 12 April 2010, at 11:31 p.m.
As Christian said, this is "his position," and I indeed came across it at pokernews.com. I'd no idea it had been presented here and elsewhere. You can read Robertie's take on it here. His conclusion was that making the 22pt is right by "a wide margin."
I'd have hit two, reasoning, as some of you did, that there are still chances to win going forward and that, whether I end up in a back game or not, I don't want Black making the 18pt. In fact, I'd like to make it myself. One thing Robertie brings out that I didn't give enough consideration is that White isn't committed to keeping all three points in White's board, and that he may use this opportunity to switch from a 2-4 backgame to a 2-3 backgame.
I know a lot of good players feel that bots handle backgames fairly well (whatever that means) these days, but I remain skeptical. I suspect that backgames are sensitive to a lot of minor nuances that neither humans or bots understand well. Since they are relatively rare, we don't get a lot of practice with them, and since similar choices often repeat themselves during a single game, it's possible for small conceptual errors to compound themselves and for alternative plays to to get transposed back into the main line.
That said, I took Timothy's suggestion and I'm running a rollout at DMP, which I will post in the next day or two.
I'm most interested in what Christian has to offer. Sounds like he's spent a great deal of time with the position, and he's said his opinion has changed. I'm curious to know why. He may have more incite into what's going on here than anyone.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.