BGonline.org Forums

Inconceivable!

Posted By: happyjuggler0
Date: Sunday, 25 July 2010, at 4:02 a.m.

In Response To: Inconceivable! (Nack Ballard)

Yikes!

For starters. I intend to change my play with 52 *again*. I suspect it will make me look a bit more like a donkey, at least amongst a certain group of players who over-emphasize 55 and under-emphasize the other 35 rolls, especially 64 . Maybe I'll pick up some extra equity (beyond what the bots claim) as a result anyways.

I'll also split with the 54 here, which is also what I'd have done anyway. 54 down just feels wrong, which is unscientific I know, but there it is.

Thanks for the response Nack, it is more than I deserve, but perhaps it is what Neil deserves. Your attention to factors I had not even considered is humbling.

Messages In This Thread

• 61P-54 RO at GG
  neilkaz -- Saturday, 24 July 2010, at 3:55 p.m.
  • 61P-54 RO at GG
    christian munk-christensen -- Saturday, 24 July 2010, at 4:10 p.m.
    • 61P-54 RO at GG
      neilkaz -- Saturday, 24 July 2010, at 4:36 p.m.
      • 61P-54 RO at GG
        mtuhtan -- Saturday, 24 July 2010, at 4:48 p.m.
        • 61P-54 RO at GG
          neilkaz -- Saturday, 24 July 2010, at 5:00 p.m.
          • Inconceivable!
            happyjuggler0 -- Saturday, 24 July 2010, at 8:12 p.m.
            • Inconceivable!
              Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 25 July 2010, at 2:05 a.m.
              • Inconceivable!
                happyjuggler0 -- Sunday, 25 July 2010, at 4:02 a.m.
                • Inconceivable!
                  Nack Ballard -- Tuesday, 27 July 2010, at 1:16 a.m.
      • roflol *NM*
        sonrik -- Monday, 26 July 2010, at 1:41 a.m.