BGonline.org Forums

3-ply vs. 4-ply rollouts

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Friday, 7 January 2011, at 6:46 a.m.

In Response To: 3-ply vs. 4-ply rollouts (Kye Hedlund)

64S-44 [R D19] ^25, [R D10] <75
64P-22 [E N1] ^45, [E N10] <15
62S-32 [U S14 W15 H38 T39 Z42] ^15, [U S3 W4 T26 Z27 H30 $34] <45
51S-41 [K T20] ^10, [K T11 U27] <60
43U-64 [P $8] ^20 (noJ), [P $19 H22] <60
32Z-41 [U H1 S4 T9 h25] ^45, [U H10 T12 S14] <60
31P-32 [Z S7 U21] ^35, [Z S22 U33 D50 T57] <10

Monumental compilation, and great extraction, Kye!

For margins differing by at least .009 (your chosen cutoff), I also found these:

32D-22 [N E11 @24] ^20*10, [N E3 @13] <77
43Z-43 [H X12] ^46, [H X3] <62
41$-44 [D P9] ^46, [P D16] <31^, [P D10] <62

I don't know whether the < rollouts were posted or the < data was summarized for 32D-22 and 43Z-43 (perhaps not as you didn't find them), but I recall that at least the first two of the 41$-44 rollouts were posted (the 4-ply by Neil and the 3-ply move 4-ply cube by Ken).

A supplemental question: Why did you round down the number of trials to the nearest 5k instead of nearest 1k (usual)? Are you trying to create a ratio "consistency" between (say) 5k and 45k? How would you abbreviate 103680 trials, 37584 trials, 29808 trials, 24624 trials and 3888 trials (all of which have been seen, among many others)? You've got the extra digit anyway; it seems to me that you may as well put it to the best use.

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• 3-ply vs. 4-ply rollouts
  Kye Hedlund -- Friday, 7 January 2011, at 1:36 a.m.
  • 3-ply vs. 4-ply rollouts
    Matt Ryder -- Friday, 7 January 2011, at 5:55 a.m.
  • 3-ply vs. 4-ply rollouts
    Nack Ballard -- Friday, 7 January 2011, at 6:46 a.m.
  • 3-ply vs. 4-ply rollouts
    Christian Munk-Christensen -- Friday, 7 January 2011, at 12:29 p.m.