| |
|---|---|
| 51$-61P-64P-65D-117-62D-33-g | |
I spotted your 51$, 64P, 11N combination but there is no reasonable three-play combination for Opp that meshes. [I threw out anything that ended in 62D (whopper or close to it), which is the problem.] That meant having to recycle a checker on both sides and necessarily added three rolls to my sequence.
The play decision comes down to whether two assets (21pt + 10pt) are better than one bigger asset (4pt). IMO, they are, even at the score. However, I agree that making the 4pt (while staying back) is a bit more complicated (favoring the stronger player).
As for specific opponent, the only inference I can perhaps draw after being told the mis-sequence involving 62D (and perhaps the previous 65D) is that he underestimates the value of running (and that might also mean splitting) in these kinds of positions, most likely due to an exaggerated fear of closeout. That might mean that he won't split with a 3 or run with 43 or 53 on some future roll when it is right to do so and that aspect actually argues against making the 4pt, which eliminates those errors from his repertoire. That is, this factor offsets or partially offsets the factor we agree on in the previous paragraph. That being said, you know your opponent's game better than I do.
Nack