XGID=a--aBBDAA---aB-a-bbcbBb-A-:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X O X |
| X O O | | O O X O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | X |
| | | X | +---+
| | | X X X | | 2 |
| O X X | | X X X O | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 149 O: 134 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
On 12/31/2022 10:30 AM, Timothy Chow wrote:
XGID=a--aBBDAA---aB-a-bbcbBb-A-:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited GameX is behind in the race, with position about even and an advantage in threats. That usually implies ND/T.
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X O X |
| X O O | | O O X O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | X |
| | | X | +---+
| | | X X X | | 2 |
| O X X | | X X X O | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 149 O: 134 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
Are there enough market losers to justify shipping it now? Fourteen POH rolls, plus several that send a second checker to the roof, so I think so.
RD/T.
XGID=aBBCCC--------A-bbbddA----:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X |
| O O O | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X X X | +---+
| | | X X X X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 77 O: 117 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
---
Tim Chow
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:44:42 PM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:= 27% would be my crude guess for O's winning chances. What I don't know is how much cube ownership is worth in a situation like this that can remain volatile. I'm guessing that it's valuable enough to hang onto the cube and not redouble.
XGID=aBBCCC--------A-bbbddA----:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X |
| O O O | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X X X | +---+
| | | X X X X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 77 O: 117 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
---With the cube in the center this should be a double by O'Hagan's rule: 11/36 get X over the prime and in good shape. 11/36 then get O in and maybe 1/3 of the time after that X will wind up being hit and back behind the prime. So 11/36 (1-(11/36 * 1/3))
Tim Chow
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:44:42 PM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:= 27% would be my crude guess for O's winning chances. What I don't know is how much cube ownership is worth in a situation like this that can remain volatile. I'm guessing that it's valuable enough to hang onto the cube and not redouble.
XGID=aBBCCC--------A-bbbddA----:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X |
| O O O | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X X X | +---+
| | | X X X X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 77 O: 117 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
---With the cube in the center this should be a double by O'Hagan's rule: 11/36 get X over the prime and in good shape. 11/36 then get O in and maybe 1/3 of the time after that X will wind up being hit and back behind the prime. So 11/36 (1-(11/36 * 1/3))
Tim Chow
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 6:37:06 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:) = 27% would be my crude guess for O's winning chances. What I don't know is how much cube ownership is worth in a situation like this that can remain volatile. I'm guessing that it's valuable enough to hang onto the cube and not redouble.
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:44:42 PM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:
XGID=aBBCCC--------A-bbbddA----:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X |
| O O O | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X X X | +---+
| | | X X X X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 77 O: 117 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
---With the cube in the center this should be a double by O'Hagan's rule: 11/36 get X over the prime and in good shape. 11/36 then get O in and maybe 1/3 of the time after that X will wind up being hit and back behind the prime. So 11/36 (1-(11/36 * 1/3)
Tim Chow
I don't think estimating the winning chances is practical here.
It's clear to me that it's a huge double.
Having said that, plenty of things that are "clear to me" are in fact false --
I'm not saying "you're wrong", just explaining my thought processes.
One thing is that our sixes seem to win us quite a few gammons bearing in mind the
extra six crossovers in addition to the checker at the bar.
Superficially, it seems there's a kind of symmetry. Whoever gets the first six has a great
position. But our sixes are far stronger than the opponent's sixes. If our opponent enters first,
our straggler will be difficult to contain without us getting shots.
Paul
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:13:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:3)) = 27% would be my crude guess for O's winning chances. What I don't know is how much cube ownership is worth in a situation like this that can remain volatile. I'm guessing that it's valuable enough to hang onto the cube and not redouble.
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 6:37:06 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:44:42 PM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:
XGID=aBBCCC--------A-bbbddA----:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X |
| O O O | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X X X | +---+
| | | X X X X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 77 O: 117 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
---With the cube in the center this should be a double by O'Hagan's rule: 11/36 get X over the prime and in good shape. 11/36 then get O in and maybe 1/3 of the time after that X will wind up being hit and back behind the prime. So 11/36 (1-(11/36 * 1/
Tim Chow
I don't think estimating the winning chances is practical here.
It's clear to me that it's a huge double.
Having said that, plenty of things that are "clear to me" are in fact false --
I'm not saying "you're wrong", just explaining my thought processes.
One thing is that our sixes seem to win us quite a few gammons bearing in mind the
extra six crossovers in addition to the checker at the bar.
Superficially, it seems there's a kind of symmetry. Whoever gets the first six has a great
position. But our sixes are far stronger than the opponent's sixes. If our opponent enters first,
our straggler will be difficult to contain without us getting shots.
that are a challenge to evaluate by position, race, threats. This is definitely a double from the center by those criteria. But any ideas on how to adjust for cube ownership? It seems intuitive to hold onto the cube when you think some volatility willPaulYeah, I can see your point about trying to calculate winning chances, and gammons for that matter. Maybe approaching futility without a reference position?
O'Hagan's rule (would love to know how it was derived) says double from a centered cube when you have 9 out of 36 market losing sequences, provided you still have a good game going if you don't roll one of those market losers. It applies to situations
Thanks,
Bob
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:51:23 AM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:1/3)) = 27% would be my crude guess for O's winning chances. What I don't know is how much cube ownership is worth in a situation like this that can remain volatile. I'm guessing that it's valuable enough to hang onto the cube and not redouble.
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:13:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 6:37:06 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:44:42 PM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:
XGID=aBBCCC--------A-bbbddA----:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X |
| O O O | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | O O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X X X | +---+
| | | X X X X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 77 O: 117 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
---With the cube in the center this should be a double by O'Hagan's rule: 11/36 get X over the prime and in good shape. 11/36 then get O in and maybe 1/3 of the time after that X will wind up being hit and back behind the prime. So 11/36 (1-(11/36 *
Tim Chow
I don't think estimating the winning chances is practical here.
It's clear to me that it's a huge double.
Having said that, plenty of things that are "clear to me" are in fact false --
I'm not saying "you're wrong", just explaining my thought processes.
One thing is that our sixes seem to win us quite a few gammons bearing in mind the
extra six crossovers in addition to the checker at the bar. Superficially, it seems there's a kind of symmetry. Whoever gets the first six has a great
position. But our sixes are far stronger than the opponent's sixes. If our opponent enters first,
our straggler will be difficult to contain without us getting shots.
situations that are a challenge to evaluate by position, race, threats. This is definitely a double from the center by those criteria. But any ideas on how to adjust for cube ownership? It seems intuitive to hold onto the cube when you think somePaulYeah, I can see your point about trying to calculate winning chances, and gammons for that matter. Maybe approaching futility without a reference position?
O'Hagan's rule (would love to know how it was derived) says double from a centered cube when you have 9 out of 36 market losing sequences, provided you still have a good game going if you don't roll one of those market losers. It applies to
Thanks,It's not an enormous double -- only 0.08 equity is lost by holding which isn't huge by normal non-expert
Bob
standards of cube play.
What mistakes may you have made by holding? Well, the fact that the opponent has those ugly 4 stacks on the 6 and 5,
compromising their ability to attack our blot is a highly significant and unusual feature of the position.
More usual positions would be easier to evaluate. So I would suggest mentally improving the opponent's position by
taking one each off the 6 and 5 and smoothing by putting them on the 7 and 8.
If your conclusion is that this new standardised position is "almost a double but not quite" then clearly the position in
the thread becomes a double because the position in the thread greatly improves on the standardised variant.
I would guess that your mistake is not to pay enough attention to the ugly non-smooth nature of the opponent's prime.
And variantization with more standard positions is a great technique. Tim is a world-class master at constructing
variantizations and I'm sure it serves his backgammon well.
Paul
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is not sovaluable we should hold onto the cube.
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is not
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and
large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth
trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer
thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---
Tim Chow
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is not
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and
large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth
trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer
thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---
Tim Chow
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:50:38 AM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:not so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and
large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth
trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer
thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---There is no shortage of positions of all types where it's an initial cube but not a recube for unlimited play. Fairly common.
Tim Chow
Stick
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:50:38 AM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:not so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and
large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth
trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer
thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---There is no shortage of positions of all types where it's an initial cube but not a recube for unlimited play. Fairly common.
Tim Chow
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:30:46 PM UTC-5, Stick Rice wrote:not so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:50:38 AM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and
large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer
thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---There is no shortage of positions of all types where it's an initial cube but not a recube for unlimited play. Fairly common.
Tim Chow
StickWhy is the original position not one of those?
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:50:38 AM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is not
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and
large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth
trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer
thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---
Tim Chow
There is no shortage of positions of all types where it's an initial cube but not a recube for unlimited play. Fairly common.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:38 PM UTC, Timothy Chow wrote:not so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and
large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth
trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer
thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---My laptop with XG doesn't work so I can't try this myself.
Tim Chow
But how about this one from the opening?
I run with an opening 64. You roll 55 and I dance.
If you already had the cube, shouldn't you hold?
Paul
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 3:15:26 AM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:is not so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:30:46 PM UTC-5, Stick Rice wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:50:38 AM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X
I was looking for input from a local expert. The deluge of answers to my question weren't sufficient to wash it away. It just kept floating to the top. But I can let it go. *But First!*: Here's an example I've concocted for those who have the appetite.Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---There is no shortage of positions of all types where it's an initial cube but not a recube for unlimited play. Fairly common.
Tim Chow
I don't understand why you're asking this question. A huge number of justifications haveStickWhy is the original position not one of those?
already been given on this thread for doubling.
Your reasoning should lead you to conclude that holding initially is a greater mistake
than holding when you own the cube, but your reasoning does nothing to indicate
that holding when you own the cube is correct.
Paul
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 7:45:42 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:not so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:50:38 PM UTC, Timothy Chow wrote:
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X is
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and
large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer
thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---My laptop with XG doesn't work so I can't try this myself.
Tim Chow
But how about this one from the opening?
I run with an opening 64. You roll 55 and I dance.
If you already had the cube, shouldn't you hold?
PaulHere's your answer.
XGID=aB-B--C-A--aeE---c-e----B-:1:1:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O X |
| X O | | O X |
| X O | | O |
| X | | O |
| X | | O |
| |BAR| |
| O | O | |
| O | | |
| O | | X | +---+
| O | | X X X | | 2 |
| O O X | | X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 147 O: 158 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
Analyzed in Rollout
No redouble
Player Winning Chances: 63.76% (G:33.75% B:0.46%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 36.24% (G:7.47% B:0.44%)
Redouble/Take
Player Winning Chances: 63.91% (G:34.35% B:0.44%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 36.09% (G:7.49% B:0.38%)
Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.538, Double=+1.095
Cubeful Equities:
No redouble: +0.763 (-0.041)
Redouble/Take: +0.804
Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.196)
Best Cube action: Redouble / Take
Rollout:
822 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
Confidence No Double: ± 0.014 (+0.749..+0.778)
Confidence Double: ± 0.025 (+0.780..+0.829)
Double Decision confidence: 99.7%
Take Decision confidence: 100.0%
Duration: 7 minutes 23 seconds
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 4:39:27 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:is not so valuable we should hold onto the cube.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 3:15:26 AM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:30:46 PM UTC-5, Stick Rice wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:50:38 AM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:
On 3/6/2023 8:09 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I think my error was not to recognize that even if X fails to jump the prime this roll and O then comes in with a 6, the strength of the position often does not warrant a redouble from O on her next roll. So cube ownership for X
Other than in pure races, I have found relatively few situations
in which the computer says to double but not redouble (for money,
of course---matches are an entirely different matter), and by and large, such situations are so subtle that I don't think it's worth trying to master them.
Sending the cube in a priming battle can be scary because there
can be sudden huge swings, but even in priming battles, I think
you have to work pretty hard to find positions where the computer thinks it's a double but not a redouble.
---There is no shortage of positions of all types where it's an initial cube but not a recube for unlimited play. Fairly common.
Tim Chow
I don't understand why you're asking this question. A huge number of justifications haveStickWhy is the original position not one of those?
already been given on this thread for doubling.
Your reasoning should lead you to conclude that holding initially is a greater mistake
than holding when you own the cube, but your reasoning does nothing to indicate
that holding when you own the cube is correct.
PaulI was looking for input from a local expert. The deluge of answers to my question weren't sufficient to wash it away. It just kept floating to the top. But I can let it go. *But First!*: Here's an example I've concocted for those who have the appetite.
I think this one has sufficient enduring volatility that it warrants holding the cube. Well, that's my explanation.
Your rollouts (for the new position) don't look extensive enough to reach a conclusion. I think it's a redouble despite your
preliminary results.
Paul
XGID=b-ABBBB-A---cB---bccb-AAA-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O O X X X |
| X O O | | O O |
| O | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | O | |
| O | | |
| O | | X X X X |
| O X | | X X X X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 141 O: 154 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
O has two items of compensation to consider. (1) X has three
checkers behind O's four-prime, with only one of them ready to
jump out directly with a 6 (and his 6's are duplicated to jump
out and cover). (2) X still has a blot in his board that he
might not cover. I thought this was enough to give O a take,
but XG disagrees. But see the variant, where X's blot has been
shifted from his 2pt to his 1pt.
Analyzed in Rollout
No double
Player Winning Chances: 66.35% (G:42.31% B:1.01%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 33.65% (G:8.20% B:0.45%)
Double/Take
Player Winning Chances: 66.50% (G:42.91% B:1.04%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 33.50% (G:8.28% B:0.48%)
Cubeful Equities:
No double: +0.812 (-0.188)
Double/Take: +1.091 (+0.091)
Double/Pass: +1.000
Best Cube action: Double / Pass
Rollout:
1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
Confidence No Double: ± 0.017 (+0.795..+0.829)
Confidence Double: ± 0.023 (+1.068..+1.115)
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release
-------
Variant
-------
XGID=bA-BBBBA----cB---bccb-AAA-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O O X X X |
| X O O | | O O |
| O | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | O | |
| O | | |
| O | | X X X X |
| O X | | X X X X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 139 O: 154 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
Analyzed in Rollout
No double
Player Winning Chances: 63.52% (G:41.95% B:0.60%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 36.48% (G:9.19% B:0.54%)
Double/Take
Player Winning Chances: 63.95% (G:42.34% B:0.60%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 36.05% (G:9.61% B:0.55%)
Cubeful Equities:
No double: +0.733 (-0.183)
Double/Take: +0.916
Double/Pass: +1.000 (+0.084)
Best Cube action: Double / Take
Rollout:
1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
Confidence No Double: ± 0.013 (+0.720..+0.746)
Confidence Double: ± 0.021 (+0.895..+0.937)
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release
---
Tim Chow
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:11:18 |
| Calls: | 9,709 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,740 |
| Messages: | 6,180,940 |