The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
I will explain the connection on condition that someone actually gets
the problem right. So hopefully that will add an incentive.
Paul
XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | +---+
| | | X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
I will explain the connection on condition that someone actually gets
the problem right. So hopefully that will add an incentive.
Paul
XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | +---+
| | | X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
It's an almost 3-roll position. O is almost always off in three since
she can afford to miss once. X can't afford to miss and will do so if he rolls an ace (but not 11) on two out of the three rolls which should
happen about 8% of the time.
A 3-roll position gives about a 79% chance to win. Reduce that by nine percentage points and you get about a 71% chance to win, which would
indicate D/T.
But you have to think about the recube chances. If X rolls an ace, then
his chances of rolling a second ace on the next two rolls are about 52%, which probably isn't enough for O to have a recube. (And if he rolls two
aces in a row other than 11 then O has a cash.)
So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.
On 9/23/2022 11:52 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.Might even be one of those initial doubles but not a recube.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+Isight says NRD/T. I trust my method.
| | | O O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | +---+
| | | X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | +---+
| | | X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action
On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:24:37 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
On 9/23/2022 11:52 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:Might even be one of those initial doubles but not a recube.
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote: >>>>> On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.
You don't need to worry about the initial double -- that's not the problem here.
Do you think it's NRD/T or RD/T?
You might want to think carefully, because there's a lot at stake here.
On 9/23/2022 2:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:24:37 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
On 9/23/2022 11:52 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:Might even be one of those initial doubles but not a recube.
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote: >>>>> On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmaWiil.com wrote:
The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie >>>>>> starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.
You don't need to worry about the initial double -- that's not the problem here.Ok then. I'll say D/T and NRD/T. Odds are I'll get at least one of
Do you think it's NRD/T or RD/T?
You might want to think carefully, because there's a lot at stake here.
them right.
On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:22:22 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
X on roll, cube actionIsight says NRD/T. I trust my method.
I used similar reasoning to what ah...Clem used.
I'm not saying I came to the same conclusion, and I'm
not saying if I was right or wrong. But we both approached
the problem in the same way, thinking in an N-rolls way, rather
than using a counting formula.
On 9/23/2022 4:26 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:22:22 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
X on roll, cube actionIsight says NRD/T. I trust my method.
I used similar reasoning to what ah...Clem used.
I'm not saying I came to the same conclusion, and I'm
not saying if I was right or wrong. But we both approached
the problem in the same way, thinking in an N-rolls way, rather
than using a counting formula.
My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.
Unless I'm applying it wrong here...You are absolutely correct that race formulas break down for small races,
XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
Analyzed in XG Roller+
Player Winning Chances: 86.11% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 13.89% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.722, Double=+1.444
Cubeful Equities:
No double: +0.722 (-0.278)
Double/Take: +1.444 (+0.444)
Double/Pass: +1.000
Best Cube action: Double / Pass
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10
My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.
Unless I'm applying it wrong here...
XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
"ah...Clem" <ah_...@ymail.com> writes:
My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.
Unless I'm applying it wrong here...
XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Player 1 O:Player 2Isight gets this one right. See the end of section 5.3 on page 18 and
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
section 5.4 on cub-offs. Like I wrote previously here: Unless I know it
by heart (REAL, not ALMOST n-roll positions, some cub-offs, e.g., this
one) or can do it analytically and QUICKLY, I always use my method. What would be the alternative? Guessing? I guess that guessing cub-offs
will be wrong in more than 12 per cent of the cases. (-;
On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 8:39:27 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
"ah...Clem" <ah_...@ymail.com> writes:
My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.
Unless I'm applying it wrong here...
XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Player 1 O:Player 2Isight gets this one right. See the end of section 5.3 on page 18 and section 5.4 on cub-offs. Like I wrote previously here: Unless I know it
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
by heart (REAL, not ALMOST n-roll positions, some cub-offs, e.g., this one) or can do it analytically and QUICKLY, I always use my method. What would be the alternative? Guessing? I guess that guessing cub-offs
will be wrong in more than 12 per cent of the cases. (-;
Yes, I just (wrongly) took Ah...Clem's word for it.
I'll now work through the Axelised take.
The potential taker has the following penalties.
1) + 1 for an extra checker
2) + 1 for a 5 point gap where the opponent has no such gap.
The doubler has no penalties.
Adjusted counts are therefore 5 and 4.
5 + 5/6 - 4 < 2 for a drop.
To get the type of counter-example, Ah...Clem might intend,
we can give the potential taker only one checker on the acepoint which
will clearly give a bad take.
Just for fun, I'll Axelise the problem with which I began this thread (I didn't do this OTB).
The doubler has a + 1 penalty for an extra checker.
The taker has a + 2 penalty for the acepoint stack.
16 + 16/6 - 12 > 6 so we hold, and we wouldn't do an initial double either. Althought Axelising does indeed solve this particular problem, I think that Ah...Clem's analysis
is much more relevant and much better than Axelising, when applied to positions of this type.
The Timlessness of this thread is marked, and I apologise if more Timtime should have been given.
Althought Axelising does indeed solve this particular problem, I think
that Ah...Clem's analysis is much more relevant and much better than Axelising, when applied to positions of this type.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
Althought Axelising does indeed solve this particular problem, I thinkI understand, know, and value this kind of analysis, but have my doubts
that Ah...Clem's analysis is much more relevant and much better than Axelising, when applied to positions of this type.
that the hand-waving and gut feeling involved will overall result in
less equity lost.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 15:07:20 |
| Calls: | 6,667 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,216 |
| Messages: | 5,336,686 |