Match to 7 points, I won 19-0 (GnuDung doubled me up for some suicidal reason).
Hey ho.
Analysis of dice rolls (GnuDung is first):
Very lucky: 0-0
Lucky: 2-2
Unlucky:1-0
Very unlucky: 0-0
Luck rating: GnuDung: none, me: go to Las Vegas
WTF is going on with this POS?
On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 1:08:21 PM UTC-5, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
Match to 7 points, I won 19-0 (GnuDung doubled me up for some suicidal reason).
Hey ho.
Analysis of dice rolls (GnuDung is first):
Very lucky: 0-0
Lucky: 2-2
Unlucky:1-0
Very unlucky: 0-0
Luck rating: GnuDung: none, me: go to Las Vegas
WTF is going on with this POS?
Luck rating: Based on the luck rate per move GNU Backgammon will assign you a humorous luck rating.
Luck rating:
0.10 Cheater :-)
0.06 - 0.10 Go to Las Vegas immediately
0.02 - 0.06 Good dice, man!
-0.02 - 0.02 none
-0.06 - -0.02 Better luck next time
-0.06 - -0.10 Go to bed
-0.10 Haaa-haaa
AKA RTFM
On December 19, 2022 at 1:08:21 PM UTC-5, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
WTF is going on with this POS?
Luck rating: Based on the luck rate per move
On 12/19/2022 1:27 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
Luck rating: Based on the luck rate per move
.....
0.06 - 0.10 Go to Las Vegas immediately
AKA RTFM
I hate being fair to Nasti Chestikov,
I never pay attention to luck ratings,
..... I imagine that if one were to examine all the
dice rolls and their numerical luck ratings,
and plug them into GNU's formula, then it would
indeed come out in the range 0.06 - 0.10.
I doubt that this is a bug.
But hey, what do I know? I never went to law school.
On December 20, 2022 at 6:47:11 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
I never pay attention to luck ratings,
Why not? Aren't you one of mentally ill gambling
mathematicians who believe luck + skill = 1...?
But hey, what do I know? I never went to law school.
You are sick. :( Go seek help.
On December 20, 2022 at 6:47:11 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
On 12/19/2022 1:27 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
Luck rating: Based on the luck rate per move
.....
0.06 - 0.10 Go to Las Vegas immediately
AKA RTFM
I hate being fair to Nasti Chestikov,This sentence says a lot about what you are... :(
I never pay attention to luck ratings,Why not? Aren't you one of mentally ill gambling
mathematicians who believe luck + skill = 1...?
..... I imagine that if one were to examine all theHow come you failed to correct Stick on that luck
dice rolls and their numerical luck ratings,
ratings apply to rolls, not to moves...?
and plug them into GNU's formula, then it wouldOf course, it would. The formula is a self-fulfilling
indeed come out in the range 0.06 - 0.10.
fallacy. Best equity indicates best skill. Luck is the
difference of equity. Even if a player doesn't make
the best equity use out of a roll given to him, he is
still lucky. There is no escaping the fallacy!
I think there had been some examples of a player's
being unlucky and winning at the same time but I'm
not sure if there had been any cases about a player
winning while being unlucky and having a high error
rate at the same time.
In other words, if you blunder and still win, it must
be because of the lucky rolls you got even if you
made "unlucky moves"...!!
What an amazing infallible fallacy... :(
A side note to Nasti: keep in mind that all the bots
since TD-Gammon v.2 are products of sick minds
who are desperately trying to mathematize bullshit
in order to justify their mental illnesses as a sort
of activity in skill competition... :)
But if you are a gambler, I'm not going to spare you
either from being among the scum of humanity. :(
I doubt that this is a bug.Definitely not! It's pure mathshit! Nobody except
Axel has ever come close to questioning it, which
is why I hold Axel above all of you here, including
the sick gamblers Gnubg team or whatever else
gamblegammon bot developing team members.
But hey, what do I know? I never went to law school.You are sick. :( Go seek help.
MK
On 12/21/2022 5:28 AM, MK wrote:
Why not? Aren't you one of mentally ill gambling
mathematicians who believe luck + skill = 1...?
I think that GNU converts luck to EMG, which means
that the above formula fails to hold for matches.
But hey, what do I know? I never went to law school.
You are sick. :( Go seek help.
Hey, you're the one who made your sock-puppet
take law school classes to justify that nonsense
about Niemann's lawsuit! You're the one who
needs help understanding the basics about libel law.
On December 21, 2022 at 5:28:35 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:
On 12/19/2022 1:27 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
Luck rating: Based on the luck rate per move
Even if it needed corrected it wouldn't be correcting
me when I copy and pasted it from the GNU manual.
On December 21, 2022 at 12:53:41 PM UTC-7, Stick Rice wrote:
On December 21, 2022 at 5:28:35 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:
On 12/19/2022 1:27 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
It wasn't obvious that you had copied/pasted fromEven if it needed corrected it wouldn't be correctingLuck rating: Based on the luck rate per move
me when I copy and pasted it from the GNU manual.
the Gnubg manual but my bad regardless because
you and/or Gnubg manual may be possibly actually
referring to calculating "luck rate per move" indeed :{
(which would be better than calculating "luck rate per
roll" as I commented to Tim in my other post). In that
case, of course, you wouln't be expected to catch and
correct what looked like a miswording to me. If you
let me know whether that was indeed the case, I will
formally apologize to you and/or to Gnubg team... ;)
MK
I have no idea how GnuDung is doing its calculations (despite Stick's
most eloquent advice to "RTFM").
I rolled 5-3 first, played 8-3 6-3.
I rolled 6-6, played 24-18(2), 13-7(2)
I doubled. GnuDung accepted.
Clicking on Analyse <-> Analyse Match Or Session reveals that I should
once again go to Las Vegas.
On the basis of a single double?
I have a growing suspicion that GnuDung's developers are a weird lot.
On Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 05:18:37 UTC, MK wrote:
On December 21, 2022 at 12:53:41 PM UTC-7, Stick Rice wrote:
On December 21, 2022 at 5:28:35 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:
On 12/19/2022 1:27 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
It wasn't obvious that you had copied/pasted fromEven if it needed corrected it wouldn't be correctingLuck rating: Based on the luck rate per move
me when I copy and pasted it from the GNU manual.
the Gnubg manual but my bad regardless because
you and/or Gnubg manual may be possibly actually
referring to calculating "luck rate per move" indeed :{
(which would be better than calculating "luck rate per
roll" as I commented to Tim in my other post). In that
case, of course, you wouln't be expected to catch and
correct what looked like a miswording to me. If you
let me know whether that was indeed the case, I will
formally apologize to you and/or to Gnubg team... ;)
MKI have no idea how GnuDung is doing its calculations (despite Stick's most eloquent advice to "RTFM").
Here's one from just now, only two rolls in:
I rolled 5-3 first, played 8-3 6-3.
GnuDung rolled 4-2, played 8-4, 6-4
I rolled 6-6, played 24-18(2), 13-7(2)
GnuDung rolled 6-2, played 13-5
I doubled. GnuDung accepted.
Clicking on Analyse <-> Analyse Match Or Session reveals that I should once again go to Las Vegas.
On the basis of a single double?
I have a growing suspicion that GnuDung's developers are a weird lot.
On December 22, 2022 at 12:11:54 PM UTC-5, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
I rolled 5-3 first, played 8-3 6-3.
GnuDung rolled 4-2, played 8-4, 6-4
I rolled 6-6, played 24-18(2), 13-7(2)
GnuDung rolled 6-2, played 13-5
Clicking on Analyse <-> Analyse Match Or Session
reveals that I should once again go to Las Vegas.
On the basis of a single double?
On the basis of a single specific roll,
not a single double, .....
..... over the course of two rolls.
So yes, GNU hits the head on the nail
and you should not go into carpentry.
Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> writes:
I have no idea how GnuDung is doing its
calculations (despite Stick's most eloquent
advice to "RTFM").
Did you read it? The relevant (but outdated,
see below) section is here:
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnubg/manual/html_node/Luck-analysis.html
I rolled 5-3 first, played 8-3 6-3.
Is this a lucky roll? No, but it gains (thus
played) 0.053 of equity.
I rolled 6-6, played 24-18(2), 13-7(2)
Is this a lucky roll? Yes, and it gains (thus
played) 0.555 of equity.
It should trivial for a school boy of 12 years to
do the math for two rolls:
(0.053 + 0.555) / 2 =
0.608 / 2 =
0.304
Since this is above the threshold of 0.1, it is
"Go to Las Vegas".
Current versions of GNU Backgammon neither
have "Cheater (-:" nor "Haaa-haaa" anymore, see
analysis.c in the source code. Maybe it was
considered too insulting for the dice paranoids
out there.
I have a growing suspicion that GnuDung's
developers are a weird lot.
I have an almost certain suspicion that basic reading
and basic arithmetic are valuable skills in life.
0.6 very lucky0.3 - 0.6 lucky
0.10 Cheater :-)0.06 - 0.10 Go to Las Vegas immediately
On December 22, 2022 at 12:00:58 PM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> writes:
I rolled 5-3 first, played 8-3 6-3.
Is this a lucky roll? No, but it gains (thus
played) 0.053 of equity.
Gnubg doesn't mark it as a lucky roll but if you
do an analysis right after playing it, it tells him
to Go to Las Vegas with a +0.062 luck rate.
BTW: There is no need to specify/clarify "thus
played" since they're based on rolls, not moves.
Your numbers are different but let's say close enough.
Since this is above the threshold of 0.1, it is
"Go to Las Vegas".
At the end of this post, below, I pasted the text from
the link you gave above. Can you show me where in
there does your "since 0.304 is above the threshold
of 0.1, it is Go to Las Vegas" deduction fit..?
In the text below, they are using "roll" and "move"
interchangeably and thus wrongly because their
calculations are all based on what numbers are
rolled, not on how they are played.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
On December 22, 2022 at 12:00:58 PM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> writes:
I rolled 5-3 first, played 8-3 6-3.
Is this a lucky roll? No, but it gains (thus
played) 0.053 of equity.
Gnubg doesn't mark it as a lucky roll but if you
do an analysis right after playing it, it tells him
to Go to Las Vegas with a +0.062 luck rate.
It brings you to 0.088 equity,
but the luck was only 0.053, because the latter
relates to the DIFFERENCE to the averaged
equity after all possible rolls. See the manual.
The luck rate here (all 3-ply) then is of course
also 0.053 (internally more than 3 digits are
used, hence the 53.4 luck rate mEMG).
BTW: There is no need to specify/clarify "thus
played" since they're based on rolls, not moves.
I know, but the way I formulated it is correct:
Only if you play 8/3 5/3 will you gain 0.053 over
the average equity.
No matter the move, the luck will be 0.053.
Your numbers are different but let's say close
enough.
A ply thing.
Since this is above the threshold of 0.1, it is
"Go to Las Vegas".
At the end of this post, below, I pasted the text from
the link you gave above. Can you show me where in
there does your "since 0.304 is above the threshold
of 0.1, it is Go to Las Vegas" deduction fit..?
The manual contains the (outdated, because the
two extreme categories have been dropped, see
source code) list of thresholds. Feel free to file an
enhancement request against the documentation.
In the text below, they are using "roll" and "move"
interchangeably and thus wrongly because their
calculations are all based on what numbers are
rolled, not on how they are played.
I expected that you turned to the straw man of
terminology. The dialog window uses "Rolls".
The interesting discussion here is why a single
UNMARKED roll such as 53 results in a NON-
NEUTRAL luck rating ("Good dice, man!" on 3-ply).
Is this not inconsistent? No, and an analogy from
weather data might help:
The threshold for a "hot summer" should be ....
So different thresholds for the marking of lucky
single moves and for the whole session's luck
rating make perfect sense.
Temperature map for opening rolls shows +0.062 for 53 and average
equity +0.106.
If there is a bug that causes Gnubg miscalculate
the first rolls, it will be so much more reason to
call it a piece of free shit.
Only if you play 8/3 5/3 will you gain 0.053 over
the average equity.
Not true. If you had tried for yourself to play the 53
differently, as I had suggested, you would have seen
that you would gain the same equity regardless of
how you move, (to use your own number +0.053 in
this case).
Temperature map for 3-ply opening equities show
+0.090 for 53 and +0.114 for a deviation of -0.024
which is within the unmarked range.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
Temperature map for opening rolls shows
+0.062 for 53 and average equity +0.106.
If you start a new game, you cannot show
a temperature map.
You can only do so if you toggle "Edit" mode,
do nothing and quit editing.
Did you notice that the temperature map then
includes doublets?
Any idea why your (wrong) value of average equity
is higher than mine?
If there is a bug that causes Gnubg miscalculate
the first rolls, it will be so much more reason to
call it a piece of free shit.
Put the blame on you not seeing your mistake I
explained above.
Only if you play 8/3 5/3 will you gain 0.053 over
the average equity.
Not true. If you had tried for yourself to play the 53
differently, as I had suggested, you would have seen
that you would gain the same equity regardless of
how you move, (to use your own number +0.053 in
this case).
Luck = POTENTIAL delta in equity
This is different from the actual equity obtained
after the (perhaps incorrect) move. If there is no
move (dancing on the bar, e.g.) then
Luck = ACTUAL delta in equity
Temperature map for 3-ply opening equities show
+0.090 for 53 and +0.114 for a deviation of -0.024
which is within the unmarked range.
Again: Did you notice that the temperature map
includes doublets?
GNU Backgammon after editing does not know
anymore that this is the first roll and no doublets
can legally occur. After all, the starting position
can be reached via normal play, see
https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+68
On December 24, 2022 at 5:23:46 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
Temperature map for opening rolls shows
+0.062 for 53 and average equity +0.106.
If you start a new game, you cannot showWhy not? Is it against the law?
a temperature map.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
On December 24, 2022 at 1:14:31 PM UTC, MK wrote:
On December 24, 2022 at 5:23:46 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
If you start a new game, you cannot show
a temperature map.
Why not? Is it against the law?
Not usually, but there are circumstances....
Thanks, Paul, for reminding me that this is
probably a better way of addressing this. (-:
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 1:14:31 PM UTC, MK wrote:
On December 24, 2022 at 5:23:46 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:Why not? Is it against the law?
Temperature map for opening rolls shows
+0.062 for 53 and average equity +0.106.
If you start a new game, you cannot show
a temperature map.
Not usually, but there are circumstances where this behaviour may
well be illegal. If someone needs emergency help then, under most
legal systems, it's the legal responsibility of people in the vicinity to render
aid.
Hence, if someone was in the middle of a potentially fatal choking episode (quite possible if the bg is played in a bar which serves peanuts), then ignoring the emergency in order to show a temperature map seems
against the law to me, on the grounds that this is a failure to render aid.
I declare you man and wife! You may kiss the
bride... ;)
MK
Yes but it's irrelevant because Gnubg didn't take
into account the average equity with or without
the doublets!
On Saturday, 24 December 2022 at 14:39:53 UTC, MK wrote:
I declare you man and wife! You may kiss the
bride... ;)
MKI can confirm that in a new 7 point match tonight, GnuDung rolled 5-3 and played 8-3, 6-3 and its luck rating was indeed "Go To Las Vegas".
At last the answer to the question "how can they give GnuDung away for free?" has finally been answered.
Bullshit analysis is worse than no analysis at all.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
Yes but it's irrelevant because Gnubg didn't take
into account the average equity with or without
the doublets!
It does (have a look at the "Distribution of rolls"
before the 66 roll),
but the average equity after the first roll is of
course 0 (both players are equally likely to win
whatever opening roll and any equity thus
cancels out).
Hence the equity after 53 played 8/3 6/3 (0.053
with 0-ply in a money session) equals the luck
of the 53 roll.
My mistake was to attribute the difference
between 0.088 (3-ply equity after 53 played
8/3 6/3 in a money session) and 0.053 (the
luck reported for this roll) to the average equity
after the first roll. This is of course wrong, see
above.
The difference is due to luck being evaluated
with 0-ply, whereas my analysis was done with
3-ply. Changing the analysis settings affects the
equity reported after 8/3 6/3, but not the luck
reported, which is always given as a 0-ply value
All these minor details do not change the
fundamental findings of my analysis of Nasti's
original complaint.
I can confirm that in a new 7 point match
tonight, GnuDung rolled 5-3 and played
8-3, 6-3 and its luck rating was indeed
"Go To Las Vegas".
The average equity after the first roll can't be 0. Before anything
is rolled, both players have 0.5 equity.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
The average equity after the first roll can't be 0.
Before anything is rolled, both players have 0.5
equity.
Both have 0.5 winning chances, and hence the
equity is 0. Once you understand this, everything
falls into place.
Time for me to leave this thread.
One never knows where a question can lead to.
So, keep your questions coming. Don't let them
bozos discourage or intimidate you by talking
big and by talking down to you...
MK
On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 07:01:27 UTC, MK wrote:
One never knows where a question can lead to.
So, keep your questions coming. Don't let them
bozos discourage or intimidate you by talking
big and by talking down to you...
MKJust for completeness, here are the fifteen possible opening rolls and GnuDung's appraisal of their merits:
1-2: none
1-3: Go To Las Vegas
1-4: none
1-5: none
1-6: Go To Las Vegas
2-3: none
2-4: Go To Las Vegas
2-5: none
2-6: none
3-4: none
3-5: Go To Las Vegas
3-6: none
4-5: good dice man!
4-6: good dice man!
5-6: Go To Las Vegas
...
To further muddy the waters, if GnuDung rolls 4-2 first up, the bot gets
the Las Vegas treatment. If I roll 4-2 in response, my luck rating is
only "good dice man".
Two identical rolls evaluated differently in terms of luck.
And I find your use of "GnuDung" to be childish and, as some of
the programmers who have donated their time to improve GNUbg
read the list, insulting.
--bks
To further muddy the waters, if GnuDung
rolls 4-2 first up, the bot gets the Las Vegas
treatment. If I roll 4-2 in response, my luck
rating is only "good dice man".
Two identical rolls evaluated differently in
terms of luck.
Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Two identical rolls evaluated differently
in terms of luck.
They're not identical. Luck, to the extent
it's real, is certainly contextual.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 16:11:59 |
| Calls: | 6,667 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,216 |
| Messages: | 5,336,758 |