XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
than not anchoring at all.
Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226 whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking, anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
than not anchoring at all.
Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226 whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking, anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release
---
Tim Chow
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six. Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2), rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
than not anchoring at all.
Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226 whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking, anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
everyone interested in themselves?]).
OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
play of 13/1*(2).
However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
thought he may well be right.
In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
Paul
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six. Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2), rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better than not anchoring at all.
Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41 from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226 whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking, anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
everyone interested in themselves?]).
OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
play of 13/1*(2).
However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
thought he may well be right.
In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
PaulIf you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2), rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better than not anchoring at all.
Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41 from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226 whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't everyone interested in themselves?]).
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct play of 13/1*(2).
However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
thought he may well be right.
In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as goodPaulIf you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
as this, and made a different play.
If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.
Paul
I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?
Years ago, when Stick was playing Dmitriy Obukhov over the board
(perhaps for the first time), he half-jokingly asked Dmitriy what
his PR was.
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:46:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2), rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
than not anchoring at all.
Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't everyone interested in themselves?]).
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct play of 13/1*(2).
However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
thought he may well be right.
In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as goodPaulIf you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
as this, and made a different play.
If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.
PaulI guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?
On 12/29/2022 7:03 PM, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?Years ago, when Stick was playing Dmitriy Obukhov over the board
(perhaps for the first time), he half-jokingly asked Dmitriy what
his PR was.
Should I ever meet Stick OTB and should he ask me that question,
I will reassure him that my PR is 8 or 9 on a good day.
Of course, I can't be sure about Tim's level.
I have a clear memory of him asserting (for himself) a PR of 5.0 or better.
But I could have been lying!....
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
The clipped version is you don't hit loose in your home board and leave a blot when you could make a point and still put him on the bar.
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:03:07 AM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:46:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O | +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
than not anchoring at all.
Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't everyone interested in themselves?]).
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
play of 13/1*(2).
However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
thought he may well be right.
In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as goodPaulIf you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
as this, and made a different play.
If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.
Of course, I can't be sure about Tim's level.PaulI guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?
I have a clear memory of him asserting (for himself) a PR of 5.0 or better. But even clear memories can be wrong. I tried to dig up this thread but couldn't.
I'm a bit surprised Tim hasn't mentioned his PR on this thread now that we're discussing it.
Paul
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 6:46:28 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:be his capped range, 4.5-5 PR but thought he was a clear dog to play that well based solely on the problems he posts. My wag was the 6.5 range. And it is very true at home play v. the computer doesn't equate to one's live play and that, generally
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:03:07 AM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:46:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O X | +---+
| X O | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O | +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66
OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
than not anchoring at all.
Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't everyone interested in themselves?]).
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
play of 13/1*(2).
However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and thought he may well be right.
In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as goodPaulIf you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
as this, and made a different play.
If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.
Of course, I can't be sure about Tim's level.PaulI guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?
I have a clear memory of him asserting (for himself) a PR of 5.0 or better.
But even clear memories can be wrong. I tried to dig up this thread but couldn't.
I'm a bit surprised Tim hasn't mentioned his PR on this thread now that we're discussing it.
PaulSince Tim is being coy about his PR I believe even more firmly he doesn't play under a 5 PR. I thought perhaps he had mentioned in the past, I certainly wouldn't remember it. It was possible in my mind that he did play a 5, but that would pretty much
That pos web site won't load so I can't see the post Tim was referring to and I'm too lazy to log in and find the post itself atm.
It was possible in my mind that he did play a 5, but that would pretty much be his capped range, 4.5-5 PR but thought he was a clear dog to play that well based solely on the problems he posts. My wag was the 6.5 range.
On 12/30/2022 5:29 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
It was possible in my mind that he did play a 5, but that would pretty
much be his capped range, 4.5-5 PR but thought he was a clear dog to
play that well based solely on the problems he posts. My wag was the
6.5 range.
Hmmm. Seems like I should be posting easier problems! It
sounds like Stick won't believe me if I say I play 8 or 9 on
a good day.
On 12/29/2022 7:03 PM, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?Years ago, when Stick was playing Dmitriy Obukhov over the board
(perhaps for the first time), he half-jokingly asked Dmitriy what
his PR was.
Should I ever meet Stick OTB and should he ask me that question,
I will reassure him that my PR is 8 or 9 on a good day.
---
Tim Chow
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 20:38:48 |
Calls: | 6,667 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,216 |
Messages: | 5,337,152 |