Let me again use a shortest double/drop sequence in
gamblegammon as an example to illustrate my point:

============================================
Player1 rolls 52, position equity +106, roll equity +30
Luck total EMG (Points), Player1 +0.030, Player2 +0.000

Player2 rolls 55, position equity -13, roll equity +492
Luck total EMG (Points), Player1 +0.030, Player2 +0.505

Player1 dances, position equity -549, roll equity -1000
Luck total EMG (Points), Player1 -0.422, Player2 +0.505 ============================================

Player1 rolled twice, Player2 rolled only once. Per Gnubg:

Luck rate mEMG (Points), Player1 -210.8, Player2 +505.0

However, if we calculated the "equity of only the roll" after
Player1 won the right to roll and play first, we would have (+0.030)-(-0.106)=-0.076 and consequently final numbers:

Luck total EMG (Points), Player1 -0.527, Player2 +0.505
Luck rate mEMG (Points), Player1 -263.5, Player2 +505.0

That's a substantian 25% difference of luck per roll! (And
NOT "luck per move" since Player1 couldn't/didn't play his
second roll! His "luck per move" would have been -0.422,
or more correctly -0.527).

Granted this is an extreme example but makes my point
clearly enough. In the gamblegammon universe that you
folks pretentiously calculate equities, etc. at four decimal
accuracy, this should matter even in longer games.

You arithmeticians shouldn't take your own fancy bullshit
like mEMG too lightly... ;) Even 0.0001 should matter... :)

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)