1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.GAMES.BACKGAMMON

  • (Some) backgammon writers don't seem to have a solid understanding of t

    From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 3 06:15:21 2023
    Those who coin backgammon terminology seem far too fond of the word
    "paradox". Jacoby's "paradox" is absolutely not a paradox in any sense, whatsoever. It says that when deciding whether to cube, you should not only think about your equity but also the opponent's recube vig.
    So A might be a hold and B might be a cube, if A's cube would give greater recube vig to the opponent, even if A's equity is higher than B's equity.
    Well, no shit Sherlock!

    If that makes a "paradox", then is it also a paradox that people consider likelihood of rain as well as temperature when deciding whether to wear
    a coat. So, if one day is more cloudy than another, they might wear a coat
    on the cloudy day and not on the clear day, even though the clear day is colder.

    But who on earth would call this a "paradox"??
    Suppose I wore a coat to go out tomorrow, and my wife asked me:
    "Why are you wearing a coat?" And suppose I replied, "Yes, it's the
    Coats paradox." She would think I was referring to John Coates, the mathematician.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Berger@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 3 10:59:52 2023
    How many in the early 70ies would have known what recube vig is?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grunty@21:1/5 to Paul on Fri Mar 3 12:54:23 2023
    On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:15:23 AM UTC-3, Paul wrote:
    Those who coin backgammon terminology seem far too fond of the word "paradox". Jacoby's "paradox" is absolutely not a paradox in any sense, whatsoever. It says that when deciding whether to cube, you should not only think about your equity but also the opponent's recube vig.
    So A might be a hold and B might be a cube, if A's cube would give greater recube vig to the opponent, even if A's equity is higher than B's equity. Well, no shit Sherlock!

    If that makes a "paradox", then is it also a paradox that people consider likelihood of rain as well as temperature when deciding whether to wear
    a coat. So, if one day is more cloudy than another, they might wear a coat on the cloudy day and not on the clear day, even though the clear day is colder.

    But who on earth would call this a "paradox"??
    Suppose I wore a coat to go out tomorrow, and my wife asked me:
    "Why are you wearing a coat?" And suppose I replied, "Yes, it's the
    Coats paradox." She would think I was referring to John Coates, the mathematician.

    Paul

    Words that have a precise meaning in Sciences may end up vulgarised in the colloquial usage, adopting a lax, deformed meaning that vaguely reminisces the original one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Frank Berger on Fri Mar 3 14:04:50 2023
    On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 6:59:53 PM UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
    How many in the early 70ies would have known what recube vig is?

    93 peope knew what recube vig is on 23 September 1971.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to Frank Berger on Fri Mar 3 23:31:39 2023
    On 3/3/2023 1:59 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
    How many in the early 70ies would have known what recube vig is?

    I'm sure that they at least understood that cube access was
    worth something. Otherwise, people would be doubling as soon
    as they obtained even a slight advantage. But what may not
    have been so obvious, and even today is not so obvious to many
    people, is that the value of cube access can vary significantly
    depending on the position.

    I think that Paul's analogy with wearing a coat is not quite fair.
    The closest analogy to redoubling in real life is investing more
    money into a favorable financial opportunity. The closest analogy
    to the cost of giving your opponent cube access would be something
    like the transaction cost or the opportunity cost of moving your
    money around. People are able to understand that they have to
    weigh those costs against the expected benefit. But what there's
    no real analogy to is that the cube, in your opponent's hands, is
    a weapon, and the potency of that weapon can sometimes be stronger
    even when the opponent's position is worse. A financial investment
    can go wrong, but there's no analogy to having the cube sent back
    to you at 8.

    Having said that, I do agree with Paul that "paradox" is perhaps
    too strong a word. Maybe "phenomenon" would be better.

    ---
    Tim Chow

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