gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

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

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

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

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

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

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:47:49 AM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

OTB is different to the situation where you're problem-solving in your own time.
I think that, when players become strong, they practice problem-solving and then
find themselves able to play correctly OTB.
So what do we do when we're problem-solving?
This is when we use match equity tables (easily googled -- MET).

I'll try and think a bit about your position.
Let's approximate by saying that you win if you hit the blot and you lose if you don't.
All your sevens work for an initial winning probability of 1/6.
You might not have much more than this because your opponent's rolls that fail to safety
the blot let the opponent attack your blot -- pick and pass.
So doubling gives you a match winning probability of 1/6.
And what does not doubling do?
it gives you a 1/6 chance of being 2 away against 3 away.
And a 5/6 chance of being 4 away against 1 away.
So now I'll use the MET (or some MET anyway)
2 away/ 3 away is 60%.
4 way/ 1 away is 17%.
Total winning probability if you don't double is 1/6 * 60% + 5/6 * 17% = approx 24%
So I would (wrongly) hold.
Where is the error in my reasoning? Simply that the residual winning chances if you don't roll
a 7 aren't so tiny and can't be ignored. Note that the cube is dead if you double, and so
you get to play the game out to the end. In any case, I don't think holding is a terrible blunder.

Anyway, from the standpoint of an intermediate, the double-or-not decision is tricky and
somewhat borderline.
Now, having a direct shot would make your position hugely better..
So if the double is tricky/borderline when you're aiming for 7, it must be a clear double when
you have a direct shot.

Paul

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

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:28:44 PM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:47:49 AM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

OTB is different to the situation where you're problem-solving in your own time.
I think that, when players become strong, they practice problem-solving and then
find themselves able to play correctly OTB.
So what do we do when we're problem-solving?
This is when we use match equity tables (easily googled -- MET).

I'll try and think a bit about your position.
Let's approximate by saying that you win if you hit the blot and you lose if you don't.
All your sevens work for an initial winning probability of 1/6.
You might not have much more than this because your opponent's rolls that fail to safety
the blot let the opponent attack your blot -- pick and pass.
So doubling gives you a match winning probability of 1/6.
And what does not doubling do?
it gives you a 1/6 chance of being 2 away against 3 away.
And a 5/6 chance of being 4 away against 1 away.
So now I'll use the MET (or some MET anyway)
2 away/ 3 away is 60%.
4 way/ 1 away is 17%.
Total winning probability if you don't double is 1/6 * 60% + 5/6 * 17% = approx 24%
So I would (wrongly) hold.
Where is the error in my reasoning? Simply that the residual winning chances if you don't roll
a 7 aren't so tiny and can't be ignored. Note that the cube is dead if you double, and so
you get to play the game out to the end. In any case, I don't think holding is a terrible blunder.

Anyway, from the standpoint of an intermediate, the double-or-not decision is tricky and
somewhat borderline.
Now, having a direct shot would make your position hugely better..
So if the double is tricky/borderline when you're aiming for 7, it must be a clear double when
you have a direct shot.

Paul

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

On 4/29/2023 7:47 PM, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

I think you're already most of the way there. When you're trailing
in the match score and own the cube, you're usually looking for any
excuse to redouble. If you have market losers in the form of a killer
direct shot, then that usually means a must-double, even if you're
slightly worse otherwise.

---
Tim Chow

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

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:25:04 PM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:28:44 PM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:47:49 AM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

OTB is different to the situation where you're problem-solving in your own time.
I think that, when players become strong, they practice problem-solving and then
find themselves able to play correctly OTB.
So what do we do when we're problem-solving?
This is when we use match equity tables (easily googled -- MET).

I'll try and think a bit about your position.
Let's approximate by saying that you win if you hit the blot and you lose if you don't.
All your sevens work for an initial winning probability of 1/6.
You might not have much more than this because your opponent's rolls that fail to safety
the blot let the opponent attack your blot -- pick and pass.
So doubling gives you a match winning probability of 1/6.
And what does not doubling do?
it gives you a 1/6 chance of being 2 away against 3 away.
And a 5/6 chance of being 4 away against 1 away.
So now I'll use the MET (or some MET anyway)
2 away/ 3 away is 60%.
4 way/ 1 away is 17%.
Total winning probability if you don't double is 1/6 * 60% + 5/6 * 17% = approx 24%
So I would (wrongly) hold.
Where is the error in my reasoning? Simply that the residual winning chances if you don't roll
a 7 aren't so tiny and can't be ignored. Note that the cube is dead if you double, and so
you get to play the game out to the end. In any case, I don't think holding is a terrible blunder.

Anyway, from the standpoint of an intermediate, the double-or-not decision is tricky and
somewhat borderline.
Now, having a direct shot would make your position hugely better..
So if the double is tricky/borderline when you're aiming for 7, it must be a clear double when
you have a direct shot.

Paul

thank you!
I will have to read over it a few times to let it sink in but if i could I would like to focus for a moment on what should be a simplified easier to grasp aspect of this problem where not understanding it has dire consequences, which is - how to avoid

making a 5x blunder with the cube by not doubling when the blot is 6 away and as the blot is 5-4-3 away the blunder is still 2x at 3 away while the winning chance is well below 50%. Surely a 2x blunder with the cube (according to gnubg when the blot is 3
pips away) has to have an intuitive easy to understand explanation without memorizing match equity tables. The case where the blot is indirect shot, the error rate is for me negligible. I ain't worried about .030 .050 errors. I need to fix my double
triple blunders of which i have way too many :-) for the length of time ive been playing. I have an intuitive feel for when I have the advantage and can usually think about doubling in that scenario but when I am behind but should still double is very
fuzzy to me. Othen than of course the mandatory post crawford doubles

Everyone has their own way of developing and understanding their intuitions. For me, a more formal intuitive guide comes to me from an interpretation of the match equity tables.
But usually the translation of the tables to the informal is highly intuitive. If the match equity table says "83%" then that means it's highly likely.
If it says "55%" then that's slightly more likely than not.
Furthermore the precise result is rarely a surprise. If you're 4A and your opponent is
1A, your chance of winning is 17%. You probably didn't know that but you certainly
knew that it was more than 5% and less than 25%, and this type of very rough knowledge
is often enough to avoid huge blunders.
So the way to reason to the correct cube play is to use these intuitions.

Here's an illustration of how even a weak (though non-beginner) player might reason towards
a correct cube.
Tim and I are playing a match to 7. Tim is ahead of me by 2 points to 0 (no surprise there) and I own the cube at 4.

(He probably owns more books on combinatorial game theory than I do, but I own the cube.
So things even out in the end).

I am threatening a game-winning direct shot which I hit with a probability of 1/3. But if I miss the shot,
I will almost certainly win the game.
So what happens? I figure that being 6-0 down in a match to 7 will be pretty dire. Note that, as you say,
I don't need match equity tables for this. On the other hand, being 4-2 up is nice but far from overwhelming.
So if I don't double, the possibilities are between me almost certainly losing and me having a decent (but not huge)
edge.
So I must turn the cube to 8. There the upside is that I win the match rather than just being 4 2 ahead.
I'm not deterred by the difference between being 6 - 0 down and losing because that difference is small anyway.
If I'm 6 0 down, I'm bound to lose anyway, particularly when I'm playing Tim. Tim, of course, takes my cube. Taking the cube leaves him ahead where as dropping the cube leaves him behind.

Of course, there are less obvious examples. The less obvious the example is, the more the match equity tables
(or approximations of them) are likely to be needed.

Paul

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

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:28:44 PM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:47:49 AM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

OTB is different to the situation where you're problem-solving in your own time.
I think that, when players become strong, they practice problem-solving and then
find themselves able to play correctly OTB.
So what do we do when we're problem-solving?
This is when we use match equity tables (easily googled -- MET).

I'll try and think a bit about your position.
Let's approximate by saying that you win if you hit the blot and you lose if you don't.
All your sevens work for an initial winning probability of 1/6.
You might not have much more than this because your opponent's rolls that fail to safety
the blot let the opponent attack your blot -- pick and pass.
So doubling gives you a match winning probability of 1/6.
And what does not doubling do?
it gives you a 1/6 chance of being 2 away against 3 away.
And a 5/6 chance of being 4 away against 1 away.
So now I'll use the MET (or some MET anyway)
2 away/ 3 away is 60%.
4 way/ 1 away is 17%.
Total winning probability if you don't double is 1/6 * 60% + 5/6 * 17% = approx 24%
So I would (wrongly) hold.
Where is the error in my reasoning? Simply that the residual winning chances if you don't roll
a 7 aren't so tiny and can't be ignored. Note that the cube is dead if you double, and so
you get to play the game out to the end. In any case, I don't think holding is a terrible blunder.

Anyway, from the standpoint of an intermediate, the double-or-not decision is tricky and
somewhat borderline.
Now, having a direct shot would make your position hugely better..
So if the double is tricky/borderline when you're aiming for 7, it must be a clear double when
you have a direct shot.

Paul

thank you!
I will have to read over it a few times to let it sink in but if i could I would like to focus for a moment on what should be a simplified easier to grasp aspect of this problem where not understanding it has dire consequences, which is - how to avoid
making a 5x blunder with the cube by not doubling when the blot is 6 away and as the blot is 5-4-3 away the blunder is still 2x at 3 away while the winning chance is well below 50%. Surely a 2x blunder with the cube (according to gnubg when the blot is
3 pips away) has to have an intuitive easy to understand explanation without memorizing match equity tables. The case where the blot is indirect shot, the error rate is for me negligible. I ain't worried about .030 .050 errors. I need to fix my double
triple blunders of which i have way too many :-) for the length of time ive been playing. I have an intuitive feel for when I have the advantage and can usually think about doubling in that scenario but when I am behind but should still double is very
fuzzy to me. Othen than of course the mandatory post crawford doubles

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

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:55:25 PM UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:25:04 PM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:28:44 PM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:47:49 AM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

OTB is different to the situation where you're problem-solving in your own time.
I think that, when players become strong, they practice problem-solving and then
find themselves able to play correctly OTB.
So what do we do when we're problem-solving?
This is when we use match equity tables (easily googled -- MET).

I'll try and think a bit about your position.
Let's approximate by saying that you win if you hit the blot and you lose if you don't.
All your sevens work for an initial winning probability of 1/6.
You might not have much more than this because your opponent's rolls that fail to safety
the blot let the opponent attack your blot -- pick and pass.
So doubling gives you a match winning probability of 1/6.
And what does not doubling do?
it gives you a 1/6 chance of being 2 away against 3 away.
And a 5/6 chance of being 4 away against 1 away.
So now I'll use the MET (or some MET anyway)
2 away/ 3 away is 60%.
4 way/ 1 away is 17%.
Total winning probability if you don't double is 1/6 * 60% + 5/6 * 17% = approx 24%
So I would (wrongly) hold.
Where is the error in my reasoning? Simply that the residual winning chances if you don't roll
a 7 aren't so tiny and can't be ignored. Note that the cube is dead if you double, and so
you get to play the game out to the end. In any case, I don't think holding is a terrible blunder.

Anyway, from the standpoint of an intermediate, the double-or-not decision is tricky and
somewhat borderline.
Now, having a direct shot would make your position hugely better..
So if the double is tricky/borderline when you're aiming for 7, it must be a clear double when
you have a direct shot.

Paul

thank you!
I will have to read over it a few times to let it sink in but if i could I would like to focus for a moment on what should be a simplified easier to grasp aspect of this problem where not understanding it has dire consequences, which is - how to

avoid making a 5x blunder with the cube by not doubling when the blot is 6 away and as the blot is 5-4-3 away the blunder is still 2x at 3 away while the winning chance is well below 50%. Surely a 2x blunder with the cube (according to gnubg when the
blot is 3 pips away) has to have an intuitive easy to understand explanation without memorizing match equity tables. The case where the blot is indirect shot, the error rate is for me negligible. I ain't worried about .030 .050 errors. I need to fix my
double triple blunders of which i have way too many :-) for the length of time ive been playing. I have an intuitive feel for when I have the advantage and can usually think about doubling in that scenario but when I am behind but should still double is
very fuzzy to me. Othen than of course the mandatory post crawford doubles

Everyone has their own way of developing and understanding their intuitions. For me, a more formal intuitive guide comes to me from an interpretation of the match equity tables.
But usually the translation of the tables to the informal is highly intuitive.
If the match equity table says "83%" then that means it's highly likely.
If it says "55%" then that's slightly more likely than not.
Furthermore the precise result is rarely a surprise. If you're 4A and your opponent is
1A, your chance of winning is 17%. You probably didn't know that but you certainly
knew that it was more than 5% and less than 25%, and this type of very rough knowledge
is often enough to avoid huge blunders.
So the way to reason to the correct cube play is to use these intuitions.

Here's an illustration of how even a weak (though non-beginner) player might reason towards
a correct cube.
Tim and I are playing a match to 7. Tim is ahead of me by 2 points to 0 (no surprise there) and I own the cube at 4.

(He probably owns more books on combinatorial game theory than I do, but I own the cube.
So things even out in the end).

I am threatening a game-winning direct shot which I hit with a probability of 1/3. But if I miss the shot,
I will almost certainly win the game.
So what happens? I figure that being 6-0 down in a match to 7 will be pretty dire. Note that, as you say,
I don't need match equity tables for this. On the other hand, being 4-2 up is nice but far from overwhelming.
So if I don't double, the possibilities are between me almost certainly losing and me having a decent (but not huge)
edge.
So I must turn the cube to 8. There the upside is that I win the match rather than just being 4 2 ahead.
I'm not deterred by the difference between being 6 - 0 down and losing because that difference is small anyway.
If I'm 6 0 down, I'm bound to lose anyway, particularly when I'm playing Tim.
Tim, of course, takes my cube. Taking the cube leaves him ahead where as dropping the cube leaves him behind.

Of course, there are less obvious examples. The less obvious the example is, the more the match equity tables
(or approximations of them) are likely to be needed.

Paul

"But if I miss the shot, I will almost certainly win the game" -- I meant "lose".

Paul

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

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:57:06 AM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:55:25 PM UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:25:04 PM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:28:44 PM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:47:49 AM UTC+1, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:

gnubg ID d+cGAQDb3QYABA:AQGgABAAEAAE

http://greedygammon.com/positions/double11.jpg

So this position came up and GreedyG (GreedyGammon house gnubg bot) redoubled => 4 for the match

What bg concepts do i need to understand to make the correct cube decision in these type of situations when behind to correctly double?

If the blot is in direct range 3-4-5-6 away, not doubling is a big blunder otherwise 7 or higher indirect shots there is not much downside to redoubling for the match.

How would I know that I absolutely HAVE to redouble for the match when the blot is in direct shot range

Thanks in advance for all responses and in particular Paul (peps..) for his clear easy to read/understand responses to advanced rgb bg questions that intermed players like me (1750 fibs rating) can find useful.

OTB is different to the situation where you're problem-solving in your own time.
I think that, when players become strong, they practice problem-solving and then
find themselves able to play correctly OTB.
So what do we do when we're problem-solving?
This is when we use match equity tables (easily googled -- MET).

I'll try and think a bit about your position.
Let's approximate by saying that you win if you hit the blot and you lose if you don't.
All your sevens work for an initial winning probability of 1/6.
You might not have much more than this because your opponent's rolls that fail to safety
the blot let the opponent attack your blot -- pick and pass.
So doubling gives you a match winning probability of 1/6.
And what does not doubling do?
it gives you a 1/6 chance of being 2 away against 3 away.
And a 5/6 chance of being 4 away against 1 away.
So now I'll use the MET (or some MET anyway)
2 away/ 3 away is 60%.
4 way/ 1 away is 17%.
Total winning probability if you don't double is 1/6 * 60% + 5/6 * 17% = approx 24%
So I would (wrongly) hold.
Where is the error in my reasoning? Simply that the residual winning chances if you don't roll
a 7 aren't so tiny and can't be ignored. Note that the cube is dead if you double, and so
you get to play the game out to the end. In any case, I don't think holding is a terrible blunder.

Anyway, from the standpoint of an intermediate, the double-or-not decision is tricky and
somewhat borderline.
Now, having a direct shot would make your position hugely better..
So if the double is tricky/borderline when you're aiming for 7, it must be a clear double when
you have a direct shot.

Paul

thank you!
I will have to read over it a few times to let it sink in but if i could I would like to focus for a moment on what should be a simplified easier to grasp aspect of this problem where not understanding it has dire consequences, which is - how to

avoid making a 5x blunder with the cube by not doubling when the blot is 6 away and as the blot is 5-4-3 away the blunder is still 2x at 3 away while the winning chance is well below 50%. Surely a 2x blunder with the cube (according to gnubg when the
blot is 3 pips away) has to have an intuitive easy to understand explanation without memorizing match equity tables. The case where the blot is indirect shot, the error rate is for me negligible. I ain't worried about .030 .050 errors. I need to fix my
double triple blunders of which i have way too many :-) for the length of time ive been playing. I have an intuitive feel for when I have the advantage and can usually think about doubling in that scenario but when I am behind but should still double is
very fuzzy to me. Othen than of course the mandatory post crawford doubles

Everyone has their own way of developing and understanding their intuitions.
For me, a more formal intuitive guide comes to me from an interpretation of the match equity tables.
But usually the translation of the tables to the informal is highly intuitive.
If the match equity table says "83%" then that means it's highly likely. If it says "55%" then that's slightly more likely than not.
Furthermore the precise result is rarely a surprise. If you're 4A and your opponent is
1A, your chance of winning is 17%. You probably didn't know that but you certainly
knew that it was more than 5% and less than 25%, and this type of very rough knowledge
is often enough to avoid huge blunders.
So the way to reason to the correct cube play is to use these intuitions.

Here's an illustration of how even a weak (though non-beginner) player might reason towards
a correct cube.
Tim and I are playing a match to 7. Tim is ahead of me by 2 points to 0 (no surprise there) and I own the cube at 4.

(He probably owns more books on combinatorial game theory than I do, but I own the cube.
So things even out in the end).

I am threatening a game-winning direct shot which I hit with a probability of 1/3. But if I miss the shot,
I will almost certainly win the game.
So what happens? I figure that being 6-0 down in a match to 7 will be pretty dire. Note that, as you say,
I don't need match equity tables for this. On the other hand, being 4-2 up is nice but far from overwhelming.
So if I don't double, the possibilities are between me almost certainly losing and me having a decent (but not huge)
edge.
So I must turn the cube to 8. There the upside is that I win the match rather than just being 4 2 ahead.
I'm not deterred by the difference between being 6 - 0 down and losing because that difference is small anyway.
If I'm 6 0 down, I'm bound to lose anyway, particularly when I'm playing Tim.
Tim, of course, takes my cube. Taking the cube leaves him ahead where as dropping the cube leaves him behind.

Of course, there are less obvious examples. The less obvious the example is, the more the match equity tables
(or approximations of them) are likely to be needed.

Paul

"But if I miss the shot, I will almost certainly win the game" -- I meant "lose".

Paul

thank you!
I think I'd asked this same or similar question years ago and one of the replies mentioned that some players will study reference positions and use that to approximate their game winning chance. Does anyone here do that? For me, looking at a position
and even remotely coming up with a game winning chance as a percentage number seems like impossible. I can imagine "I am behind, almost even, slightly ahead" or " I am way ahead maybe too good" but the match equity tables are giving exact numerical
references. Which I suppose i could study and translate them to the more general " slighly ahead, ahead, way ahead, too good" for that level of motivation i would have to be playing real money tournaments. but i don't trust the online sites. Any from the
past that i tried out were either too greedy with the rake or maybe they make up excuses not to pay, go out of business and confiscate player money. Things like that. I never played on a real board just online for 20+ years. Never joined a local club. (I'
m somewhat of a recluse :-) many years ago when i was on FIBS i enjoyed watching advanced 1800-1900+ players battling the AI bots. Is there any bg online with a halfway decent interface one can go see that? I can't stand galaxy, and "heroes" isn't so bad
but still very clunky and a bit over the top with their ads sometimes. Where else? nothing? why? Been asking this for years. As fun as bg is to play, why isn't there a online bg site that is halfway decent to use. FIBS as old as it is was great but
should have been updated or a new site with better features interface should have come along by now. Why didn't that happen or i just don't know about it?

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