Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
bks Wins The Consolation Flight
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Bradley K. Sherman
May 11, 2013, 11:03:05 PM5/11/13
to
No driving, no beer, no problem.
Strictly speaking I tied for victory in the consolation as the
hour was getting late and the TD wanted to go home.
I was up 6-1, and 8-6 (9pt match) in the main flight and
had a won game at 8-8 but lost to four perfect 11 rolls by
my opponent as I danced against a two point and a three point
board. (Have I mentioned that there is no greater equity swing
than failing to come in against a two point board?)
In the consolation (7pt matches) I went 7-6, 7-5, 7-0, 7-0.
In the second consolation match I was playing a guy who
employs what I think of as the Persian style. I was down 5-3
and had an opening 63 to play. I played 13/7,8/5 [sic] and
he rolled 52. I doubled, he took, and then I just rolled
downhill and won a gammon and the match. I think I saw steam
coming out of his ears.
Next stop: Los Angeles Open.
--bks
Strictly speaking I tied for victory in the consolation as the
hour was getting late and the TD wanted to go home.
I was up 6-1, and 8-6 (9pt match) in the main flight and
had a won game at 8-8 but lost to four perfect 11 rolls by
my opponent as I danced against a two point and a three point
board. (Have I mentioned that there is no greater equity swing
than failing to come in against a two point board?)
In the consolation (7pt matches) I went 7-6, 7-5, 7-0, 7-0.
In the second consolation match I was playing a guy who
employs what I think of as the Persian style. I was down 5-3
and had an opening 63 to play. I played 13/7,8/5 [sic] and
he rolled 52. I doubled, he took, and then I just rolled
downhill and won a gammon and the match. I think I saw steam
coming out of his ears.
Next stop: Los Angeles Open.
--bks
Freeven
May 11, 2013, 11:48:53 PM5/11/13
to
On 5/11/2013 11:03 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> In the consolation (7pt matches)... I was down 5-3
> and had an opening 63 to play. I played 13/7,8/5...
That's a lot of equity to throw away.
> In the consolation (7pt matches)... I was down 5-3
> and had an opening 63 to play. I played 13/7,8/5...
That's a lot of equity to throw away.
Bradley K. Sherman
May 12, 2013, 8:44:37 AM5/12/13
to
--bks
Walt
May 12, 2013, 9:02:52 AM5/12/13
to
XGID=-b----E-C---eE---c-e----B-:0:0:1:63:3:5:0:7:10
X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:3 O:5 7 pt.(s) match.
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O X |
| X O | | O X |
| X O | | O |
| X | | O |
| X | | O |
| |BAR| |
| O | | X |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X |
| O X | | X O |
| O X | | X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 167 O: 167 X-O: 3-5/7
Cube: 1
X to play 63
1. Book� 24/18 13/10 eq:+0.333
Player: 50.73% (G:13.12% B:1.42%)
Opponent: 49.27% (G:19.42% B:2.60%)
Confidence: �0.008 (+0.325..+0.341) - [100.0%]
2. Book� 13/4 eq:+0.291 (-0.043)
Player: 48.69% (G:14.05% B:1.41%)
Opponent: 51.31% (G:20.22% B:3.22%)
Confidence: �0.008 (+0.283..+0.299) - [0.0%]
3. Book� 24/15 eq:+0.288 (-0.045)
Player: 50.54% (G:12.04% B:1.05%)
Opponent: 49.46% (G:17.93% B:2.53%)
Confidence: �0.007 (+0.281..+0.296) - [0.0%]
4. Book� 24/21 13/7 eq:+0.284 (-0.049)
Player: 48.81% (G:13.54% B:1.26%)
Opponent: 51.19% (G:19.63% B:2.97%)
Confidence: �0.008 (+0.276..+0.292) - [0.0%]
5. Book� 13/10 13/7 eq:+0.281 (-0.052)
Player: 48.32% (G:14.08% B:1.58%)
Opponent: 51.68% (G:21.41% B:4.14%)
Confidence: �0.008 (+0.273..+0.289) - [0.0%]
6. Book� 24/21 24/18 eq:+0.199 (-0.134)
Player: 48.79% (G:10.76% B:0.46%)
Opponent: 51.21% (G:13.80% B:0.51%)
7. XG Roller++ 13/7 8/5 eq:+0.185 (-0.148)
Player: 46.56% (G:12.85% B:0.53%)
Opponent: 53.44% (G:15.65% B:1.05%)
�Generated by GameSite 2000, Ltd on 2/26/2011 using eXtreme Gammon 2.00
10368 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 38613390
Moves: 2-ply, cube decisions: 3-ply Red
�Generated by GameSite 2000, Ltd on 5/21/2011 using eXtreme Gammon 2.00
Analyzed in XG Roller++
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10, MET: Kazaross XG2
Bradley K. Sherman
May 12, 2013, 9:22:15 AM5/12/13
to
Walt <walt_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 8:44 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>> Freeven <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2013 11:03 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>> ...
>On 5/12/2013 8:44 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>> Freeven <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2013 11:03 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>> In the consolation (7pt matches)... I was down 5-3
>>>> and had an opening 63 to play. I played 13/7,8/5...
>>>
>>> That's a lot of equity to throw away.
>>
>> How much?
>
>Well, it's not even one of the book plays in XG.
> ...
>>>> and had an opening 63 to play. I played 13/7,8/5...
>>>
>>> That's a lot of equity to throw away.
>>
>> How much?
>
>Well, it's not even one of the book plays in XG.
> 1. Book� 24/18 13/10 eq:+0.333
> 7. XG Roller++ 13/7 8/5 eq:+0.185 (-0.148)
That is a lot. Although I was going on instinct, in retrospect I
can say that it was superimportant to me not to get into a straight
race with this opponent. I felt sure that his early and middle
game play in situations with a lot of contact was substandard and
so by making this hyperaggressive (stupid?) play I was shifting the
universe of possible games to ones where I had a clear advantage.
Nonstandard plays don't work against gnubg, but I think psychology
can trump arithmetic against humans.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
--bks
peps...@gmail.com
May 13, 2013, 4:35:31 AM5/13/13
to
It's quite possible that your play was correct, from a practical competitive point of view. For example, likely continuations in the near future involve him needing to hit you loose in his inner board. If you've seen from experience that he sometimes doesn't hit loose even when it's correct because he doesn't like being hit back, then that consideration can easily make up the equity gap. From a practical standpoint, the equity computations are not the same as the theoretical equity -- you need to factor in the probability of him making bad plays.
Do you ever remember a teacher or a lecturer ever saying something to you like "Never be afraid to ask questions. Remember that, whenever you have a question in your mind, ten other students have the same question but are too timid to ask it."? Then, if you ask a question like "What's Beyonce's middle name?", you get yelled out for the irrelevance and you become even more timid than you were previously.
On this occasion, the critics of your 63 on this thread are like the students asking questions in class. They might be few but they symbolise the millions of other readers of this thread who are thinking the same thing.
The type of thing that irks some of the critics, I would think, is if they perceive that you're implicitly claiming that the anti-joker 52 which misses the double shot vindicates your play. Nothing angers a backgammon critic more than a person self-congratulating themselves after a good result where bad play was ameliorated by sheer luck.
I once had such an experience after losing to a terrible player who boasted afterwards. Because I felt upset, I made sure not to talk to anybody for 17 hours after listening to the boast, out of fear that I would reveal my bad temper.
Paul Epstein
Bradley K. Sherman
May 13, 2013, 9:33:14 AM5/13/13
to
<peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
If only there were millions of other readers, we could make a decent
living playing this game. Since I rejoined the tournament circuit
I'm averaging about eleven cents (6p) per hour of play[1].
--bks
[1] Less gas and beer.
> ...
>On this occasion, the critics of your 63 on this thread are like the
>students asking questions in class. They might be few but they
>symbolise the millions of other readers of this thread who are thinking
>the same thing.
> ...
>students asking questions in class. They might be few but they
>symbolise the millions of other readers of this thread who are thinking
>the same thing.
If only there were millions of other readers, we could make a decent
living playing this game. Since I rejoined the tournament circuit
I'm averaging about eleven cents (6p) per hour of play[1].
--bks
[1] Less gas and beer.
peps...@gmail.com
May 13, 2013, 10:11:59 AM5/13/13
to
On Monday, May 13, 2013 2:33:14 PM UTC+1, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
11 cents an hour sounds quite impressive, in terms of what it says about your ability, because money players tend to be very strong.
Since we're factoring gas and beer into your earnings, have you considered drinking cheaper beer in order to boost your equity?
You're doing well on the gas side if you live in the US where gas is practically free.
Paul Epstein
Since we're factoring gas and beer into your earnings, have you considered drinking cheaper beer in order to boost your equity?
You're doing well on the gas side if you live in the US where gas is practically free.
Paul Epstein
Peter Schneider
May 14, 2013, 12:27:27 PM5/14/13
to
Hi,
On 13.05.2013 06:33, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> If only there were millions of other readers, we could make a decent
> living playing this game. Since I rejoined the tournament circuit
> I'm averaging about eleven cents (6p) per hour of play[1].
>
> --bks
>
> [1] Less gas and beer.
You are drinking while you are playing? Doesn't work for me at all, even
very moderately. Or are you just drowning your sorrows afterwards? ;-)
But then, obviously money is not one of the reasons why you play; some
of the other reasons may indeed benefit from the beer.
Oh, and a remark to Paul's comment elsewhere "gas is practically free in
the US": Much of that is offset by the cars driven here. Our truck makes
a whopping 13 miles per gallon. It has the matching 36 gallon gas tank,
too. I can buy and drain a cup of coffee faster than the average pump
fills the tank.
Peter aka the juggler
On 13.05.2013 06:33, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> If only there were millions of other readers, we could make a decent
> living playing this game. Since I rejoined the tournament circuit
> I'm averaging about eleven cents (6p) per hour of play[1].
>
> --bks
>
> [1] Less gas and beer.
very moderately. Or are you just drowning your sorrows afterwards? ;-)
But then, obviously money is not one of the reasons why you play; some
of the other reasons may indeed benefit from the beer.
Oh, and a remark to Paul's comment elsewhere "gas is practically free in
the US": Much of that is offset by the cars driven here. Our truck makes
a whopping 13 miles per gallon. It has the matching 36 gallon gas tank,
too. I can buy and drain a cup of coffee faster than the average pump
fills the tank.
Peter aka the juggler
Tim Chow
May 15, 2013, 9:30:01 PM5/15/13
to
On May 12, 9:22 am, b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> That is a lot. Although I was going on instinct, in retrospect I
> can say that it was superimportant to me not to get into a straight
> race with this opponent. I felt sure that his early and middle
> game play in situations with a lot of contact was substandard and
> so by making this hyperaggressive (stupid?) play I was shifting the
> universe of possible games to ones where I had a clear advantage.
> Nonstandard plays don't work against gnubg, but I think psychology
> can trump arithmetic against humans.
That's not an unreasonable strategy, but 13/4 may have been a better
> That is a lot. Although I was going on instinct, in retrospect I
> can say that it was superimportant to me not to get into a straight
> race with this opponent. I felt sure that his early and middle
> game play in situations with a lot of contact was substandard and
> so by making this hyperaggressive (stupid?) play I was shifting the
> universe of possible games to ones where I had a clear advantage.
> Nonstandard plays don't work against gnubg, but I think psychology
> can trump arithmetic against humans.
way to carry it out.
---
Tim Chow
Bradley K. Sherman
May 15, 2013, 10:12:11 PM5/15/13
to
Nothing was going to make me break my back checkers up and it just
felt right. I was anticipating a blot-hitting exchange; not
thinking that he would miss the double shot. Would the half-measure
13/4 have been better? Perhaps.
--bks
peps...@gmail.com
May 16, 2013, 4:28:04 AM5/16/13
to
Bradley sacrificed about 0.15 equity. I don't think that's a high price for getting to a position that your opponent seriously misunderstands. It's likely to be repaid by just a single bad checker play from the opponent.
Paul Epstein
0 new messages