Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Any worldclass achievers with bad "error rates"?
115 views
Skip to first unread message
mu...@compuplus.net
Oct 28, 2012, 4:33:28 PM10/28/12
to
Searching on the Internet, I see that various efforts
are being made to come up with a list of top players,
based on various criteria. I also see that a great
importance is given to bot measured error rates by
some people.
What I would like to know is if there are reliable
and significant data to show how much correspondence
there is between top achievement and bot error rates.
Since there are no backgammon Olympics for amateur
players, and since apparently all gamblers live in a
concocted world of their own, striving to play just
like the bots, any data will necessarily be grossly
skewed.
But occasionally there must be some players with poor
bot error rates, who may be considered to have won
undeservedly by the "consensus", no?
Surely, others must have asked this question before
but I wasn't able to find any data or discussion on
the subject. Any leads would be appreciated.
MK
are being made to come up with a list of top players,
based on various criteria. I also see that a great
importance is given to bot measured error rates by
some people.
What I would like to know is if there are reliable
and significant data to show how much correspondence
there is between top achievement and bot error rates.
Since there are no backgammon Olympics for amateur
players, and since apparently all gamblers live in a
concocted world of their own, striving to play just
like the bots, any data will necessarily be grossly
skewed.
But occasionally there must be some players with poor
bot error rates, who may be considered to have won
undeservedly by the "consensus", no?
Surely, others must have asked this question before
but I wasn't able to find any data or discussion on
the subject. Any leads would be appreciated.
MK
mu...@compuplus.net
Oct 30, 2012, 5:56:55 AM10/30/12
to
MK
Tim Chow
Oct 31, 2012, 10:56:29 AM10/31/12
to
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:33:28 PM UTC-4, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:
> But occasionally there must be some players with poor
> bot error rates, who may be considered to have won
> undeservedly by the "consensus", no?
Ray Fogerlund is sometimes cited as an example. But his bot error rate isn't that bad. Similarly, in Japan, Kenji wins a lot although he doesn't have the lowest error rate---but again, his error rate isn't that poor either.
> But occasionally there must be some players with poor
> bot error rates, who may be considered to have won
> undeservedly by the "consensus", no?
The problem is that the way most backgammon tournaments are set up, there's so much luck that it's very hard to win consistently, error rate or no error rate. The only way to win a lot is to play a lot. And I mean A LOT. There just aren't that many people who are prepared to play in that many tournaments. It costs a lot of money to fly around and pay all those entry fees. So you're just not looking at that large a pool of people.
There are undoubtedly players who do well in chouettes that play poorly according to the bot, but it's hard to know for sure because money games are rarely recorded.
---
Tim Chow
peps...@gmail.com
Oct 31, 2012, 7:34:34 PM10/31/12
to
Il giorno mercoledì 31 ottobre 2012 14:56:29 UTC, Tim Chow ha scritto:
>
>
> There are undoubtedly players who do well in chouettes that play poorly according to the bot, but it's hard to know for sure because money games are rarely recorded.
>
Yes, normally correct chouette play will result in giving yourself an atrocious bot rating. Very few chouette players are sufficiently bankrolled to take correct cubes, and very many are steaming. So it's very common for the box to drop a cube that's a clear hold. Also cube play that takes advantage of steamers won't be bot-optimal. Even when your opponent will definitely take, many holds are practical doubles because your opponent might not be sufficiently bankrolled to recube.
>
>
> There are undoubtedly players who do well in chouettes that play poorly according to the bot, but it's hard to know for sure because money games are rarely recorded.
>
The standard in chouette play is very often pathetic, and when taking part, it makes no sense to compare the cube actions with what a bot would do.
Paul Epstein
mu...@compuplus.net
Nov 1, 2012, 5:43:09 AM11/1/12
to
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:56:29 AM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:
> On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:33:28 PM UTC-4, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:
>> But occasionally there must be some players with poor
>> bot error rates, who may be considered to have won
>> undeservedly by the "consensus", no?
> Ray Fogerlund is sometimes cited as an example. But his
> bot error rate isn't that bad. Similarly, in Japan, Kenji
> wins a lot although he doesn't have the lowest error rate
>---but again, his error rate isn't that poor either.
Thanks Chow, I appreciate the info. I'm sorry I can't call
> On Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:33:28 PM UTC-4, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:
>> But occasionally there must be some players with poor
>> bot error rates, who may be considered to have won
>> undeservedly by the "consensus", no?
> Ray Fogerlund is sometimes cited as an example. But his
> bot error rate isn't that bad. Similarly, in Japan, Kenji
> wins a lot although he doesn't have the lowest error rate
>---but again, his error rate isn't that poor either.
you Tim (yet) because I have this personal problem that
after I address someone by their first name, I really have
a hard time calling them cocksucking assholes, etc... So,
I think I'll be conservative for now... ;)
> The problem is that the way most backgammon tournaments
> are set up, there's so much luck that it's very hard to
> win consistently, error rate or no error rate. The only
> way to win a lot is to play a lot. And I mean A LOT.
> There just aren't that many people who are prepared to
> play in that many tournaments. It costs a lot of money
> to fly around and pay all those entry fees. So you're
> just not looking at that large a pool of people.
"incestuous small circle" from Patti 15-16 years ago. But I
was still searching, just in case some meaningful data had
been collected since then.
So, I'll just leave it as "this is what it is" and not waste
time re-philosophizing about related matters... Maybe we will
eventually get a chance to do that in the future??
> There are undoubtedly players who do well in chouettes that
> play poorly according to the bot, but it's hard to know for
> sure because money games are rarely recorded.
I am missing much. It always sounds like a "cute french word"
to me... :)
MK
Grunty
Nov 1, 2012, 11:28:14 AM11/1/12
to
On 1 nov, 06:43, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:56:29 AM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:
> > [snip]
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 8:56:29 AM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:
>
> Okay, I kind of knew this since I first heard the expression
> "incestuous small circle" from Patti 15-16 years ago. But I
> was still searching, just in case some meaningful data had
> been collected since then.
>
> Okay, I kind of knew this since I first heard the expression
> "incestuous small circle" from Patti 15-16 years ago. But I
> was still searching, just in case some meaningful data had
> been collected since then.
>
> > There are undoubtedly players who do well in chouettes that
> > play poorly according to the bot, but it's hard to know for
> > sure because money games are rarely recorded.
>
> I have no idea what chouettes is and I somehow don't feel like
> I am missing much. It always sounds like a "cute french word"
> to me... :)
Tim actually meant "chowettes," in reference to his own "incestuous
> > play poorly according to the bot, but it's hard to know for
> > sure because money games are rarely recorded.
>
> I have no idea what chouettes is and I somehow don't feel like
> I am missing much. It always sounds like a "cute french word"
> to me... :)
small circle," group of friends he use to play bg with.
mu...@compuplus.net
Nov 8, 2012, 7:43:22 AM11/8/12
to
MK
0 new messages