2-1 as an opening move.
Dick Adams
1) 24-23; 13-12; or
2) 6-5; 13-12
Analysis appreciated.
Dick
Gregg Cattanach
better at GammonGo, and slotting is probably better for money because
of the increased gammons won. At GammonSave, splitting is better. In
raw equity numbers for money the two plays differ by less than .005,
so it really is a pick-em.
Gregg C.
rda...@smart.net (Dick Adams) wrote in message news:<vslt4l...@corp.supernews.com>...
Nathaniel Gibson
complex positions and backgames. In money play the two are roughly equal.
Match play is a little different.
Slotting 6-5 is more agressive, and is often seen in situations where you
are far behind in a match score (for example, down 4-0 or worse in a race to
7) and winning a gammon is necessary to get back into the match. Bots tend
to play the split 24-23 because they don't understand backgames near as well
as humans do (although it's my understanding that Snowie 4 now prefers the
slot to the split with 2-1 due to it's increased understanding of backgames,
and still splits with 4-1 and 5-1). The slot play, while netting more
gammons, will cause you to play more backgames when the checker gets hit.
Just my 2c.
Nathaniel Gibson
natl...@comcast.net
"Dick Adams" <rda...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:vslt4l...@corp.supernews.com...
rugcutter
Slotting is more fun!
"Dick Adams" <rda...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:vslt4l...@corp.supernews.com...
Michael Sullivan
> Both are acceptable, just depends on your style of play and understanding of
> complex positions and backgames. In money play the two are roughly equal.
> Match play is a little different.
>
> Slotting 6-5 is more agressive, and is often seen in situations where you
> are far behind in a match score (for example, down 4-0 or worse in a race to
> 7) and winning a gammon is necessary to get back into the match. Bots tend
> to play the split 24-23 because they don't understand backgames near as well
> as humans do (although it's my understanding that Snowie 4 now prefers the
> slot to the split with 2-1 due to it's increased understanding of backgames,
> and still splits with 4-1 and 5-1). The slot play, while netting more
> gammons, will cause you to play more backgames when the checker gets hit.
This has been discussed on Gammonline recently, and it seems like the
strongest players have pretty much come to a consensus that slotting is
slightly better at even match scores/money for 2-1, and slightly
inferior for 4-1, 5-1. The reason is the ideal placement of the builder
on the 11, 6 points away from the slotted 5, vs. on the 9 which is such
a powerful builder that there is a lot of duplication, or the 8, which
leaves you only a bit better than 50/50 to cover if not hit.
Slotting is a gammon-hunting play on 4-1 or 5-1, best only when behind,
or gammons are more valuable than usual. Slotting at 2-1 stands quite
well on it's own, except at scores where *losing* the gammon is more
problematic than usual.
Even at 3a-3a, which is slightly gammon-sensitive, slotting rolls out
slightly better. That said, it's clearly close enough to be a matter of
preference.
Michael
Douglas Zare
Michael Sullivan wrote:
> This has been discussed on Gammonline recently, and it seems like the
> strongest players have pretty much come to a consensus that slotting is
> slightly better at even match scores/money for 2-1, and slightly
> inferior for 4-1, 5-1.
I don't think there is a consensus. One of the recent threads there
asked about 3-away 3-away, and according to long rollouts
slotting is more right with 2-1 at 3-away 3-away than for money,
perhaps by enough to call splitting an error at 3-away 3-away.
For money, though, I think people would be surprised if one of
the alternatives were clearly better than the other.
> The reason is the ideal placement of the builder
> on the 11, 6 points away from the slotted 5, vs. on the 9 which is such
> a powerful builder that there is a lot of duplication, or the 8, which
> leaves you only a bit better than 50/50 to cover if not hit.
After slotting with 5-1, in addition to 1s and 3s (20 numbers)
you can also cover with 8s (4 additional rolls, though covering
with 2-2 is inefficient), 5-2 makes the 3 point, and sometimes
5-4 makes the ace point. That's up to 28 numbers making use of
the slot to create a new inner board point. Other numbers
(6-4, 6-6, 5-5, 5-6, and 4-2) leave the point slotted, and if it was
reasonable on the first roll, it usually isn't so bad on the second
roll.
Slotting with 5-1 gets hit on all 4s except for 1-1, which is better
played elsewhere, but 3-1 and 4-2 are duplicated. This
duplication is more important than most players think. I still
tend to split with 5-1, though.
> Slotting is a gammon-hunting play on 4-1 or 5-1, best only when behind,
> or gammons are more valuable than usual. Slotting at 2-1 stands quite
> well on it's own, except at scores where *losing* the gammon is more
> problematic than usual.
I think the slot with 4-1 is fine at DMP.
I don't think slotting wins as many gammons as people expect,
since getting a third checker sent back makes blitzing extremely
difficult.
It is clearly wrong to slot if your opponent has a free drop,
at post-Crawford 2-away or 4-away, for example. Then
slotting means that your opponent will have a huge take if
the slot is hit, and probably a big pass otherwise, rather than
a close decision most of the time after a split.
Although people argue that slotting makes the game more
complicated, I think this argument is far stronger in other
situations, such as for making the deuce point on an opening
6-4. People rarely make significant errors on the response
to a slot, but _most_ players misplay several responses to
8/2 6/2. Although Snowie 4 dislikes making the deuce point
on the level of evaluations, its rollouts say the play is fine,
and that Snowie consistently undervalues the blitz in the
opening.
Douglas Zare
J
Splitting is lightly equipped and skillful - slotting is heavy and
oppressive.
If you need a gammon - you'll find one.
"Dick Adams" <rda...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:vslt4l...@corp.supernews.com...