Re(2): Chouette Strategy
Bob Hoey
>Any use to you? Personally, I can't see why you'd want to play a chouette
>and sit around waiting to be captain or box. Why not just get another board
>out and play for yourself?
>
>Ian
BH> Ian, you seem to suggest that being in a chouette when you are not the
captain or box, is a passive experience and that there is nothing to do. There
is often a lot of kibitzing in a chouette and most often there are separate
cubes and each player has to be alert for doubling opportunities and making
decisions re: accepting doubles.
The answer why one might get into a chouette rather than just playing head to
head is that Chouettes are often a lot of fun.
Bob
Bob Hoey
> I heard from someone, while
>watching a game, that the captain should be very agressive with the cube so as
>to get in box as soon as possible. Is this true?
BH> Many of the players that I have choued (a word?) with, have been zealous
about retaining the box and let that color their cube decisions. I think this
is foolish. You can win just as well from the team side and the box will come
around again. Cube decisions should be based on the board position and
psychological knowledge of the opposing players, not on whether one will keep
(or get) the box or not.
Albert Steg
Bob_...@mlsonline.com (Bob Hoey) wrote:
> BH>Many of the players that I have choued (a word?) with, have been zealous
> about retaining the box and let that color their cube decisions. I think this
> is foolish.;...
You're absolutely right. Isn't it funny that people might alter their cube
play to get *into* the box (which *would* mean doubling later, not sooner,
as has been pointed out).....for the privilege of then making bad cube
decisions in the attempt to keep it? Dumping equity on both sides!
:-D
Albert
Bob Hoey
>In article <6t6edt$gpn$1...@news2.ispnews.com>,
>Ed M <edNOSPA...@rust.net> wrote:
>
>>I've never played Chouette, but I have heard it is a good way to play with
>>stronger players. It is an equalizer. For example, lets say there are 3
>>stronger players, and you. When you are in the box, you will not have the
>>help of the stronger players. All other times, you will. Keeping things
>>simple, you will have assistance from the stronger players 3/4 of the time.
>>This is why it is an equalizer.
>
>
> From a monetary standpoint, I'm not sure I'd call this situation
>"an equalizer". Sure, 3/4 of the time you're playing for one unit with
>three helpful(?) partners, but 1/4 of the time you're playing for THREE
>units and no "bodyguard". You certainly can LEARN a lot playing in a
>chou with stronger players, but don't expect to come out of it unscathed.
>
>
> Chuck
> bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
> c_ray on FIBS
BH> In most Chouettes that I have been involved in, a player has the option to
pass the box if he chooses. Thus, a weaker player could avoid the risk of
facing the phalanx of experienced players.
Harald Retter
Albert Steg schrieb in Nachricht ...
If you study the peculiarities of your chouette-partners, I think
you get a feeling for their Cube-handling.
Past experience has shown me, that many players in the box
tend to take a captains cube even if they know or think it to
be a marginal pass, just to "fight" for the box.
So I do not see, why it should be "funny" to alter your cube play
in that case. Here I would do my normal cube-decisions in volatile
positions. But in static ones, for example a long race, 100:109, why
ship it over, if you strongly feel he still will take next roll, if
it is e.g. 90:103?
But apart from that, I strongly agree you shouldn't overdo those
chouette-biased actions, a good double remains a good double.
Regards, Harald Retter
cam...@tin.it
as...@tiac.net (Albert Steg) wrote:
> In article <fc.003e902500bdf4ba3b...@mlsonline.com>,
> Bob_...@mlsonline.com (Bob Hoey) wrote:
>
> > BH>Many of the players that I have choued (a word?) with, have been zealous
> > about retaining the box and let that color their cube decisions. I think
this
> > is foolish.;...
>
> You're absolutely right. Isn't it funny that people might alter their cube
> play to get *into* the box (which *would* mean doubling later, not sooner,
> as has been pointed out).....for the privilege of then making bad cube
> decisions in the attempt to keep it? Dumping equity on both sides!
Well this is (like it often happens in backgammon) not just a mathematical
problem. In a post of some time ago lots of people agreed with me that they'd
like to cash a 64-cube, even if the position is a play-on. Someone reported
some test results, where people could choose between losing 50$ or play a
sort of game with 50% probability to lose 100$ and 50% to close equal (not
exactly this but the idea was the same). I think about 90% chose to play.
Thus, when I play backgammon (expecially a chouette) I want to enjoy myself.
I would not take positions I know to be clear drops, but ... you know ...
very often we don't know if a position is a take/pass. Well I admit that to
keep/win the box I will risk some more than usual. After all playing by
yourself is much more funny than arguing with others about some stupid
moves... :-)
Another reason could be that I'm losing in the chouette. Well I will make some
effort to keep the box, as a way to increase the stake and get up.
I think that this is logical and not wrong, in a moderate way. I saw players
taking some 0.900 equity position just to keep the box, and that's clearly
VERY BAD !!! :-)
Carlo Melzi
melzi on FIBS
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Albert Steg
(regarding money-management in chouette play):
> Well this is (like it often happens in backgammon) not just a mathematical
> problem. In a post of some time ago lots of people agreed with me that they'd
> like to cash a 64-cube, even if the position is a play-on....
Well, yes. When a cube gets *that* big, money management might well be a
serious consideration --if not a concern about the effect of a big loss to
yourself, a concern about the willingness of some opponents to pay up.
This does not contradict my earlier point about playing for a stake small
enough to avoid $-pressure affecting your decisions. The reason: if a
64-cube does not make you at least a little bit queasy, then how much
concern could you have had for the game when it started out at only 1
point? If a 64-cube doesn't get your heart-rate up, you're playing for
insufficient stakes to begin with.
After all, how in the world did the cube get to 64? The only people I've
seen or heard of getting frequent cubes at 16 or above are those playing
for stakes less than $1/pt. Ten cents, a quarter -- unless losing five or
ten dollars is a significant blow to the wallet, this sort of tiny stake
leads to silly cube action, and is very bad for anyone trying to master
"proper" cube play.
As an illustration, here are some figures I kept when I first began
playing frequently in a $5 chouette ranging from 3 to 6 players down in
San Antonio several years ago. I kept track of many figures, one of them
being the distribution of my game values (including box wins & losses --
the two "big ones" were box results of +20 and -28):
_Game Worth_ _# of games_
1 point 883
2 points 740
3-4 points 442
5-8 points 125
9-16 points 23
17-32 points 2
Total Games: 2215
Back then my $ was fairly tight, so when I was in the box I was pretty
conservative, probably not doubling alI when I should have (thoughI was
good about taking all when I believed it was right) -- that figure of "2"
in the 17-32pt grouping is pretty small for that many games of chouette.
But otherwise, I think the distribution is probably pretty typical of
"serious" (in the sense of people caring, not necessarily being expert)
chouette play.
My biggest cubes ever have been a couple of 32 cubes, one of which I won a
gammon on, happily. In that case, my opponent took very badly twice and
redoubled terribly once -- because he was already down about 40 pts. on
the scoresheet. In the other case, I allowed three "autos" (again, the
opponent was way down), so that wasn't even a true "32" cube. It was more
of a 4-cube being played for 8 times the original stake. (Oddly, many
players don't realize that by "starting the cube on 8" in, say, a $5 game,
they are really saying, "Lets play for $40/pt!")
I must've played close to 20,000 head-up or chouette $ games in the past
decade (I used to spend a *lot* of late nights in Harvard Square) -- and
not *once* have I had the pleasure of offering, or the horror of
receiving, a 64-cube.
I'm curious how other avid $-players' experiences of cube size compare to mine.
Albert