Continuity in game and perception of luck
muratk
| X X X O O | | O O | 0 points
| X O O | | O | Rolled 65
| O | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
^| |BAR| |
1)
| | | |
| O | | |
| O X | | X X |
| O X X | | X X O |
| O X X | | X X O | 0 points
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ X: Joe
I just pasted the above position from another post just to attract
some
of you dumb shits' attention... :))
Now then, let's get down to our issues. First, a few questions for our
resident experts, bot worshippers, world class gamblers, et. al.
By looking at the above position:
1) Can you tell whether Jack or Joe is the superior player?
2) Can you tell how they arrived at this position? In other words, can
you tell whether Jack and/or Joe made the best move in even just the
previous move?
3) Can you tell whether the last roll for Jack and/or Joe was lucky or
unlucky according to bots or word class sick gamblers?
I bet you can't and you shouldn't feel bad about it because the bots
and the people you worship can't either...
And what will happen next has nothing to do with what has happened!
I have been trying to argue that because of this this, the teachings
of
extraterrestrial robots and world class sick gamblers lead to what I
call a "sterile game", which is far from being the best way of
playing.
And in fact, if you are a decent player who can understand what I'm
talking about and at believe it at least half-heartedly, you would do
well against those inbred clowns beyond your wildest expectations.
For a human, there is continuity in the game. For a bot, there isn't.
For a human there may be a "plan b" (and god forbid a "plan c" if
they are really good). For a bot, there is only the option of making
the best of each position, one step at a time.
However, when our resident experts talk about "luck", they often
argue that the better players (i.e. extraterrestrial robot or earth
class
sick gambler) seem to be lucky because play in a way to maximize
the better use of the next roll.
Well, one thing they forget is how can that be possible if there is no
continuity in the game.
For example, in the above depicted position, suppose that Jack rolls
a "lucky" dice. If he made the best move previously, does he now
somehow "deserve" this "lucky" roll because of his past superior
play? What if Joe rolls an equally "lucky" roll? Is he somehow more
lucky than Jack because he had blundered (according to our scums)
in his previous move?
You see, you can't have you shit and eat it too... You have to chose!
But I know I am wasting my breath as I have been doing for many a
years by now... :((
What I write won't register with 90% of you dumb shits simply because
you don't have to pay for it.
Well, heck, I had owed Michael Crane an article for his BIBA. There
you
have it... :))))
MK
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
> [...]
>
>What I write won't register with 90% of you dumb shits
Probably not.
>simply because
>you don't have to pay for it.
But I wonder if that's the reason.
David C. Ullrich
donzaemon
The randomness of the dice tend to 'obscure' and 'normalize' things so it's
sometimes hard to derive the exact patters that happened but even though it
is difficult to tell who is stronger by looking at any given static
position, a stronger player will arrive at better equity positions more
often.
You say there is no continuity for a bot , but , if that were really true ,
any position would be just as good as any other for them would it not ?
Why are some positions better than others ? Could it be that maybe the past
and the future for them are kind of integrated into their function
(neuralnet) for assigning equity ?
It also sounds kind of silly when you attempt to argue that the idea of
maximizing your good rolls and minimizing your bad ones is not valid.
If I took that a step or two further I could almost venture to say that you
would have to throw the concepts of diversification and duplication (along
with some others) out the window in order to uphold that crazy whim.
Maybe you need to slow down and get back to the concept that in backgammon
we do things for the probable result , not for any specific outcome.
Finding the best probable result usually involves taking a look into the
future whether it's a bot that has been trained , or a human counting out
his good and bad rolls , or a human going by a visual pattern of the
position , or human comparing a pipcount or using tools like thorp or ward
etc. it all involves getting the best snapshot of the future , then when
the dice throw you off course , you do it again . Without this
'continuity' you might as well just be moving checkers at random.
Playing at a higher level is like playing with more 'information' , so you
can argue that diversifying your good numbers and duplicating your bad ones
is not a part of luck , it's a part of skill , and you'd probably be right
, but that will not keep opponents from calling it luck when they see that
you quite often have more usable rolls than they do and don't see why ...
and veterans follow in calling it 'luck' in order to explain it in a way
that is understandable and not so confrontational.
So you are basically calling everyone dumb shits over the matter of a label,
not the concept it defines, which makes reconsider who the dumbshit really
is.
"muratk" <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote in message
news:bd1e1383-88a7-4d4c...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
PersianLord
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent explanation, but too bad that our retarded anthropoid is
unable to grasp the idea.
muratk
> You say there is no continuity for a bot , but , if that were really true ,
> any position would be just as good as any other for them would it not ?
I don't understand what you mean. Would you care to expand??
> Culd it be that maybe the past and the future for them are kind of
> integrated into their function (neuralnet) for assigning equity ?
How so? This is different than what I'm talking about but even then I
have pointed out "more than too many times already" the contradiction
in your line of argument.
By training (i.e. "experience"), bots know that when one side reaches
51% chance of winning, this fact will not change after 4 billion dice
rolls...
So why does gnudung and other world class gamblers scums, for example,
still play on past the first few dice rolls, after their opponents
reach 51% chance of winning...??
No dumb shits, or smart shits or persian cocksuckers ever answered
this question...!!
Forget about the world class gamblers anonymous sickos, but at least
we know that bots are predictable and they don't adjust their plays
according to the strength of their opponents. It may be better to say
that they are incapable of doing so...!
Bots assume that their opponents are as strong as themselves. So, why
do they play on after reaching a stage where they are the 49% loser..?
Their opponents will not make any more mistakes than they will and
luck surely is not a factor when talking about neural net training
which has become synonymous with 4 billion games thanks to some world
class cocksuckers in this newsgroup.
So, can anybody answer why...??
> It also sounds kind of silly when you attempt to argue that the idea of
> maximizing your good rolls and minimizing your bad ones is not valid.
I didn't quite argue that. What I argued is that "it is not ALWAYS the
best move". Or yet, a human has the freedom to believe so and may try
weird things like making inferior moves to sucker his opponent into
worse positions which the bots are not capable of (regardless of the
outcome)...
If such attempts occasionally succeed, you may dismiss them but what
if somebody argues that his such attempts succeed "in the long
haul"..?
> If I took that a step or two further I could almost venture to say that you
> would have to throw the concepts of diversification and duplication (along
> with some others) out the window in order to uphold that crazy whim.
Not at all. Just like you guys argue that the better player will
recover
from bad luck in the long run, I am arguing that a better player will
also
recover from *purposefully* made inferior moves in the long run...
For the better player, trying to sucker his weaker opponent by an
inferior
move will succeed more often than not... I would like to see some
arguments
on this very subject...
> Finding the best probable result usually involves taking a look into the
> future whether it's a bot that has been trained , or a human counting out
> his good and bad rolls , or a human going by a visual pattern of the
> position , or human comparing a pipcount or using tools like thorp or ward
> etc. it all involves getting the best snapshot of the future
Fine, you can have all that... Now, can you give me that I recognize a
correlation between the dice gnudung rolls and how it plays..? Can
you..?
If not, how about giving me an opportunity to show it to you...? (I
guess
I'm getting serious about things now, or else I would have asked for
an
opportunity to "shove it up your dumb ass"... But, you still have the
choice... :))))
> the dice throw you off course , you do it again . Without this
> 'continuity' you might as well just be moving checkers at random.
What is the big fucking difference between random dice and random
moves?
Did you hear that question laud enough...??!!
I have said here more than enough times that I often make varying
moves
(especially opening moves) just to break the monotony and/or out of
curiosity to see what will happen next...?
Just imagine that the *purposefully* bad move that you made was
instead
a forced move because of a bad dice roll...
The question is, are you a good enough player to recover from it...??
> So you are basically calling everyone dumb shits over the matter of a label,
> not the concept it defines, which makes reconsider who the dumbshit really
> is.
I have to confess that I truly believe that the majority of people in
this
newsgroup are indeed dumb shits. And I do use such expressions on
purpose
to turn them off, because the dumb shits are the first ones to feel
offenden
and I really don't want to waste my time discussing with them anyway.
So, it
is a way of culling out the participants in a meaningful discussion...
Thanks for your effort to contribute to the subject and I hope you and
others
will keep it going...
MK
PersianLord
> On May 31, 5:30 pm, PersianLord <sharifaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Excellent explanation, but too bad that our retarded anthropoid is
> > unable to grasp the idea.
>
> will to contribute to the subject, which is much much much more
> than the one-liner the likes of you scum are capable of...!!
>
> Just tell me that your father was a greek faggot and you mother
> was a persian whore and I will forgive you sick hatred towards
> me... :))
>
> MK
You half-brained ape are so optimistic. You expect me and others to
contribute to your stupid questions and at the same time you call us
"cocksuckers","asskissers","dumb shits" and other derogatory words
which really suit you yourself (and surely your AtaGay as well). The
1st thing you should try to do in order to improve your game is to get
a working, undamaged brain, not asking such bullshit questions here.