Match to 5 cube action

Walt

unread,

Apr 30, 2012, 7:20:22 PM4/30/12

to

XGID=--cBEBB------Ba--b-bcbb-AA:0:0:-1:00:1:2:0:5:10

X:Expert O:O
Score is X:2 O:1 5 pt.(s) match.
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O X |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X |
| O X | | X X X X |
| O X X | | X X X X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 137 O: 123 X-O: 2-1/5
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

Do you cube as X? Do you take as O?

//Walt

Stick

unread,

May 2, 2012, 2:44:57 AM5/2/12

to

The score is of huge importance here so I wanted to make sure that
nobody overlooked it since due to the face of rgb it is easy to do.
It's 3 away 4 away with the 3 away player on roll.

Stick

Grunty

unread,

May 5, 2012, 9:09:33 AM5/5/12

to

No takers for this problem so far..?

> Do you cube as X?

No.
This is a dangerous position, for both sides. Gammons very likely.
This should make the leading side (X) be more cautious with the cube
than at an even score (or moneygame). Moreso, the opponent being right
at 4 points away from the match.

Three is just too many checkers yet to bring forward, enough time for
O to enter and threaten them.

I think X must wait one more roll and reassess. He has excellent
prospects to improve on either side of the board. Large numbers will
mobilize his back checkers. Short numbers will bring more builders for
the open inner points. Only then he could think of doubling.

> Do you take as O?

Of course.

Despite the ugly stack on the 4-point, O's board is as imposing as
X's. Being this game so gammonish, O has more to gain (2 extra points,
and the match) than X (1 extra point for the match, 1 extra point
wasted).

O would love to have one of those stacked checkers somewhere back
indeed. That would allow him to enter from the bar and move 2's, 4's
or perhaps 5's in a safer way, without having to break the mid-point.
This fact, and O being on the bar, are the factors that allow X start
thinking (actually dreaming at this point) of doubling.

mu...@compuplus.net

unread,

May 6, 2012, 2:39:45 AM5/6/12

to

On Saturday, May 5, 2012 7:09:33 AM UTC-6, Grunty wrote:

> > Score is X:2 O:1 5 pt.(s) match.
> > +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> > | | | O O O O X |
> > | | | O O O O X |
> > | | | O X |
> > | | | O |
> > | | | O |
> > | |BAR| |
> > | | O | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | X |
> > | O X | | X X X X |
> > | O X X | | X X X X O |
> > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > Pip count X: 137 O: 123 X-O: 2-1/5
> > Cube: 1
> > X on roll, cube action
>
> No takers for this problem so far..?

The first thing that crossed my mind was: "How can the cube be still at 1?" Surely this can't be the first position where the players contemplated cube action?? So, then, why was there no cube action before this stage in the game???

MK

Grunty

unread,

May 8, 2012, 11:43:35 AM5/8/12

to

On 6 mayo, 03:39, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:
> The first thing that crossed my mind was: "How can the cube be still at 1?"
> Surely this can't be the first position where the players contemplated cube action??

Probably there could be occasions where the players contemplated cube
action, but they assessed it as insufficient.

> So, then, why was there no cube action before this stage in the game???

Mutual priming games don't usually offer opportunities of an effective
cube move during its development.
Until a lucky hit (in this example there have been an exchange) or a
sudden big disbalance in timing awakes the players' attention.

Walt

unread,

May 9, 2012, 12:30:39 PM5/9/12

to

The double should be pretty clear. O is on the bar with a blot exposed
on the ace, and X has 12 checkers in the zone. X has some work to do to
bring the runners around, so it's not too good.

AtS, it's a take - presumably due to the recube vig and the
neutralization of gammons. At 0-0 to 5, it's a pass.

Neither take decision is particularly close.

I was playing O here and passed because it looked like one. I didn't
realize how much the match score changes things.

XGID=aa-BBCB-B--Ab------bbebC--:0:0:1:00:2:1:0:5:10

X:Player 2 O:Player 1

Score is X:2 O:1 5 pt.(s) match.
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O X |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X |
| O X | | X X X X |
| O X X | | X X X X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 137 O: 123 X-O: 2-1/5
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

Analyzed in Rollout
No double
Player Winning Chances: 68.53% (G:30.07% B:2.16%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 31.47% (G:10.00% B:1.08%)
Double/Take
Player Winning Chances: 68.75% (G:29.88% B:4.19%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 31.25% (G:10.61% B:1.42%)

Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.800, Double=+1.348

Cubeful Equities:
No double: +0.794 (-0.082)
Double/Take: +0.876
Double/Pass: +1.000 (+0.124)

Best Cube action: Double / Take

Rollout:
1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
Confidence No Double: ą 0.016 (+0.778..+0.810)
Confidence Double: ą 0.026 (+0.850..+0.902)

Double Decision confidence: 100.0%
Take Decision confidence: 100.0%

Duration: 16 minutes 41 seconds

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.03, MET: Kazaross XG2

////////////////// 0-0 to 5 ///////////////////////////////

XGID=aa-BBCB-B--Ab------bbebC--:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:5:10

X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0 5 pt.(s) match.

+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O X |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| | | X |
| O X | | X X X X |
| O X X | | X X X X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+

Pip count X: 137 O: 123 X-O: 0-0/5

Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

Analyzed in Rollout
No double
Player Winning Chances: 68.32% (G:30.29% B:1.70%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 31.68% (G:10.29% B:0.91%)
Double/Take
Player Winning Chances: 68.60% (G:31.35% B:1.95%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 31.40% (G:10.65% B:1.06%)

Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.559, Double=+1.249

Cubeful Equities:
No double: +0.856 (-0.144)
Double/Take: +1.078 (+0.078)
Double/Pass: +1.000

Best Cube action: Double / Pass

Rollout:
1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
Confidence No Double: ą 0.013 (+0.843..+0.869)
Confidence Double: ą 0.019 (+1.058..+1.097)

Double Decision confidence: 100.0%
Take Decision confidence: 100.0%

Duration: 13 minutes 14 seconds

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.03, MET: Kazaross XG2

mu...@compuplus.net

unread,

May 11, 2012, 6:03:46 AM5/11/12

to

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:43:35 AM UTC-6, Grunty wrote:
.

> On 6 mayo, 03:39, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:

.

>> The first thing that crossed my mind was: "How can the cube
>> be still at 1?" Surely this can't be the first position where
>> the players contemplated cube action??

.

> Probably there could be occasions where the players contemplated
> cube action, but they assessed it as insufficient.

Can we have the entire match posted here or some web site? It
look very unlikely to me that this game would reach this stage
without missed cube errors.

I wouldn't care about the human player's errors but apparently
one of the players is a bot. So, are you saying that the bot
made cube errors...?

>> So, then, why was there no cube action before this stage in the game???

> Mutual priming games don't usually offer opportunities of an effective
> cube move during its development.

How can you make such a statements without knowing how the players got to this particular position?

Was it mutual priming by choice? As usual, all you guys can offer is hot air based on assumptions...

> Until a lucky hit (in this example there have been an exchange) or a
> sudden big disbalance in timing awakes the players' attention.

Sorry to interrupt your high level discussion. You are all "probably" right... :))

MK

Grunty

unread,

May 11, 2012, 9:37:05 AM5/11/12

to

On May 11, 07:03, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:43:35 AM UTC-6, Grunty wrote:
> .

> > On May 6, 03:39, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:
> .
> >> The first thing that crossed my mind was: "How can the cube
> >> be still at 1?" Surely this can't be the first position where
> >> the players contemplated cube action??
> .
> > Probably there could be occasions where the players contemplated
> > cube action, but they assessed it as insufficient.
>
> Can we have the entire match posted here or some web site? It
> look very unlikely to me that this game would reach this stage
> without missed cube errors.

Reread your own words.
Before:

> >> Surely this can't be the first position where the players contemplated cube action??

Now:

> > It look very unlikely to me that this game would reach this stage without missed cube errors.

I hope you're aware of the difference between saying "contemplated
cube action" and saying "missed cube errors".

> I wouldn't care about the human player's errors but apparently
> one of the players is a bot. So, are you saying that the bot
> made cube errors...?

No, you just imagined I said that :-)

> >> So, then, why was there no cube action before this stage in the game???
> > Mutual priming games don't usually offer opportunities of an effective
> > cube move during its development.
>
> How can you make such a statements without knowing how the players got to this particular position?

Practicing the same exercise you proposed in a recent thread.

> Was it mutual priming by choice?

Yeah, priming intercourse on mutual consent LOL.

> As usual, all you guys can offer is hot air based on assumptions...

Again, practicing the same exercise you proposed in a recent thread.

mu...@compuplus.net

unread,

May 12, 2012, 6:59:57 AM5/12/12

to

On Friday, May 11, 2012 7:37:05 AM UTC-6, Grunty wrote:

> Reread your own words.
> Before:
>>>> Surely this can't be the first position where the players contemplated cube action??
> Now:
>>> It look very unlikely to me that this game would reach this stage without missed cube errors.
>
> I hope you're aware of the difference between saying "contemplated
> cube action" and saying "missed cube errors".

Yes, there is a difference. So, what? Do you think there is a contradiction? Well, there isn't.

For the cube to be still at 1 in such a position, all of the previous contemplated cube actions must have resulted in a "no double" decision, and I find that very unlikely.

I would bet money that one or mre of those cube decisions was/were errors.

See? No contradiction at all... :)

>> I wouldn't care about the human player's errors but apparently
>> one of the players is a bot. So, are you saying that the bot
>> made cube errors...?
>
> No, you just imagined I said that :-)

Okay, fair enough. So, who were the players?

>> How can you make such a statements without knowing how the players got to this particular position?
>
> Practicing the same exercise you proposed in a recent thread.

You musty have misunderstood the point of my previous article about whether there is such a continuity in a game to say that the better player deserves luck, (i.e. being able to make use of a future roll as a joker) because he used his current dice roll in order to make better use out of future rolls. A totally different argument...

>> Was it mutual priming by choice?
>
> Yeah, priming intercourse on mutual consent LOL.

Watch out though. Intercourse on mutual consent between faggots is still against the law in many states in america... ;)

>> As usual, all you guys can offer is hot air based on assumptions...
>
> Again, practicing the same exercise you proposed in a recent thread.

Again, you misunderstood the point of my previous article. Try to reread and understand it without preconceived conclusions...

So, if one of the players was a bot, I still would like to know how this game came to this stage without previous cube error(s) by the bot.

If the both players were human, ignore my curiosity. It doesn't matter then.

MK