pips
Peter Schwarzberg
Can anybody tell me about the most easy way to count pips. Is it to
count the pips everytime I need the pip count, is it to keep track of
the pip counting from the beginning of the game and just substract the
number of the dice at every roll, or is it to count the differens
between the men of each player, or ...???
I hope somebody can help me.
Regards,
Peter Schwarzberg
Robert
The best way is to keep a difference total from the beginning and
throughout the game. So if you roll a 3-5 the count is +8 and then your
opponent rolls a 6-5 the count is -3, etc... this is just like a blackjack
count that becomes second nature after you try it for awhile.
Peter Schwarzberg <p...@kms.min.dk> wrote in article
<32DC8C...@kms.min.dk>...
Brian Sheppard
Robert <Had...@richnet.net> wrote in article
<01bb7342$914562e0$6f0a...@IBM.IBM.NET>...
> Peter Schwarzberg <p...@kms.min.dk> wrote in article
> <32DC8C...@kms.min.dk>...
> > Can anybody tell me about the most easy way to count pips. Is it to
> > count the pips everytime I need the pip count, is it to keep track of
> > the pip counting from the beginning of the game and just substract the
> > number of the dice at every roll, or is it to count the differens
> > between the men of each player, or ...???
> >
> The best way is to keep a difference total from the beginning and
> throughout the game. So if you roll a 3-5 the count is +8 and then your
> opponent rolls a 6-5 the count is -3, etc... this is just like a
blackjack
> count that becomes second nature after you try it for awhile.
This seems excessive. I doubt that you need to know the exact pip
count to make good decisions, so why bother? (You don't have to answer
this question; I know your system works for you :)
I recommend relying on a gut feel for who is ahead or behind until
racing equity is actually required. Then do an exact count using
either the symmetry method or by grouping men.
Symmetry Method
---------------
You create a correspondence between each of you men and the opponent's
men that has the closest pip count. Just keep a running total of the
differences between those men.
This system has the disadvantage that you don't know the length of the
race, just the difference.
Grouping Men
------------
Count up each side, taking advantage of the clustering of groups around
central points. An example is helpful:
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Here we have 12 men, centered around the 5.5 point, so their total pip
count is 12 * 5.5 = 66 pips.
In using this system, when you don't have a clear central grouping,
you can often shift men by a point or two so as to create one. For
example:
X
X
X X X X X
X X X X X
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
If two men on the 5-point were moved to the 4-point, we would have
the previous situation, so this situation must be 2 pips more (68 pips).
Pick either the Symmetry Method or the Grouping Men method, depending
on the shape of the board. Sometimes one is easier.
Either is easier than keeping a running total. A running total involves
an addition or subtraction on every turn, and the average game lasts
50 turns (cubeless) apiece, so you have 100 additions and subtractions.
And when a man is hit you have additional work to do.
Both the Symmetry Method and the Grouping Men method yield an accurate
pip count in a handful of additions and multiplications. And since
a pipcount isn't even needed in most games, you have a tremendous
gain in mental efficiency by only computing it when you need it.
Brian
Robert
Compared to Blackjack, where I make a mental calculation every second or so
for hours at a time, making an addition or subtraction only every move is
so easy that it actually becomes boring. Your ideas would work well for
somewone who's mind is not already trained for this sort of mental
counting.
Ron Karr
The difference is that in blackjack, counting is the be-all and
end-all. Without counting you have no edge. You must count in real
time; there's no chance to do a re-count. And making an error can hurt
you a lot.
In backgammon you have a lot more important things to do than keep a
constant pip count. Like thinking about your overall game plan,
figuring out at what point you're going to double or take, noticing how
certain numbers play, etc.... Counting pips during many types of games,
such as prime vs prime or backgames, would be a waste of energy.
And there's no need for it since the board is always right in front of
you. If the position is such that a pip count is needed, do it then.
For example, if you get to a non-contact position, count the race, and
THEN keep a running count from there. That will tend to be less
distracting, because usually your plays aren't too difficult in races.
As far as techniques, Brian Sheppard pointed out some good ones. There
are others. Pick something that works and practice it. Like counting
in blackjack, it's possible with practice to get to the point where you
can count the board quickly when you need to.
Ron
Peter Bell
<
< In backgammon you have a lot more important things to do than keep a
< constant pip count. Like thinking about your overall game plan,
< figuring out at what point you're going to double or take, noticing how
< certain numbers play, etc.... Counting pips during many types of games,
< such as prime vs prime or backgames, would be a waste of energy.
<
While I certainly don't advocate keeping an exact running total of pips, I
also think that the status of the race is a critical element of nearly any
position.
In my opinion, you have to have *some* idea about whether you are ahead or
behind, and by how much, to make good checker play decisions (safe play
vs. bold play) and cube decisions.
As for backgames and priming games, timing is of overriding importance in
these games. I will often do an exact pip count in a priming game
(*ignoring* the runners, which are mostly trapped) to figure out who has
more timing. If I have a timing advantage of more than 10 pips on my
roll, I'm going to think about turning the cube.
Similarly for back games ... if I'm playing one, I use the pip count of my
non-runners, and subtract the pip count of my opponent's *spares*. If
this number gets to be less than 35, I'm probably going to drop a double.
The ideal approach is probably Kit Woolsey's, who apparently can get an
accurate pip count for each player, within a few pips, just by looking! I
haven't put him to the test, but have no reason not to believe him.
However, until you have a few thousand games under your belt, you
certainly shouldn't feel bad about counting pips.
Thanks,
Peter Bell