peps...@gmail.com
unread,Feb 10, 2024, 12:47:24 PMFeb 10You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Tim posted a clip in another thread of Gus Hansen against Bob Koca.
Naturally, I watched the clip, heard the commentary and ordered the t-shirt.
The commentators (one of them) made a claim that in a gammonless
position at 3A 1A post-Crawford, the leader's take point is only 1%.
At time of writing, I haven't checked this. The purpose of this post is
to verify this in real time. (My real time anyway -- it won't be real time if
you're reading this later.)
Dropping gives a 2A 1A post-Crawford position. This free drop position
gives the leader 51.2% winning changces according to Rockwell-Kazaross.
Let x be the match-leader's game-winning probability and select x
so that the match-winning chances from dropping and taking are the same.
Such an x will be the take-point -- the point at which dropping and taking
are equally good.
Dropping leads to 51.2% but what does taking lead to?
Clearly, x will be part of the answer.
Taking leads to a match-winning-probability (for the match-leader)
of x + (1-x)/2. This is because the match winning possibilities are to
win immediately (x) or to lose and win the final game (1/x)/2.
So x + (1 - x)/2 = 51.2%.
(x + 1)/2 = 51.2%
x/2 = 1.2%
So x = 2.4%
This is absolutely miles away from the commentator's "one percent".
Bear in mind that these computations use a very low estimate for
the value of a free drop. So x might well be even larger.
The commentary was just major bullshit!
If Trump loses the presidential election, should we bring him in as a
backgammon commentator? He wouldn't be able to do any harm that
way, and if spreading bullshit is the main qualification, he might be
an ideal candidate.
Paul