tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886491474303385529.post6626528174600486345..comments2023-04-22T09:22:21.628-07:00Comments on the dorbel daily: Back With A Blunderdorbelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13383981659478145403noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886491474303385529.post-33219855924684624052011-11-12T15:12:54.677-08:002011-11-12T15:12:54.677-08:00Thanks for pointing out that feature of XG, Paul! ...Thanks for pointing out that feature of XG, Paul! I hadn't paid any attention to it before. In my case, 23% of my equity loss comes from cube decisions, 7% from missed doubles, and 7.5% from wrong takes and passes combined. So while about 45% of your equity loss from cube decisions comes from missed doubles, only about 30% of mine does.<br /><br />Still, you make a good point that I had overlooked, that typically, more equity loss comes from doubling errors than from take/pass errors, simply because one is faced with more doubling decisions than take/pass decisions (just as more equity loss comes from checker-play errors than from cube errors because one has to face so many checker-play decisions). Even by XG's somewhat narrow definition of what constitutes a "doubling decision," I face roughly four times as many doubling decisions as take/pass decisions. So even though my doubling "error rate" is about half of my take/pass "error rate," I throw away about twice as much total equity via doubling errors.<br /><br />There's one caveat in all of this, which is that I believe that XG's statistics here are all EMG based rather than MWC based. I wonder if the picture looks different from an MWC point of view.Timothy Chowhttp://alum.mit.edu/www/tchownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886491474303385529.post-60921650474894014332011-11-12T02:43:55.061-08:002011-11-12T02:43:55.061-08:00One of the many ways that XG is superior to earlie...One of the many ways that XG is superior to earlier bots is its comprehensive player profile, that displays information about your play in many different ways. One of these is a pie chart that shows you where you lose equity. Mine shows that about 20% is lost with cube decisions, of which about 9% comes from missed doubles. Wrong takes and passes combined account for about 6.5% and I would expect this to be a typical proportion, as you can miss several doubles in a game, but usually only make one wrong take/pass decision.<br />If I had doubled before the roll, 11/5 is much closer to being correct, but still an error. The reason why you don't play 11/5 to provide more ammo for a blitz is that a blitz is not the best game plan. If it was, then 8/2*/1 would have been best. <br />If White hits on the ace point, Black will be very happy to have the 11pt. In the other variations, White is probably passing after either play, so the 11pt is a form of insurance if you like.dorbelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13383981659478145403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886491474303385529.post-43908084719449603462011-11-11T16:29:43.406-08:002011-11-11T16:29:43.406-08:00Great problems! I think I personally lose more eq...Great problems! I think I personally lose more equity from incorrect take/pass decisions than from missed doubles, but I certainly mishandle my share of doubling decisions.<br /><br />In the first position, is your analysis of the checker play with the cube centered or with the cube turned? I find that in many cases, the bot rollout of the checker play can be rather strange if you've just missed a double. With the cube turned, I would have played 18/17* 11/5 here. I don't quite understand why 17/11 is better than 11/5 (if it is). It seems natural to me to bring forward more ammunition for the blitz.Timothy Chowhttp://alum.mit.edu/www/tchownoreply@blogger.com