Here's another way to think about it: a cash gets you to 68% MWC. What was her GWC at the time you actually cashed? If above 32%, congratulations, you held the cube long enough to provoke a cube error. If less than 32%, you would have been better off playing that game for the match than resetting at 2a Crawford.
when I doubled it was a double pass with 67.69% MWC
but she'd already missed 8 double/takes according to GNU.
Can you tell me where you got your 68% from?
Maybe it's that at Crawford 2a1a is 75% minus opponents gammon chances.
Is there a Crawford equity table anywhere?
Red has no bad numbers here.
In the match I came to the conclusion that all these numbers were leading to an opponent's double and a possible pass.
11 12 13 14 22 23 24 25 34 35 44 45
GNU assures me that they are all takes with about 40% winning chance which is higher than the @ 32% discussed above.
Looking at it that way they're not bad numbers as even if I miss and get hit I've a better than 32% chance of winning.
It's as simple as that huh?
Perhaps the confusion arises because players tend to think that a certain percentage of wins is needed to have a cube. If the cube remains live after the cube turn, ie it can be returned later, then you do need a considerable advantage to have a correct cube, but this doesn't apply when the cube is dead after the turn. In this case, any advantage at all is sufficient to justify a cube and sometimes it is correct even when a slight underdog if the position is sufficiently volatile. This position is volatile, because a hit followed by a fan (about 10%) loses the market, in fact red will be too good to double, but any market losing sequences at all would justify it.
Are there any articles on volatility?
I certainly was aware of her stripped outboard and her wrong
home points with the 4 & 5 open but I didn't think of you market losing sequence. Well actually I thought the hit on its own was a market loser but I would cash then and get me to 1a2a Crawford with a high match win probability even without her continuous huge blunders.
So I can see 40% > 30% and double take was correct.
But I felt, and feel that the continued blunders and lack of strategy would give me an extra 10% or so ... maybe getting me to 40% again or even higher.
Her match fibs rating was 1017 and felt like it. Mine was 1840.
... and in all honesty even against an equal or better player I'd have struggled to see this as a double take but your answers are helping me see the light.