Every time I see one of these discussions, I'm reminded of Phil Laak, a regular in our chouettes then and now a successful high stakes poker player.
One of Phil's favorite tactics was intentionally making the inferior play with the idea of turning a subsequent cube from a drop into a take. In one session, Phil held a 2-cube, and chose not to cash a bearoff. His penultimate roll was 3-1 with 2 checkers on his 3 point and 1 on his 2 point. He bore off the 3, and instead of playing the 1 to his 1 point, making his next roll DOUBLE/DROP ( barring his opponent rolling a double ) Phil chose to play 3-2, leaving his final 2 checkers on the 2 point, and turning his next roll into DOUBLE/TAKE.
Phil certainly knew he was making the inferior play. I was never really sure he made plays like this based on an assumption that his opponent was inferior, whether he was bored and just wanted to spice things up, or whether he just made the action junkie's play.
I suppose his play might be right in certain match score situations. Maybe someone with a lot more tourney experience and expertise than I have could comment.
It's kinda hard to confer VILLAGE IDIOT status on Phil, since he's playing in million-dollar tourneys and living with a movie star and the rest of us are playing on FIBS and pulling our pricks.
Bob
