The tricks won't pay off

[blitzxz]

What's the trick?

So the idea is that you're 3-away post-Crawford. You're opponent should take when he has bigger winning chances then gammon losing chances. If there are no gammons chances opponent should take with even slightest winning chance because difference in 2-away post-Crawford and double match point is only free drop which is almost nothing. The trick is that you don't double immediatly but hope to get to pure race position with clear lead. Then you make some kind of scene how you forgot to double to mislead opponent even more.

The idea in this is of course that the opponent doesn't know the trick. Nowadays almost every intermediate player knows the trick and still uses it against other intermediate player who also knows it. There's absolutely nothing to gain but there's lot to lose. To get to pure race without doubling you're in serious risk of losing markets. One lucky 5-5 in the beginning could put two men on the bar followed with dance. When that happens you're managed to only trick yourself.

I recently made match equity tables from my games and found out that my opponents are winning more matches from 4-away post-crawford then from 3-away post-crawford... There might be some luck involved (I however used gnu luck analysis also) but I'm pretty sure that this is because of the trick.

2-away, 2-away

The same problem is when not doubling immediatly in 2-away, 2-away. The only possible gain in delaying would be wrong pass. If you're opponent uses strategy of taking everything you can't win by delaying. If he uses strategy of taking unless his 100 % sure it's a pass you end up losing. If he uses some kind of normal strategy you might get occasional wrong passes when the desicion is close but then you will also end up losing markets sometimes because it's very hard to get close to take point without market losers. Unless your opponent is a big passer the risks you have to take to get to close decision won't pay off.

But there is still a practical reason for not doubling immediatly. You hope that your opponent will delay doubling when he's leading and end up losing markets and tricking himself.

[PersianLord]

What's the trick?

So the idea is that you're 3-away post-Crawford. You're opponent should take when he has bigger winning chances then gammon losing chances. If there are no gammons chances opponent should take with even slightest winning chance because difference in 2-away post-Crawford and double match point is only free drop which is almost nothing. The trick is that you don't double immediatly but hope to get to pure race position with clear lead. Then you make some kind of scene how you forgot to double to mislead opponent even more.

The idea in this is of course that the opponent doesn't know the trick. Nowadays almost every intermediate player knows the trick and still uses it against other intermediate player who also knows it. There's absolutely nothing to gain but there's lot to lose. To get to pure race without doubling you're in serious risk of losing markets. One lucky 5-5 in the beginning could put two men on the bar followed with dance. When that happens you're managed to only trick yourself.

I recently made match equity tables from my games and found out that my opponents are winning more matches from 4-away post-crawford then from 3-away post-crawford... There might be some luck involved (I however used gnu luck analysis also) but I'm pretty sure that this is because of the trick.

2-away, 2-away

The same problem is when not doubling immediatly in 2-away, 2-away. The only possible gain in delaying would be wrong pass. If you're opponent uses strategy of taking everything you can't win by delaying. If he uses strategy of taking unless his 100 % sure it's a pass you end up losing. If he uses some kind of normal strategy you might get occasional wrong passes when the desicion is close but then you will also end up losing markets sometimes because it's very hard to get close to take point without market losers. Unless your opponent is a big passer the risks you have to take to get to close decision won't pay off.

But there is still a practical reason for not doubling immediatly. You hope that your opponent will delay doubling when he's leading and end up losing markets and tricking himself.

In the case of 3-away, you're absolutely true. On average, 20% of all BG games end in a gammon win, so if the trailer doubles immediately after the tossup, he has a good chance to win the whole match. By delaying the cube, he would miss this tasty fruit, because the opponent might smell the the threat and pass the cube, if offered at all.

In the case if 2-away, 2-away, the trick have worked sometimes for me.

Regards

[Zorba]

What's the trick?

So the idea is that you're 3-away post-Crawford. You're opponent should take when he has bigger winning chances then gammon losing chances. If there are no gammons chances opponent should take with even slightest winning chance because difference in 2-away post-Crawford and double match point is only free drop which is almost nothing. The trick is that you don't double immediatly but hope to get to pure race position with clear lead. Then you make some kind of scene how you forgot to double to mislead opponent even more.

I wouldn't wait for a pure race position. Just double when winning chances are high and gammon chances small. This will reduce the risk of you losing your market and might increase errors from your opponent, because of misevaluated gammon losing chances.

2-away, 2-away

The same problem is when not doubling immediatly in 2-away, 2-away. The only possible gain in delaying would be wrong pass. If you're opponent uses strategy of taking everything you can't win by delaying. If he uses strategy of taking unless his 100 % sure it's a pass you end up losing. If he uses some kind of normal strategy you might get occasional wrong passes when the desicion is close but then you will also end up losing markets sometimes because it's very hard to get close to take point without market losers. Unless your opponent is a big passer the risks you have to take to get to close decision won't pay off.

But there is still a practical reason for not doubling immediatly. You hope that your opponent will delay doubling when he's leading and end up losing markets and tricking himself.

I don't agree, wrong passes can be common in f.i. blitz situations. What would be clear passes for money play (because of the high gammon chances in a blitz), are clear takes at 2-away both. Many players go over board in these situations, not knowing how high their winning chances really are and intuitively (but wrongly) fearing gammon losses.

The same happens in backgame situations.

Also, when playing someone of lower skill, the takepoints are no longer the same for both players. Your weaker opponent's TP can go much lower than the normal ~32% and your own TP can be much higher. The latter means your opponent runs a much higher risk of losing HIS market than you do. This can also be exploited.

[blitzxz]

Also, when playing someone of lower skill, the takepoints are no longer the same for both players. Your weaker opponent's TP can go much lower than the normal ~32% and your own TP can be much higher. The latter means your opponent runs a much higher risk of losing HIS market than you do. This can also be exploited.

My whole point here is that you really should _know_ who your opponent is. If you know for sure that your opponent is "lower skill" then you might want to delay or make some trick plays or something like that. However if you're doing this against me (or anyone with correct cube handling in these easy scores) you can only lose yourself.

[Zorba]

I think the tricks can pay off against high-rated/skillled players too. It sure has happened often enough, even against the world's best! Nobody's perfect with the cube. Sometimes a player will misread or misremember the score. Or interpret it wrongly. Allowing your opponent to make an error by doubling at a more complicated point in the game than right after the opening roll(s) is a good idea in my book. You should just make sure you don't wait so long as to lose your own market by any real amount, especially at 2-away both. At odd-away,1-away post-Crawford you can usually wait many turns before there's any risk of losing your market, so you lose absolutely nothing by waiting.

[blitzxz]

I think the tricks can pay off against high-rated/skillled players too. It sure has happened often enough, even against the world's best! Nobody's perfect with the cube.

The strategy is so damn easy that you can't make any mistakes.

1. 2-2-away. Always take unless you're _sure_ you have less then 31 % winning chances.

2. 1-3-away post-C. Always take unless you're _sure_ your gammon losing chances are bigger then winning chances.

3. 1-other uneven-away post-C. Always take. (It's too hard to adjust at least for me since only fraction of gammon losing chances in winning chances is enough.)

Now you can't be tricked in these scores, ever. Your general skill (how often you're sure) only affects how much you win but no matter what you can't lose anything. Apparently high rated/world's best players can't use this easy and unbeatable strategy.

[Zorba]

I agree that against anyone using your rules properly both in theory and in practice, there might be little or nothing to gain. But the whole point of the "tricks" is the fact that players make both errors and mistakes in practice, and that you want to give them a chance to make either those errors, or those mistakes.

So, I see two ways that the tricks can work:

1. Opponent doesn't properly know the theory behind the score, or makes a mistake with it over the board (pressure, distraction, etc.).
2. Opponent does know and realize the theory behind the score, but makes a wrong judgement call on evaluation and the subsequent "I am SURE ..." part.

The first won't happen too often against world-class players, but it's not unheard of. It will happen a lot against anything less than world class, in my experience.
The second can happen against any player. Less likely against world-class obviously, but any player will sometimes feel sure about something and still be dead wrong. Especially gammon losing chances are not always the easiest to evaluate.

Obviously, any attempt at tricking your opponent is best made when you consider yourself the better player, at least at that aspect of the game. Otherwise, you might be tricking yourself, mostly.