Game 1, move 7 : Herd 5-1

[diane]

Roderick rolled 6-2 and moved two down.

Without wanting to sound like a 'results based player'.. This is one of the rolls that made me not want to make this prime last go...

Of course, now we have a great chance to explore and learn the right strategy in this kind of situation!

[Roderick]

Fortunately the 6-2 was one of my easier rolls to play.  There simply isn't any other reasonable way to play it.

Herd got one of its 10 breaking numbers (1-5, 3-4, 3-5, 4-4, 5-5 [not as bad], 5-6) and must now decide how to break.

[KDP]

Spoiler

we would have rather rolled 6-1 but since the dice gods thought it would be fun to screw with us they gave us the 5-1 instead.  i think hitting is clear the choice is how to do it.  i would play 9-3, keeping the anchor in our board and a nice 5 prime. i think hitting with the 8 then splittng 22-21 is probably second best but i dont like leaving 5 blots at this point.

[close]

[NIHILIST]

If I were truly a rude and crass results player I'd point out that if we'd made Rod's 4 point with the 1-1 a few moves ago, we'd exit his board with this 1-5. Since it's rude and crass, I won't point it out.

Bob

[diane]

 

[Roderick]

All,

I do not understand why anyone would continue to bemoan a correct play 2 full rolls ago.  It's not rude.  It's not crass.  It's simply silly.

All we can do for each roll of the dice is try our best to evaluate the sum of the future rolls and calculate the best play in aggregate.

If I was to make a play giving 11 hits (all aces, lets say) over 12 shots (2's and 1-1) and then my opponent rolls 2-3 I won't ever give that play a second thought.  Not even if it cost me oodles of money.

With more complex positions we can evaluate things that occur in subsequent rolls that would have been different had we played differently.  But if we can use a bot to enter a position we can do a far better job of determining correct play than by doing hand rollouts or worse yet, by looking at a single sequence that just happened to occur OTB.

No one should make the mistake that seems to be getting made over and over here.  It shows a complete disregard for what we know as backgammon players, or at least what we should know and what we all strive for - playing as best we can, regardless of results in the short-term.  One caveat - bots play near perfectly but not necessarily optimally given a particular opponent's weaknesses, not yet being able to determine, let's say, when one should cube not even having a cube because an opponent is likely to drop an otherwise easy take.

-Rod

[diane]

Agreed, to some extent...we play to 'probable outcomes'. The more likely an outcome is, the more we play with that outcome in mind.

If the outcome is highly probably and undesirable, we wont do that...if it is not very probable, but highly undesirable, we may still avoid it.

If it is undesirable, but highly unlikely, we might make that play, as it is unlikely to happen.

That is what we are discussing here, the process of deciding how likely an outcome is, and whether we are prepared to take the risk or not.

The fact that we are sitting in an undesirable but highly unlikely place isn't worth crying over, that is backgammon.

If however, our current position is undesirable and extremely likely to be the outcome of the path we took, that is worthy of discussion.

[diane]

I guess all of those words can be summarised into...if we make a correct move and things go pear shaped, well it isnt worth going back over.

If however, we make a bad play or even a dubious play..it is worth observing how that incorrect decision lead us to a bad place. This is a learning event after all - there are no dollars resting on outcomes here 

[NIHILIST]

Roderick writes...."I do not understand why anyone would continue to bemoan a correct play 2 full rolls ago.  It's not rude.  It's not crass.  It's simply silly."


I do not understand why anyone ( Roderick ) would dredge up an 18 month old post to nitpick the meaning of the word BANKROLL. It's not rude. It's not crass. It's simply obsessive.

In my case, I was having some fun after Diane's "results player" comment and her laughing response to my subsequent post. Or, as the immortal Foghorn Leghorn would say, " That's a joke, son."


Bob

[Roderick]

I happened to see the post in a search and didn't want anyone else playing for money to suffer as a result of bad advice and information should they see the post.  These things stay up forever - how many people have read it since then?

Or should we let bad info stand incorrectly in perpetuity?  I'd rather correct it.  Just as I'd appreciate someone doing the same with regard to something I might read on a particular subject.

I'm sure it's important that everyone knows that you'd prefer your bad advice not be corrected.

[diane]

" That's a joke, son."

I got the joke, I laughed along with it.

I would like to keep this to serious or humorous backgammon commentary.

If either of you wish to discuss other threads, or any other matters, please do so on the other thread - but also keep in mind the rules of the board.

Now - lets get on with match 16.