Cube Action?

[BlueDice]

XGID=----bBBBCBA--------accbdC-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10

X:Player 2 O:Player 1
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
[phone]------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O X |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | |
| X X X | | X X O |
| X X X X | | X X O |
[phone]-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 160 O: 89 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
--
BD

[Tim Chow]

Post by BlueDice
XGID=----bBBBCBA--------accbdC-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
X:Player 2 O:Player 1
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
[phone]------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O X |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | |
| X X X | | X X O |
| X X X X | | X X O |
[phone]-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 160 O: 89 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

O is unhappy that she's crunching, but she still has a four-prime and a
four-point board, and a big lead in the pip count that will be important
if she can jump out. Plus X has three checkers back. This should be an
easy take and it's the double I'm not sure about. If X hits with a 5 then
I guess it usually loses his market? D/T.

---
Tim Chow

[Grunty]

Post by BlueDice
XGID=----bBBBCBA--------accbdC-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
X:Player 2 O:Player 1
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
[phone]------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O X |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | |
| X X X | | X X O |
| X X X X | | X X O |
[phone]-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 160 O: 89 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
--
BD

To me, this is such a no-double that I'd be contemplating a beaver. I'd probably just take.

[BlueDice]

Post by Grunty

Post by BlueDice
XGID=----bBBBCBA--------accbdC-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
X:Player 2 O:Player 1
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
[phone]------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O X |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | |
| X X X | | X X O |
| X X X X | | X X O |
[phone]-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 160 O: 89 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
--
BD

To me, this is such a no-double that I'd be contemplating a beaver. I'd probably just take.

Reasons to be cheerful?
--
BD

[Grunty]

Post by BlueDice

Post by Grunty

Post by BlueDice
XGID=----bBBBCBA--------accbdC-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
X:Player 2 O:Player 1
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
[phone]------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O X |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | |
| X X X | | X X O |
| X X X X | | X X O |
[phone]-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 160 O: 89 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
--
BD

To me, this is such a no-double that I'd be contemplating a beaver. I'd probably just take.

Reasons to be cheerful?
--
BD

1) Strong board
2) High anchor
3) Racing lead, even after being hit

[m***@compuplus.net]

Post by Grunty
To me, this is such a no-double that I'd be
contemplating a beaver. I'd probably just take.

Woulda, coulda, yadda, yadda...

Actions speak louder than words.

Therefore, I say: "cube action"! Yess!!

MK

[Michael]

Post by BlueDice
XGID=----bBBBCBA--------accbdC-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
X:Player 2 O:Player 1
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
[phone]------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O X |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | |
| X X X | | X X O |
| X X X X | | X X O |
[phone]-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 160 O: 89 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
--
BD

I 'd double this although without anything in the outfield (between the 19 and 13 points i.e.) it might be a bit early.
The Take is certain if anything she has multiple chances to roll big doubles and a better board that can sustain exchange of hits.
D/T

[BlueDice]

Post by BlueDice
XGID=----bBBBCBA--------accbdC-:0:0:1:00:0:0:0:0:10
X:Player 2 O:Player 1
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
[phone]------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O O O X |
| | | O O O O X |
| | | O O O X |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | |
| X X X | | X X O |
| X X X X | | X X O |
[phone]-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 160 O: 89 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action
--
BD

Looks a bit scary but ND/T is the verdict
If you get 15% passes then the double is correct.
Not a beaver though.

Analyzed in XG Roller++
Player Winning Chances: 67.85% (G:13.68% B:0.53%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 32.15% (G:10.69% B:0.77%)

Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.384, Double=+0.771

Cubeful Equities:
No double: +0.636
Double/Take: +0.557 (-0.078)
Double/Pass: +1.000 (+0.364)

Best Cube action: No double / Take
Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 15.0%

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10
--
BD

[Grunty]

Post by BlueDice
Not a beaver though.

Only factor that refrains O from beavering is the many gammons he'll lose when hit and reentered behind the anchor. I think O'd have a beaver if he'd be guaranteed to reenter right on the anchor.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Grunty

Post by BlueDice
Not a beaver though.

Only factor that refrains O from beavering is the many gammons he'll lose when hit and reentered behind the anchor. I think O'd have a beaver if he'd be guaranteed to reenter right on the anchor.

When I first read this I said to myself "that's an odd thing to say" but decided not to reply but now that it has been brought up again 'not a beaver though' is plain weird. This is nowhere even in the same ballpark of thinking about being a beaver. The DT equity is still +.557! That's over half a point away from a beaver.

I don't fully understand what you're trying to say with the "hit + enter on the anchor = beaver" but if I'm understanding anywhere near correctly it is not even close to a beaver even given your scenario.

Stick

[Grunty]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Grunty

Post by BlueDice
Not a beaver though.

Only factor that refrains O from beavering is the many gammons he'll lose when hit and reentered behind the anchor. I think O'd have a beaver if he'd be guaranteed to reenter right on the anchor.

When I first read this I said to myself "that's an odd thing to say" but decided not to reply but now that it has been brought up again 'not a beaver though' is plain weird. This is nowhere even in the same ballpark of thinking about being a beaver. The DT equity is still +.557! That's over half a point away from a beaver.

That's why in my first reply I settled in just taking a double.

Post by b***@gmail.com
I don't fully understand what you're trying to say with the "hit + enter on the anchor = beaver" but if I'm understanding anywhere near correctly it is not even close to a beaver even given your scenario.

My scenario is not "hit + enter on the anchor = beaver." Of course if O gets hit he won't have any beaver no matter where he enters.

I said that, _in the original position_ (facing a possible hit), if O could hypothetically be guaranteed to enter on the anchor when getting hit, then he could beaver. Why? Because he would lose a lot less gammons that would otherwise occur if forced to break up the anchor.

In other words, I think a good chunk of X's doubling equity comes from gammons in the event he hits and O doesn't get a spare checker on his anchor to safely play forward from there.

[Paul]

Post by Grunty

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Grunty

Post by BlueDice
Not a beaver though.

Only factor that refrains O from beavering is the many gammons he'll lose when hit and reentered behind the anchor. I think O'd have a beaver if he'd be guaranteed to reenter right on the anchor.

When I first read this I said to myself "that's an odd thing to say" but decided not to reply but now that it has been brought up again 'not a beaver though' is plain weird. This is nowhere even in the same ballpark of thinking about being a beaver. The DT equity is still +.557! That's over half a point away from a beaver.

That's why in my first reply I settled in just taking a double.

In attempting to solve these cube action quizzes, it's tempting to regard
these problems as only multiple-choice with five possible answers:
ND/Beaver, ND/T, TG, D/P, D/T. (Double/Beaver is also a possibility but it's
rare enough to be discounted).

Everyone should agree that you totally nailed the correct answer which is ND/T.
And not only that, but you were the only correct respondent.
For that, you should get a bottle of champagne, but avoid cheap champagne which
could make you wish you hadn't drunk any.

However, there's a further important element besides correctly categorizing the
position. In terms of collecting reference positions, it's important to
get a feel for where the position lies on a continuum from terrible to crushing.
For example, it's important to have a feel for when a D/T is close to a pass,
and when a D/T is close to an ND/T.

Now, Stick performed brilliantly on this quiz question. He didn't attempt an
answer at all. A non-answer is brilliant because it has a zero probability
of being wrong. Stick deserves two very expensive high-quality bottles of
champagne for his non-answer. [As for myself, I didn't answer either but I would
have (wrongly) said D/T].

Stick was (again rightly) penalising you for not showing the correct feel for
how good/bad this position is. You said "such a no-double that I'd be contemplating
a beaver." Since it's far closer to a double than a beaver, this places
the position wrongly in the continuum between extremely good and extremely bad.
So you did make a mistake here, I would think, even though you got the problem right.
I'm not sure what your punishment should be, though. Why not memorise pi to
two hundred decimal places? This makes a good boredom punishment (unless you've
done this already).

Paul

[Grunty]

Post by Paul
In attempting to solve these cube action quizzes, it's tempting to regard
ND/Beaver, ND/T, TG, D/P, D/T. (Double/Beaver is also a possibility but it's
rare enough to be discounted).
Everyone should agree that you totally nailed the correct answer which is ND/T.
And not only that, but you were the only correct respondent.
For that, you should get a bottle of champagne, but avoid cheap champagne which
could make you wish you hadn't drunk any.
However, there's a further important element besides correctly categorizing the
position. In terms of collecting reference positions, it's important to
get a feel for where the position lies on a continuum from terrible to crushing.
For example, it's important to have a feel for when a D/T is close to a pass,
and when a D/T is close to an ND/T.
You said "such a no-double that I'd be contemplating a beaver."
Since it's far closer to a double than a beaver, this places the position
wrongly in the continuum between extremely good and extremely bad.
So you did make a mistake here, I would think, even though you got the problem right.

On the continuum of drinks, award yourself a bottle of good wine.
You'd have deserved a bottle of champagne for such a well articulated and convincing commentary (which I agree with), had you have posted it before Stick posted his.