Christian Anthon wrote:
Ian, I don't think the luck is normalised to cube=1, and so it may be
that Albert made his errors at higher cube values.
I tested the luck in a bearoff where X had to roll 66 to win, or else
lose the game. With the cube at 2 or 16, rolling 66 is worth 1.94 luck.
So
I'm trying to understand the money game stats, but clearly am having
no luck, so I'm requesting help.
Funny way to state your problem ... no luck ... :))
I played a session, albeit poorly, which I lost 10 points to 13 over
7 games. According to the analysis, I played better overall, better
in
I don't think you are understanding the problem. If he was worse, but luckier, why is he the one with an advantage over me? Why should he have a luck adjusted advantage of +0.279 points per game over me when he plays *worse*?
Unless GNU is trying to convince me that it is better to play worse
From:
Albert SilverSent: 22 September 2006 15:32
I think Albert has a
point. There are only four factors that prevent a game ending in a draw: Luck on
my rolls, Luck on opponent's rolls, errors in my play, errors in opponent's
play.
The way I read the
results below, Opponent won 3 points,
Albert, could you provide the full statistics. That should make things
a bit clearer.
Ian, I don't think the luck is normalised to cube=1, and so it may be
that Albert made his errors at higher cube values.
Christian.
___
Bug-gnubg mailing list
