I dont really have any precise data. It's more of a feeling. Obviously
if gnu thinks it is in a losing position it wont offer a double. I
guess what my main point was that once gnu offers, if you press hint,
the hint will > 75% of the time - based upon actual game playing -
advise you to take the double. Then almost 100% of the time I'll lose,
following the hints for every play. For example:
gnu offers double
hint says take, so I take
gnu rolls and plays
I roll and press hint and I have *usually* less then 20% chance of
winning. I follow each hint for every roll and I end up losing.
So again the real question is would gnu offer a double if it didn't
think it was in a significantly better position to win. And if it is in
a better position to win, which I have to believe it is, why would the
hint offer to take?
Peter
Joseph Heled wrote:
On 8/20/07, Peter Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why does gnu *almost* always recommend to take a double. I have noticed
after playing literally hundreds of games against gnu that 99% of the
time it recommends to take a double it is just plain WRONG! besides why
would gnu offer a double if the odds weren't greatly in its favor to
win??? here is just one example:
If you have some precise data we can evaluate what you mean by
"almost". I can hazard a guess that since gnubg generally doubles
earlier than humans (i.e. is less likely to double late) you have more
takes against it than you normally have.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
