On 8/22/07, Peter Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
In money games, one can expect from doubling theory that with perfect play, 2/3 of initial doubles are takes (for redoubles, it is 1/2). Simulations with GNUBG 2-ply playing against itself indeed get very close to this number. Then almost 100% of the time I'll lose, > following the hints for every play. That sounds like sample bias. You should probably win at least 1/4 of games when you correctly take in a money game (depending on associated gammon rates). 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. In money games, one should often take with winning chances of 25% (depending on gammon rate and recube vig this number can be higher or lower). 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? Because when you drop, you also lose: 1 point right away. Without considering gammons, the basic takepoint is therefore at 25% game winning chances. Because after taking, you have a chance to redouble while opponent cannot double you anymore, the gammonless takepoint is actually as low as around 21.5%. Hope this helps, -- Robert-Jan Veldhuizen (Zorba on FIBS)
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
