On Nov 12, 2007 5:12 PM, Massimiliano Maini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > E.g., a last roll situation with the cube at various levels and the nasty > 2-1 > coming out for player MaX (only losing roll): > > CUBE AT 1 gnubg MaX > Luck rate (total) +0.247 ( +0.247) -1.889 ( -1.889) > > CUBE AT 2 gnubg MaX > Luck rate (total) +0.247 ( +0.247) -1.889 ( -3.778) > > CUBE AT 4 gnubg MaX > Luck rate (total) +0.247 ( +0.247) -1.889 ( -7.556) > I agree that the luck is probably better represented this way for a single match length or a money game session. But the same argument could be made for the error rate, i.e. should your errors be measured in relation to the amount of match equity that you loose rather than the amount of EMG. The reason that it is done this way for error rates is obviously to be able to keep just on statistic independent of match length. To me the error and luck are very similar, i.e. it doesn't matter if you loose 0.2 point by bad luck or by making a major blunder. That is the explanation, I believe, for the layout being as it is. But I agree that the labels could be clearer, for example Total luck - ME (EMG) == Luck rate (total) Luck rate - ME (EMG) == Luck rate (per move) Total error - ME (EMG) == Error rate (total) Error rate - ME (EMG) == Error rate (per move) (where ME == ME or points. The term Luck rate(total) is certainly meaningless.) with these clearer labels I believe that we can interchange the the values as you and Ian wish. Christian _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
