Hi all,
you can find here an interesting article on EMG (Equivalent to Money Game)
equities.
http://www.fortuitouspress.com/emg.html
It maylook complicate, but its introduction explains clearly what EMG
equities are.
Recap of the problem (scores are X-O):
GNU Backgammon Position ID: 6t4LAQDWvQ8AAA
Match ID : MAGgADAAEAAA
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ O: white
| O O O O O | | | 3 points
| O O O O | | | On roll
| O O O | | |
| O O | | |
| O | | |
| |BAR| |^ 5 point match (Cube: 1)
| | | |
| X X | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X X X | | X X | 2 points
+24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ X: black
For the above position, let's imagine the 3 following cases (scores are
X-O):
Case 1) 3aw-2aw, X is doubled to 2
Case 2) 3aw-3aw, X is doubled to 4
Case 3) 3aw-5aw, X is doubled to 8
In all the cases, the match is at stake in this game (in case 1, X has an
automatic redouble
next turn). So, the choice is to pass and go 3aw-1aw (in all cases) or to
play for the match
from the current position (and a dead cube). GnuBg eval are (in MWC and
EMG, g11 MET):
Case 1)
Cube analysis
2-ply cubeless MWC 70.11% (Money: +0.604)
0.802 0.000 0.000 - 0.198 0.000 0.000
Cubeful equities:
1. Double, pass 75.08%
2. Double, take 80.18% ( 5.10%)
3. No double 74.17% ( -0.91%)
Proper cube action: Double, pass
Cube analysis
2-ply cubeless equity +0.604 (Money: +0.604)
0.802 0.000 0.000 - 0.198 0.000 0.000
Cubeful equities:
1. Double, pass +1.000
2. Double, take +1.407 ( +0.407)
3. No double +0.928 ( -0.072)
Proper cube action: Double, pass
Case 2)
Cube analysis
2-ply cubeless MWC 65.14% (Money: +0.604)
0.802 0.000 0.000 - 0.198 0.000 0.000
Cubeful equities:
1. Double, pass 75.08%
2. Double, take 80.18% ( 5.10%)
3. No double 73.39% ( -1.69%)
Proper cube action: Redouble, pass
Cube analysis
2-ply cubeless equity +0.604 (Money: +0.604)
0.802 0.000 0.000 - 0.198 0.000 0.000
Cubeful equities:
1. Double, pass +1.000
2. Double, take +1.203 ( +0.203)
3. No double +0.933 ( -0.067)
Proper cube action: Redouble, pass
Case 3)
Cube analysis
2-ply cubeless MWC 60.20% (Money: +0.604)
0.802 0.000 0.000 - 0.198 0.000 0.000
Cubeful equities:
1. Double, pass 75.08%
2. Double, take 80.18% ( 5.10%)
3. No double 73.10% ( -1.98%)
Proper cube action: Redouble, pass
Cube analysis
2-ply cubeless equity +0.604 (Money: +0.604)
0.802 0.000 0.000 - 0.198 0.000 0.000
Cubeful equities:
1. Double, pass +1.000
2. Double, take +1.136 ( +0.136)
3. No double +0.947 ( -0.053)
Proper cube action: Redouble, pass
As you can see, the error of a take in terms of MWC is the same in all
cases, which is
natural since the 3 positions are essentially identical. But the EMG is
not:
Case MWC EMG
1 -5.10% -0.407
2 -5.10% -0.203
3 -5.10% -0.136
This is pretty disturbing, since all the 3 errors are identical.
What's happening is explained in J.Bagai's paper: the problem is, to me,
that computing
EMGs we are extrapolating the linear approximation given by the two points
[MWC for a single
win, +1] and [MWC for a single loss, -1]. In all the cases above, taking
would give a MWC
which is outside the interval (hence we extrapolate instead of
interpolate).
I've made a suggestion which wouldn't be too complicate to put in place:
1- let's call W1/2/3 (L1/2/3) the MWC at the scores of a
single/gammon/backgammon win (loss)
respectively. They are associated to NE (Normalized Equities)of +1/2/3
(-1/2/3) respectively.
The six points [L3,-3], [L2,-2], ... , [W3,+3] form a poly-line with 5
segments (at most,
at some scores two point may be identical because gammons/backgammons may
not count).
2- draw the poly-line, then use it to convert MWC to NE.
It's like having a different interpolation depending on the magnitude of
the error you're
trying to normalize.
Three examples:
- I'm leading 3-0 to 5 cube at 1, what can happen ? With a
simple/gammon/backgammon win I go
to 4-0/5-0/5-0 while with a simple/gammon/backgammon loss I go to
3-1/3-2/3-3.
- I'm leading 4-1 to 5 post-Crawford (I owe the cube at 2), what can
happen ? With a simple/
gammon/backgammon win I go to 5-1/5-1/5-1 while with a
simple/gammon/backgammon loss I go to
4-3/4-5/4-5.
- I'm leading 3-0 to 5 owing the cube at 2, what can happen ? With a
simple/gammon/backgammon
win I go to 5-0/5-0/5-0 while with a simple/gammon/backgammon loss I go to
3-2/3-4/3-5.
In any of the above situation, just associate the w/wg/wb scores with NNE
+1/+2/+3 and the
l/lg/lb scores with NNE -1/-2/-3, reads the MWC of the different scores
from your favourite
MET, put the points on a graph and draw the poly-line (attention: in some
cases you have to
use post-Crawford METs).
Upside:
- it solves the issue above: all the 3 errors wil have the same
normalized equity
- for "small errors" (leading to MWC that are in the interval
[single loss, single win]),
my suggestion would return the good old EMG.
Downside:
- it's no longer linear: if a -X% MWC error corresponds to -Y
normaliwed equity error,
a -a*X% MWC error does not necessarily correspond to a -a*Y
normalized error. This
will be true for small errors, but not for large ones.
I don't think we really care about linearity. The goal is to compare
errors magnitudes at
different match scores. In fact, my suggestion introduces some
non-linearity inherited by
the intrinsically non-linear behavior of MWC in match-play.
Apparently D.Zare already discussed the topic (GammonViallage, July 2006)
and made another
suggestion: "Adjust the errors by the ratio of the size of the error of
misplaying an opening
3-1 8/4 for money play and and at the match score [and cube situation]."
Very interesting too, but it misses one nice property of EMG (and of my
suggestion): a
normalized equity of -1 corresponds to a borderline take/pass.
* Anybody with comments on all that ?
* Would it be possible to have the 3 methods in gnubg ?
In the hint panel (for example), there's a "MWC" button that alternates
between EMG and MWC:
we could have 4 "radio buttons" (only one of them pressed at a time) for
MWC, EMG, NE1 and NE2.
I think it would be interesting to play around with them ...
MaX.
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
