Hi all,
I was reading Rick Janowski's article "Take-Points in Money Games" (you
can find it here:
http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/classic/bg/cubeformulae.pdf). I
didn't dig into the
refined general mode, but in the general model (the one used by gnubg) I
get a different
expression for the centered cube equity.
The reasoning in Janowski's paper seems to be (if I got it right):
1) We know the expressions of dead cube equity and dead cube take/cash
points.
2) We compute (as shown in Appendix 5, par. 1) the live cube take and cash
point.
3) We compute live cube equities expressions:
3.1) Live cube equity owning the cube can be computed as linear
interpolation
between the points (p=0%,E=-Cv*L) and (p=TP%,E=-Cv/2)
3.2) Live cube equity with unavailable cube can be computed as
linear interpolation
between the points (p=CP%,E=Cv/2) and (p=100%,E=Cv*W)
3.3) Live cube equity with centered cube can be computed as linear
interpolation
between the points (p=TP%,E=-Cv) and (p=CP%,E=Cv)
4) At this point we can deduce the live initial double point (No Jacoby),
redouble point
and too good point (I don't care yet for beaver/racoon points and initial
double point
with Jacoby rule in use).
Up to this point, I get exactly the same results.
5) We compute general cube equities. Here's where it gets fuzzy. I think
that general cube
equities are/should be computed by linear interpolation between dead and
live equities (that's
even what's written in gnubg manual), with the cube life index x being
between 0 and 1:
5.1) Egeneral_own = Edead*(1-x) + Elive_own*x : developing this
I get the same result
5.2) Egeneral_unav = Edead*(1-x) + Elive_unav*x : developing this
I get the same result
5.3) Egeneral_cen = Edead*(1-x) + Elive_cen*x : here I get a
different result
6) We compute the general TP, IDP, RDP, CP, TGP by definition (i.e. with
equations involving
the equities expressions). Of course, with identical own and unav general
equities, I get the
same expressions for general TP, RDP, CP and TGP. But with a different
expression for the
general centered equity I naturally get a different expression for the IDP
(initial double
point, I only checked the No-Jacoby case).
What looks strange to me is that Janowski's expression of the general
centered cube equity
is not even linear in x ... Anybody with an idea ?
MaX._______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
