Forum Archive : Match Equities

Worth memorizing? From:   Alef Rosenbaum Address:   alefrosenbaum@mac.com Date:   23 February 2003 Subject:   Re: What is the doubling window at 4 away 2 away? Forum:   rec.games.backgammon Google:   BA7EBD73.2095%alefrosenbaum@nospamthankyou.mac.com Of the different ways I've worked to improve my backgammon I've found studying match equity tables to be the least rewarding. The vast majority of cube decisions occur when estimating accurate equity is not that realistic. It is satisfying to be able to work out specific drop points, but in terms of actually improving my play over the board I gain far more from reading books and gammonline. Really *understanding* a position is often not that mathematical. For me the more practical strategists focus on how to think about positions (Magriel, Woolsey's "New Ideas") rather than how to specifically calculate (Kleinman, Lamford's "Improve"). For years I put off learning match equity because it's intimidating. Now that I've done work on using them I've just not found them so worthwhile. Maybe they'll become more valuable when I'm ready to play in the Monte Carlo Advanced... -Alef Adam Stocks  writes: You are not alone Alef. During my early experience of matchplay bg, (as an Intermediate strength player), I stumbled across match equity tables on some bg website of other, and thought, "I must learn this stuff parrot fashion, otherwise I will lose most of my matches". I hurredly scribbled down Woolsey's MET for all lengths up to 9-away,9-away, and took it with me to my first live tournament. By the time I arrived at my bed & breakfast, I was too tired to memorise it, and went to sleep. The next day, without the 'required knowledge', I won the Consolation. I quickly came to the conclusion that in fact, it was better to concentrate my efforts on improving my positional judgement and other aspects of my game, since, as you say, the reality didn't often bear close relation to the theory, and if it did, it was, at the time, too difficult to be of much practical over-the-board use. Coincidentally, the previous day before this thread's original question was asked, a player on GamesGrid asked exactly the same question (about the DP at 2-away,4-away). After the figures were quoted, I said that it was all very well knowing the doubling window percentages, but backgammon is more of an art than a science, and you need artistry/skill to know when you hit the windows. Of course, later, it is much easier to cope with the extra information load caused by METs and the like , because you get to a stage where the fundamental stuff is second nature anyway (the concepts behind the MET figures ARE fundamental to matchplay, but the exact percentages are NOT). It is perfectly possible to become a good bg player with minimal studying of MET entries, simply by experience, and players can study the detail in METs as and when they feel ready for it. That's one of the beauties of the game - it has many levels on which it can be played/studied, according to the individual player. Adam   Did you find the information in this article useful?           Do you have any comments you'd like to add?

 

Match Equities

Constructing a match equity table  (Walter Trice, Apr 2000) 

Does it matter which match equity table you use?  (Klaus Evers+, Nov 2005) 

Does it matter which match equity table you use?  (Achim Mueller+, Dec 2003) 

Does it matter which match equity table you use?  (Chuck Bower+, Sept 2001) 

ME Table: Big Brother  (Peter Fankhauser, July 1996) 

ME Table: Dunstan  (Ian Dunstan+, Aug 2004) 

ME Table: Escoffery  (David Escoffery, Nov 1991) 

ME Table: Friedman  (Elliott C Winslow, Oct 1991) 

ME Table: Kazaross  (Neil Kazaross, Dec 2003) 

ME Table: Kazaross-XG2  (neilkaz, Aug 2011) 

ME Table: Rockwell-Kazaross  (Chuck Bower+, June 2010) 

ME Table: Snowie  (Chase, Apr 2002) 

ME Table: Snowie  (Harald Retter, Aug 1998) 

ME Table: Woolsey  (Raccoon, Apr 2006) 

ME Table: Woolsey  (Kit Woolsey, May 1994) 

ME Table: Woolsey  (William R. Tallmadge, Jan 1994) 

ME Table: Zadeh  (Jørn Thyssen, Mar 2004) 

ME Table: Zorba  (Robert-Jan Veldhuizen+, Dec 2003) 

ME at 1-away/2-away (crawford)  (Fabrice Liardet+, Nov 2007) 

ME at 1-away/2-away (crawford)  (Ian Shaw+, Apr 2003) 

Match equities--an alternate view  (Durf Freund, Oct 1994) 

Neil's new numbers  (neilkaz, Aug 2011) 

Neil's numbers  (Kit Woolsey+, Oct 1994) 

On calculating match equity tables  (Neil Kazaross, July 2004) 

Turner formula  (Gregg Cattanach, Feb 2003) 

Turner formula  (Stephen Turner, June 1994) 

Using a match equity table  (Michael J. Zehr, June 1992) 

Value of free drop  (Neil Kazaross, Oct 2002) 

Which match equity table is best?  (Martin Krainer+, Oct 2003) 

Which match equity table is best?  (Ian Shaw+, Dec 2001) 

Why use a match equity table?  (Kit Woolsey, Feb 1999) 

Worth memorizing?  (Alef Rosenbaum+, Feb 2003) 

From GammOnLine         Long message         Recommended reading         Recent addition

 

Book Suggestions Books Cheating Chouettes Computer Dice Cube Handling Cube Handling in Races Equipment Etiquette Extreme Gammon Fun and frustration GNU Backgammon History Jellyfish Learning Luck versus Skill Magazines & E-zines Match Archives Match Equities Match Play Match Play at 2-away/2-away Miscellaneous Opening Rolls Pip Counting Play Sites Probability and Statistics Programming Propositions Puzzles Ratings Rollouts Rules Rulings Snowie Software Source Code Strategy--Backgames Strategy--Bearing Off Strategy--Checker play Terminology Theory Tournaments Uncategorized Variations