Christopher D. Yep writes:
If you're using Snowie 3, I believe this problem specifically only
occurs when you perform a rollout with checker play according to score
(this specifically also means that you are performing a cubeful rollout,
otherwise this checkbox won't even be available).
Specifically sometimes the rollout will show one side winning gammons
when gammons are impossible. Other times one side will be shown winning
*zero* gammons, when clearly gammons are possible (or even likely).
I don't often perform "checker play according to score" rollouts since
the rollouts take considerably longer than normal cubeful rollouts (with
checker plays based on cubeless money equity) without improving accuracy
very much. However the general consensus among several users I have
talked to is that the overall *equities* are likely correct even though
the breakdown (backgammons, gammons, normal wins) is incorrect.
For example, here are the rollout results that you reported on June 7,
Rollout Money equity: 0,399
0,0% 6,0% 71,6% 28,4% 9,4% 0,0%
95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0,399 ±0,007,
- live cube no redouble: 0,883 ±0,008,
- live cube redouble take: 0,851 ±0,009.
The above hypothesis states that the money cubeless equity is 0.399
despite the fact that the displayed numbers (0.0%, 6.0%, 71.6% 28.4%
9.4% 0.0%) actually imply a 0.415 money cubeless equity. Similarly, the
hypothesis states that the 0.883 and 0.851 numbers are in fact valid.
One hypothesis is that Snowie always (accurately) keeps track of the
overall equity, but that there is some type of display flaw that causes
it to erroneously report some of the wins as gammons or vice-versa.
To test this hypothesis, run the same position *without* checking
"checker play according to score." In the position that you posted on
June 7, 2001 (5-away/5-away with cube on 2), this will likely not make
much difference in the final results. See if the equity comes close to
equity that Snowie reports with "checker play according to score."