[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Counterexample by Lamford?

Posted By: Bob Koca
Date: Wednesday, 17 September 2014, at 1:52 a.m.

In Response To: Counterexample by Lamford? (Timothy Chow)

That a correct market loss could happen playing practically optimally against an imperfect player is not an interesting result so let's suppose he really did mean correct theoretical play.

The non cube in step 4 is then indeed an error. He seems to think that if player A knew he would get that 5-5 dance sequence that A should not double. It is not hard to see why that is faulty: Suppose that the opponent B will cube if he himself has a market losing sequence (note this is possibly suboptimal). B will always win 2 points when he wins a played out game but when he loses a played out game will sometimes lose two but sometime LOSE ONLY ONE. He might get cashed out but at that point if the drop is correct A regrets not having doubled before that initial market loss.

Contrast this to the situation if A just doubled initially. The game is always worth 2. Clearly a better situation for A.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.