| |
BGonline.org Forums
More commentary on: Playing opp's roll for them?
Posted By: Taper_Mike In Response To: More commentary on: Playing opp's roll for them? (Chuck Bower)
Date: Monday, 6 April 2015, at 6:06 p.m.
For these kinds of comparisons I think all legal hits should be counted as hits, and then put a footnote if you think hitting is wrong (when you see fit).
I tend to disagree. For me, there is more distortion when you count as hits rolls that are better played otherwise. The extreme example is after you split your anchor. Do you count any 5 or 7 as a hitting number just because an opponent can hit on the ace point? I usually don't. What about a roll of 31 after you open with 62-split? And so on.
In my post, I took the approach used by Nack and Paul in Backgammon Openings. I used a footnote to explain why certain rolls that could hit were not counted at hitting numbers. I suppose there is not much difference between your approach and mine. The information is available in a footnote one way or the other.
After 1(2) you count 31 as bananas split hit (which certainly isn't forced, as 2/1 is an option for a play without a new direct). IMO this distorts the shot count column of your table.
Regarding the bananas split, I thought at first that 21 might also be played hitting loose, bar/23 4/3*. It was only when I analyzed it thoroughly that I realized how different hitting was after entering on the 23pt compared to hitting after entering on the 22pt. In the end, I concluded that it was clear that 21 was not a hitting number. I should have included more of this analysis in my original post. The omission certainly raises the point you make.
Mike
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.