Why no backgammon discussion?

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
Heres an easy question:
What's the best site to play online? I took $2 free dollars from gammonmempire, but it has to say there since they no longer take us players. whats a good site for american players? low rake and soft competition are +++.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to know as well.

[onlinebeginner]

Is party backgammon still going on? (I"M a US player) or are there any other sites to bet on backgammon for united states players?

[Oblivious]

i think party gammon is a nono for us players now.

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the bot makes the right play 90% of the time, while a human plays correctly 80% of the time...

[/ QUOTE ]If this is true, why aren't online backgammon games wrought with bots raking in $? Or are they? Or is it that they are really small stakes so there aren't bots bothering? I don't know anything about backgammon or the online games but it seems like this would be the case.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the bot makes the right play 90% of the time, while a human plays correctly 80% of the time...

[/ QUOTE ]If this is true, why aren't online backgammon games wrought with bots raking in $? Or are they? Or is it that they are really small stakes so there aren't bots bothering? I don't know anything about backgammon or the online games but it seems like this would be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has been discussed here before. There is some cheating, but it is not as common as people who don't have experience playing online backgammon fear. Cheating is not as easy as it might seem at first, and it is relatively easy to detect. Serious players routinely analyze online games with bots afterwards. Someone cheating with a bot would not only seem to play with odd timing during play, but upon analysis, they would have a suspiciously low error rate, even if they intentionally made "mistakes," and used a different bot than the one used for analysis.

Some sites have better policies about cheating than others. One is accused of having house bots. Another may accuse winning players who don't cheat of cheating, then confiscate their money. GamesGrid, PartyGammon, and TrueMoneyGames seem to have better reputations about dealing with cheating than the other sites, although they have their flaws.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Im in boulder, co. We have a club here that meets every week for a no rake $10+side bets tourney, but I havnt been able to go yet. Knowing when to double is something I want to get a handle on too. To get started, maybe i could pose a sort of grass roots question. Assuming neither player has an otherwise positional advantage, is it correct for a player with a 1 pip lead to double early? An analogy might be raising with a 2% edge in limit poker. Its obviously correct, eventhough you are reopening the betting for him and he at least has odds to call. Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Friend, doubling is everything. At world class level, no checker mistakes are made, the mistakes are to do with the cube. Some countries play without the cube (doubling cube is a recent US invention from 1920s) and players from those countries when playing with the cube get massacred. Moreover, Sklansky has pointed out that in backgammon checker mistakes cost you little where as cube mistakes cost you a lot. The cube is everything. One book I could recommend is 501 Essential Backgammon Positions by Bill Robertie as it has lots of doubling reference positions in it. The cube is everything.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Friend, doubling is everything. At world class level, no checker mistakes are made, the mistakes are to do with the cube.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but that is just a common misconception.

Here are some stats of some players, most of whom are considered world-class: Karsten Nielsen's rankings.

Every single player on that list has a lower checker play error rate than cube error rate. Many of the cube error rates are under 1 millipoint per move. None of the checker play error rates are under 2 millipoints per move. Nielsen is not the only one who has collected lists of stats like that, and on each list, the cube error rates are much smaller than the checker play error rates. You can also see this in collections of browsable recorded and analyzed matches. (To see the summary statistics, click on the "x wins" link in the navigation frame.)

The actual equity given up is not the same as the normalized error given up. The error rate uses the normalized errors, which overstate the size of cube errors. That means the equity given up by doubling mistakes is actually even smaller in relation to the checker play errors than the error rate indicates.

The error rates in those stats are for match play, where the cube decisions are particularly tricky. In money play, the cube error rates are smaller, while the checker player error rates stay about the same.

When typical club players are analyzed, the cube errors increase in proportion, but the vast majority of serious players still give up more equity with checker play mistakes than cube mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]

Some countries play without the cube (doubling cube is a recent US invention from 1920s) and players from those countries when playing with the cube get massacred.

[/ QUOTE ]
They play poorly without the doubling cube, too. Their main problem is not inexperience with the cube. It is a lack of good competition and objective feedback, so they keep blundering the way their grandfathers did. In fact, if I have to play a short match, such as in a side event at a tournament, and someone asks to play without the doubling cube, I agree, since I think my advantage is greater without it. It's like playing a freezeout for 20 big blinds. I'd win more money per hand playing NL, but I'd win more frequently playing limit.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, Sklansky has pointed out that in backgammon checker mistakes cost you little where as cube mistakes cost you a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reference for this statement? My guess is that you meant someone else. Anyway, the statistics are overwhelming, whatever it feels like. If two time world champ Robertie said it, then Robertie was wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

One book I could recommend is 501 Essential Backgammon Positions by Bill Robertie as it has lots of doubling reference positions in it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's an excellent book. If you would like something which concentrates on the doubling cube almost exclusively, try The Backgammon Encyclopedia, Volume 1 by Kit Woolsey.

[ QUOTE ]
The cube is everything.

[/ QUOTE ]
A huge step toward improving is realizing that a lot of the "automatic" checker plays you make may be wrong.

Here are some examples just on responses to the opening rolls. Decide first, but the answers are in white. For rollouts, see Stick's site.

Oppt: 4-3, splitting 24/20 and building 13/9. How should you play 5-3? <font color="white">Hitting 13/5* is right by a significant amount. The error of making the 3 point is common among weak players.</font>
Oppt: 6-4, making the 2 point. How should you play 4-3? <font color="white">Bringing two checkers down from the midpoint is clear. Splitting is a significant, common error.</font>
Oppt: 6-1, making the bar point. How should you play 2-1? <font color="white">You should slot 6/5 13/11. Splitting 24/23 13/11 is a common mistake even by strong players.</font>
Oppt: 6-5, running. How should you play 6-4? <font color="white">Making the 2 point is right by a little over splitting and building, but almost no one plays this, or even considers it. When I play this live against strong players, I sometimes comment, "This is how you know I'm a bot. No human makes this play." Running 24/14 is clearly wrong. </font>

[Al Mirpuri]

Dear pzhon,

It is rare to come across a post as good as yours.

You correct me, without offending me. I thank you for that.

Your post is also falls into that small category know as erudite.

As for the Sklanksy reference, it is definitely in Getting The Best Of it but I cannot give you the page number as I no longer have my copy (it is a long story).

I was a little unsure about the accurateness of what you said concerning players from countries that do not use the cube. I was stating sometning I had read whilst you were talking from your experience. My understanding was second hand but yours even though empirical must have had a little sample base unless of course you are a backgammon pro regularly playing players from countries that do not use a doubling cube.

Thanks again for your post.

Best Wishes,

Al Mirpuri.

[pzhon]

Since I typed 13/9 where I should have typed 13/10, I might as well add some diagrams. I made a small change to the comment in white on the last position.
[ QUOTE ]


Oppt: 4-3, splitting 24/20 and building 13/10. How should you play 5-3?
<font color="white">Hitting 13/5* is right by a significant amount. The error of making the 3 point is common among weak players.</font>


Oppt: 6-4, making the 2 point. How should you play 4-3?
<font color="white">Bringing two checkers down from the midpoint is clear. Splitting is a significant, common error.</font>


Oppt: 6-1, making the bar point. How should you play 2-1?
<font color="white">You should slot 6/5 13/11. Splitting 24/23 13/11 is a common mistake even by strong players.</font>


Oppt: 6-5, running. How should you play 6-4?
<font color="white">Making the 2 point appears to be right by a little over splitting and building, but almost no one plays 8/2 6/2, or even considers it. When I play this live against strong players, I sometimes comment, "This is how you know I'm a bot. No human makes this play." Running 24/14 is clearly wrong. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

It is rare to come across a post as good as yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the kind words.

[ QUOTE ]

As for the Sklanksy reference, it is definitely in Getting The Best Of it but I cannot give you the page number as I no longer have my copy (it is a long story).

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, I'll have to track that down. It's not a surprise if Sklansky said it. I think I've seen similar sentiments in a few backgammon books, and it is the consensus of backgammon players who haven't actually looked into it.