The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
I will explain the connection on condition that someone actually gets
the problem right. So hopefully that will add an incentive.

Paul

XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | +---+
| | | X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action

On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
> starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
> I will explain the connection on condition that someone actually gets
> the problem right. So hopefully that will add an incentive.
>
> Paul
>
> XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
> X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon
>
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | | | O O O |
> | | | O |
> | | | O |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | | +---+
> | | | X X | | 2 |
> | | | X X X X | +---+
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, X own cube
> X on roll, cube action
>

It's an almost 3-roll position. O is almost always off in three since
she can afford to miss once. X can't afford to miss and will do so if he
rolls an ace (but not 11) on two out of the three rolls which should
happen about 8% of the time.

A 3-roll position gives about a 79% chance to win. Reduce that by nine
percentage points and you get about a 71% chance to win, which would
indicate D/T.

But you have to think about the recube chances. If X rolls an ace, then
his chances of rolling a second ace on the next two rolls are about 52%,
which probably isn't enough for O to have a recube. (And if he rolls two
aces in a row other than 11 then O has a cash.)

So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.

On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
> On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
> > starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
> > I will explain the connection on condition that someone actually gets
> > the problem right. So hopefully that will add an incentive.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
> > X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon
> >
> > Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
> > +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> > | | | O O O |
> > | | | O |
> > | | | O |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | |BAR| |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | | +---+
> > | | | X X | | 2 |
> > | | | X X X X | +---+
> > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
> > Cube: 2, X own cube
> > X on roll, cube action
> >
> It's an almost 3-roll position. O is almost always off in three since
> she can afford to miss once. X can't afford to miss and will do so if he
> rolls an ace (but not 11) on two out of the three rolls which should
> happen about 8% of the time.
>
> A 3-roll position gives about a 79% chance to win. Reduce that by nine
> percentage points and you get about a 71% chance to win, which would
> indicate D/T.
>
> But you have to think about the recube chances. If X rolls an ace, then
> his chances of rolling a second ace on the next two rolls are about 52%,
> which probably isn't enough for O to have a recube. (And if he rolls two
> aces in a row other than 11 then O has a cash.)
>
> So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.

In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.

Paul

On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
>> On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
>>> starring Sacha Baron Cohen.

>> So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
>
> In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.

I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.

On 9/23/2022 11:52 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
> On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
>>>> starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
>
>>> So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
>>
>> In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
>
> I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.

Might even be one of those initial doubles but not a recube.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:24:37 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 11:52 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
> > On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
> >>> On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
> >>>> starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
> >
> >>> So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
> >>
> >> In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
> >
> > I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.
> Might even be one of those initial doubles but not a recube.

You don't need to worry about the initial double -- that's not the problem here.
Do you think it's NRD/T or RD/T?
You might want to think carefully, because there's a lot at stake here.

Paul

"peps...@gmail.com" <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes:

> XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
> X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon
>
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | | | O O O |
> | | | O |
> | | | O |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | | +---+
> | | | X X | | 2 |
> | | | X X X X | +---+
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, X own cube
> X on roll, cube action

Isight says NRD/T. I trust my method.

Axel

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:22:22 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
> "peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
> > X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon
> >
> > Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
> > +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> > | | | O O O |
> > | | | O |
> > | | | O |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | |BAR| |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | | +---+
> > | | | X X | | 2 |
> > | | | X X X X | +---+
> > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
> > Cube: 2, X own cube
> > X on roll, cube action
> Isight says NRD/T. I trust my method.

I used similar reasoning to what ah...Clem used.
I'm not saying I came to the same conclusion, and I'm
not saying if I was right or wrong. But we both approached
the problem in the same way, thinking in an N-rolls way, rather
than using a counting formula.

Paul

On 9/23/2022 2:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:24:37 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
>> On 9/23/2022 11:52 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
>>>>>> starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
>>>
>>>>> So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
>>>>
>>>> In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
>>>
>>> I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.
>> Might even be one of those initial doubles but not a recube.
>
> You don't need to worry about the initial double -- that's not the problem here.
> Do you think it's NRD/T or RD/T?
> You might want to think carefully, because there's a lot at stake here.

Ok then. I'll say D/T and NRD/T. Odds are I'll get at least one of
them right.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:54:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 2:52 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:24:37 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2022 11:52 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
> >>> On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 10:25:02 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/22/2022 3:52 PM, peps...@gmaWiil.com wrote:
> >>>>>> The following endgame is closely related to the first Borat movie
> >>>>>> starring Sacha Baron Cohen.
> >>>
> >>>>> So, I'll stick with D/P, although the cube looks marginal.
> >>>>
> >>>> In a race, it's hard to see how a cube can be both marginal and also a pass.
> >>>
> >>> I meant D/T. Cube seems marginal. Take seem clear.
> >> Might even be one of those initial doubles but not a recube.
> >
> > You don't need to worry about the initial double -- that's not the problem here.
> > Do you think it's NRD/T or RD/T?
> > You might want to think carefully, because there's a lot at stake here.
> Ok then. I'll say D/T and NRD/T. Odds are I'll get at least one of
> them right.

With your powers, I'm sure you could get three answers right, when answering only two questions.

Paul

On 9/23/2022 4:26 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:22:22 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:

>>> X on roll, cube action
>> Isight says NRD/T. I trust my method.
>
> I used similar reasoning to what ah...Clem used.
> I'm not saying I came to the same conclusion, and I'm
> not saying if I was right or wrong. But we both approached
> the problem in the same way, thinking in an N-rolls way, rather
> than using a counting formula.
>

My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.

Unless I'm applying it wrong here...

XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10

X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

Analyzed in XG Roller+
Player Winning Chances: 86.11% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 13.89% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)

Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.722, Double=+1.444

Cubeful Equities:
No double: +0.722 (-0.278)
Double/Take: +1.444 (+0.444)
Double/Pass: +1.000

Best Cube action: Double / Pass

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 11:42:43 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 4:26 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 9:22:22 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
>
> >>> X on roll, cube action
> >> Isight says NRD/T. I trust my method.
> >
> > I used similar reasoning to what ah...Clem used.
> > I'm not saying I came to the same conclusion, and I'm
> > not saying if I was right or wrong. But we both approached
> > the problem in the same way, thinking in an N-rolls way, rather
> > than using a counting formula.
> >
> My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.
>
>
> Unless I'm applying it wrong here...
>
> XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
>
> X:Player 1 O:Player 2
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | | | O |
> | | | O |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | X |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 1
> X on roll, cube action
> Analyzed in XG Roller+
> Player Winning Chances: 86.11% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
> Opponent Winning Chances: 13.89% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
>
> Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.722, Double=+1.444
>
> Cubeful Equities:
> No double: +0.722 (-0.278)
> Double/Take: +1.444 (+0.444)
> Double/Pass: +1.000
>
> Best Cube action: Double / Pass
>
> eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10
You are absolutely correct that race formulas break down for small races,
but the question is how small?

I am quite surprised at Axel's Axelish decision to Axelise a race that's as small
as the one under discussion. But, if his count works consistently in similar positions,
then clearly that's a strong selling point.

Paul

"ah...Clem" <ah_clem@ymail.com> writes:

> My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.
>
>
> Unless I'm applying it wrong here...
>
> XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
>
> X:Player 1 O:Player 2
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | | | O |
> | | | O |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | X |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 1
> X on roll, cube action

Isight gets this one right. See the end of section 5.3 on page 18 and
section 5.4 on cub-offs. Like I wrote previously here: Unless I know it
by heart (REAL, not ALMOST n-roll positions, some cub-offs, e.g., this
one) or can do it analytically and QUICKLY, I always use my method. What
would be the alternative? Guessing? I guess that guessing cub-offs
will be wrong in more than 12 per cent of the cases. (-;

Best regards

Axel

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 8:39:27 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
> "ah...Clem" <ah_...@ymail.com> writes:
>
> > My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.
> >
> >
> > Unless I'm applying it wrong here...
> >
> > XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
> >
> > X:Player 1 O:Player 2
> > Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
> > +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> > | | | O |
> > | | | O |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | |BAR| |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | X |
> > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
> > Cube: 1
> > X on roll, cube action
> Isight gets this one right. See the end of section 5.3 on page 18 and
> section 5.4 on cub-offs. Like I wrote previously here: Unless I know it
> by heart (REAL, not ALMOST n-roll positions, some cub-offs, e.g., this
> one) or can do it analytically and QUICKLY, I always use my method. What
> would be the alternative? Guessing? I guess that guessing cub-offs
> will be wrong in more than 12 per cent of the cases. (-;
>

Yes, I just (wrongly) took Ah...Clem's word for it.
I'll now work through the Axelised take.
The potential taker has the following penalties.
1) + 1 for an extra checker
2) + 1 for a 5 point gap where the opponent has no such gap.

The doubler has no penalties.
Adjusted counts are therefore 5 and 4.
5 + 5/6 - 4 < 2 for a drop.

To get the type of counter-example, Ah...Clem might intend,
we can give the potential taker only one checker on the acepoint which
will clearly give a bad take.

Just for fun, I'll Axelise the problem with which I began this thread (I didn't do this OTB).
The doubler has a + 1 penalty for an extra checker.
The taker has a + 2 penalty for the acepoint stack.
16 + 16/6 - 12 > 6 so we hold, and we wouldn't do an initial double either.
Althought Axelising does indeed solve this particular problem, I think that Ah...Clem's analysis
is much more relevant and much better than Axelising, when applied to positions of this type.

Paul

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 10:57:33 AM UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 8:39:27 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
> > "ah...Clem" <ah_...@ymail.com> writes:
> >
> > > My impression is that the race formulas break down at small races.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unless I'm applying it wrong here...
> > >
> > > XGID=-----A------------------b-:0:0:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
> > >
> > > X:Player 1 O:Player 2
> > > Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
> > > +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> > > | | | O |
> > > | | | O |
> > > | | | |
> > > | | | |
> > > | | | |
> > > | |BAR| |
> > > | | | |
> > > | | | |
> > > | | | |
> > > | | | |
> > > | | | X |
> > > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > > Pip count X: 5 O: 2 X-O: 0-0
> > > Cube: 1
> > > X on roll, cube action
> > Isight gets this one right. See the end of section 5.3 on page 18 and
> > section 5.4 on cub-offs. Like I wrote previously here: Unless I know it
> > by heart (REAL, not ALMOST n-roll positions, some cub-offs, e.g., this
> > one) or can do it analytically and QUICKLY, I always use my method. What
> > would be the alternative? Guessing? I guess that guessing cub-offs
> > will be wrong in more than 12 per cent of the cases. (-;
> >
> Yes, I just (wrongly) took Ah...Clem's word for it.
> I'll now work through the Axelised take.
> The potential taker has the following penalties.
> 1) + 1 for an extra checker
> 2) + 1 for a 5 point gap where the opponent has no such gap.
>
> The doubler has no penalties.
> Adjusted counts are therefore 5 and 4.
> 5 + 5/6 - 4 < 2 for a drop.
>
> To get the type of counter-example, Ah...Clem might intend,
> we can give the potential taker only one checker on the acepoint which
> will clearly give a bad take.
>
> Just for fun, I'll Axelise the problem with which I began this thread (I didn't do this OTB).
> The doubler has a + 1 penalty for an extra checker.
> The taker has a + 2 penalty for the acepoint stack.
> 16 + 16/6 - 12 > 6 so we hold, and we wouldn't do an initial double either.
> Althought Axelising does indeed solve this particular problem, I think that Ah...Clem's analysis
> is much more relevant and much better than Axelising, when applied to positions of this type.

Since my previous post let Cadbury's whole nut fall out of my gift bag, for the sake of commenting
on the (correct) Axelisation, I'll give the rollout now.

The Timlessness of this thread is marked, and I apologise if more Timtime should have been given.
I was simply too impatient to wait for Tim to give the thread its due Timlessnesslessness.
(That's a variant of a very well-known (in the UK) Rowan Atkinson joke from around the early 80s.)

I didn't cover the initial double case. I mean, why would I cover it, since it's not the problem?
I also didn't cover the case that the opponent is seriously drunk and causing problems to the
establishment, and needs to be cleared out of the building as a matter of urgency, leading to insufficient time
to evaluate the game.

However, since Ah...Clem chose to comment on this aspect (possibly while sailing), I would be quite surprised
if this isn't an initial double, because of the tightness of the decision in the RD case.

Ah...Clem was simply perfect in his understanding and analysis.

Now for the well-earned Borat reference, since some did indeed solve this problem.
I refer to this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCapEm8Nu7c
concerning Borat learning about "Not" jokes.
The actual filmed scene included the backgammon position below.
(Cohen used to work as a quant and he knows a fair amount about games with a strong
analytical content such as backgammon, chess, and poker.)
After setting up the below postion, the Borat character said:
"This should be treated as a standard 3 roll versus 3 roll position!" and then he paused a second and said "NOT!!"
However, this rather technical reference to backgammon was cut post-production,
since it was (wrongly) feared that many in the audience wouldn't understand it.

Paul

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

XGID=-ABBA----------------aa-c-:1:1:1:00:0:0:3:0:10
X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| | | O O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | +---+
| | | X X | | 2 |
| | | X X X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 15 O: 10 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X on roll, cube action

Analyzed in Rollout
No redouble
Player Winning Chances: 64.97% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 35.03% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Redouble/Take
Player Winning Chances: 64.97% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 35.03% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)

Cubeless Equities: No Double=+0.299, Double=+0.599

Cubeful Equities:
No redouble: +0.563
Redouble/Take: +0.541 (-0.023)
Redouble/Pass: +1.000 (+0.437)

Best Cube action: No redouble / Take
Percentage of wrong pass needed to make the double decision right: 4.7%

Rollout:
2592 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
Confidence No Double: ± 0.001 (+0.562..+0.564)
Confidence Double: ± 0.002 (+0.539..+0.542)

Double Decision confidence: 100.0%
Take Decision confidence: 100.0%

On 9/24/2022 6:39 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Timlessness of this thread is marked, and I apologise if more Timtime should have been given.

I typically don't respond to race cube problems since there are
others here who can respond better than I can.

---
Tim Chow

"peps...@gmail.com" <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes:

> Althought Axelising does indeed solve this particular problem, I think
> that Ah...Clem's analysis is much more relevant and much better than
> Axelising, when applied to positions of this type.

I understand, know, and value this kind of analysis, but have my doubts
that the hand-waving and gut feeling involved will overall result in
less equity lost.

Best regards

Axel

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 7:15:12 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
> "peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Althought Axelising does indeed solve this particular problem, I think
> > that Ah...Clem's analysis is much more relevant and much better than
> > Axelising, when applied to positions of this type.
> I understand, know, and value this kind of analysis, but have my doubts
> that the hand-waving and gut feeling involved will overall result in
> less equity lost.

That totally depends on who you are.
I'm sure that everyone in the sub-4 community would lose a lot of equity
if they rigidly used your algo in every single race.
Maybe a good idea for ah...Clem and me to stick to your algo, since neither of us are particularly good.
But ah...Clem is showing signs of being a major racing genius -- a good thing for
a sailor.

Paul