On December 24, 2022 at 9:01:50 AM UTC-7, Nasti Chestikov wrote:

> I can confirm that in a new 7 point match
> tonight, GnuDung rolled 5-3 and played
> 8-3, 6-3 and its luck rating was indeed
> "Go To Las Vegas".

Your questioning whether "Go To Las Vegas"
rating was based on a single double, on your
second roll, caused me to look if it would give
that rating even after the first roll, which was
something I had never done before nor would
do if you hadn't questioned it.

And by looking at that, we have also discovered
a worse problem with Gnubg's not subtracting
the average equity from the actual equity of the
rolls for the opening roll. This is not a small bug.
It causes every ensuing calculation based on it
to be inaccurate and decisions based on those
calculations to be wrong (or inadvertently right:).

One never knows where a question can lead to.
So, keep your questions coming. Don't let them
bozos discourage or intimidate you by talking
big and by talking down to you...

MK

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

> The average equity after the first roll can't be 0. Before anything
> is rolled, both players have 0.5 equity.

Both have 0.5 winning chances, and hence the equity is 0. Once you
understand this, everything falls into place. Time for me to leave this
thread.

Axel

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

> The average equity after the first roll can't be 0. Before anything
> is rolled, both players have 0.5 equity.

Both have 0.5 winning chances, and hence the equity is 0. Once you
understand this, everything falls into place. Time for me to leave this
thread.

Axel

On December 26, 2022 at 12:25:57 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:

> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
>> The average equity after the first roll can't be 0.
>> Before anything is rolled, both players have 0.5
>> equity.

> Both have 0.5 winning chances, and hence the
> equity is 0. Once you understand this, everything
> falls into place.

You sank so low to quote only half of a paragraph
by reformatting it and without anything before and
after...? :(

Here is your paragraph that I was responding to:

"but the average equity after the first roll is of
"course 0 (both players are equally likely to win
"whatever opening roll and any equity thus
"cancels out).

And here is my response paragraph including the
sentence you omitted:

"The average equity after the first roll can't be 0.
"Before anything is rolled, both players have 0.5
"equity. The one who wins the opening roll gains
"an *average* equity of about +0.0545.

If you visually compare my two lines that you have
quoted to your first two lines, you can see that I had
tried to copy and edit your lines in an effort to use
the same words to give a one-to-one response but
my fingers and eyed failed my brain for a second,
("equally" is very close to "equity).

However, the last sence you axed leaves no doubt
about my understanding of things and everything
falls into place nicely.

You were the idiot who said that "*average* equity
!*after the first roll*! is of course 0". That sentence
you axed was to inform you that "*average* equity
*after the first roll*, (i.e. the opening roll), is NOT 0
but is about +0.0545"!

> Time for me to leave this thread.

Hurry up and don't look back, before you make any
worse of an ass of yourself...

MK

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 07:01:27 UTC, MK wrote:
>
> One never knows where a question can lead to.
> So, keep your questions coming. Don't let them
> bozos discourage or intimidate you by talking
> big and by talking down to you...
>
> MK

Just for completeness, here are the fifteen possible opening rolls and GnuDung's appraisal of their merits:

1-2: none
1-3: Go To Las Vegas
1-4: none
1-5: none
1-6: Go To Las Vegas
2-3: none
2-4: Go To Las Vegas
2-5: none
2-6: none
3-4: none
3-5: Go To Las Vegas
3-6: none
4-5: good dice man!
4-6: good dice man!
5-6: Go To Las Vegas

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 14:37:28 UTC, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 07:01:27 UTC, MK wrote:
> >
> > One never knows where a question can lead to.
> > So, keep your questions coming. Don't let them
> > bozos discourage or intimidate you by talking
> > big and by talking down to you...
> >
> > MK
> Just for completeness, here are the fifteen possible opening rolls and GnuDung's appraisal of their merits:
>
> 1-2: none
> 1-3: Go To Las Vegas
> 1-4: none
> 1-5: none
> 1-6: Go To Las Vegas
> 2-3: none
> 2-4: Go To Las Vegas
> 2-5: none
> 2-6: none
> 3-4: none
> 3-5: Go To Las Vegas
> 3-6: none
> 4-5: good dice man!
> 4-6: good dice man!
> 5-6: Go To Las Vegas

To further muddy the waters, if GnuDung rolls 4-2 first up, the bot gets the Las Vegas treatment. If I roll 4-2 in response, my luck rating is only "good dice man".

Two identical rolls evaluated differently in terms of luck.

Nasti Chestikov <nasti.chestikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>To further muddy the waters, if GnuDung rolls 4-2 first up, the bot gets
>the Las Vegas treatment. If I roll 4-2 in response, my luck rating is
>only "good dice man".
>
>Two identical rolls evaluated differently in terms of luck.

They're not identical. Luck, to the extent it's real, is
certainly contextual.

And I find your use of "GnuDung" to be childish and, as some of
the programmers who have donated their time to improve GNUbg
read the list, insulting.

--bks

On Monday, 26 December 2022 at 15:57:30 UTC, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>
> And I find your use of "GnuDung" to be childish and, as some of
> the programmers who have donated their time to improve GNUbg
> read the list, insulting.
>
> --bks

In a field full of sheep, the lion is an unwelcome guest...........

On December 26, 2022 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-7, Nasti Chestikov wrote:

> To further muddy the waters, if GnuDung
> rolls 4-2 first up, the bot gets the Las Vegas
> treatment. If I roll 4-2 in response, my luck
> rating is only "good dice man".

> Two identical rolls evaluated differently in
> terms of luck.

This is because Gnubg doesn't subtract the
average from opening rolls, as I explained
in my separate article about this, (which is
also true for XG). See:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/QU1jM9aatO0/m/6hlTx7kVCAAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/RgcdohfwyYs/m/NtnrIaUTCAAJ

Thus it gets the whole +0.155 equity for 42
but your 42 which is not an opening roll gets
(+0.155) - (+0.106) = +0.049 and according
to the "obsolete" manual they threw at you,
its equity is above the 0.06 threshold for "Go
to Las Vegas immediately" but your equity is
in between 0.02 - 0.06 for "Good dice, man!".

MK

On December 26, 2022 at 8:57:30 AM UTC-7, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

> Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Two identical rolls evaluated differently
>> in terms of luck.

> They're not identical. Luck, to the extent
> it's real, is certainly contextual.

They are not treated as identical for the
reason I explained in reply to Nasti and
not for any other contextual bullshit.

MK