Match Equities

Forum Archive : Match Equities

Does it matter which match equity table you use?

From:   Klaus Evers
Address:   none
Date:   15 November 2005
Subject:   Is the Ortega/Kleinman MET really way off ?
Forum:   GammOnLine

As an Intermediate player, I never made up much thoughts about METs. My
first introduction to that subject came with the fine book of
Ortega/Kleinman: "Cubes and Gammons near the end of a match". That was
an eye-opener for me, and from that point on I kept the current match
score into account while playing matches; esp. at -2; -4.

Recently I had a discussion with an expert on FIBS, and he looked at me
like I came from the stone ages when I told him I still used
Ortega/Kleinman's MET.  Another player (good, but not WC) said it didn't
matter much, as long as you at least use one at all and stick to it.

Who's right?

Marty Storer  writes:

Choice of MET is "important" in the sense that if you can get anything
at all out of a MET, you want it to be as accurate as possible. Every
driblet of equity counts, and saved driblets can mean many monetary
units over your lifetime.

It's "unimportant" in the sense that the good player said. Both Ortega-
Kleinman and a more modern table (e.g. g11) will steer your plays and
cube actions in the same direction. You need to know when (at what
scores and in what types of positions) to be aggressive, and when to be

For example, how is a score of -3 to -2 different from pure GG (-2 to -1
Crawford)? What are examples of how you play differently at those two
scores? I submit that the answers won't depend much on the specific MET.
Though the specific MET will occasionally point you to different
decisions for the same score, that won't happen too frequently or with
too great an equity difference. Much more important is to be able to
look at the score and "feel" the strength of the bias towards
conservativism, aggression, simplicity, or complexity.

First you want to get to the Zen-like state of having the right
feelings: to instinctively or involuntarily start steering your play in
the right direction. The beginning of such a state is to start slotting
and building at GG, versus splitting and running at GS. Then you can
make refinements: adding more reference positions to your memory; trying
to figure out how much to change strategy against much stronger players
(e.g. you'll play simpler positions better than complex positions, but
complex positions are more volatile, so, how do you play opening 51 at
-3 to -3 against Neil Kazaross? how does your take-point change in a
straight race? in a holding game? etc.); refining strategy against
weaker players; and there's really no end to refinements you can make.

So if you've already memorized a Woolsey-Heinrich-like MET, you can keep
using it for a while, with no really bad consequences. But if you want
to be as accurate as possible, ditch Ortega-Kleinman/Woolsey-Heinrich
for g11 or for one of the built-in bot MET's. Once you start looking
deeply enough into positions for Gammon Price to be important, you'll
definitely want the most accurate MET you can get.
Did you find the information in this article useful?          

Do you have any comments you'd like to add?     


Match Equities

Constructing a match equity table  (Walter Trice, Apr 2000) 
Does it matter which match equity table you use?  (Klaus Evers+, Nov 2005)  [GammOnLine forum]
Does it matter which match equity table you use?  (Achim Mueller+, Dec 2003) 
Does it matter which match equity table you use?  (Chuck Bower+, Sept 2001)  [GammOnLine forum] [Long message]
ME Table: Big Brother  (Peter Fankhauser, July 1996) 
ME Table: Dunstan  (Ian Dunstan+, Aug 2004)  [GammOnLine forum]
ME Table: Escoffery  (David Escoffery, Nov 1991) 
ME Table: Friedman  (Elliott C Winslow, Oct 1991) 
ME Table: Kazaross  (Neil Kazaross, Dec 2003)  [GammOnLine forum]
ME Table: Kazaross-XG2  (neilkaz, Aug 2011) 
ME Table: Rockwell-Kazaross  (Chuck Bower+, June 2010) 
ME Table: Snowie  (Chase, Apr 2002) 
ME Table: Snowie  (Harald Retter, Aug 1998) 
ME Table: Woolsey  (Raccoon, Apr 2006) 
ME Table: Woolsey  (Kit Woolsey, May 1994) 
ME Table: Woolsey  (William R. Tallmadge, Jan 1994) 
ME Table: Zadeh  (Jørn Thyssen, Mar 2004)  [GammOnLine forum]
ME Table: Zorba  (Robert-Jan Veldhuizen+, Dec 2003) 
ME at 1-away/2-away (crawford)  (Fabrice Liardet+, Nov 2007)  [GammOnLine forum]
ME at 1-away/2-away (crawford)  (Ian Shaw+, Apr 2003)  [GammOnLine forum]
Match equities--an alternate view  (Durf Freund, Oct 1994) 
Neil's new numbers  (neilkaz, Aug 2011) 
Neil's numbers  (Kit Woolsey+, Oct 1994) 
On calculating match equity tables  (Neil Kazaross, July 2004)  [GammOnLine forum]
Turner formula  (Gregg Cattanach, Feb 2003) 
Turner formula  (Stephen Turner, June 1994) 
Using a match equity table  (Michael J. Zehr, June 1992) 
Value of free drop  (Neil Kazaross, Oct 2002)  [GammOnLine forum]
Which match equity table is best?  (Martin Krainer+, Oct 2003) 
Which match equity table is best?  (Ian Shaw+, Dec 2001) 
Why use a match equity table?  (Kit Woolsey, Feb 1999) 
Worth memorizing?  (Alef Rosenbaum+, Feb 2003) 

[GammOnLine forum]  From GammOnLine       [Long message]  Long message       [Recommended reading]  Recommended reading       [Recent addition]  Recent addition

  Book Suggestions
Computer Dice
Cube Handling
Cube Handling in Races
Extreme Gammon
Fun and frustration
GNU Backgammon
Luck versus Skill
Magazines & E-zines
Match Archives
Match Equities
Match Play
Match Play at 2-away/2-away
Opening Rolls
Pip Counting
Play Sites
Probability and Statistics
Source Code
Strategy--Bearing Off
Strategy--Checker play


Return to:  Backgammon Galore : Forum Archive Main Page