Match Equities

 Why use a match equity table?

 From: Kit Woolsey Address: kwoolsey@netcom.com Date: 19 February 1999 Subject: Re: Propagation of error in take point calculation Forum: rec.games.backgammon Google: kwoolseyF7E4rs.Ds1@netcom.com

```dbroth01@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> So, my question is "Why bother with all this math over the board when the
> error in the results might be so large?"  I'll now step back and let the
> REAL math folks cut this "analysis" to shreds.... :)

I'm not a real math folk, so I can't dispute your analysis.  And I will
be the first to admit that there may be errors in my table.  The figures
were not derived on a particularly scientific basis.  There are a
mishmash of empirical data, a program which was based on some assumptions
which may not be sound, a lot of judgment, and some fudging.  Other
people have derived similar match equity tables, all of which are
probably just as inaccurate.

So, why use the tables?  Two reasons.

First of all, they do work.  Even if there are inaccuracies, our
empirical experience has shown that the tables are reasonably accurate.
For most backgammon positions, a player is likely to misassess his winning
chances by far more than any inaccuracy which would come from a match
equity table.

Secondly, we have to have some basis by which to make our cube
decisions.  When faced with a cube decision which may be affected by the
match score, my approach is first to determine what winning chances I
need (taking gammons and recubes appropriately into account) to justify
taking at the match score.  Having done this, I then examine the
position, make my best guess as to my winning chances, and act
accordingly.  I may be wrong, but at least I am making my decision based
on objective criteria as much as possible.  This is superior to just
making a blind guess about the necessary winning chances, which can lead
a player to making a huge cube blunder.

Kit
```

### Match Equities

Constructing a match equity table  (Walter Trice, Apr 2000)
Does it matter which match equity table you use?  (Klaus Evers+, Nov 2005)
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)
ME Table: Big Brother  (Peter Fankhauser, July 1996)
ME Table: Dunstan  (Ian Dunstan+, Aug 2004)
ME Table: Escoffery  (David Escoffery, Nov 1991)
ME Table: Friedman  (Elliott C Winslow, Oct 1991)
ME Table: Kazaross  (Neil Kazaross, Dec 2003)
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)
ME Table: Zorba  (Robert-Jan Veldhuizen+, Dec 2003)
ME at 1-away/2-away (crawford)  (Fabrice Liardet+, Nov 2007)
ME at 1-away/2-away (crawford)  (Ian Shaw+, Apr 2003)
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)
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)
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)