Match Equities

 Which match equity table is best?

 From: Ian Shaw Address: ian.shaw@iee.org Date: 7 December 2001 Subject: Re: Match equity tables Forum: rec.games.backgammon Google: AW0Q7.1444\$Jm.76789@stones

```I use the Woolsey-Heinrich MET, because I can remember it! Well, almost. I
learnt the 1-away & 2-away values, and use Neil's Numbers for the rest.
http://www.gammonline.com/demo/equity.htm

The most scientific comparison I know of is by Kit Woolsey. GammOnLine
subscribers can check out this discussion by Kit Woolsey.
http://www.gammonline.com/members/Jan01/articles/sneq.htm. Kit writes,

"Snowie assumes a gammon rate of 26%, while for my table I assumed a gammon
rate of about 21%. I agree that Snowie's gammon rate is more accurate in
theory. In practice most backgammon players (even experts) do not play
aggressively enough for a gammon, since they are more concerned about
winning the game. Thus the empirical gammon rate is considerably lower than
Snowie's theoretical rate."

Ian
```

 Gregg Cattanach  writes: ```I use the Woolsey table because 1) I believe the gammon rate assumtions are more valid, and 2) there are several very simple algorithms to compute all of the ME values in your head. I don't know any method to create Snowie's numbers with some simple algorithm, and it isn't practical to use Snowie's numbers which are expressed in 10ths of percentages. Only a trivial number of people could effectively do 3 digit precision math for ME calculations in their head. Snowie's tables generally only differ from Woolsey's by 1.5% or less. Granted this can have an effect on a close decision, but over the board that precision isn't really required. Btw, my favorite method of coming up with the Woolsey numbers is the Turner method: 50 + (24/T + 3) * D where T is the number of points the trailer has to go and D is the differences in scores. This gets to within 1% of the Woolsey number for all scores up to 11-a, 11-a, except you should at 2% to the results for 2-a 5-a to 2-a 8-a. Also, you just need to memorize the Crawford score sequence: 30,25,17,15,10,9,6,5,3,3,2,2,1,1 as the formula doesn't work for those scores. Gregg ```

### 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)