🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bw71xu.IM3@world.std.com>, Elliott Winslow writes:

        >There are a *lot* of good, logical reasons for playing
        >24-18, 13-9 over 24-14.  They just require looking more
        >deeply than your one-roll hit-or-not-hit analysis.

If you want to be aggressive, why not 13-9, 13-7?  :)
Or maybe 24-20, 24-18.  You're very likely to be able
to establish either your 20 or 18 points on the next roll.

The reason that *I* would play 24-14 here is that if I
can avoid being hit on 14 (I'm a 26-10 favorite to do so),
my next roll will bring the blot on 14 to safety.  O still
has both men on his 1 point, and X is has a builder in
position to try to establish one of the 3 most important
points (the 5, 4, and bar points).

If on the other hand I move 24-18, 13-9, O is a decided
favorite to hit one of my blots.  Even in an exchange of
blots, neither one of us has much of an advantage, except
that O has made his 3 point on 22, whereas I have nothing.
I have no offense whatsoever.  It seems to me that the only
purpose of moving 24-18, 13-9 is to get into a battle of
back games.

|24 23 22 21 20 19| |18 17 16 15 14 13|
|X     O        O | |   O            X|
|X     O        O | |   O            X|
|               O | |                X|
|               O | |                X|
|                 | |                X|
|                 [ ]                 | (X to play 6-4)
|               X | |                O|
|               X | |                O|
|               X | |    X           O|
|O              X | |    X           O|
|O              X | |    X           O|
|1  2  3  4  5  6 | | 7  8  9 10 11 12|

I guess that's what makes backgammon such a great game.  Different
people can have genuine disagreements on the best roll.  I try to
base my choices solely on dice probabilities.

Pop quiz:  12 is easier to hit than 11 with two dice.  True or false?

Philip Stromer          
(peewee@infoserv.com)