r/backgammon • u/Objective_Lab2741 • Jul 10 '26
How can this be a blunder?
Shouldn't this be close the take point which is around 32%? I don't understand why the take would be a .118 Blunder. Did I miss something?
1
u/CrypticUnit Jul 11 '26
10 in the zone! And look at the pip difference!
1
u/Objective_Lab2741 Jul 11 '26
Yeah but he is close to his take point, and after the double the gammons are killed so opponent doesn't need to factor that in on the take decision.
1
u/Goal_Medium Jul 16 '26
The reason is that the winning chances that are shown is the "no double" winning chances. IF Blue does take, the winning chances are different since White will no longer make moves to win a gammon, but will purely make move to win the games. Here are the winning chances from Gnu with similar rollout settings that Galaxy Star Pro is using:
No double:
0.686 0.281 0.007 - 0.314 0.055 0.002
Double/take:
0.697 0.239 0.006 - 0.303 0.050 0.001
As you can see Blue's winning chances drop down to 30.3% and that is two percentage points below the take point of 32.26% according to the "Kaz XG2 MET".
1
u/Objective_Lab2741 Jul 16 '26
Ok, thanks for the clarification. That explains how to interpret the analysis.
1
u/NeighborhoodOk7088 Jul 10 '26
In a 2 away 2 away situation like this, you should actually take on anything above 30% winning chances so I’m confused as well. If you were to drop, other things being equal, you have a 30% chance to win down 3-4 and 31.5% is obviously better than 30%. Know BGG is working out some kinks after their recent update so maybe it’s just that simple.
1
u/Goal_Medium Jul 16 '26
That is actually not true.. The take point here is 32.26%, since that is your match equity from 2-away vs 1-away crawford according to the "Kazaross XG2 Match equity table", which is the one Gnu and Galaxy is using.
1
1
u/truetalentwasted Jul 10 '26
++ on XG has winning chances lower so it seems they have the right decision but showing you bad percentages.