playBunny: Actually it's quite clear and bold. I suggest reading bold text before clicking.

Hrqls: Lol. You missed it because it didn't say it or because it's easily missable?!!!

All hail Fencer to highlight that warning!!

grenv: wow! you are right .. i missed that part .. great :)

*all hail fencer* :)

Hrqls: It does, but I think it only tells you if the points gained by the opponent is greater then one.

grenv & alanback: ah thanks! i didnt know there was a maximum of match length :)

i waited until i was bearing off as well so it wouldnt be counting as a (back)gammon

it would be nice if the resigning message would show how many points the opponent would gain by this resing

alanback: I know, he clearly stated in the question that both players had borne off.

grenv: BUT be careful about resiging before bearing off -- the value of the resignation is based on the current board position, so if you resign before bearing off you will be resigning a gammon (double game), or backgammon (triple game), depending upon where your checkers sit.

Hrqls: On this site at this time, 32 is the max. This is becayuse 21 is the biggest match, so if the game is worth 32 neither player will get the choice to double any further.

Your question really only matters when gambling is involved.

Resign button resigns the current game only, so in your example you would be 4-0 down after resigning.

i have 2 questions about the cube games :

• whats the max to which you can double ? (64 or no limit?)
  
• what happens if i resign a game (3-0 behind in a 5 pnt match, both already bearing off) will the resign button make me resign the game (making it 4-0) or does it make me resign the complete match ?
  

Woolsey's Law

To double or not to double, that is the question. What should our thought process be?

First of all, we (mentally) move to the other side of the table and ask ourselves the following question: If we were doubled in this position, would we take? There are three (not two) possible answers to this question:

1) Yes, I'm absolutely sure it is a take.
2) No, I'm absolutely sure it is a pass.
3) I'm not 100% sure.

If the answer is (1 - Take), then it still might be correct to double. This would be the case if there were a significant chance that on the next exchange (we roll, he rolls) he will now have a big pass. If the position is that volatile, it is proper to double even if the take is easy. Otherwise it is correct to wait.

If the answer is (2 - Drop), then it still might be correct to double. This would be the case if either the gammon chances were small or if there were a significant chance that after the next exchange (we roll, he rolls) he will now have a big take. Otherwise it is correct to wait and play for the gammon.

If the answer is (3 - Hmmmm), then it is always correct to double. I have written this elsewhere calling it Woolsey's Law. It is valid in virtually all situations. The only possible exception may occur when you are well ahead in the match and the double would put you out or nearly out. In this situation it may pay to be conservative. Otherwise, follow Woolsey's Law. You won't go far wrong.

Source: Backgammon Galore

Fencer: sounds interesting

(and might not be that hard to add ? :))

Fencer: Lol. It would be very interesting to implement it, but that's a game that only one can play - the programmer!

I'd vote for perfection in the existing games myself before effort went into new games but Grasshopper does look like it would pose some interesting new challenges.

pgt: Cool, let me know if you were successful.
Something different - does anybody play Grasshopper? Would it be interesting to implement it here?

Fencer: I stand corrected. I plan to transfer exactly the same philosophy to my own business starting tomorrow!

alanback: You are absolutely right.

pgt: True . . . but not satisfying every whim of every customer, but allocating resources optimally to attract the average customer ;-)

pgt: Absolutely wrong. My time is best spent on making myself happy. Which makes any kind of autopass impossible to be here.

alanback: I think Fencer's time is best spent on making his paying customers happy

Walter Montego: Oh, indeed I would. I just think Fencer's time is better spent on other features. I suspect it isn't as easy to progam as one might think.

alanback: It's mainly a problem because of how trivial it is. Think about it. If autopassing was a feature, would there be a lot of people posting to have it shut off? Or a least be made an option so that they could indeed click each move? Yeah, right, I don't think so either.
Yes, in the grand scheme of things it's nothing, but just because it doesn't bother you to hit the button each time doesn't mean there aren't those of us that it drives crazy. And I bet you'd opt for passing too.

pgt: What blissful lives y'all must lead, if this is such a big problem for you!

Walter Montego: I couldn't agree more. I've been clicking "autopass" for a week now in one game at the rate of a couple of moves a day, and to be blunt, it pisses me off!

alanback: You might be right, but I do like playing Backgammon.

After awhile it just drives me crazy sitting there on the bar and for no reason other than some people not wanting it made possible for those of us that want to be able to pass voluntarily being forced to click buttons when the whole thing could be taken care without me having to deal with it. It's not a small thing. I do not like to be a part of things I consider stupid and I try to avoid them. Those that wouldn't want to pass could have their games played as is now. I'd be willing to bet that even those few people would eventually see the error of their way and would click autopass too. If autopass is ever implimented on this site, that'd make for something to chart. I bet over 80% of people would opt to use it most of the time. Let the rest of them click the button each turn while everyone else can get on with the game and not be some button pushing knucklehead.

Walter Montego: I think you just don't want to play backgammon, Walt :-) It's hard to believe such a small thing would be enough to make you quit!

I have decided to stop playing Backgammon. I just can't handle the stupidness of hitting the button when I can't make a move, or watching my opponent go through it. I earlier asked for a trimmed down version of autopass that would only be enabled with the consent of the players in the game and only when no matter what rolled on the dice would still leave you without a move. This is not the full-blown autopass of some sites, but how it would be played if two people were playing the game in person. Home base is blocked and you got a man on the bar, you don't touch the dice and your opponent just keeps rolling and moving until a blot or point opens up. Simple, straight forward, and common sense approach. The first roll you couldn't move could show you the position and then it'd be your opponent's turn until you actually had a chance to move on the roll of a good number.

Anyways, time for Halloween! :)
Have a good one you all.

playBunny: Small pleasures . . .

Wow. I just made 10 moves in a row at Gold Token using the you know what facility.

It was GREAT!!

BerniceC: It was a bug. In the past you would move 3-1 then realize that 4 was impossible and would need to play 16-10 instead if you both saw it and were honest. Unfotunately many players missed such moves and therefore played illegally.

BerniceC: It was fixed a few weeks ago.

thank you :( this is the first time this has ever happened to me is it something new???

BerniceC: 16-10 is the only available move

BerniceC: Yes. If you make that move you won't be able to move 4

BerniceC: Because you have to use both dice if you can.

can someone please tell me why I cant move from position 3 to 1?
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1129431

playBunny: Sorry, but you wont get an answer to that question ...btw..do you still believe in "Scaninavian United" .or what was it you called us?

Andersp: Lol. You took the doubled ofered and redoubled in roder to end the game quickly? Resigning is a tad quicker than that, methinks. Or did you mean the match because the cube at 16 certainly ended the match.

That aside, I'm very curious about why you wanted to end the match??

The "I know the rules" was a reply to my suggestion to read the rules about gammons and backgammons, because the resignations suggested that this part of the game was not understood. Now that I know that he wanted to end the match as quickly as possible, I understand that the funny resignations (starting at game #1, where the 3-0 to 21 he gave me was wery unlikely...) had nothing to do with the understanding of the the rules. But to answer my misplaced (but friendly) suggestion with a hint about me cheating with programs is way over the line.

playBunny: Of course my doubling was a gift..i wanted the game to end as quick as possible..i have no problems to accept that i lose and as i have told you before is the BKR something i dont care about either. If people want to use a program thats ok with me too..but people who copy a game to a public board and "cry" ..nah!! ..thats rather childish..isnt it?

Andersp: "translated to english : "i know the rules i also know that there are cheatingprograms "

Whinging about cheats, eh Anders? Can't accept that you lost?

Seriously though. If a player like frolind doubles, you should never redouble on your next go unless he's rolled an awful, terrible, stinking number.

What frolind said about "gifts" is very true. Your second redouble was immediately after accepting a double that should have been dropped as if it were a hot rivet. In each case you redoubled when frolind's post-double roll had sent a man of yours to the bar. In the second case that meant two on the bar and with a 4-point table to get back into and builders at the ready!

redsales: Your link and alanback's say exactly what I was saying! Both links do not mention how the percentage of payoff is figured or changed. I used 7760 coins out of 8000 positions as an example of 97%. To change it to say 95% you'd have to lower the total payout to 7600. This could as easy as changing a two cherry payout from 6 coins to 5 if there was 160 ways of getting two cherries. This would make the machine "tighter". It has nothing to do with random numbers, electric motors, or mechanical drives.

And the whole thing works on the long run of the game, not your particular visit. If you're going to win, then you need to get lucky. It's that simple. As for increasing your chance of winning on a slot machine, understanding the casino's marketing tactics and how they use human nature to their advantage is how you do it. As the one link shows some of their tactics by positioning the looser machine where they'll be seen by people waiting line. What it says about machines next to a buffet line being tighter makes sense too. The loose ones should be three rows away so that the people in line will see people winning and will try the ones next to the line because they don't want to lose their spot in line.

frolind:
i said:

"jag vet reglerna..jag vet oxo att fuskprogram förekommer :)"

translated to english : "i know the rules i also know that there are cheatingprograms "

if that is to accuse then they have a differnet way to accuse in Norway

After this match, my opponent accused me of using a program to cheat. I believe I played pretty mediocre, but recieved lots of huge gifts from my opponent. What do you think? :)

WhiteTower: Nonsense, there are hundreds of machines in a casino, many being played continually throughout the day.

In a 24 hour period the confidence interval is so small that the house is guaranteed a profit. it is an unkown profit, but it could be for instance somewhere between 95% and 98% payout, but over a month it will be very close to a predictable number.

playBunny: That they don't go out of business in the short term ;)

WhiteTower: In the short term yes but not in the long term. So what is it that they need to make sure of?

playBunny: Since randomness can also make the payouts too much too often, the slot machine operators need to make SURE ;)

redsales: Lol. Good side step :-)) I don't understand why the machines would need such things as payoff and payout adjustors. That's the first thing I'd like explained because my thinking is that randomness alone is sufficient to ensure the percentages - over the long term (which is what they claim in the article).

playBunny: good point about infinite vs. finite series, an important difference! I could roll the dice a million times and never roll a 7. But infinitely, I know the texts say one should get perfect distribution, but I have trouble intellectualizing that one, because i can't see a practical way to prove it.

I, too, would like to know EXACTLY what trips the payoff and % payout adjustors, does anyone know who's an insider?

WhiteTower: Slot machines? Surely not!

:op)

playBunny: Take one guess where DailyGammon get their dice from ;)