On 8/10/2022 10:59 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
I was playing O and was surprised to see the rewhip here. But it did
make some sense - unless X turns it around he's losing a gammon most of
the time. The player stated that "I had no choice but to recube", which
isn't exactly true, but I made a note to take a look later.
I've definitely heard the following kind of reasoning: "If I lose
this game, it will be a gammon loss. Therefore, I lose nothing by
redoubling." If it were literally true that 100% of your losses
were gammon losses then it would be correct that redoubling would
lose nothing. But hardly ever is it literally true that 100% of
your losses are gammon losses. Such players often forget that
sometimes they'll hit that last-ditch shot, but lose anyway after
saving the gammon. So as long as some of your losses aren't gammon
losses, you're risking *something* by redoubling, and hence you
need some reason (i.e., enough market losers) to redouble.
---
Tim Chow
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)