Backgammon

Chris Bray
Friday 25 July 1997 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

In the early days, the only difference between match and money play was that people were much tighter and it was quite rare to see a 4 cube. Gradually players realised that the score had a significant influencing factor on cube decisions. Ideas such as not doubling so readily when ahead in a match became standard. Soon, some of the keener minds decided to work out match equity tables.

A match equity table gives you the percentage chance of winning a match at any particular score. Trailing 5-4 in a match to 7 points, your chances are 41 per cent; leading 10-3 in a match to 15, they are 83 per cent. Three players, Robertie, Woolsey and Kleinman, derived tables based on a mixture of mathematical theory and empirical evidence. Their three tables, however, had some differences. Over the years methods have become refined and the empirical evidence of real matches has greatly increased, so there is now general agreement on the table values.

The problem is, how do you remember tables? A table for a 15-point match has 225 entries, a little too many to remember. Luckily help is at hand. I shall give two methods by which the match equity for any score in any length match can be calculated.

The first, and most commonly used, is the Janowski Formula, derived by Rick Janowski of Rochdale. If D is the difference between the two players' scores and T is the number of points the trailing player needs to win, then the match-winning probability of the leading player is 50 + (D x 85/(T+6)). If the Crawford game is being played this changes to 55 + (D x 55/(T+2)). This may seem daunting but after a little practice it becomes quite easy to use.

If you don't like multiplication then try the Underwood Formula, named after the late US player Fleet Underwood. If T is the trailer's score, L the leader's score and W the match length then the leader's match-winning probability is 50 + the first (L-T) numbers from the following sequence: 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2. If W-L > 4 then subtract ((W-L) + (W- T))/4 from the number previously calculated. Again, this may seem complex but is surprisingly easy to use. For example, leading 5-2 in a match to 11 the leader's probability of winning is 50+9+8+6 - (6+9)/4 which is 69 per cent.

Of the two formulae the Janowski is slightly more accurate, particularly for longer matches where one player has a significant lead. We shall return to this topic in a few weeks' time to see how to apply it all.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in