>> > I'm wondering about the following: The winning probability
>> > (aarOutput[ 0 ][ OUTPUT_WIN ]) doesn't include any added value for
>> > gammon or bg chances (aarOutput[ 0 ][ OUTPUT_WINGAMMON ] and
>> > aarOutput[ 0 ][ OUTPUT_WINBACKGAMMON ]). Those match points (DP, CP,
>> > TG) have an entity of cubeful equity, don't they? And I think
>> > equities are calculated as the sum of winning chances, gammon
>> > chances and bg chances, thus include gammon and bg value. If all
>> > this was correct so far, then I suppose these 2 values can't be
>> > compared.
>>
>>This seems a good point - I think picking the point needs to be done
>>in terms of MWC, it's not enough to do equity, since in some match
>>points, gammons are irre;evant.
>
>Ok, I'll compare them with an entity of MWC. But I think this doesn't solve
>the problem (if my conclusions were correct) that the winning probability
>doesn't account for gammon and bg values in games where they matter.
>eq2mwc() gives a MWC, but the winning probability is no equity, is it?
In the dead-cube model, the match points (DP,TP,CP,TG) are cubeless game
winning chances, that's why they are compared to the current cubeless
(game) winning probability. The effect of gammons and backgammons is
summarized by gammon and backgammon rates. Keeping G and BG rates constant,
the DP (for example) tells you what's the minimum percentage of games you
have to win in order to have a correct double. This keeps into account
gammon and backgammons via the (current) G and BG rates.
Also, in cases where gammons/backgamomns are irrelevant (match play), you
have nothing special to do : the way TP,DP,CP,TG are calculated already
consider these situations (W and L, the average value of a win or a lose,
depends on the match score, the MET, the cube value, etc).
So, to resume, (cubeless) equities are used to compute TP,DP,CP,TG (so they
keep into account everything, beside cube owning), but they are (cubeless)
GWC.