I don't really plan on it. The victory is more valuable. Without it the tiebreak points won't matter.
Yes, the victory is more important, but if you only have to take a very slight risk to double repeatedly, it's worth it.
Also, in a situation where the winner of a given game is going to win anyway, you no longer give up chances of victory by doubling. So, if the score is at 4-4 or 3-3 then you should definitely do it.
Frankly, if points are still the tiebreak I think it's unfair to match me against Snickety-Snake when no fun girl is on 268435482 and hasn't played against him.
Welcome to 4 rounds ago when I pointed out the problem with the pairings. I learned to stop complaining an love the agent if chaos that is Scott Rubin.
I'm kind of sad at the missed win opportunities that were caused by my scheduling problems with InvaderREN and Belliger, but hey, that's luck. I guess I just have to double lots to beat the tiebreaks in my bracket.
Birdville defeats Yuyuke 6-3, in a down-to-the wire, neck-and-neck finish! I was tempted to doublestorm, but it's not so fun when we're keeping track of it ourselves. I wish you all good luck in the next round of the Grand Prix!
Hmm, so if I were to win against Snickety-Snake I'd be third at the least, but we would have an interesting situation with three people at 5 points, each of whom has only lost to one of the others; tie-breaking would then decide everything.
It looks like I'm safe as long as I don't let you win by 16 or more points. To secure second place, you'll have to win with at least 7, or make things interesting and get 6 to tie Birdville).
Well, I beat Snickety-Snake 5-2, mostly by outplaying him, though I will admit I got lucky a little more than he did; the game record can be seen here: http://pastebin.com/ZGhjgJ4d
Assuming Scott's dumb tiebreaking system this result, depressingly, still puts me in third place; that wouldn't quite be enough to catch me up to Dromaro in the overall Grand Prix standings.
Of course, I continue to plead for a better tiebreaking criterion. In fact, the fairest approach might be not to tiebreak at all, but instead split the point values equally among people with equal numbers of wins.
Woodchuck hasn't contacted me and I haven't contacted woodchuck because I've been real busy and forgot about Backgammon this week. So I guess we'll probably end up taking a tie.
Assuming Scott's dumb tiebreaking system this result, depressingly, still puts me in third place; that wouldn't quite be enough to catch me up to Dromaro in the overall Grand Prix standings.
There, there. If you wish to maintain this illusion, Johnny Snow, so be it. You had best bring your lunch pail. ;-)
I assumed that the points would be used as a tiebreaker, and played as if I didn't have anything to lose. Not saying that I took a knee, lackofcheese definitely bested me this round, but I figured that the outcome of the match would have been inconsequential to my final standing in the backgammon tournament.
Comments
Also, in a situation where the winner of a given game is going to win anyway, you no longer give up chances of victory by doubling. So, if the score is at 4-4 or 3-3 then you should definitely do it.
Frankly, if points are still the tiebreak I think it's unfair to match me against Snickety-Snake when no fun girl is on 268435482 and hasn't played against him.
I'd detail it but I have to run off to Tasty Minstrels playtest. Suffice to say, it was the best and wackiest match of the tourney for me.
http://pastebin.com/ZGhjgJ4d
Assuming Scott's dumb tiebreaking system this result, depressingly, still puts me in third place; that wouldn't quite be enough to catch me up to Dromaro in the overall Grand Prix standings.
Of course, I continue to plead for a better tiebreaking criterion. In fact, the fairest approach might be not to tiebreak at all, but instead split the point values equally among people with equal numbers of wins.
Also, rather than say he was sticking with total score as the tiebreaker, Scott's response to me waswhich implies he may yet consider a different approach, and hence this warrants further discussion.