The following game came up, and while I know it was a double, take situation, I cannot work out why. Surely I am just hoping to roll a double, while hoping my opponent fails to roll one?
You are right. It is simply you are waiting for doubles. This is the latest you can take (4 rolls vs 4 rolls). You can roll doubles and cube him out, and you have a few rolls to do it. 3 rolls vs 3 rolls is simply not enough time.
But surely he is just as likely as me to roll a double? In other words, my advantage is cancelled by his? How am I 27% to win here, when I have to roll a double, while he has to not roll one, and both events are equally likely?
I've broken it down into the following scenarios:
1) Neither team rolls a double, he wins. (most likely)
2) He rolls a double, I don't, he wins. (50/50)
3) We both roll doubles, he wins.
4) I roll a double, he doesn't. I win. (50/50)
Where is the 27% winning percentage coming from here?
My heart was in my teeth with this take, which I knew to be correct, but absolutely could not justify. Waiting/hoping for a double just doesn't seem right...?
Numbers 2 and 3 are redundant. They shouldn't be counted twice. Also, if you roll doubles your next roll before he does, you can recube and he has to pass, denying him a chance to roll doubles again for the win.
The chances of me rolling a double are 1 in 6. (as are his chances) That's well below the 25% needed for a successful take. If I am relying on that, where is the maths? I just don't understand...
This is a drop if he just has 8 guys on the 1. You have like 19% equity from winning the doubles battle and another 9% from him bozoing a bunch of small numbers and missing a bearoff.