Black to play. 0/0 in a first to 3.

I would say yes.

Red is dead in the ropes. Black has both 5 points, outfield control, a 4 point block against a deep anchor and the threat to send a third man back. Red has a position doomed to crunch. Disconnected, five men behind the anchor and three men in front of the anchor already dead. Gammons are counting heavier, the takepoint is a little bit higher.
So this can be actually to good to double/pass, but not by a wide margin, so for practical purposes, i would double, because the gain from a wrong take is huge.

Black has a very strong double here for all the reaons mentioned above. I think red should drop, as he his two point anchor is very weak against this prime, and he has already buried three checkers down to his own two point. If that wasn't enough black is a favorite to pick up the blot with 23 hitting numbers. Also, I would drop this position as red even if the blot was on the seven or six point.

Then it might be too good to double as mentioned by higonefive.

The thing is: would you take as red next roll with a four pt anchor and 3 checkers back? how about with 2 checkers on the 3 pt?
Red can only avoid a cashing cube with a 4 anchor, having only 2 checkers back, I believe, so I roll.

Gut is too good to double by a bit. How's he really supposed to do anything with any frequency but get trapped in a crappy 2-point game? You should have about 0 problem escaping, and he'll probably have to roll a joker to hit you at any point when you care about being hit.. and even if he does, he has 1 or 2 more back. Cash game it has to be a huge double.

ahhh...sorry. I didnt see that it was match play. I just assumed it was cash with jacoby, in which case I just turn the cube and pray for a take.

This was against a pretty weak player I play in low stakes best of threes in a pub in London. He takes in some really poor spots so was an obvious double regardless of the correct play (he took and just missed getting gammoned with some nice rolling) but was really curious if it could be too good with such a race lead so noted it down for later and was pretty surprised at the results.

Was also amazed when I moved reds anchor to the 4 point that it goes from a too good/pass to a no double/take (albeit by just 0.02%) on gnub - guess it just shows how important the gap really is when dealing with the prime. I'm usually a bit double happy in too good spots so trying to evaluate these better - little details like this seem to add up so quickly in this game.

The big thing with the gap here is that he has to roll a joker to even get a single guy past your prime since you're blocking his big numbers. If he's on the 4 here, he has lots of turns to roll 55/66 and just win the race, and also some better outfield coverage and thoughts of running.

His racing lead is simply working against him in that position when you have good control of all the board and he'll soon start cracking (his board is already kind of cheesy anyway).

Even with a four anchor, sometimes he'll be forced out of it prematurely and you'll be able to attack with some impunity (maybe even both blots) since at least two of his inner high points will be open, probably.

Seriously, what counterplay can he have there, especially being stuck in a two anchor when you have a good structure that can easily be improved?

By the way, why was the cube still centered? Did you just make your five point in the previous roll or did you just survive some gonzo cheesy blitz?

I rolled double one the previous roll and made the bar and five point - completely missed the hit on the blot that was at that point on the twelve point (thought there were still two checkers there so didn't even look at it) as was near the end of a very long session and kicked myself when I saw him move it next roll (obv hit/11 and make five point usually here). I think he then rolled three one and anchored in my home board and brought the blot down from the twelve, I got my phone out and took a quick pick of board for later.

In general this guy is horribad with the cube - he basically only drops in spots that are too good, only doubles in situations approaching or actually are too good, and takes everything else. Am I right in waiting a few extra rolls to double against an opponent like this? It seems stupid to try and make narrow doubles against such a player when losing the market considerations are close to going out of the window - seems simpler just to wait for a larger edge in such short format games. Is this right or am I making a mistake doing this?

Anchoring there in the deuce couldn't be right.

I usually pay attention to what kind of positions my opponent has difficulty with. If the guy takes too many passes in general, then your job is easier.
I would refrain from doubling if I think the double is marginal in a position with low volatility. If it's a high volatility position then I'm more inclined to double. It depends, the more market losers I have the more I want to double even if the opponent is a deep taker - I want to increase the value of my crushers! That's how I think, but what the hell do I know. I don't like waiting too much, if it's a clear cube to me then I just prefer to double my equity.

Besides if he doesn't know when to redouble properly, like you said, then you're not losing much for giving up the access to the cube.

If the position is double edged, like in many action double positions, then I might scratch my head against a deep taker.

If the position is marginally too good (and the opponent possesses an anchor and has no man on the bar like in your position) then I'll probably double (especially if the opponent saw me making a clear mistake in the preview roll).

Playing against a deep taker helps in positions that you yourself don't understand very well. If you have doubts that it is a double then you should not give up cube access (although you may be making a mistake); if you have doubts that it is too good, then you just double.
It's win-win.

Holding on to the cube a lot longer against a guy like that is obviously the way to go. The question is how long you think you can wait. As some have mentioned this is possibly already too good, so if you think he will take now, then rolling and losing your market would be a disaster.

btw, if the position before the last sequence was what I think it was, then I think you played the 1-1 correctly.

That is a strange mixture between Colonel Whiteflag and Fearless Freddie. If someone takes unacceptable cubes, he would normally give the cube to early. And if he gives too late, he would normally drops to early.
But against a late dropper, it is right to delay cubing, waiting for his point of last take, to cash some extra money.

Probably nothing compared to some of the bad beat stories from the really experienced players here, and I wouldn't dream of posting anything that was not really gut wrenchingly brutal after the note in the sticky, but lost from here against the same guy the other night:



Gnub ranks me as winning 0.999 of the time and getting a gammon 0.948. Oh well save them for the low stakes games I guess

Edit - forgot to put on diagram that he had the cube, and interestingly enough the game was still so close right to the end that I think at no point was it a redouble, with him still needing to roll a double to finish me off with me holding two checkers on my ace point on the last roll.

The real difference the cube position makes is that with a center cube I would imagine there was a point where you could double him out (or in...but that transposes to the game I guess)

Yeah, anything you can get to from there (2/3 guys on the 1 and one checker hit) is going to be a double/drop long before it ever turns really bad. Even once he hits you, it's still too good for awhile until he's almost off the gammon. Obviously him having the cube here already is A++.