Two similar positions. 0-0 to 5, white owns the 2-cube.

1.


2.


In 1, the correct play is 9/3 6/1*-- hitting but failing to cover, thereby preserving the 6-prime.

In 2, the correct play is to point with 7/1* 6/1.

Could someone please help me understand what the advantage of pointing is in 2?

In general, when faced with a choice of breaking my 6-prime to secure an inner-board point, how do I decide whether it's worth it?

I'm not sure, but in 2), with White still having 3 checkers not born-in yet (including the back man), you have realistic gammon chances by going for a quick closeout, hence pointing on White's head.

In 1), you are better securing the win and rolling the 6-prime forward since gammon threats are quite low.

Also, getting hit back in 1 is great. He's forced to crunch, and you get a shot at picking up a second checker (and better gammon chances) for no cost. Getting hit back in 2 could be a disaster. If you enter fast, you could be the one crunching instead.

Everything has to go. In 1, hitting with holding the prime, can kill his board, when you are hit, because he has to play in his homeboard.
In position 2 there is not such a trick, because you can enter from the bar, if you are hit. Even a prime has to go for winning a position. If you bring him on the bar, it is easier to clear from behind, perhaps even a closeout is possible. If you don't hit, you have to give a shot on your 8 point with no bargain. I don't know general rules. Look over the board and ask yourself what must happen to win or loose the game and then choose the move which will fit best to it. In 2, the board of your enemy is by now still a weapon. Fight for a close out and then clear from behind. That is the best way to roll the prime home for the bear off, avoiding giving shots.

The gammon chances look to be about the same in both spots. In fact, the gammon chances are higher in the first than the second (5.6% vs. 5%). Those extra gammons come from black picking up an extra checker.

And I think that is what accounts for the difference. Because of the risk involved with entering and getting stuck behind white's prime in the second case, you should just play to close him out (the safest path to winning). In the first case, there's basically no risk in gunning for a second checker to hit.

Thanks all for the answers.

9/3 6/1* in problem 1 made sense to me as it preserves the 6 prime *AND* has a chance of hitting another checker back.

However, this post actually arose from me facing problem 2 in an acutal game, where I (erroneously) played 9/3 6/1*-- partially because I wanted to hit a second checker, but also because I was reluctant to break the 6 prime.

Is 7/1* 6/1 in problem 2 "safer" for the simple victory because I'm not leaving a shot, or because I'm attacking for a fast close out? Or another way of putting it: would I still want to break the prime to attack for a close out if there was an alternative that didn't leave any shots and also kept the full prime?

Good point, I think your explanation is more accurate than mine. I think I overestimated the gammon chances in 2).

In 2), you're still leaving an indirect shot after 7/1* 6/1, but it's still overall safer and going for the fast closeout is the way to go.

As for your other question, at some point you'll have to break the prime anyway. Is leaving a 5-2 shot (17-to-1) an appropriate risk to go for a quick closeout now? I guess it depends on several factors. Is your opponent likely to crunch in the next 1 or 2 rolls? If so, it might be good to preserve the prime, and so on.