[Bug-gnubg] EMG article

[Jeremy Bagai]

Hi all; 
Hi Max,

Thanks for providing the link to my paper: 

> Hi all, 
> you can find here an interesting
> article on EMG (Equivalent to Money Game) equities. 
>
>                        
>
> http://www.fortuitouspress.com/emg.html 

I had posted to GammonU and was about to post here but you beat me to
it.  Thanks also for your introduction and summary of the
issue.  I hope people on this list get interested in the
problem.

I'm curious about your poly-line suggestion.  You wrote:


> I've made a suggestion which
> wouldn't be too complicate to put in place: 
>
> 1- let's call W1/2/3 (L1/2/3)
> the MWC at the scores of a single/gammon/backgammon win (loss)
> respectively. They are
> associated to NE (Normalized Equities)of +1/2/3 (-1/2/3)
> respectively. 
> The six points [L3,-3], [L2,-2],
> ... , [W3,+3] form a poly-line with 5 segments (at most, 
> at some scores two point may be
> identical because gammons/backgammons may not count). 
>
> 2- draw the poly-line, then use
> it to convert MWC to NE. 
>
> It's like having a different
> interpolation depending on the magnitude of the error you're 
> trying to normalize.
>
> Three examples: 
>
> - I'm leading 3-0 to 5 cube at
> 1, what can happen ? With a simple/gammon/backgammon win I go
> to 4-0/5-0/5-0 while with a
> simple/gammon/backgammon loss I go to 3-1/3-2/3-3. 
>
> - I'm leading 4-1 to 5
> post-Crawford (I owe the cube at 2), what can happen ? With a
> simple/ 
> gammon/backgammon win I go to
> 5-1/5-1/5-1 while with a simple/gammon/backgammon loss I go to
> 4-3/4-5/4-5. 
>
> - I'm leading 3-0 to 5 owing the
> cube at 2, what can happen ? With a simple/gammon/backgammon 
> win I go to 5-0/5-0/5-0 while
> with a simple/gammon/backgammon loss I go to 3-2/3-4/3-5.
>
> In any of the above situation,
> just associate the w/wg/wb scores with NNE +1/+2/+3 and the 
> l/lg/lb scores with NNE
> -1/-2/-3, reads the MWC of the different scores from your
> favourite 
> MET, put the points on a graph
> and draw the poly-line (attention: in some cases you have to 
> use post-Crawford METs).
>
> Upside: 
>         - it solves the issue above:
> all the 3 errors wil have the same normalized equity 
>         - for "small errors"
> (leading to MWC that are in the interval [single loss, single
> win]), 
>           my suggestion
> would return the good old EMG. 


Can you please provide a full numerical example of your proposal? 
You say that "it solves the issue above:  all the 3 errors wil
have the same normalized equity," but you don't say what that equity
will be.  Can you show the calculation?

Thanks very much,


Jeremy Bagai

____________________________________

Jeremy Bagai

415 308 5958
address@hidden
www.fortuitouspress.com
www.fortuitoustravel.blogspot.com